The End Of An Era!

Mr Valentine takes a moment out from walking around umpteen trains.

Following a period of some uncertainty the was created when Network Rail announced that it was making substantial cuts into the workbanks, AmeyColas annuonced the need for a raft of redundancies across the companies.

After some deliberation with the Union, a voluntary redundancy package eventually emerged, far from perfect but it was unlikely to be improved upon. Member's had indicated in a ballot that they were prepared to take limited action, thus tying the hands of the Union and limiting the pressure that they could apply. What emerged was far from perfect, it has some glaring faults, but for some it is also far superior to what they could have expected.


For Ex-BR/Jarvis staff it is 75% of the BR redundancy matrix,for others it's £1,000 for each year of service up to a maximum of 20 years. It's generated mixed interest, attracting a modicum of interest. In some depots, it sounds like it has attracted the desired numbers of interested individuals, while in others it short of the mark.

Two of those that showed an interest in the voluntary option were Steve Valentine and Mark Styles, two engineering supervisors at the Bletchley depot.


Mr Valentine a veteran from BR days with over 30 years of service to the railway. A fine fellow who is liked by pretty much everyone. Somewhat outspoken at times for managements liking, he's been around long enough to have seen most everything that there is to see, he's been dumped on enough times over the years to sour his opinion of management on a permanent basis. He doesn't mince his words, he calls a spade a spade, and says it as he sees it, which does alarm some. Others see it for the true down to earth "honesty" that Steve epitomises, and admire him for that.

Former colleague Mr Ferguson pictured in a lighter moment with Mr Styles.

While Mr Styles is perhaps a bit less frank speaking, especially when members of the management are around. A trait that is perhaps prudent at times, to stay quite and bite ones tongue.



Both have worked hard, and both have been dumped on time and time again over the years. And both have become disheartened with the way things are going in the company and the industry in general.

As a result both have elected to take the voluntary option, collecting a bit of a wegde and going as soon as possible.


For Mr Valentine, the future's a tad uncertain. It's unlikely he'll get another job in a similar line to what he's doing in now in the industry. But he has a few iron's in the fire, hopefully one of them will work out for him.

Mr Styles has an advantage that age is more on his side, but the job situation is equally dire and opportunities are slim.


Those that know them will wish them luck when they do go at the end of this week, and a good few will be sorry to see them go. Many have worked with them for a good few years, and have come to consider them as friends, not just work colleagues.

They mark the continuation of a process that has gone on unabated since 1997, staff from BR day's are disappearing leaving in the industry only those who have no recollection of a nationalised railway or the benefits that it brings. When the last member of staff goes who has that experience, it will be an end of an era. And it will be a loss to the country.


They are the visble damage caused by a system that believe's that the persuit of profit above all else as the only way to go, and that it will solve every single problem that exist's in the world, now and in the future.

All we know is that we wish them luck in the future, whatever that may hold for them.


Mr Valentine doing what he liked to do after a busy day, stop at a greasey pitstop.

Knocking your pan out? or Not knocking your pan out?

The 9th of May, a Saturday night shift at Kilsby tunnel, nature of the job was fitting light brackets to the tunnel wall in preparation for an up coming renewals job in the tunnel. Now for almost everyone there, there wasn't a single thing particularly taxing about any of the activities undertaken. Certainly nothing that would lead any of them to saying the they had been "knocking their pan out", the reality was that it was a very easy shift indeed as such go.

But one individual present would seem to beg to differ with everyone else who was present in that perception, because he had a "gruelling shift", he had a real "nightmare of a shift", he really "knocked his pan out", complaining that "he'll be feeling the ill effects of such a gruelling night's work for weeks to come".

Below are a few short video clips, initially taken because it is such a rarity to see the individual in them do much anyday, and judge for yourselves whether or not he really "knocked his pan out" or not!



First you see a contractor drilling the first hole for a lighting barcket, then another conteactor places the bracket in position and inserts a rawplug and screw into the hole thats been drilled. Then our esteemed colleagues appears as if out of nowhere and taps the screw home with a hammer, then disappears off into the gloom of the tunnel again. Now with the bracket partially secured in position, a second hole can be drilled, rawplug and screw inserted, and the screw tapped home to complete the process. This was pretty much the sum total of his activities for most of the night, I leave it to you to judge whether or no that constitutes "knocking one's pan out".

Fairness for all?

A plain statement that not everyone may interpret in the same fashion!

Fact

On the railway, there has always been a hierarchy (a pecking order if you would like to call it that). This is initially based upon one's grade, the higher grade you are, the higher up the pecking order you are.

Then there are a number of other factor's which can modify this further. If you have two individuals of identical grade, but one is senior to the other (they have more service), then the senior one is ahead in the pecking order.

Juniority (this refers to skills etc), and can mean an individual with less service can effectively be ahead of colleagues with a higher grade and more service.

These are the three basic starting points in determining where in the hierarchy one is :

1) Grade.
2) Seniority.
3) Juniority.

Why do you need a hierarchy?

In any organisation, you need to have a chain of command. Where the issuing of instructions, orders and tasks flow from the top down through the chain of command.
You need to have someone in charge, and someone subordinate, having a situation where all are equal just leads to anarchy. And a natural consequence of this, is that your position within the hierarchy can have a direct implication as to the sort of tasks you will be assigned, and the level of your workload.

If you are at the very bottom of the hierarchy, you can expect virtually any task to be put on your plate. As a rule, the lower you are in that hierarchy, the harder the tasks that can be assigned to you and the more in the way of amount of work that you have to do. That is the way of the world, at the bottom you have to do everything imaginable, literally work yours balls off if required, and as you go up in the hierarchy, you can do a bit less and delegate task's to your subordinates. As you go up the ladder higher and higher, you do less and less.

So that lays down the basic elements for the allocation of tasks! But are there other factors which you might consider?

Yes, there are a number of factors, of which it is entirely reasonable to consider when allocating tasks, some of these would be unreasonable and unfair to others to ignore. It's part of how the chain of command works, recognition is given where it is deserved and conversely admonishment or punishment is given out where it is deserved.

The nature of recognition can vary immensely, from a mere thank you, or being allocated an easy task, to being given an earlier than expected finish or getting an easy shift somewhere at the lower level. Higher levels of management may well give recognition through promotion and so forth.

While admonishment or punishment can vary immensely also at the lower levels, from a mere bollocking for a misdemeanor, to giving someone no more than they are due (i.e. 30 min's for a meal break, and no more), to giving them a job that they wont find pleasant. And at higher levels, it can also mean a bollocking, or a disciplinary, demotion, suspension from duty, even dismissal.

Factor's which could be considered :

1) Attitude

Attitude to the job can have a dramatic influence upon allocation of tasks. An example being lookout, when you have an unpleasant task such as shovelling and a better one such as acting as lookout, and you have two individuals. One of them has a positive attitude who would take the responsibility of being a lookout seriously, while the other has a less than positive attitude and views it merely as a cushy number and a means to avoid hard work. Which would you choose?

2) Performance

Performance can be viewed as completing any given task within the required timescale and to the required standard. Initially this could be by reference to such things as experience gained over the years, i.e. how long it takes to do some task or other and to what standard. Or you could refer to such things as MIMMS, which are an extensive series of time and motion study results, which give a timescale for virtually every task or part thereof.

Also you could use the time taken to do a task by the majority as your benchmark, say if everyone took on average 30 mins to shovel six a piece, and someone took an hour or more on average. I think it would be safe to say they were performing poorly.

Also, if doing six a piece, someone consistently did their six to a less than perfect standard, stone still on the web of the rail and around the clips, beds looking like there was a body buried in them. Then that could also be considered as performing poorly.

Also you could consider such points as whether the put the tools they use away correctly or not, or if they doing lookout whether they put away the kit correctly, detonators locked away etc. This could also be considered as performing poorly.

What downside might poor performance elicit, at the least a reprimand or being allocated a less than desirable task.

Good performance on the other hand can be given recognition, and that can very well take the form of being allocated a easier task.

Also you could put under this category, the fact of whether an individual has already undertaken one or more tasks already. One such could be the driving of a vehicle to site, it wouldn't be unreasonable to allocate any tasks that required doing to those who had completed no task so far.

3) Timekeeping

A person's ability to adhere to their contractual hours, that means being at your booking on point at the allotted time, and not leaving your booking on point until the allotted time. Not something immensely popular, but that doesn't mean it's OK to flout it. Take the piss and it is guaranteed to get a response.

Turning up persistently late will get a negative response.

An immediate negative response would be the allocating of a less than desirable task to someone who is repeatedly late.

Also finishing earlier than one should can elicit a negative response, and at the very least it can mean that you are effectively in managements pocket, that you owe them. This can mean that they may ask you to do something at some point that you are not particularly keen on doing, but as you owe them, there's not allot that you can say against it.

Also, many may view that someone who makes considerably more from finishing earlier than they do has an unfair advantage. And many may feel it's fair to redress that imbalance in some fashion.

A easy way to redress that imbalance, is in the allocation of tasks. The more an individual benefits from finishing earlier, when there is a less than desirable task in the offing then it's only fair that they are more in the frame for that task than anyone else.

The easiest way to fulfill the requirements is to start at the designated time, and finish at the designated time. That way you have met what is expected of you, and you owe nothing in return, management have nothing that they can hold over you.

4) Initiative

Initiative can be viewed to cover a broad range of things, but at the simplest level you could say the following. If you notice a clip is missing, you go and find a clip and replace it, it you know that a duff jack is required, you fetch one.
Not merely point it out and expect someone else to do it, just because one is to bone idle and cant be bothered to put themselves out.

You have an undesirable task, who would you allocate it to? The individual who shows willing and initiative, or the bone idle one?

5) Flexibility

I would describe this as being prepared to do sometimes, things that you wouldn't particularly want to do, but you bite the bullet and put your self out and do it.

If there was an undesirable task in the offing, it's not unreasonable to allocate the less than desirable task's to those that exhibit the least flexibility, and conversely allocate the more desirable tasks to those that do exhibit flexibility.

**************************************************

The basic principle of all this is, that working hard when it is needed, having the right attitude, showing initiative, good time keeping, good performance, being prepared to be flexible at times can all have positive benefits in the long run. While short comings in these areas can have a definite downside. It is only fair that it should be so, why should an individual who performs poorly on all counts reap the same benefits as someone who will knock their pan out when its needed.

Do well and it is recognised, and you could find that when there is a shed load to do that you wont necessarily be on the sharp end.

Do poorly and it is recognised, and you most definitely will find you are on the sharp end every time and rightly so.

So the nature of the sort of the day one will have is largely determined by our own actions, how well or not as the case maybe, and has a directed influence on what sort of day we will have and what tasks we'll be given. So the better we do, the better day we'll have, and the reverse is equally true.

Jim Fitzgerald

A former colleague and a character known to many working on the railway passed away recently His name was Jim Fitzgerald. Many knew him as "Jimmy Fitz" or just plain "Jimmy".

His bark was far worse than his bite, and you could have a good crack with him. One of the most frequent phrases he used to use was "You couldn't shovel shit from a dead donkey", and I can still hear it.

He was like an almost permanent feature, never seemed to change and was always there. When he retired, it was the passing of an era as "Jimmy" was one of the old school, one of a disappearing breed.

His passing away is part of the final closure on a chapter in railway history. Unnoticed, unknown by so many who rushed by on trains everyday, but for those who worked with him, he'll always be remembered.

Rest in Peace Jimmy

John Nutter's retirement drink.

Farewell party for an old friend and colleague.

On the 7th of November 2008 a retirement party for Mr John Nutter was held at the Warren in Kettering. John had been off on the sick with a bad knee prior to his 65th birthday, so many had had little opportunity to say goodbye to him and wish him the best of luck in the future.


Mr Mark Styles organised a collection for John, and after some consulting with Helen(John's wife) it was decided to convert the collected proceeds into Garden Centre Vouchers. The amount collected was £170.


Everyone met at the Warren pub, which is situated at the junction of Stamford rd and Windmill avenue in Kettering. A presentation was made to John of the Garden Vouchers and a Golden Shovel that some of the lads had come up with. A good few pints were downed here by all present.

John open's one of his presents at the party, it was a golden shovel(a shovel wrapped in gold paper.

After a few drinks in the Warren, everyone retired to a "Chinky" resturant down the road situated in the former Buccleigh Pub. It was to everyone's liking, basically you ate as much as you could eat.

Card from John to his former colleagues thanking them for their generosity.

After everyone had a good stuff there, we all returned to the Warren for a few more drinks. Some bade him farewell a short while later and wished him the best, a few remained a bit longer finally saying goodbye when John's wife Helen came to pick him up. He enjoyed his night out, and I think a good night was had by all.

Message inscribed in the card.

Who was there?
John Nutter (Guest of Honour)
Steve Calver
Andy Cawthorne
Robert Farley
Ian Fraser
Alan Ferguson
Goeff Hackett
Ian Parker
Dave Scheina
Mark Styles
Steve Valentine
Kev (SAC's man)

Andy Cawthorne

Andy indulging his main passion "footy"

Andy Cawthorne

What can you say about him, he works quite hard when he has too. He's not shy of hard work, may not be overly keen on it, but who is? Ex-Jarvis storeman who was TUPE'd to Grant along with a number of us and subseaquently to AmeyColas.

Andy enjoying one of those moments of banter on the works van.

At one point he faced the prospect of redundancy, his position as storeman was made redundant. A worrying time for him and his work colleagues, but he opted to go into a gang rather than take his small wedge and say "chow bella!"

Andy surveying the remaining shovel work to be done at Kempston Hardwick. "Does it ever end?"

Going into a gang has been a satisfactory move, maybe a tad harder than he would like at times, but he's stuck it out which speaks volumes for the sort of guy he is. Its been a learning curve for him, he's had the short end of the stick a few times from management but he's had some success on ocassions when he's stuck to his guns over something.

An apple a day keeps the shovel blues away!

Had a tough time with one thing and another, but always seems to adopt a positive unbeat atitude. A good mate and one most people would like to work with.

Steve Valentine "Pongo"

"Pongo"

Pongo? What can you say about him? He's a good friend and workmate, even though he's an engineering supervisor he has never made that transition from being a worker to being a model example of management. He's a relic of a bygone era of British Railway's, he's worked he way up from the bottom and has forgotten more things about the work on the railway than most people have had hot dinners.

He talks to everyone in a decent manner, rather than a pile of crap like some do. And because of that and the fact he has a greater afinity to ordinary workers than you would be perhaps expect from someone in his position, he is liked and respected by many of his colleagues.

He's a solid dependable chap, if he can help someone out he will. He's a bloke you can have a good joke with, and he's not inclined to mince his words in the pursuit of political correctness, a spade is a spade and he'll say so.

Short video clip featuring Steve Valentine.

John Nutter "Nutter"

Nutter?

What can you same about him? He's a hard worker, never been afraid of a bit of hard graft in his life. Will give his colleagues a helping hand without thinking about it, unlike some. John is pretty much "what you see is what you get", hard working, helpful, and relatively quite spoken and mannered. Not often that you see him get agitated, most of the time he's quite placid. He's had quite a hard working life, as his face shows literally.

Years ago he was the victim of an accident that evaporated his faith in union's, and it was hardly surprising. Before the type's of lighting generators we have today, we used to have one's that you cranked to start which were mounted on a wheeled frame that you could push along much like a wheelbarrow, and before them there were some big old green ones that you cranked to start, mounted on a 4 wheeled frame.

It was one of these last one's that was the source of much pain and discomfort over the years to him. One night they were going through the worksite starting the generators up, when one of the cranking handles became stuck and proceeded to spin like a propeller blade. He saw some staff in the vacinity, and moved forward and shouted a warning to them to get out of the way. As he did so, the crank handle and generator parted company and he was struck straight between the eyes by the crank handle which resulted in severe and extensive damage to his face.

At the time he was a union member, and a claim for compensation was initiated. The faulty generator disappeared with out trace never to see the light of day again, and the union eventually told him that they wouldnt progress his case despite available eye witness evidence, expert advice and medical opinion. This was a blow for him, and one that rocked his faith in unions for ever. He didnt give up though, and ended up having to fight the case on his own, a process that became that much harder and difficult without the unions backing. He won eventually, no thamks to the union.

The union clearly let one of its members down very badly that day, speculation as to the reason why could go on and on, back-handers, union officials in the managements mockets, any number of things. One thing is clear, at the time the union was a extremely poor performer when it came to provision of services to its members, protecting its members interests, instead it collected union dues off of members effectively but did not want to do a lot else. Times have changed somewhat, the union has placed far more priority on the services it provides to members and looks to represent their interests far better than in the past.

No real down side, perhaps only that at times he's inclined to get a bee in his bonet sometimes over things, sometimes its a result of getting the wrong end of the handle on something.

An old dog soon to retire, mid October.

Alan Ferguson "Wingnut"

Wingnut?

What can you say about him? He could work hard for the size he was, but he wasn't cut out for the job being of very light build. Once his health started to deteriorate he still tried but just couldnt do the job and found it increasingly difficult to do.

He was very likeable, and wasn't adverse to a good joke and laugh. He did have a requirement to be accompanied at all times due to his apparent less than perfect hearing, this did cause some a bit of worry at times as he had a habit of disappearing off on his own. He could usually be located back on the crew bus having a sly drink or something to eat. Though if there was mention of a free beer going somewhere, his hearing seemed to improve dramatically.

He did have a passion for cricket, scittles and the like, and did lead an active social life. It was sad to see how that passion was denied him because of ill health.

Even when he was retired on ill health grounds, it was clear that he would have prefered to be doing something to earn his keep, and it was understandable that he felt some resentment over what he felt at "being tossed on the scrapheap of life"

A sad end to the working life of a bloke who did work hard, even if the work was perhaps a good bit harder for him than for some others.

Apart from his personal health problems, he did work when he was able to before his health started failing. Then what he was able to do gradually deminished

On the down side he his time keeping like many peoples left a lot to be desired, he'd turn up at the station well and truly late and start heading for the cabin because he was expecting a tea break. Like we didnt have anywhere to go most days.

Also he wasn't adverse to leaving early whenever the chance arose, many a day when we have languished in the cabin due to there being no work for us to do or a lack of a vehicle, he's turned up late by perhaps half an hour or more and been gone anytime from half nine onwards. Like many the amount of time he robbed at either end of the shift was seldom if ever merited by his actions whilst at work.

Another downside with him, was he was very partial to the old booze and many a weekend shift he'd come to work and you could smell it clearly, nothing like sailing close to the wind and tempting fate. Luckily for him his luck held, unlike some.

Ian Parker "Cack"

Cack?

What can you say about him?, well he can work hard when he has to and he's not afraid of a bit of shovelling. May not like it, but he'll get stuck into it and plod on doing it. Now if you give him something a bit on the technical side or a bit of responsibility like being in charge then he's prone to panic a bit about it.

He will always try his best at what ever task you give him, and you cant ask for more than that in a bloke.

He obtained the nick-name years ago on account of someone calling him cack handed when he was carrying out some task, and the name stuck. Also he's well known for posessing two left feet.

A story that illustrates this occured many years ago at Kibworth, and it would have done justice to any Keystone Cops film. The gang had been working on-track at Kibworth all day shovelling on a renewals job from a previous weekend. The work for that day was completed and the gang was making their way back to our relaying bus which was situated about about a half mile down the track atop a small grass bank into which some crude steps had been hacked. Everyone reached the grass bank where the bus was parked without anything untoward happening. Then the gang started to climb the grassy bank, with Cack in the lead. Then his aforementioned left feet came into play.

As he reached the top of the bank he fell over as he's quite prone to do, anyway everyone was in close proximity to the person in front and behind, the effect was rather like dominoes. The net result was a mass of bodies rollong down the grassy bank and all ending up in a tangled heap at the bottom of the bank link some scene out of Keystone Cops. There were a number of expletives directed at Cack as everyone untangled themselves and the sound advice from the point of view of everyone was that Cack should always bring up the rear in future.

He doesn't have a bad bone in his body, and he has taken a hell of lot of stick from colleagues over the year's, not all of it justified or warranted. He still takes a lot of stick from some people which is totally uncalled for, and it is very annoying to listen to some always slagging him off all the time. Truth be told he's a far better humanbeing than some of those slagging him off.

A short video clip featuring Ian Parker.

Michael R Faulkner "Micky Finn"

Micky Finn?

What can you say about him? He could work as hard as anyone when he had to,and he would willingly do a disproportionate amount of overtime if it was available.

On the down side he was very unreliable! He would have our 2nd man John Nutter and Hackett our Ganger waiting half an hour at the end of his street before deciding to show up, a good few times he wouldnt show at all. One time he claimed that he was in the papershop on Rocky road getting a paper and wanted to know why John didnt wait? The answer was that John was parked right outside the shop in question for about half an hour before he gave up waiting for him to turn up. While he was playing his silly little games, others could be freezing their nuts off waiting on a street corner or out front of the station for the van to turn up.

Even when he was doing the driving he was seldom ever on time, and thats before you took into account the fact that he should have at at the booking on point 15 mins before anyone else was checking the vehicle over, he never wanted to wait anywhere near the amount of time he had people waiting for him. For some he wouldnt wait even five minutes.

We did obtain a local arrangement where by the van didnt have to be on the road till 15 mins after the booking on time. This allowed a number of vital functions to be carried out, vehicle checks which should have been done on a daily basis but never ever were, fetching water for messing, fetching any kit needed that was stored in the cabin. It also allowed some the ability to arrive at the station at about the booking on time and then change into their workwear before getting on the van, for some all they ever worn was a mini vest and boots. For some wearing their own kit to work was never an option, and the changing facilities afforded in the van were inadequate. But he didnt want to arrive at the station at the proper time, do the mandatory vehicle checks that he should have done every day, fetching water if needed, fetching any kit if needed. No, he said fuck to the mandatory daily vehicle checks, getting water or anything else, he just wanted to turn up whenever he chose and everyone get on and he goes.

The arrangement also had the benefit of giving anyone a margin of fifteen minutes if they happened to be running late, but he started using it as an excuse to turn up even later at the station. Also others, because he was continually turning up late used it as an excuse to turn up later themselves. The upshot of it all this was that the 15 min local arrangement was done away with, with mandatory vehicle checks having to be done before the booking on time, water being fetched before the booking on time, any kit needed being fetched from the cabin before the booking on time and no margin for anyone who was late. And all because one individual didn't like to wait for anyone himself.

A case that illustrates how well he checked the vehicle over everyday, our 2nd man John Nutter happened to be driving the van on a rare day when Micky Finn was off. Before leaving the station he carried out a number of checks on the vehicle, one of them being the oil. He removed the dip stick and found that there was traces of oil visible on the very end of the dipstick well below the minimum level indication on it. The engine was practically dry, and when he mention it to Micky Finn the next day all Micky Finn said was, it was OK the day before. This was a blatant lie, as the engine never lost that amount of oil in a day ever! Also other things seem to comfirm peoples suspicions over that lack of checks, one being that subtle marks were made on certain items, and the position of the marks on later observation combined with a build up of undisturbed grime indicated to some that they had never ever moved since the introduction of the mark which was a clear sign that the vehicle checks were not getting done.

Then he had what he felt where a number of greivances that merited such action, and merited preferential treatment from others. First was drivers preparation time, this used to be a half an hour a day under BR T&C's, this was done away with completely by Mr Watson at Jarvis. After some discussion amongst union members, action was taken in the form of the threat that if they didnt reinstate the half hour, then the majority of drivers would hand their white tickets in. Mick not being a union member didnt want to get lumbered with driving any more than he was, so he adopted the same policy as the rest of the drivers. So for a while there was effective unity on the subject. Mr Watson sent everyone a snotty letter saying that he would reinstate 15 mins for drivers, saying it was a privilage and not a right. Everyone caved in on receiving the letter, attempts were made to maintain the unity and cohesive nature of the action but everyone caved in and accepted the 15 mins. If they hadnt and if they had stuck to their guns over the issue, then they would have got the half hour back, but they didnt and they got 15 mins instead.



Now for Mick this was a calamity,and he felt it was everyone else's fault that it happened and that he was suffering as a result. As a group they were in a position of strength when they acted as a group. But for a few who were non union members what was their position, the closest thing that I can think of, that illustrates it the clearest is to picture a piece of flotsom. It gets carried where ever the tide takes it, it has absolutely no influence over where the tide takes it. Now Mick had absolutely no imfluence whatsoever over that situation being a non union member of staff, but hes was always happy as a non union member of staff to accept a payrise that was negotiated collectively by the union, to accept the fruits of a process that he had no influence on.

But he felt he was eternally hard done by as a driver and felt everyone owed him something for it, they owed him absolutely nothing whatsoever. Hes was a member of an organisation where a democratic system operated, he was happy to accept anything good that system produced, but when that same system didnt produce anything of any good to him it was every one elses fault. It was his own fault pure and simple.

Another point he felt hard done on, was his inablility to get the level of overtime that he desired. He would have happily worked a hundred or more hours every week, he did for awhile when he drove for the Bedford gang, and he absolutely loved it. But in his regular gang the situation was different, he wanted to do as much overtime as God could send, a few in the gang wanted overtime but nowhere near that sort of level and on their terms and conditions, and the majority of the gang were not remotely interested in overtime on a regular basis whatsoever prefering to do it when they had a need. Now all that meant, that he didnt get the level of opportunity to do overtime that he would have liked. Was it unfair at the end of the day, the answer is no. He was a member of a gang, the majority of whom were not remotely interested in buckets of overtime all the time. The constraints imposed by this situation meant management couldnt oblige him with the level of overtime he wanted, and he blamed everyone else in the gang for it. But he overlooked the fact that he lived and worked somewhere, where it was the rule of the democracy not the rule of the individual that counted.

He also had the notion that because he drove the van, he didnt have to do any work. Wrong! On a weekend he could expect an hour's break during a shift, everyone else could expect just a 30 min break on a weekend shift. In the week he was in the same boat as everyone else, when there was work to do, he had to do it. End of. Many a time he was told to go and have his drivers break, and many a time he said he was OK and didnt want it. End of.

He often made the claim that everyone was forcing him to speed when he drove the van, that was one of the biggest load of bollocks he ever came out with. Most of the time he was speeding because he had turned up late himself and was trying to claw some time back. He even speeded when he didnt have too, which well and truely blows his claim out of the water. Many a time hes driven from Bedford back to Kettering in just over 20 minutes, yet hes had a couple of hours or more before the end of the shift so why the undue haste?

He frequently went on holidays to the states at Xmas, and on every ocassion came back late with some lame excuse. One Xmas he went and never came back. If he has the sort of wobblies he did here, throws the sort of little paddies he had here, then some yank is more than likely going to make him regret it.

Ian Fraser "Finger's"

Finger's?

What can you say about him? A true story that springs readily to mind which amply demonstrates the sort of bloke he is goes as follows:

Once on a weekend job, we had to take a load of gear from one end of the worksite to the other end. Everyone else apart from Finger's was loaded down with gear, everyone had at least four or five pieces of kit. All had a mixture of bars, panpullers, pansetters,hammers, duff jacks. The only piece of equipment that remained to be picked up and brought to the other end of the job along with everything else that the rest were carrying was a disc cutter.

John Nutter, our 2nd man instructed Finger's to bring the disc cutter as it was the only thing remaining to be brought. Finger's looked at the disc cutter and then John, saying "What carry it?". To this dumb arse question, John replied with the cutting remark "No! Its going to sprout legs and walk to the other end of the job all by itself! What do you think I meant?".

Fraser eventually took the disc cutter and carried it to the other end of the job, after much whinging and complaining about it. No one was overly concerned about it, as everyone was far more heavily loaded down with kit than Finger's was with just a disc cutter to carry. Thats Finger's all over, it there's some hard graft to do, he's at the back hoping by the time he gets to the front that there's nothing for him to do.

Of all the gang he has the worst time keeping record of the lot, the number of mornings he's late far exceeds the frequency of others, the number of ocassions he finishes early is equally no less excessive. And he think's he's got some entitlement, some right to do it. He would never have done it with Rylott, nor with Hackett before something would have been said to him sharpish. He's got a fool notion in his head that being based where we are out in the sticks so to speak, and he beleives no-one would ever be bothered to get off their asre's and come out and check on us, so he think that means he can get away with it readily and should be allowed to do so. He likes to take as much time as possible, a bit at the start, a bit at the end, and in the bit in between do as little as possible or at least do less than anyone else in the gang which is something he achieves in most cases, most of the time.

He knows my views upon the subject, be there on time when one is supposed to be there, not rolling into the carpark at that time in the car every morning. Pull your weight properly, if its six a piece, then its six a piece for every one, if one person does six overs then he and everyone else does six overs not two, not three but six. If one person stops till his time, then he stops also. To merit anything different, he's got to perform in a manner to merit such preferential treatment and he's never done that yet. He's quite happy to be carried all the way and reap whatever benefits he can gleam for himself, but he's never ever been prepared to do anything to warrant it, and has never ever done so. Dont take the piss, be on time which means both ends of the shift, work hard, dont let your mates carry you all the time, and expect nothing special or anything in return for that above your pay! When one goes above and beyond that, then one might merit some form of reward, Finger's never will.