Me neither. I graduated with a B.S. in Transportation 40+ years ago. Railroads came to the college to interview Transportation graduates and I sat with Chessie, SOU, ATSF and C&NW. The railroads were looking for Trainmasters and knowing about the nature of the role, I decided that it probably wasn't for me. The railroads offered the highest salaries, but not that much better than the industrials. I signed on with an industrial and spent my entire career with them. I got to work with the railroads and that was the perfect fit.
The 'Hi-Viz' attendance policies looks to have been created by a teen age video game wiz that thinks real world railroaders can be jerked around like video game avatars.
Exactly what was expected. "The company says the matter has to be resolved by negotiating, not striking." Since when do they issue such an edict? This sounds rather dictatorial to me. Verging on the side of being just a plain low class thug.
End game - get enough train crew to quit, they can 'force' one man crews. Then work towards completely crewless trains. So much for safety. This is the result of lawyers and accountants running things, not railroaders.
Yes it is. The old head crew I know are just hoping to hang on until the day of their 30 or 40 year date. . . I haven't spoken to any of the younger ones, but I do know some that refused to go back after the last round of layoffs here. I guess we will see how this plays out.
If this is truly a back door to one man crews, I wonder if they'll have enough people for even doing that? And i can't wait until they pile up a two mile (plus) long monster, with a one man or even crewless train. I wonder how much they'll be saving after the billions of dollars in litigation?
I was meaning that, under the current, labor friendly, administration, I doubt that the government would even consider allowing one man, or unmanned, crews. There are all sorts of rules, laws, and guidelines that the Feds can use to stop it... at least until after the next election. Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
It seems to me that the railroads have both parties in their pocket. BNSF is making huge bux hauling oil since there is no pipeline. They aren't sobbing about that. Yet the alternative was hauling supplies to the build sites, which I saw a lot of a few years ago getting stockpiled here in Glendive, then all of that pipe got hauled away by train and truck. Either way, the big roads are going to spend what they can to eliminate employees, which the management see as liabilities instead of as assets. And that simply is the problem right there. At least we can still model away and enjoy the hobby side of it!!
Union says BNSF attendance policy violates Railway Labor Act https://www.trains.com/trn/news-rev...attendance-policy-violates-railway-labor-act/ Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk
Not sure how they could stop such an attempt. This could be a court matter all the way. Whether they were able to simply move ahead to begin with, or might need to take any interfering bureaucracy itself into the battle, as well. Meanwhile, I am still baffled by the RR's asserting the union *must* just "negotiate". To me this is absolutely non-negotiable, from moment one. I would not sit down with them for a single second.
Lawyers and accountants in charge. Directed by the quarterly profit and operating ration model. And with great animus towards employees. Legal? Probably not, but if you throw enough mud at the wall, some sticks.
Yes, they can. In this instance, it has huge implications for not just this one company, but the entire industry. I have heard from people within their ranks, and folks from other US and Canadian operations. None are happy. In fact their responses range clear to fear.
That's part of the problem. The unions have attempted to negotiate availabilty for decades and the carriers have failed to come up with anything, which is why the carriers turned to a company policy. Since it's a matter of policy and not an agreement, the unions' hands are tied when it comes to investigations involving availability. This has been a point of contention for a long time. For the carriers to suggest that this point must now be negotiated is a cruel joke. Where have the lawyers claiming this been all this time?
