Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Read that article earlier and really got a chuckle out of the "abandoned his post" line. And really? They've "launched an investigation?" guy didn't like his job so he left, what's to investigate

The Herald got some facts wrong, especially this one. He did not leave the cab until the supervisor arrived to relieve him.

[Sainters7]

Which makes the story about the dad racing down to rescue his daughter part even funnier. Sounds like a St. Albert parent. I'm excited to watch his medal ceremony later

[Zarley]

Why wouldn't the train engineer arrange to have the replacement meet him at a station further along the line in the northwest?

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Why wouldn't the train engineer arrange to have the replacement meet him at a station further along the line in the northwest?

I'd guess it was a union rule.

[sleepingmoose]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

I'd guess it was a union rule.

I can't imagine even the union would condone this type of reaction - it puts a bad light on all their members, and would be a hard position to defend. I'm sure they'd rather he kept driving and complained after the fact.

Notice the driver said his 'shift' 12 hours, but not that he had been driving for that long.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Why wouldn't the train engineer arrange to have the replacement meet him at a station further along the line in the northwest?

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

I can't imagine even the union would condone this type of reaction - it puts a bad light on all their members, and would be a hard position to defend. I'm sure they'd rather he kept driving and complained after the fact.

Notice the driver said his 'shift' 12 hours, but not that he had been driving for that long.

The right to refuse unsafe work is law under Section 35 of the OH&S Act, it's not just a union rule. If you feel that you are being asked to perform unsafe work, you don't tell your supervision and then keep doing the work. You stop working and tell your supervisor. At that point, they have to investigate and eliminate the danger. So stopping the train in a safe location and calling dispatch is the correct thing to do.

There are also criminal charges that come into play if they tell him to keep going and an accident happens.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The right to refuse unsafe work is law under Section 35 of the OH&S Act, it's not just a union rule. If you feel that you are being asked to perform unsafe work, you don't tell your supervision and then keep doing the work. You stop working and tell your supervisor. At that point, they have to investigate and eliminate the danger. So stopping the train in a safe location and calling dispatch is the correct thing to do.

There are also criminal charges that come into play if they tell him to keep going and an accident happens.

Yup. And it's not even just a right to refuse unsafe work anymore, it's an obligation to refuse. If there was an accident and the driver said he knew it was unsafe then did it anyway, there could be criminal charges against him personally not just CT.

That article really did a poor job of saying what happened. This global one is better. Like Cuz said above, he didn't walk off, he just stopped and waited for a supervisor

http://globalnews.ca/news/3074106/ct...al-to-proceed/

“He came over the speaker and said that just due to the fact that he had been scheduled for over 12 hours that day, he would no longer be going any further until someone came along to relieve him of his duty,” passenger Nikki Warnock said.

Rick Ratcliff with the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 538 said the driver contacted them Thursday morning.

“The member had some safety concerns because he had been, ultimately, at work for 12 hours, which is basically the limit of any shift at Calgary Transit.”

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Why wouldn't the train engineer arrange to have the replacement meet him at a station further along the line in the northwest?

I usually hate the expression, "that's not my job", but that is not the train engineers job at all. CT needs to arrange shift scheduling, etc. If 12 hours is the max. shift, they need to be on the ball with how many hours the drivers have put in.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

CT has a responsibility to schedule shifts properly.

The driver has a responsibility to his employer and his passengers to say something about the issue prior to the clock hitting 12 hours.

We don't really know if either happened in this case. Sounds like someone screwed up. Maybe both.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

CT has a responsibility to schedule shifts properly.

The driver has a responsibility to his employer and his passengers to say something about the issue prior to the clock hitting 12 hours.

We don't really know if either happened in this case. Sounds like someone screwed up. Maybe both.

The biggest issue here is the shoddy reporting of the situation. This wasn't a driver abandoning his post, stranding passengers in an unsafe location or performing a unilateral job action. The driver has a legal obligation to the public not to work if he feels it is not safe to do so, whether it be 5 minutes, 5 hours or 12 hours into his shift. It is not really possible to predict when or if the driver will feel it unsafe until they feel that way. The way the media is framing this is ridiculous.

The news could have done a much better job reporting this, but sadly a reasonable headline and not finding the most shrill person to comment would not have sold the story and generated clicks.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The biggest issue here is the shoddy reporting of the situation. This wasn't a driver abandoning his post, stranding passengers in an unsafe location or performing a unilateral job action. The driver has a legal obligation to the public not to work if he feels it is not safe to do so, whether it be 5 minutes, 5 hours or 12 hours into his shift. It is not really possible to predict when or if the driver will feel it unsafe until they feel that way. The way the media is framing this is ridiculous.

The news could have done a much better job reporting this, but sadly a reasonable headline and not finding the most shrill person to comment would not have sold the story and generated clicks.

No the biggest issue is the train coming to a stop and not having someone ready to replace the driver.

And we know the driver stopped because he hit his 12 hour limit, not because of safety concerns that just happened to occur. This wasn't random. He knew his 12 hour shift was coming to an end.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Why wouldn't the train engineer arrange to have the replacement meet him at a station further along the line in the northwest?

I figured that the train driver must live in the area and figured it was best to stop there and wait so that he could have a quicker commute back home.

[para transit fellow]

We aren't getting the entire story... If a replacement driver arrived in 15 minutes, then I will guess that the replacement was arranged prior to stopping the train.

Possibly, this is a planned change-off that went sour because of a delay getting the replacement driver.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

We aren't getting the entire story... If a replacement driver arrived in 15 minutes, then I will guess that the replacement was arranged prior to stopping the train.

Possibly, this is a planned change-off that went sour because of a delay getting the replacement driver.

That seems like the most reasonable explanation.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

We aren't getting the entire story... If a replacement driver arrived in 15 minutes, then I will guess that the replacement was arranged prior to stopping the train.

Possibly, this is a planned change-off that went sour because of a delay getting the replacement driver.

Or Because of the game he didn't make it to the planned trade off station before hitting the 12 hr mark so the other driver had to can it from the planned drop point.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by GGG

Or Because of the game he didn't make it to the planned trade off station before hitting the 12 hr mark so the other driver had to can it from the planned drop point.

This sounds like the most likely situation. The news story does make it sound like the driver planned a one man strike because he was upset about how many hours he worked. This trade-off likely went wonky somehow, so it was a noticeable trade-off and the driver was just informing the passengers about why they had to wait.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

CT has a responsibility to schedule shifts properly.

The driver has a responsibility to his employer and his passengers to say something about the issue prior to the clock hitting 12 hours.

We don't really know if either happened in this case. Sounds like someone screwed up. Maybe both.

I'm pretty sure these operators aren't scheduling their own hours, CT knew exactly how long the driver had been working. Was this the best way for the driver to address the situation? That's debatable, but we don't know his side of it. Bottom line is he's not required, or even legally allowed to be working over 12 hours, CT dropped the ball on this one.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I'm pretty sure these operators aren't scheduling their own hours, CT knew exactly how long the driver had been working. Was this the best way for the driver to address the situation? That's debatable, but we don't know his side of it. Bottom line is he's not required, or even legally allowed to be working over 12 hours, CT dropped the ball on this one.

That attitude pisses me off. I'm not required to do it so I won't do it. If that is the case here I would be upset with the driver not spending 15 minutes extra to finish his route. However in this case from the scattered reporting I do not think it is the case and likely to due safety policies.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

I can't imagine even the union would condone this type of reaction - it puts a bad light on all their members, and would be a hard position to defend. I'm sure they'd rather he kept driving and complained after the fact.

Notice the driver said his 'shift' 12 hours, but not that he had been driving for that long.

The union should never have to defend this. What is CT going to discipline this driver for not putting their passengers in danger and not violating employment standards?

Notice what about the driver saying his "shift"? It doesn't matter if he's been operating a train or sitting in an office for 12 hours, he is obligated by law to stop working at that point.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by GGG

That attitude pisses me off. I'm not required to do it so I won't do it. If that is the case here I would be upset with the driver not spending 15 minutes extra to finish his route. However in this case from the scattered reporting I do not think it is the case and likely to due safety policies.

Imagine the ####storm if there was an incident in those last 15 minutes. Then it's "Greedy driver makes risky decision to bank some OT hours"