Railstaff and alcohol

[A-driver]

I assume staff are instructed not to consume alcohol at this party if working the next day? (It does seem common sense, but also would seem to make sense to point it out).



Certainly in most non-rail offices there will be plenty of people "worse for wear" the day after a Christmas party.



Neil

Yea, but most offices don't routinely screen staff for D&A and make a big thing of it in contracts, at interviews, in staff briefings etc.

If you work for a rail company in any role you will know you are always subject to screening randomly in any role. Turning up hung over or under the influence is a stupid thing to do in an industry like the railway, Xmas party or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yea, but most offices don't routinely screen staff for D&A and make a big thing of it in contracts, at interviews, in staff briefings etc.

Indeed.

If you work for a rail company in any role you will know you are always subject to screening randomly in any role. Turning up hung over or under the influence is a stupid thing to do in an industry like the railway, Xmas party or not.

Also true. I just wondered if they did point it out on the invitation to the party.

Neil

 

[A-driver]

Indeed.







Also true. I just wondered if they did point it out on the invitation to the party.



Neil

Don't think they need to on the invitation, as I said-anyone who works in the industry will be fully aware of the D&A rules and should be responsible enough to factor that in to any socialising, work based or not.

 

[455driver]

And there is your reason ! "A routine vehicle check".
The police can stop you at any time when you are driving your car, and they can ask to see you driving licence, insurance details and/or MOT certificate. If you don't have them with you, you will be issued with a 'producer'.
They can also check your car for roadworthiness.
There are four 'reasons for a start.

So you admit that the Police can pull over anybody they like whenever they like 'because they can'!

Its just a pity the 'routine vehicle check' was never carried then isn't it, except the one occasion I refused to answer any questions until the check had been carried out, that is what I have a problem with but feel free to ignore that bit wont you*!:roll:

* typical copper, ignoring the bits that don't suit their agenda.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There us nothing mysterious about it. The Police have a responsibility (and a power in law) to protect the travelling public. That means they can pull your vehicle for a "routine check" to make sure that it is in a roadworthy condition without 'needing any suspicion' that it is not. Quite often there is something about the vehicle or the manner in which the vehicle is being driven that causes the 'pull' in the first place. For example : Driving too slowly for the speed limit and / or road conditions is usually indicative of a person being under the influence of alcohol whilst driving. Also 'routine stops' often lead to the detection of other offences...tools for miscreants "going equipped", drugs and paraphernalia for PWITS.
This method of Policing has been around since Robert Peel invented the 'modern' Police Force and it is known as Policing by consent which basically means the majority of the public are quite happy to put up with a small inconvenience whilst the Police go about their business of protecting life and property, preservation of the peace, and prevention and detection of criminal offences. For those who see it as a Nazi Police state, you are in a minority, but I'm sure that you will still continue to be harassed by the Police who pull you "for no reason at all" when they should be out catching "real criminals".
Whilst I would expect as a passenger on a train that the driver has ensured that he has performed pre-requisite inspection of the train to ensure that it is 'safe' to drive prior to taking it into service, unfortunately the same cannot be said of the motoring public who quite happily jump in their cars each and every day without any sort of vehicle safety check (it was OK yesterday so it must be OK today, right?) some of whom are pretty clueless as to whether their vehicle should even be on the road and not in a scrap yard.

Yeah yeah yeah, I watch motorway cops as well! :roll:

So because I work odd times it is okay for the Police to pull me over because I am doing 60mph on a motorway/dual carriageway, making good headway, driven smoothly in the left hand lane at a steady speed within the speed limit using the much abused 'routine vehicle check' is it?

Oh and how come they have never actually carried out the vehicle check then?
Or were they not actually interested in checking the car over (in the name of road safety ) and only interested in if I had been drinking!
On all 3 occasions when they failed to carry out the check* (you know the reason given for stopping me in the first place) can you tell me exactly what grounds they had to pull over my car or should I file a complaint and become a target for them?

* the 4th occasion I insisted the check was done!

As for your-

Police go about their business of protecting life and property, preservation of the peace, and prevention and detection of criminal offences.

What a load of codswallop, when I have had cause to try and use the Police for these purposes-
1, a hit and run RTA, reg number known.
2, my shed being broken into but despite plenty of DNA being available (courtesy of a very sharp circular saw blade).
All they did was give me a crime number for the insurance over the phone because nobody was available to respond.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I assume staff are instructed not to consume alcohol at this party if working the next day? (It does seem common sense, but also would seem to make sense to point it out).

Certainly in most non-rail offices there will be plenty of people "worse for wear" the day after a Christmas party.

Neil

If the staff need to be told that then they shouldn't be in the job!

 

[HSTfan!!!]

7 years on the railway and I've only been subject to one random test fairly early on in my career, not bad really, even so wouldn't take the risk, not worth my 50k a year job that I've worked hard for really is it...

 

[fowler9]

7 years on the railway and I've only been subject to one random test fairly early on in my career, not bad really, even so wouldn't take the risk, not worth my 50k a year job that I've worked hard for really is it...

£50k! Jesus. Don't get me wrong you earn every penny but my folks pointed me in the wrong direction at school when I said I wanted to be a train driver.

 

[455driver]

Wish I was on £50k!

 

[carriageline]

7 years on the railway and I've only been subject to one random test fairly early on in my career, not bad really, even so wouldn't take the risk, not worth my 50k a year job that I've worked hard for really is it...

You must have the smallest willy in the whole of mankind...

 

[Smudge.Smith]

So you admit that the Police can pull over anybody they like whenever they like 'because they can'!

Yes they can ! They are given that power in Sect 163 (I) Road Traffic Act 1988
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...nstables-and-other-authorised-persons/enacted

If you feel that you weren't stopped for the reason stated then you have the right to challenge this. (I cannot comment on the reasons you have been stopped on previous occasions as I wasn't there so I cannot form an opinion).

If you are stopped by PC Jobsworth, ask for his/her number and send polite letter on lines of training in courtesy and general professionalism etc .... goes down better than a whinge type letter. But as you have already said, "complaining makes you a Police target" (that made me laugh so much I nearly dropped my Costa and jammy doughnut), then this isn't likely based on your prejudiced view of the Police.
I'm sorry that you feel aggrieved that your experience with the Police hasn't been resolved in the way you expect. Maybe those 'stretched' resources that didn't respond were dealing with something else such as an RTC on the motorway, maybe the Friday Night Fighters at kicking out time, maybe telling some bereaved parents that their loved one has just been hit by a train? Instead of venting here, maybe you should take it to a Police forum or better still talk to your local Police.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This thread appears to have run it's course as it is no longer "on topic".

Any Police type questions should be directed to the relevant forum.

 

[SPADTrap]

You must have the smallest willy in the whole of mankind...

 

[RPM]

7 years on the railway and I've only been subject to one random test fairly early on in my career, not bad really, even so wouldn't take the risk, not worth my 50k a year job that I've worked hard for really is it...

I've only had one random test in eighteen years on the railway and it happened last year. I had to go to London and was given the whole day to do it, so a nice (paid) day out in London. Result.

 

[Flamingo]

I had one after an incident once. Everybody on the train who was safety-critical was tested, including the poor sod sitting in the bunk-room travelling back, who had nothing to do with anything (everybody passed the tests).

I also remember hearing of an incident once (not my toc) where all platform staff were tested after an incident, and somebody unrelated to the incident failed it...

Both of these show that as well as so-called "Random" testing, one never knows when one will become collateral damage in somebody elses cock-up.

 

[GB]

You must have the smallest willy in the whole of mankind...

Why?.

 

[carriageline]

Why?.

It's the bragging about how much he earns, therefore must be lacking in other departments :roll:

It was a joke, I just hate will waving

 

[HSTfan!!!]

I'm hardly bragging, almost every one on here knows how much a driver earns basic? I was simply making a point.
Besides, if you must know, I've certainly never had any complaints.

 

[Jamesb1974]

This whole thread appears to have gone off on a tangent. Again..

 

[Flamingo]

This whole thread appears to have gone off on a tangent. Again..

Tangents? That reminds me of a physics class many years ago...

 

[TDK]

Back on track - excuse the pun:-

1. The limits in the railway is 13mg where as on the road it is 35mg
2. You can be random tested at anytime, I have had 4 random tests
3. You will be tested after a serious incident and depending on your SC record after a minor incident.
4. You can be tested if you are under suspicion of having alcohol in your system.
5. You can be tested if someone reports that they think you have alcohol in your system.
6. You must not be in possession of alcohol when on duty.
7. You must not enter a licensed premises when in uniform.
8. If you think you may have an alcohol problem the company will help you only if you tell them before testing positive.
9. If you test positive you will be instantly dismissed and may even be escorted of the premises.
10. Statistically more office and non SC staff have been dismissed than drivers or guards from testing positive.
11. You can be dismissed even if you are on non SC duties such as a meeting etc.
12. Trainees can be dismissed even before any rules courses.

There are other scenarios and these are just the alcohol ones, drugs, even over the counter drugs have to be cleared by the TCS if you are taking them. There is a list of safe drugs to take like paracetomol, Ibuprofen, Aspirin etc.

Anyone who drinks 12 hours before booking on is always taking a risk of being dismissed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone who drinks 12 hours before booking on is always taking a risk of being dismissed.

While that is no doubt a sensible, safe line to take to give you certainty, it isn't quite true. Someone, unless they have a medical condition involving serious liver issues in which case they won't be drinking any, consuming say 2 pints of normal lager 12 hours prior to being breathalysed will not have any alcohol left in their system at all. It takes roughly one hour per unit to clear it, that's about 4-5 units therefore 4-5 hours. To be conservative take that from when you finish[1] drinking, and that's still more than half the 12 hours' leeway.

[1] That isn't how it works, but if you don't take it that way the rate of drinking comes into it as well.

Neil

 

[theageofthetra]

Re 'entering a licensed premises'- Think this needs to be clarified. Several London churches (some have cafes), most museums and galleries and all supermarkets have licences to sell alcohol (on or off sales).

My understanding is that it is more down to public perception of seeing a person in TOC uniform in what is clearly a pub/bar- even if they may only be eating there and having a soft drink.

 

[DarloRich]

While that is no doubt a sensible, safe line to take to give you certainty, it isn't quite true. Someone, unless they have a medical condition involving serious liver issues in which case they won't be drinking any, consuming say 2 pints of normal lager 12 hours prior to being breathalysed will not have any alcohol left in their system at all. It takes roughly one hour per unit to clear it, that's about 4-5 units therefore 4-5 hours. To be conservative take that from when you finish[1] drinking, and that's still more than half the 12 hours' leeway.

[1] That isn't how it works, but if you don't take it that way the rate of drinking comes into it as well.

Neil

The 12 hour "ruling" is really quite simple and sensible: It removes any subjectivity, any form of self assesment, any form of confusion, any physiological differences, any medical differences (unless gross) or any opportunity to try to excuse poor/dangerous behaviour.

I really dont understand your problems with this area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Re 'entering a licensed premises'- Think this needs to be clarified. Several London churches (some have cafes), most museums and galleries and all supermarkets have licences to sell alcohol (on or off sales).

My understanding is that it is more down to public perception of seeing a person in TOC uniform in what is clearly a pub/bar- even if they may only be eating there and having a soft drink.

My previous employer - non railway – had a strange and convoluted way of addressing this in their contracts.

it essentially said you may not enter any pub/inn/licensed hostelry etc during working hours (unless for business purposes) nor may you consume any alcoholic beverages during working hours nor, during working hours, may you enter any licensed premises for the purposes of purchasing or consuming alcohol. It also said that after work you must remove any form of id before entering said premises.

It was about 15 lines long but seemed to do the job.

 

[GB]

Re 'entering a licensed premises'- Think this needs to be clarified. Several London churches (some have cafes), most museums and galleries and all supermarkets have licences to sell alcohol (on or off sales).

My understanding is that it is more down to public perception of seeing a person in TOC uniform in what is clearly a pub/bar- even if they may only be eating there and having a soft drink.

As part of our job, we are often required to lodge away and many of the places we lodge have bars etc so have no choice but to wear uniform in there.

 

[leaffall]

The licensed premesis one is very tenuous, there were a number of pubs on my various bus routes which let us use the toilets,

I know they prefer you not to drink in uniform, but unless they provide changing facilities, lockers and ten minutes before and after work to get changed then I'm going to wear my uniform home and if I occasionally pop in for a pint after work so be it. It's my time and they can't tell me what to do with it.

It's discouraged, but I've not heard of any disciplinary action sticking?

 

[TDK]

The licensed premesis one is very tenuous, there were a number of pubs on my various bus routes which let us use the toilets,

I know they prefer you not to drink in uniform, but unless they provide changing facilities, lockers and ten minutes before and after work to get changed then I'm going to wear my uniform home and if I occasionally pop in for a pint after work so be it. It's my time and they can't tell me what to do with it.

It's discouraged, but I've not heard of any disciplinary action sticking?

Nor have I but it does say it on the D & A policy and if they want you they can get you on this as it is a breach of the policy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 12 hour "ruling" is really quite simple and sensible: It removes any subjectivity, any form of self assesment, any form of confusion, any physiological differences, any medical differences (unless gross) or any opportunity to try to excuse poor/dangerous behaviour.

I really dont understand your problems with this area.

I have no problem with any member of staff self-imposing[1] a 12 hour limit if they so wish, or indeed choosing to be teetotal entirely. I just took issue with it being suggested that consuming any alcohol closer to duty than that runs a risk of being caught over the limit, as that is completely false; it is dependent on the quantity consumed and the rate the body processes it. If you want to see that, buy a breathalyser and have an experiment - I did - it was genuinely interesting and surprising - most particularly that one pint makes almost no difference at all to my breath alcohol, yet two takes me right up to the drink drive limit.

I don't like myths, I like facts. Adopting a system for your own convenience is fine, it's also fine if an employer wishes to have that rule (the railway it seems doesn't, airlines do). But I think it's right to explain it properly.

(No, the device was not faulty, I've also tried the same test with a couple of those disposable French ones)

[1] This thread seems to make it clear that the railway requires you to self certify as fit for duty - effectively an honour system with checks - rather than a time limit being imposed as for pilots. Unless your bit of the railway differs?

it essentially said you may not enter any pub/inn/licensed hostelry etc during working hours (unless for business purposes) nor may you consume any alcoholic beverages during working hours nor, during working hours, may you enter any licensed premises for the purposes of purchasing or consuming alcohol. It also said that after work you must remove any form of id before entering said premises.

It was about 15 lines long but seemed to do the job.

I guess there are two issues here - staff being drunk (which is dealt with simply by barring being under the influence during working times, either using an absolute limit or a discretionary system) and reputation of the employer (dealt with by insisting name badges or other uniform are removed).

That said, any non-safety-critical employer insisting that employees don't go in the pub on their lunch break (provided they don't consume alcohol) is in my view way over the top. Going to the pub for lunch but not drinking alcohol there is perfectly acceptable in most regular office jobs in non-safety-critical industries.

It's an odd one. I have seen railway staff in uniform in pubs, no doubt breaking the rules. My assumption has always been that they are at the end of their shift, not during it, or if the latter they are just having a Coke and a plate of chips.

Neil

 

[GB]

Nor have I but it does say it on the D & A policy and if they want you they can get you on this as it is a breach of the policy.

Except for the core legal stuff, it wouldn't surprise me if different companies have slightly different policies when it comes to off-licenses and supermarkets etc etc.

 

[BestWestern]

Most station refreshment bars, and most trains which offer catering, will carry alcohol. The 'general rule' (to use a very loose term) seems to be one of being 'sensible'. In the Pumpkin buying a latte = okay. At bar in the nearest pub in full uniform an hour before duty = not okay, even if you're on diet Fanta. Common sense tends to win the day, rather like the whole D&A policy. There is, really, no other way, when you have staff pouring from open bottles of wine in First Class and so on. To enforce the policy to the extreme wouldn't allow booze to be offered on board, or you'd need cctv inside every buffet car and catering cupboard... Most staff value their job sufficiently to just get on with it, not needing to question the minutae of whether the policy is valid.

 

[muz379]

Most station refreshment bars, and most trains which offer catering, will carry alcohol. The 'general rule' (to use a very loose term) seems to be one of being 'sensible'. In the Pumpkin buying a latte = okay. At bar in the nearest pub in full uniform an hour before duty = not okay, even if you're on diet Fanta. Common sense tends to win the day, rather like the whole D&A policy. There is, really, no other way, when you have staff pouring from open bottles of wine in First Class and so on. To enforce the policy to the extreme wouldn't allow booze to be offered on board, or you'd need cctv inside every buffet car and catering cupboard... Most staff value their job sufficiently to just get on with it, not needing to question the minutae of whether the policy is valid.

Pretty much how it was explained to me at my corporate induction
How many traincrew will use the sainsburys,M&S et al in major stations which actually are licensed and stock a wide variety of alcohol .

Its just common sense . In M&S in/near the station buying a sandwich is fine , in the pub in/near the station is not fine .

 

[Nym]

I came up with a simple solution when I was working on depots for not falling foul of company regulations when going for a couple of pints after work...

Don't wear the uniform...
Also comes with the added bonus of people not asking you for directions...

I know of some people in the company who need to be told, "I know we issue you with a lot of uniform, doesn't mean you need to wear it all at once..." Quite a few graduates need to be told this.

My job means I need to make safety critical and safety related decisions when in or out of the office, and all staff are held to the same policy of zero alcohol on duty. But since I'm technically office based, even though most of my work is carried out on depots or in workshops, I've not been randomly tested in nearly three years.

PS: Before someone complains, drinks after work are usually on a Friday and after spending a double shift under a train getting a piece of cheap equipment specified by a project manager who has no idea about electronics, safety or trains has specified to be used.
(Or on a long turnaround day...)

 

[Llama]

Back on track - excuse the pun:-

1. The limits in the railway is 13mg where as on the road it is 35mg
2. You can be random tested at anytime, I have had 4 random tests
3. You will be tested after a serious incident and depending on your SC record after a minor incident.
4. You can be tested if you are under suspicion of having alcohol in your system.
5. You can be tested if someone reports that they think you have alcohol in your system.
6. You must not be in possession of alcohol when on duty.
7. You must not enter a licensed premises when in uniform.
8. If you think you may have an alcohol problem the company will help you only if you tell them before testing positive.
9. If you test positive you will be instantly dismissed and may even be escorted of the premises.
10. Statistically more office and non SC staff have been dismissed than drivers or guards from testing positive.
11. You can be dismissed even if you are on non SC duties such as a meeting etc.
12. Trainees can be dismissed even before any rules courses.

There are other scenarios and these are just the alcohol ones, drugs, even over the counter drugs have to be cleared by the TCS if you are taking them. There is a list of safe drugs to take like paracetomol, Ibuprofen, Aspirin etc.

Anyone who drinks 12 hours before booking on is always taking a risk of being dismissed.

These vary from company to company, surprisingly it doesn't contravene some D&A policies to be in possession of, or even purchase, alcohol in uniform, so long as kept out of sight and in a closed/sealed container; obviously by proxy this means it isn't necessarily in contravention to be in licensed premises in uniform - there is one depot at a TOC where an agreement exists with management that they can enter a Wetherspoons in uniform for food. Obviously some companies have different policies on various aspects of D&A regs.

Further to the 'if you have a problem' scenario - not only can you be subject to discipline/dismissed if you disclose a problem after testing positive, at some (probably most) places the same can happen if you only disclose you have a problem after you find out you are to be tested - ie before you even take the test.

At some companies only safety critical staff are subject to random D&A testing, also it is usually policy that any safety critical member of staff charged with any drink or drug related offence must inform their employer in writing prior to their next booked turn of duty.