Musings from a siding

Now i’ve retired from the rail industry I could be vegetating in one of those 1950’s styled electronic chairs that lifts via a handset (frequently confused with the TV remote), listen to Perry Como gramophone records, or maybe spend every afternoon wandering in and out of my neighbours’ French windows in order to discuss funeral plans? That is what our delightful media organisations think we do. But I happy to report that, so far, I haven’t succumbed to daytime TV, I’m still playing my Cure albums at volume 12, and I don’t have a neighbour called ‘June’ whose excitement in life is getting a free pen and getting cremated. Mind you, it’s only been three weeks, so there’s plenty of time yet for me to fathom the attraction of garden centres.

Meanwhile I continue to observe our extraordinary profession from the sidings. Yesterday I completed the online voting form for the new board of an esteemed professional organisation. I’m quite diligent when it comes to the democratic process. I always read candidate statements, even if I know them personally. Well, you never know what lays under the ballast do you?

One of the great things about railway operations is, to paraphrase our marvellous Bard, its infinite variety, and that its magnificence of age cannot wither, nor custom stale. I like to think I’ve been passionate in my support for the institution which underpins the discipline so superbly. It was with this dedication in mind that I settled into reading mode from my comfy chair, with a cup of hard water M&S tea and a funeral plan pen to make notes.

After reading the first few I felt my enthusiasm starting to sag like an overhead wire in a heatwave. I thought I’d better finish them before my ADD activated however, and by the time I’d read them all I felt my main res’ air beginning to drop. As might be expected for such a role, the majority of hopefuls were from senior management or executive positions, with (as far as I could make out) the remainder from supporting function areas. In their responses to the excellent questions posed there were an awful lot of soundbites, buzzwords and biznophrases, many of which read like they’d been cut and pasted from a CV. Amongst the ‘whole system thinking’ and ‘sustainability’ narratives was the odd word or two, here and there, which I’d seen in articles on how to spot the possible use of AI in text. It would be indiscreet and unfair for me to reveal what those words were, but a quick interweb search should provide clues for those so inclined. If that sounds far fetched you only have to look at this very site to see that the use of AI is offered for assistance with articles and posts by the press of a single button. At least my style of writing is clearly not befitting of artificial intelligence. It amuses me to occasionally throw in the odd strigulationary extractification to deliberately compunctualise any scanning software keen to robot my writings. In the statements I read it surprised me that even given the required paucity of words there were lots of assurances of experience, but very little apparent specific supporting evidence.

Whilst reading of the applicants’ undoubted commitment to diversity I began to wonder why so many men seem to have advisory roles on ‘women in industry’ initiatives? Diversity can be a perilous subject to wax lyrical on without being diverted up any number of risky branch lines. For the purposes of this posting I shall therefore stick to the main route. Luckily in this exercise the applicant statements stuck mainly to matters of ‘women/females’, with sincere smatterings of ‘pride’ here and there, so the question could be satisfied without too much risk of ending up at Bromley North.

At this point my mind drifted slightly and I was reminded of an occasion in a previous existence when I was required to attend an obligatory ‘unconscious bias’ course. Once again the focus was overwhelmingly steered towards women and race. When I asked the course tutor why we didn’t appear to be broadening the range, the class was informed that ‘there hadn’t been enough employee volunteered data to make it possible’. I didn’t pursue the matter as I didn’t want to be the nuisance element of the group. However later, in one of the working group exercises, I did raise the issue again as the continuing narrow focus was beginning to concern me whilst the mountain of Post-It Notes grew ever larger. In an attempt to widen the scope a bit, and using one of the multitude of other categories the tutor had written on the flip chart up front, I asked our little group if any of them knew how many of the organisation’s executives were ‘LGBTQ’? After a short and rather telling uncomfortable silence the designated group spokesperson snapped “we don’t have the data on that and we can’t force people to volunteer information if they don’t want to”. It somehow seemed an appropriate, albeit unintentionally perfect example of what we’d been told ‘unconscious bias’ actually was. Needless to say it didn’t get recorded for posterity on a fluorescent yellow sticky note.

Forgive me, I coasted a bit there. Back to the election statements in hand. After reviewing them all I duly cast my vote based on how well I thought they might best fulfil the task and represent our members. After which I sank back in my chair somewhat saddened that it felt so riven with the privilege of seniority. I felt deflated to have had to make my choice from declarations that were so weighted with unsubstantiated ‘whole system’ and ‘sustainability’ assurances. More than one applicant also couldn’t even state the name of the organisation correctly in their submission text.

Yes, yes, yes, that may be nitpicking, and I know it makes me sound a bit rusty rail, but surely the least anyone could do if they want the prestige of being a board member is get the name of the organisation right? I felt similarly deflated by the apparent lack of applicant representation from blue-collar grades and from people of colour. Is it really reasonable for this role expectation be so naturally aligned with executives or directors, as though that in itself is the required indication of intelligence, experience, dedication and aptitude? It further disappointed me that the applicant technical background area was significantly higher from one main industry sector, with so few from any customer facing roles. I say all of this with the greatest of respect to those applicants – I really do. I am not doubting their skills, accomplishments and resolve in any way; my disquiet was really about the choice of candidate offered and that there was little meaningful representation from that glorious diversity the candidate questions sought to gain assurances from. Given that we are now faced with the most radical shake up of our rail industry since privatisation, with massive change coming I also noted that not one candidate mentioned this in their pitch (at least that I could find). I suspect this might have been a result of some possible CV cutting and pasting? Who knows?

When it’s all done and dusted and the ash pans from this election are emptied into the pit of history I dare say the duly-elected of this parish will do a good job, and of course I will offer my support just as I always have. Even from the cushions I am now riding on I’m still interested and I still care. But what I would dearly love to see before I am shunted off to the breakers’ yard is a wider and more diverse representation at this level of business function. Tea can taste just as good from a can as from a bone china cup.