East Lancs Railway

To be fair Peter, on Joanne’s twitter feed someone does mention wanting to hear the East Lancs side of things before judging and Ms Crompton does agree with them.
What are we 48 hours after this news has broken?
And there hasn’t been anything from the East Lancs side of the fence, even just a simple statement with something like ‘We are aware of a story circulating on social media, this is an internal matter and until it is resolved we will be making no further comment’

Social media is a bit of a bear pit I agree, but I don’t think the East Lancs have handled this well at all, this really has the potential to blow up massively not just for the ELR but for the movement as a whole, it’s really not a good idea to just ignore it and hope that it goes away.

 

Even from a purely practical point of view, ELR management must know that Joanne is a fairly prominent figure in the movement and action like this wouldn't go unnoticed. They might even have seen a small amount of what has gone on at WSR, and yet still decided that "Yep, this is a good idea". Seems rather poor judgement.

 

Even if the blocking of Roger (and other journalists?) is followed up with an "off the record" phone call to explain why the optics of doing it are crass beyond belief.
If the situation is they actually have nothing to hide then they are making an excellent fist of making everyone think they do.
This is not the sort of matter where "any publicity is good publicity" fits.

 

I've "liked" partly because I agree that some balance from the other side would be appreciated, and partly because I appreciate the time taken to compose a well-considered post, particularly if that puts you at odds with the general "pile on" that such issues generate.

Like you, and I suspect the vast majority here, I don't know the full facts of the case, beyond the bare bones. I also don't know to what, if any, extent there was an attempt to reach a conclusion outside the glare of social media.

If that were the limit, then I'd agree that we should wait to hear the ELR side of the story before jumping to conclusions. What makes that more problematic is the apparent reaction by the ELR Chairman in blocking followers and generally it seems trying to stifle debate. That inevitably feeds a narrative of "no smoke without fire"; even a dignified "we are aware of a story but in the interests of privacy we do not wish to comment on an internal personnel matter" would be preferable.

Most railways I am sure have risk registers, and will have contingency plans developed for how to deal with those risks. While I suspect that many have robust plans for operational issues - what happens if there is a derailment, or a land slide, or a passenger falls ill - I wonder how many have considered the reputational risk around a given issue blowing up on social media, and how best to manage that situation? The nature of social media is that the bar to sharing, and commenting on, a story is low and generally without much consequence to the person sharing / commenting. While that can be very beneficial if you have a nice cuddly story about what a great time everyone had visiting the dinosaurs at the railway over Easter, it requires a rather more sure-footed touch if the chairman suddenly becomes widely likened to one of those dinosaurs.

Tom

 

The trouble with the internet world as I see it is that everyone demands that you respond to their point of view and asume that you are hiding something if you do not do so. Is there not something to be said for keeping a dignified silence on some occasions. After all TV shows would have us believe that when arrested for a crime you are cautioned that you are not obliged to say anything but that anything you do say will be taken down and may be used against you. Lets face it whatever the ELR says in this situation will only provoke more internet criticism so I can understand their silence. They are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

Have the ELR management handled this badly - probably so. Could it have been managed differently - quite possibly. Would the outcome have been any different - maybe but maybe not. Easy to sit at a keyboard and criticise without being present when options were being considered. I cant believe that the ELR management did not forsee the reaction to their decision to suspend Joanne so is it unreasonable to conclude that they felt that they had no other option.

Who would want to be involved in the management of a heritage - not me1

Peter

 

This is where, not being on any other form of social media has me at a disadvantage. Given that this is a very personal situation I don't see that it is for the railway to discuss any of it in public, no matter how or where the questions are being asked. Is not blocking those people who are asking such questions a reasonable way of avoiding such engagement? Or am I misunderstanding what this blocking means?

I suspect that those who love conspiricy theories will have a field day with this come what may.

Peter

 

I'm in total agreement with you Peter. She is probably her own worst enemy. Posting on social media is something that needs doing with caution. Like most businesses, heritage railways usually have a social media policy that their employees and volunteers are meant to comply with and I'm sure the ELR is no exception to this. Whilst volunteers can't be forced to comply with it, neither do they have any redress if they choose not to comply and suffer the consequences. I know of several volunteers who have been banned for posting negative comment about their railway on social media. There are people on here who perhaps need to think about what they post about the railway that they volunteer on.

 

Well said Peter! The tendency for opinion or assumptions to be treated as fact because they are not responded to is an unfortunate trait of social media.

Perhaps what the current furore has brought under the spotlight is the nature of volunteering , not just on heritage railways but universally. With the growth of paid employment (often for the same role) it's tempting to look at volunteers as unpaid workers. In reality volunteering is deemed to be an offer by the prospective volunteer to help the organisation on the basis that they will not have any obligations towards it including, for instance, turning up when needed or even staying on duty in a safety critical role. As a volunteer signalman I cannot imagine that I would walk way mid shift but technically being able to do so is the essence of volunteering. Of course if I did so, or did something like fail to abide by the railway's social media policy, I could reasonably expect my offer to volunteer being declined in future. The absence of volunteer rights appears to come as a shock or surprise to some. That situation results from the underlying legal nature of volunteering which is only possible as long as the the offer continues to be accepted. Volunteers can't really be dismissed since they don't have any status to be dismissed from...their opportunity to volunteer is simply withdrawn.
Once you go down the route of placing obligations on volunteers ( such as you must turn up when rostered or stay on duty until relieved, which would both be fine for employees) it's slippery slope to them being deemed to be employees who must be paid whatever the parties intend.
If nothing else the situations on the WSR and ELR may have dispelled a few myths and mistaken assumptions about the status of volunteers

 

Having known Tracey for a good few years, I'd say she was both bold and right.

 

Blocking on Twitter is seen as an aggressive act - the person you block knows they are blocked. Less inflamatory options include leaving a conversation (wouldn't really work here) and muting people - you don't see the comments but people can still make them. In reality Blocking doesn't do much externally - I can still quote the username of someone I'm blocked by in a tweet and it will still show up to anyone looking for that username.

Clearly there are probably other chapters in this story, but I'm afraid in todays culture, if you've upheld a complaint about discrimination etc within your organisation, you'd better have a lot stronger case for discipline than letting the victim comment on their issues. After all if the complaint is "bringing the organisation into disrepute", those managing this affair have arguably a similar case to answer, presumably in equity with the same fate at the end of it.

 

Having known Tracey for a good few years, I'd say she was both bold and right.

Anyone can make a mistake - Parliament is full of such folk!

 

Can anyone post the Twitter item that was allegedly in breach of the ELR Social Media Policy?

I gather that it doesnt identify the Railway.

 

Well of course one would not expect all heritage railways to be identical...

 

I’m not sure how far I agree with you on the nature of volunteering. I’d suggest that in your case, the conditions of contract are met - a benefit is exchanged in return for consideration. It just happens not to be financial.

I share your concern about the possible consequences of confusing volunteering with employment. In my (church) experience, introducing too much formality deters volunteers and undermines that which the process seeks to protect (if I had a penny for every time I heard discussion about filling choir chaperoning rotas…).

But I go back to what [mention]The Dainton Banker [/mention]wrote previously about process - even if volunteers lack remedy for deprivation of their opportunities to volunteer, they remain entitled to due process.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It’s unclear which tweet(s) were involved. Nothing about her recent grievance posting was specific enough to say it related to the railway, even knowing she volunteered there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I wonder if this request will be followed up?

 

That basically reads to me like "Those things Joanne said happened, happened"

 

What does that tell me?