[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fatigue Rostering



I heard it would also apply to overtime, they will have a computer prgram that tells
them who is less fatigued for overtime.

Mark and Roz CREELY wrote:

> NR have had fatigue management rostering for the last three years and I can assure
> you it does not work,(actually it does ,it certainly makes you more fatigued.).
>
> NR only apply the fatigue index to Master or Forecast rosters they do not apply it
> to individual drivers or working rosters.  It is not applied to annual leave
> relief or overtime, so unfortunately it is a bastardised version of the initial
> results obtained by  Prof. Drew Dawson from S.A. The other problem with this thing
> is it does not take into account an individuals lifestyle ie: Married, Single,
> whether you prefer certain shifts etc.
>
> I feel sorry for CityRail or anybody else who is about to have this nightmare
> forced upon them, it will destroy their quality of life(which it was supposed to
> improve) .
>
> Good Luck with it
>
> Showy
>
> Marvin The Martian wrote:
>
> > It would not surprise me, with shittyrail anything is possible.
> >
> > Tezza wrote:
> >
> > > "Marvin The Martian" <choochoo72@spin.net.au> wrote in message
> > > 3A443AE5.E2A638F9@spin.net.au">news:3A443AE5.E2A638F9@spin.net.au...
> > > > I understand that Fatigue rostering will be introduced for train crew in
> > > > Jan 2001. It is a result of a South Australian study on the affects of
> > > > shift work on the body. The rostering will reduce Fatigue for train crew
> > > > but as usual Cityrail are trying to change the results to suit them,
> > > > e.g. they claim length of shift has no effect on fatigue. There is also
> > > > a set line where the study says that a person is to fatigued to work and
> > > > Cityrail want this line to be flexible.
> > >
> > > I heard it had been put off for a few years as it was almost impossible to
> > > implement. It's going to upset a lot of blokes who like particular shifts who
> > > won't be able to do them continuosly any more.