On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:37:31 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Tristán White wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in
news:fVPth.737$9S5.344 @text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

Have you reported this to DLR management? If not, please do so.
As you say, he was clearly not in a fit state to do his job.


No, I haven't. I wouldn't either, *because* it's only the DLR and
the trains drive themselves anyway. It's hopefully a one-off and
hopefully he doesn't make a habit of it. If he does, he'd have
been reported long ago I guess, by someone a little less forgiving!

Which is why I haven't identified the time I was using the DLR or
which route it was.

As I said, he could have a very valid reason for being knackered.
He could be on strong medication.

But what is clear is that management - if they are reading this
list - really ought to consider giving paid sick leave to
contractors. Because no one who was entitled to sick leave would
have worked in that condition. So that's my main reason for posting
it up here.

Others may know for sure, but I would be surprised and rather concerned
if DLR Passenger Service Agents were contractors rather than employees
of Serco Docklands Ltd. Assuming that he is a Serco employee, which
would imply paid sick leave, maybe he was clubbing all night or
moonlighting or drugged or drunk or some other reason why he presented
himself in an unfit state but might not actually qualify for paid sick
leave in the circumstances.

I don't know for certain but I think it highly unlikely that any front
line DLR staff are employed as contractors. They will be direct
employees of the operating organisation - in this case Serco. I cannot
imagine for one moment that DLR staff do not have paid sick leave - if
nothing else the RMT would have had them on strike by now to have got
it! The other more serious point is that there is a clear risk of
people attempting to work in an unfit state due to monetary concerns
which would run counter to proper management of safety risk.

Railway operating staff would be stupid to present themselves for duty
in a drugged (medicinal or recreational) state or drunk. They face
dismissal if they do and fail the drugs and alcohol testing process. The
rules here are quite clear and employees are required to familiarise
themselves with the effects of prescribed or over the counter drugs
where tiredness or impairment to concentration might result. The
parameters re recreational drugs (i.e. not allowed at all) and alcohol
(limits on consumption levels and time parameters for no consumption
prior to commencing a shift) are perfectly clear. Similarly management
need to make sure that employees are safe to work and should take the
necessary action if they suspect an employee is somehow impaired.

It's true that the actual driving is done by computer. But the agent
has to be alert enough to close the doors safely, and to deal with any
emergency that might occur during the journey. If he's not in a fit
state to do that, then there is a clear safety lapse which ought to be
reported to DLR management.

And this is precisely the point. If the train captain was impaired as
suggested and there was an emergency that required his intervention and
rapid response then it's pretty clear that his response would not be
what was required. There are risks that could flow from that state of
affairs. While I can understand why there is some reticence about
reporting on balance I would inform DLR of what I had seen and I'd trust
them to act responsibly in how they dealt with the driver. There are
well defined policies and good support systems for people who may have
drug and alcohol issues but they rely on the individual concerned
accepting they have an issue and require help.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!