Re: [NSW] Female Guards/Drivers

[craigd@lios.apana.org.au (C. Dewick)]

In <387983D5.D24071E7@iweb.net.au> Neil Waller <waller@iweb.net.au> writes:

>All of this sexist and racist debate makes you glad South Australia got
>rid of guards a long time ago (as did Perth) and trains are by and large
>one man operated.

>We do have female drivers and male and female train service officers.  
>I fail to see the problem.

The problem is that new staff are being recruited and put through very
flawed selection processes, and then the chosen people are put through
stripped-back training programs which see them gain almost no operational
experience before being tossed out into the field as it were to handle every
possible day-to-day situation.

I don't want to debate the female-vs-male issue, because the problems apply
equally to new male staff as they do to new female staff. The EEO issue
tends to cloud this and most of you are only looking at the females as EEO
appointments and not taking into account that there are just as many
new male staff being appointed who are not able to do the job properly (or
in an upsettingly increasing number of cases not willing to do the job
properly).

>As for next station announcements - these are given by the driver in
>Adelaide.    There seems to be a completely different ethos at work
>here.

I agree, but the systems are totally different too. 

>Its basically that the rail system exists not to move trains from one
>place to another but to move people from one place to another.   The
>arguments so far seem to be from people who see their job as moving
>trains not people and are upset by people who see their job as moving
>people not trains.

This is a valid point, but only so far. The problem for us is that we have
our working conditions, etc. being left open to abuse and alteration, and
the culture of the job is being changed via the influx of new, more
influencible staff to force out the older, more experiences staff and make
it easier for management to bring in changes which make the work environment
more stressful.

The two key issues with regard to new staff are that they are:

 1 - not as capable at the job as they should be, which points to both a
     *very* poor selection process and very inadequate training programmes,
     but more to the initial selection process, and

 2 - coming onto the job willing to work forever in a day (which is good in
     a pure sense - don't get me wrong. Willingness to work is a good thing,
     but not when taken blindly) with no consideration that there is a life
     outside of their work. Because of the irregular shiftwork, our job is
     probably the most socially unpleasant there could be in terms of shift
     times, etc. This has an extreme impact on our social lives, in
     particular those of young families such as mine.

Sure, our job is to move people, but to forget about the staff and
concentrate purely on passenger satisfaction and politcal appeasement is a
very bad way to make the 'coal face' staff happy and keep the system running
well.

If the people who present the public face of State Rail (myself, along with
other drivers, guards and station staff) do not feel happy and comfortable
and contented in the jobs because there is the continual threat of the job
becoming more stressful because of other staff being unable to do their jobs
properly, as well as changes to the work environment which take more time
and resources away from their families, and leaving them unsure about job
security, etc. then you're never going to get a good, well-running,
efficient rail system.

On-time running is very nice, but it ignores the real issues which are
making sure the staff can be happy in their jobs, since only then will the
public face of State Rail come across as contented, vibrant, and adaptable
to meet new challenges.

>It might annoy some people silly that a comprehensive station
>announcement is given each station but what about the customer?    Don't
>I have a right as an infrequent traveller by rail in Sydney to
>INFORMATION???

Of course you do, but there is a limit to how much PA announcing is regarded
as good customer service, and where it becomes just plain annoying (to both
staff and passengers).

>The solution for the driver is either to make the announcements or to
>demand of management that the relay of the announcements into the cab is
>restricted or removed.    Do not stop the announcements.

I don't want them stopped either. It's just that because of different
training methods newer staff are being told to do different things. And
there seems to be this perception that more PA use is better. But this is
only true if more use of the PA translates to more sensible use, not simply
more for the sake of more.

>The other annoying feature of Sydney is the section fares unlike
>Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth which are flexible zone / time fares.

That's go nothing to do with me a train driver, so I can't really comment on
the fares issue. Remember that Sydney's system is bigger than all the others
and isn't based so much on the 'radiating out from the centre' culture like
it used to be, so zone-based fares probably wouldn't work very well here.

If we had zone-based fares, to travel from say Liverpool to Hornsby (which
might be the same zone assuming they'd be based on distance) involves
travelling about 60 km's. How do you work out the fare for that if it's
zone-based and the two locations fall into the same 'distance-band' zone? I
think that's one of the main reasons why our fare system is purely
distance-based.

Regards,

Craig.
-- 
            Craig Ian Dewick            |       Stand clear - jaws closing
 Send email to craigd@lios.apana.org.au |  Visit my Australian rail transport
   Professional Train Driver, Cityrail  |      and rail modelling web site:
       and HO scale rail modeller       |   http://lios.apana.org.au/~craigd