Train driver 65 and forced retirement .
Discussion
A well known train company (a balloon connection)has just forced a driver to retire at just over 65,the employee as was his right had decided to stay on having passed a medical and routine assessments. The company is basing it's new policy on the grounds of health and safety, running at prolonged periods at 125mph is regarded as no longer safe once you reach 65. The core problem is recruitment, as it takes anything up to 9 months to train up even a driver from another company it's always been accepted that retirement vacancies are advertised and filled many months before the employees reach 65. This is now an issue for every train company, some just ignore recruitment until the driver actually goes (creating temp staff shortage)my company has decided to run over complement where this is happening. I wonder whether they will get away legally with this 125mph decision, what is the difference in competency between someone at 64 and 65 and one day! ASLEF are fence sitting as they would rather have new recruits for 20+years than someone paying reduced fees for a couple of years.
Sorry but... God. If at is the retirement age then you ahould go. Make way for new, young staff. Help he next generation, rather then keep clinging on and making it even harder. The generation before hm retired at 65 to make way fr hikm, and now its his turn..
..still, I suspect this will be the new years eve/day strike??
..still, I suspect this will be the new years eve/day strike??
W124Bob said:
what is the difference in competency between someone at 64 and 65 and one day! .
What's the difference between 65 and 66 and one day. And so on. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I thought pilots had to go at 55? Do I want my plane flown by a 90 y/o just because he has passed a medical. No thanks.65 for a train sounds about right. Offer him some other job in the organisation if poss.
W124Bob said:
The core problem is recruitment, as it takes anything up to 9 months to train up even a driver from another company.
Are you sure you're not exaggerating a tad there?I've seen ex guards trained up and driving in not much more if any, including basic, core route learning(ECML).
Amazes me how someone can become competent at such a job in such a relatively short period of time.
Could it be that it's not as difficult as they'd have you think to justify their ridiculous salaries when you compare to say a short haul first officer for a charter company
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What's the difference between 65 and 66 and one day. And so on. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I thought pilots had to go at 55? Do I want my plane flown by a 90 y/o just because he has passed a medical. No thanks.
65 for a train sounds about right. Offer him some other job in the organisation if poss.
The guy who successfully landed his plane on the Hudson river was in his later 50's I think, I'd have been happy to have him as a pilot. I think here retired shortly after though.65 for a train sounds about right. Offer him some other job in the organisation if poss.
My reason for the post was to find what the potential legal position was, ASLEF would much rather get new recruits but they can't appear to be backing a company which could be in breach of employment law! The original driver concerned has gone very quietly . I do believe it is sad when drivers stay on with nothing else to fill the gap, as for testing that's pretty rigorous for us all. All trains carry black box data recorders and Pendilinos down load via GPS every time they arrive at Euston coupled with regular rules and assessments means competency is regularly monitored. When other companies (I know a senior manager)have looked at every angle of this and concluded there is nothing they can do I wonder why Virgin has opted to do this?
My experience, as a commuter, is that if changes are made the unions strike as it presents a health and safety risk.
The train company are saying age is a health and safety issue. This stumps the union.
Chances are, the average mid thirties commuter will back the train company.
s
t? Yes. I don't see how the driver / union can win this one.
The train company are saying age is a health and safety issue. This stumps the union.
Chances are, the average mid thirties commuter will back the train company.
s
t? Yes. I don't see how the driver / union can win this one. trashbat said:
Easy: because it's ageism to tar all people of a given age with the same brush. What's the H&S difference between a fit 66 year old and a chronically unfit 59 year old?
Plenty of documented studies show that perception and reaction decrease with age, especially when people reach their sixties. Tests will pull out the chronically unfit 59 year old and they'll get pensioned off.
The issue for the 66 year old, is that he cutoff has to be somewhere, and the perception of their ability. Facts about individuals don't matter, it's how they are perceived as a group.
The train company has played the H&S card. The unions use this to fight change and staff reductions all the time. If the unions fight this one, win and a 66 year old makes a mistake and someone dies their credibility is f
ked. The public would come down on them. Shrewd game by the TOC, as the unions can't fight the H&S angle.
Sucks for the driver, who may well still be perfectly fit to do their job and do it well.
williamp said:
Sorry but... God. If at is the retirement age then you ahould go. Make way for new, young staff. Help he next generation, rather then keep clinging on and making it even harder. The generation before hm retired at 65 to make way fr hikm, and now its his turn..
..still, I suspect this will be the new years eve/day strike??
I thought the government wanted us all working longer? ..still, I suspect this will be the new years eve/day strike??
Podie said:
Facts about individuals don't matter, it's how they are perceived as a group.
Which would be discriminatory; e.g. 'customers wouldn't like a woman doing this job', or 'blacks are seen as untrustworthy'. Not my area of expertise by any means but I imagine that unless provisions exist in law, they would need to devise a test based on the individual.Firstly ASLEF are not going to ballot over this issue, to repeat what I said earlier they would much rather have fresh drivers but if a company is attempting to circumvent UK employment law then the individual concerned would be entitled to legal assistance from ASLEF. The fact that it's a train driver is almost irrelevant other train companies have had lawyers all over this issue and have had to admit there is no way out. Personally I find it sad that some one needs to continue past 65 simply because they have nothing else in their lives. A colleague is now just past 65 and openly states the only reason he's continued is the railway is his only life. My ex boss has only just stopped driving on the mainline at 75 having spent the last 10 years heavily involved with a company running charters (many steam). The union would much rather the issue go away.
Edited by W124Bob on Friday 6th December 21:34
trashbat said:
Podie said:
Facts about individuals don't matter, it's how they are perceived as a group.
Which would be discriminatory; e.g. 'customers wouldn't like a woman doing this job', or 'blacks are seen as untrustworthy'. Not my area of expertise by any means but I imagine that unless provisions exist in law, they would need to devise a test based on the individual.H&S reasons would still have to be proven on evidence if this case went to an employment tribunal.
If the employer raised H&S as the reason then it would lay the case open to extreme scrutiny (should the union's lawyers wish to push it).
Too many H&S excuses are half-baked and are not evidence based but don't often get properly challenged, the employer has left themes open to challenge because the medical tests have recently been passed - so they are not attacking an individual with this ruling, they are either excluding a class of people (those over 65) or have to admit that their medical tests are insufficient to weed out the dangerous drivers.
There is no maximum award in racial discrimination cases, is it the same for age discrimination?
If the employer raised H&S as the reason then it would lay the case open to extreme scrutiny (should the union's lawyers wish to push it).
Too many H&S excuses are half-baked and are not evidence based but don't often get properly challenged, the employer has left themes open to challenge because the medical tests have recently been passed - so they are not attacking an individual with this ruling, they are either excluding a class of people (those over 65) or have to admit that their medical tests are insufficient to weed out the dangerous drivers.
There is no maximum award in racial discrimination cases, is it the same for age discrimination?
The biggest problem on the railway is that people won't leave when they should. People treat it as a hobby that they get well paid for and have nothing in their lives other than this. I've seen it for many years on the job and then when they are gone they die a few months / years later as they shut down because they spent every waking hour on the job and now they can't think or know what to do they are the graveyards richest people.
Tell him to get gone and enjoy his life if he knows how then someone else will have the opportunity to have a go, just as he would have had all those years ago.
Tell him to get gone and enjoy his life if he knows how then someone else will have the opportunity to have a go, just as he would have had all those years ago.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff