Measure for measure

تغيير خيارات الرسومات المنخفضة | تغيير اللغة | القفز عن المحتوى إلى الملاحة

محتوى الصفحة: Home > مجلة النقل الدولي "Transport International" > Issue 13 October 2003 > Measure for measure

ITF translations available: Deutsch, Français, Español, Svenska
Google free translation service: Français, Español, Svenska, Nederlands, Italiano, Português, العربية, 中国的, Polski, Русский, 日本語, 한국의, Български, فارسی , Norske - About these links

Bus, rail and taxi workers in towns and cities everywhere face mounting levels of violence at the hands of the public, as trigger points increasingly coincide.

Socio-economic problems in poorer areas create tensions among growing urban populations, while the reduced service standards so often following privatisation provoke anger among transport users. At the same time the deregulation of service provision has allowed deteriorating standards of employment protection – among many taxi and minibus drivers these are non-existent. Reduced investment in labour and security combines with factors like these to make one of the most vulnerable groups of workers even more prone to attack.

Figures from the UK Railway Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) show reported assaults against rail staff in 2002/2003 (including verbal assaults and threats) is up 24 per cent on the previous year, with 3090 incidents recorded. The RSSB stresses that improvements in reporting may have influenced the figures to some degree. However the scale of the problem is underlined by constant press and trade union reports of staff being punched, kicked and threatened with knives.

As the unregulated “taxi bus” sector continues to grow in parts of west and southern Africa, thousands of drivers are threatened not only with passenger assaults, but also with harassment and violence from police. In El Salvador bus company employees in poor urban areas have been subject to violent attack including murder and kidnapping. Increasing assaults on taxi drivers and rail staff in parts of Australia have created political pressure at the national level.

As the face of petty authority on the one hand, and of inadequate service provision on the other, workers are singled out for aggression, in a working environment that provides thugs with many opportunities for attack. Staff may be patrolling alone in a deserted station or trapped in the drivers' cab of a taxi or bus, driving through a quiet area at night. A recent study in the US suggested taxi drivers were second only to police and security officers in the rate of assaults they sustain.

The need for joint approaches
Violence in urban transport is an integral facet of crime in urban society at large, and one impacts on the other. A UK government paper on crime and disorder on public transport released earlier this year noted:

“The nature and scale of crime on public transport reflects the neighbourhood it serves. An unstaffed railway station serving a nearby residential estate where there are few facilities for young people is likely to experience vandalism and graffiti. …Bus routes which experience high levels of damage and nuisance behaviour are often those traversing ‘high crime' areas.”

The report illustrates how this integration of problems presents at its flip side the potential for integrated solutions. It explains for example, how one UK police force noted a reduction in street robberies following an operation to reduce disorder on a bus route, and points at the potential for joint initiatives against crime.

Productive partnerships do happen, though in the UK they may be challenged by the fragmentation of railway operators since privatisation in the mid 1990s. Elsewhere unions are challenged for example by the many road transport routes governed by hundreds of small or lone operators, operating hand to mouth and in direct fierce competition with each other. In the absence of any form of imposed regulation it would take a giant leap of trust to begin any kind of joint working towards mutual protection.

So the problem continues, with transport services and especially transport waiting areas providing prime opportunities to thugs intent on violence.

Targets for criminals
Whether bus or minibus stops, railway or underground stations – transport waiting areas can be intensely conducive to crime. These are places where people naturally congregate during rush hours, becoming potential targets of large-scale crime such as bombings, gassing or arson. More frequently, during off-peak times and evenings, individual passengers and staff members alike are lone, vulnerable figures, often outside the earshot of any potential help. By the same token waiting areas are places where anyone with criminal intentions has an opportunity to loiter with no questions asked.

A single station in Birmingham in the UK reported 500 thefts and 87 assaults in 2002. The rail network in neighbouring Merseyside experienced 285 violent assaults on its rail network in the same year. On the other side of the world, in Melbourne, Australia, public transport crime has reportedly risen by almost 50 per cent in the past five years as a proportion of all crime.

The Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) has begun working with the police association on a package of joint demands for increased staffing of police and railway workers in vulnerable locations. In Melbourne 130 of a total 209 stations are now unstaffed. “We are calling for a repopulation of the system with properly trained rail employees,” said RTBU Victoria branch secretary Trevor Dobbyn.

If any graphic illustration were needed of the direct relationship between under-investment, inadequate safety standards and violence, this is provided in the case of Metrorail trains in the Western Cape of South Africa, where insecure, defective trains have been seized upon by violent criminals.

Many trains run without windows and with doors that stay open when the train is moving. As a result criminals get regular easy access to defenceless commuters, and in some cases have thrown passengers from the moving train after robbing them.

The chairman of the Rail Commuters Action Group claimed to have observed 68 sets of open sliding doors on 53 moving trains on just one day in June 2003. The group is demanding that guards be deployed on trains with defective doors, and that such doors be locked and sealed with warning stickers until they can be repaired or replaced.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has thrown its weight behind these demands, presented in a formal application to the Cape High Court to force the train company to rectify the problem. COSATU in June 2003 was threatening mass action in support of the demands, but an appeal by Metrorail led to suspension of the case until an appeal court hearing in September.

Many transport operators are prepared to take some degree of responsibility for tackling violent crime on their networks. Among major rail and bus services in industrialised countries especially, millions of dollars are being spent by governments and employers alike to try to address the problem – with varying degrees of success. In other areas, especially the taxi and minibus sectors, workers are left with no protection at all.

Multi-faceted approaches
Investment is needed on many fronts depending on the very different circumstances of the different sectors. The priority might be staffing levels, training, surveillance, protective equipment – such as two way radios and drivers' screening, rerouting to avoid trouble spots, timetabling, or joint working with local stakeholders to tackle crime along transport routes or in areas outside stations.

Where possible there should be partnerships between transport operators, police forces, and local government bodies. Finally transport staff who do become victims of attack need psychological and medical support and, most essentially, job or financial protection should their injuries prove debilitating.

What appears to be lacking in many sectors and regions are effective workplace policies on violence – agreed by unions and employers, implemented, monitored and reviewed. Binding commitments are needed to show that this critical aspect of safety has been brought into the heart of the transport operation. According to many unions, no such commitments are evident.

One assaulted rail worker in Japan told the Mainichi Daily News earlier this year:

“Even though people are demanding more patrols on platforms to prevent violence, our company is laying off people and we haven't got enough hands to go around to do that sort of stuff. All we can do is pray that the police help.”

Transport trade unions have been extremely active in demanding change. West African drivers' unions have used industrial action to gain international publicity for the problem of harassment and extortion by police at roadblocks. In one notable incident last year ITF affiliates in the West African state of Cote D'Ivoire brought the capital Abidjan to a standstill during a five-day strike in protest at the shooting dead of a young minibus driver by a policeman at a road block.

In the UK, following lobbying by the Transport and General Workers' Union (TGWU), the government produced a guide book to inform employers of their legal obligation to protect staff from assault and recommended safe practices such as cashless ticketing, controlled circuit television and provision of personal alarms for drivers. The TGWU continues to lobby government and employers on other initiatives to support vulnerable workers.

Unions in the UK, Luxembourg, Australia and many other countries are negotiating with employers in-depth proposals for the better protection of staff. The high-court action being supported by COSATU in South Africa shows unions joining forces with civil society to demand change through the justice system.

Trade unions are found working jointly with commuters' pressure groups, local councils and police associations in the quest for safer urban transport systems. There is no shortage of stakeholders prepared to recognise the vital need to protect the users and the providers of transport services in the towns and cities of the world. This is one campaign where transport trade unions can expect the support of a captive public audience.

Minibus taxis in South Africa
Most drivers of long standing have experienced some form of serious crime or aggression, irrespective of age or gender.

Beatrice Ntombi, a Gauteng driver, was the target of an attempted hijacking in October 2000. She fled her taxi with the key, leaving her passengers in the vehicle. She was lucky as a passer-by witnessed what was happening, stopped to help her and called the police. Some are not so fortunate:

“The trick is not to look your assailant in the eye…We have buried too many fellow drivers because of acts of violence.”

Some drivers search their passengers for firearms as a preventive measure. Margaret Zungu searches all her passengers if she is driving after dark. She does not discriminate between those with licensed firearms and those with unlicensed firearms:

“If you've found a licensed firearm the situation is already unsafe, as other passengers will have seen the gun. The owner could be a target of gun theft and you're then a hijack target. So the rule is, no guns in the vehicle after dark.”

Some employer associations conduct official gun searches, but this is usually only over the December holiday season. Many drivers carry guns themselves, but others have realized that it is safer not to be armed.

Extracted from Organizing in the informal economy: A case study of the minibus taxi industry in South Africa, by Jane Barrett, SATAWU, South Africa

Sample blueprint for a workplace policy (main points)

Rail, Maritime and Transport Union, UK

Every employer whose employees come into contact with the public should have a written policy covering workplace violence based upon zero tolerance. This should include:

– A recognition of the risk

– A commitment to introducing measures to reduce that risk

– A statement as to who is responsible for doing what

– A commitment to support those employees who become victims.

The content of the policy should be brought to the attention of every employee. Every employer should have an effective organisation and procedures to support that policy.

Wherever possible the agreed control measures should always seek to deal directly with the causes of violence, but where the risk cannot be completely eliminated, a combination of controls should be considered. These may include for example:

– The need for additional staff

– Redesign of the work requirements

– Provision of communication and alarm systems

– Installation of monitoring equipment

– Periodic conflict avoidance training.

Employees should be informed of any control measures in place and what to do in an emergency. They should also be actively encouraged to report every incident of workplace violence and advised how this should be done.

In the event of a reported incident, employers should have arrangements in place for:

– The circumstances of the incident to be fully investigated and recorded.

– Advising Health and Safety representatives of any reported incident of workplace violence

– Staff to be supported when dealing with the police and during any prosecution that may follow

– Victims to receive confidential counselling where required and full pay while incapacitated.

– A managed return to work that considers what ongoing support the member of staff may need and whether a gradual return to full workers' hours, reduced workload or the possibility of a job change is necessary.

Where a decision is taken by the relevant authorities not to pursue criminal proceedings against the assailant, the employer should consider taking out a private prosecution or seeking a banning order.

Extracted from RMT News, the monthly magazine of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union of the UK.

الصفحة الرئيسية للأقسام:
Issue 13 October 2003

نسخة الرسومات الكاملة

إمكانية الدخول | مساعدة الموقع | خريطة الموقع

صحيفة الاتحاد الدولي لعمال النقل

ITF House, 49-60 Borough Road, London SE1 1DR | +44 20 7403 2733 | mail@itf.org.uk