afransen
Senior Member
Let's hope this isn't a daily occurrence.
|
|
|
GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
reaperexpress
Senior Member
From the article:
But if you need to have a meeting with management before you are allowed access to mental health counselling, then access to said mental health counselling isn't immediate now, is it?
But if you need to have a meeting with management before you are allowed access to mental health counselling, then access to said mental health counselling isn't immediate now, is it?
Krypto98
Active Member
In the month of January alone I've had 6 near misses. Now I don't operate the GO trains so I can't speak for them but for alot of these near misses ive had if we were going passenger speed it would be a completely different story. Just people with bike or pedestrians ignoring crossing gates or someone taking a short cut
crs1026
Superstar
As an old HR guy, I have to say this raises the eyebrows a bit.
The whole point of mental health counselling is to connect the individual - in confidence - with a trained health professional with skills and experience in debriefing a critical incident experience. Interjecting a preliminary discussion with a manager - who is not a trained professional - is a recipe for making things worse, not better. And if the worker is entitled to the professional support, there is no decision that the manager needs to make, nor is there any information that the manager needs to gather.
Most employee assistance services work through a 1-800 number or a referral process that does not involve the worker's manager, for the very reason that the worker may not want to share their symptoms or experience with the company, and there is no need for the chain of command to know those personal details..
One does wonder if the intent of the "consultation" with the manager is to have the manager suggest that the worker just buck up and get back in the chair asap. That's not how critical stress counselling works.
- Paul
Last edited:
Coolibop
Active Member
GO Train operators can't leave a train to help someone struck on the tracks, says union
It's a traumatic workplace reality for train conductors across the country: pedestrians standing on the tracks is an all-too-common occurrence. The outcome can be life altering, for both the train operator and the person struck by the fast-moving locomotive.www.ctvnews.ca
Worth reading the whole thing.
As someone who used to manage response to bank robberies at a financial institutions, the response (after involving police and corporate security teams) was to immediately arrange counselling on-site. As @T3G mentioned, some could be off on short term disability (partial pay) after traumatic events for weeks/months with support (I recall 3 months before transition to long term if needed where pay would commonly cease or be quite limited).
From the article:
It baffles me how the manager was never involved until recently? Sure, they aren't there for counselling, but I find that hard to believe they weren't involved (even formally). The manager and counsellor are typically the ones who work out a return to work schedule together with the employee...I guess the FI I worked at had good benefits and policies around traumatic events, but witnessing an accident while on-site and not having a very supportive policy around that seems strange for Alstom.
It's odd how, seemingly we are closer and more aware of mental health and related challenges these days, yet still have work industries which seem to being going in opposite direction for less support/cutting costs/outsourcing/contracting etc.
I hope this isn't the full picture and maybe Alstom can show us what their short term disability policy really is. I feel we're missing something...
lenaitch
Senior Member
The manager represents the interests of the employer. In a perfect world that would include the interests of the employee, but here we are and that's how unions got started. It seems suspicious that they have made the process linear; "an employee is first offered a meeting with management." Things said to management are not in confidence, and an employee under stress could say something that works against them in the future.
crs1026
Superstar
Plus, it's well established that an individual's mental health is private and not something a manager is entitled, nor welcome, to have knowledge of. It's a matter of church and state.
The suggestion that a manager can intrude on that personal space, even if well meaning, is a very archaic and paternalistic view of the employer-employee relationship.
- Paul
Metroscapes
Active Member
Really appreciate all the informed insight here, and I completely agree with the sentiment that counselling should be one-on-one without management as the primary default. I do believe management should be involved second to address accommodation and work arrangements.
Agreed, and to add, Metrolinx, CN/CP (where applicable) and adjacent municipalities should also be putting more effort into preventing trespassing in the first place (and improving adjacent communities) by improving access across rail corridors. This was the whole point of my Crossing the Line work, and I even went to the extent of sharing that data with City of Toronto staff. Refreshing that data in GIS, expanding the analysis, and creating some sort of report is on my never-ending to-do list.
SkylineHorizons
Active Member
What do the police have anything to do with it? A much closer comparable would be the TTC which gives employees 30 days not this pittance.
That's all it is. It's interjecting an unnecessary layer into the process, for new hires it absolutely introduces a certain degree of coercion, even if that isn't directly applied. Won't mean s*** to anyone with even a reasonable amount of senority though, especially coming from a company who's ass is out the door in less than 12 months.
They've always been involved informally. Managers pick crews up from the scene afterall.
That's what the suits don't appreciate. CP has 3 days, but they don't get nearly as many fatalities simply because train speeds are lower and there's more time for people to get out of harms way.
In the end all this is going to do is force more people to take time off through WSIB because 3 days IS NOT enough time for most people to make an accurate assessment about the state of their mental health after having struck and likely killed someone. The company only cares about what costs less and what it boils down to is the lesser of two choices;
-giving people 7 days off paid and having less people go off long term on WSIB. Fact is more people return to regular serivce when given 7 days off paid rather than just 3
-giving people only 3 days off paid, which results in a increase of people going off on WSIB and subsequently they will have to pay a higher amount towards WSIB premiums.
But what a coincidence... Alstom is out the door come Jan 1 2025! It's entirely obviously exactly why they implemented this change in policy now at the beginning of their final year, sonce they won't have to deal with the resulting increase in WSIB premiums next year.
lenaitch
Senior Member
It seems a little odd that the company is digging in like this, particularly in this 'day and age'. You can't treat employees as disposable anymore. There is no denying that company representatives have a role; the employee is on-duty, operating their equipment, etc. but in the initial response, the company's primary role should be to support their employee and mitigate risk. Higher WSIB claims can impact employment costs.
To me this smacks of a turf war with the union. Somebody is digging in over something.
To me this smacks of a turf war with the union. Somebody is digging in over something.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Actually if you haven't noticed all companies are cutting back in favor or record profits. Team lunches, office coffee, anything that will help with morale is being cut in favour of profits.
No consideration for morale or efficiency. Profits and shareholders are priority.
Undead
Senior Member
Oh they can and do to this day.
SkylineHorizons
Active Member
lenaitch
Senior Member
No doubt, but better employers strive not to. It is, admittedly, easier to treat employees poorly when they are unorganized, and that is a failing of our labour legislation; but in this case, the industry is regulated and the employees represented by a bargaining unit, that's why I'm suspicious that there is something else at play here. If an employee is on a paid absence because of a traumatic incident, the employer pays directly. If they go to WSIB, the employer pays indirectly
Bordercollie
Senior Member
You would think that given how hard it is to find and train new crews that they would treat them better. But companies are short sighted. If it saves them $1 then it's probably worth it. Even if that means they cannot maintain service levels.