West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Its interesting that since the PLC'S letter ( now since removed) that we have at least two posts, claiming, its all well in Somerset, that some how, we have it all wrong, that voluenteers have nothing to fear, this dispite the implied threats of removal of id's and therefore ability to work on the railway, if you step out of line, clearly, everything isnt all right, otherwise why should people have to give their time, with what on the face of it is a very sensitive to being questioned PLC who want , on the face of it a complient work force, I certainly could not work for the WSR , if it meant i could not speak out if i saw something i did not think was right, or fair going on.

 

Very True Martin, but none of them, unless you break the rules, and have gone through a correct , and fair procedure are removing peoples right to attend that railway just because you happen to not agree with a board policy, have those who had I'D's removed gone through any fair, and correct procedure ?

 

Daffodils/primroses - or flowers presently in bloom are overdue.

 

I don't think anyone has suggested that the day-to-day volunteering is anything but extremely pleasant on the WSR. I'm quite sure it is. But that's rather beside the point if you disagree with management decisions to the extent that you don't feel able to carry on. However, it seems that if you do want to carry on quietly as a normal volunteer even after disagreeing with management decisions the current management is simply not allowing it. We've now had two named people on this thread in that position, where they've been slung out without due process. I'm sure they felt it was very much to their loss not to be able to volunteer on the WSR too.
Given my posts on here and how others critical of certain decisions have been treated I seriously doubt I'd be given a work permit on the WSR if I was to come and try, even if I just wanted to come along and quietly do some sign-writing.

The measure of an organisation's management is how it deals with people who disagree with decisions made, and the WSR has performed extremely poorly in this regard, and in some ways is worse now than during the time of the X6, at least there was still a process in place for expelling WSRA members, even if it was a bit of a show trial, only under the current management have HR and grievance policies been totally eradicated altogether.

But the company has entered into a public debate, it has put forward its own position, it has released several statements regarding the S&DRT and the freehold issue (now hastily withdrawn - wonder whether the sudden re-opening of the WSR thread which a previous communication pointed towards had anything to do with it?) Certainly on the S&DRT issue, and arguably on the freehold issue, we haven't had half the story, we've heard from both sides, and been able to make up our minds based on what the WSR has itself publicly said. The WSR board freely admitted a major advantage of purchasing the freehold would be the ability to raise loans against it. That is exactly why the Plc shouldn't purchase it, even if the sums did add up.

 

Interesting read today that the company that carried out the audit of the WSR Plc's accounts after the appointment of the current WSR Plc chairman are being pursued for negligence following the collapse of Carillion, they were the auditors of Carillion's accounts - https://www.ft.com/content/3b10ca83-7818-46d5-b492-8c86857ebd33

I'm sure I recall a contact telling me that KPMG were quoted as being a 'reputable and reliable auditing company' by members of the PLC board at a stakeholder meeting held at a golf course, Oak Manor?

 

That only really works if they can borrow more against the land than they have to borrow to pay for it, which is effectively realising the remaining value of the lease.

 

While there is much of what @FrankC has written in recent months that I am not inclined to accept, I do actually believe him about the volunteering experience at the WSR, and the difference between what is happening at a management level and what is experienced at the coal face.

At the same time, I suggest that he and others putting the case for the volunteer experience should reflect on why outsiders react to the WSR as they do, and especially about how plausible it is to attribute those reactions to a few disaffected (ex-)volunteers. Based on what is on the record. Certainly, the "on the record" positions don't incline me to that view.

 

I agree, hence the "even if the sums do add up" caveat - I don't see how they do and no one has tried to explain how they could!

 

A member of my family has worked as a civil engineer all his working life. Being on the inside gives a person a very different perspective, and the story is not the one that meets the agenda of the mainstream media. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this.

 

KPMG are a "Big 4" audit practice, all of which have had run-ins with the regulators over their approach to audit clients - as have a number of the smaller (but still very large) audit practices. The allegations are typically in two (some suggest overlapping) categories - excessive weight given to the management's opinions, and too much interest in follow on fees. As WSR plc is very much smaller than KPMG, and the fees to be earned will be trivial as a part of KPMG's income, I have my doubts that either factor will be particularly material. Certainly, I would not choose or reject KPMG for a company the size of the WSR plc based on their reputation as a Big 4 practice - though I might wonder if Big 4 fees were value for money for an SME in rural West Somerset.

 

So far as I'm aware @flying scotsman123 my only contact with you is through these pages. Given the volume of stuff here I can't actually remember what critical remarks you have made. But in general terms I can't think of many walks of life, and certainly not in any commercial or government environment where I have worked, where you could make serious, substantial criticisms of the organisation (or its senior people) in public and expect to carry on working for them. Life isn't like that, in my experience. On the other hand if you are prepared to be reasonably loyal to the organisation, I'm sure we would welcome a skilled sign writer and you could then find out what it is like on the inside.

 

" If you are prepared to be reasonably loyal to the organisation( plc)" Thank you Frank C that sums it up, loyalty is everything, then, Morality, fairness, doing the right thing i guess doesnt count at the WSR.

 

Fair comment. I am however reminded of the Navy's view of mutiny. While mutineers were hanged, the captain whose crew had mutinied could also expect to be blamed by the Admiralty for causing that mutiny, and therefore not to expect a future command.

 

No, he does have a point - in any organisation I've ever worked in, a level of collective responsibility is required. However, the response to whistle-blowing is also relevant.

 

The flipside of course is that such criticism would be dealt with through 'Due Process' something that the PLC has removed.

While I am not in a position to comment on the strength of the case against any of the PLCs critics, I can comment on the fact that HR policies that would have guaranteed them a hearing have been removed. It would clearly be open to the PLC to reinstate the policies, however they have chosen not to do so, giving ammunition to their critics.

 

On the contrary, many organisations pride themselves on the fact that they can have robust discussions in private and public and that critical views can be raised without fear of prejudice. Indeed, most of those organisations consider it to be a badge of honour as to their maturity and strength and an acknowledgement of the loyalty of people to the organisation that people care enough to be vocal and critical.

My railway right or wrong won’t cut it.

If people are being left behind or excluded then that is a failure of management.

And, any impression people on here are getting about the WSR experience comes from WSR volunteers themselves. So, if people have a negative impression of the WSR maybe people on the WSR ought to look a little closer in the mirror as to how they interact with outsiders. Stop blaming others for the position in which the WSR finds itself, both in terms of the financial situation and the perception of the railway. The WSR created this situation, not posters on NP.

 

As I say Frank, I'm sure if I were in a position to join the WSR as a volunteer to find out what it was like on the inside, I feel sure given what has been posted here that I would be welcomed by all those on the ground, and have a very nice time (although @Robin Moira White might have something to say about another signwriter! ). I'm not doubting any of that for a second. So hopefully we can move on from platitudes to assuage me of that, as there is no need, I am persuaded!

To address your points though. Whilst I can think of few occasions where I've ever thought our own board on the GWSR has made the wrong call, I can recall one where I was quite publicly critical of the decision made (The question of the cafe at Broadway, for the record). Of the other people posting publicly, most were also critical, and some made some rather extreme comments about the members of the board (which I also publicly criticised), but there were also a few who said we didn't speak for the silent majority and that the board were right. In the end, the board relented and gave in. I never received any retribution, and never found myself unable to get on with any of the directors some of whom I volunteered with regularly.

If I had gone too far, then action may well have been taken. But as laid out in our rule book, it would all go through the GWSR's formal disciplinary procedure, which itself states that beforehand issues should first attempt to be resolved by informal discussion. Beyond that, a panel of 3-5 people would be formed to hear the accusations etc. etc. I'm sure this will be very familiar to people in "many walks of of life". However, AIUI it is not familiar to current WSR management, nor to WSR volunteers now that those policies have been withdrawn. That seems like a pretty key difference to me.

I would also suggest, that as far as I can make out @Maverick was chucked out before he made any public comments, purely on the basis of a (in his judgement) poorly-judged facebook comment, subsequently deleted and apologised for. That emphatically does not seem reasonable.

Finally on the loyalty bit. Loyalty to what exactly? It rather strikes me that the people thrown out have been punished not for being disloyal to the WSR, but for being disloyal to a particular member of the management. That is not necessarily the same thing, and in some cases, loyalty to one may even be considered express disloyalty to the other. Or, to put it another way, I'd consider your actions in helping to remove the X6 fundamentally disloyal to those trustees, but clearly loyal to the WSR as a whole.

 

I'm just making a small effort to post something true to the specified posting requirements of the re-opened thread. Folks might like to know that, thanks to the rules and policies in place and with appropriate permissions, volunteers have been out on the Railway making a start on tidying up. Also it is pleasing to learn that the Friends of Blue Anchor Station have made a very fine £5K donation to the Emergency Appeal. Very heartening to see so many supporters keen to see the Railway get back on its feet. I'm sure all on Nat Pres will welcome these snippets of positiveness.

Steve

 

[My emphasis]

Frank, volunteers volunteer; they are not subject to the legal rules of mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee.

However, even in the Employee/Employer work relationship in the UK that has an active Trade Union, the law protects Union Officials who raise substantial complaints against management, and whistle blowers are similarly protected.

If I may be so bold, what you are suggesting is a Victorian 'Master/Servant' relationship that is completely alien to a modern working environment. Any volunteer ought to be able to disagree with management, and still volunteer without being threatened with having their ID card withdrawn and with no grievance procedure in place currently.

And to use your analogy, any NHS Doctor/Consultant/Nurse complaining of lack of PPE the last 6 weeks or so ought to be sacked by the NHS!

(I could say a lot more, Frank, but I would be repeating my previous posts in respect of you of late, and I don't want to get a further warning of being banned on here).

Cheers,

Julian