An acquaintance of mine sent me a rather interesting article recently.
In light of some of the discussions we've had on some Threads here:
Referencing: T&E Crew Size, with reductions in on-board personnel.
I felt it might be an appropriate article to link here for comments from some of our Railroad Posters, and others here.
The linked article is not from a source I regularly read or monitor, but seems to be a legitimate topic to be discussed here.
Linked @ http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17081/rail_workers_single_person_train_crew
BY ALEXANDRA BRADBURY
[Edit to add some content from article 08/06/2014 ]
FTA:"...“There’s a real rank-and-file rebellion going on right now,” says Jen Wallis, a Seattle switchman-conductor for Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway. “People who’ve never been involved in the union, never went to a union meeting, they are showing up and they’re joining Railroad Workers United in droves.
“People are saying, ‘We have to take action now to stop it. We can’t let our union officers do this to us.’”
What’s all the fuss? On July 16, thousands of railroaders abruptly learned their union officers had held secret negotiations with BNSF, one of the country’s biggest freight carriers, and reached a deal to allow single-person train crews: a safety disaster.
Ballots on the tentative agreement went out in early August, and are due back in early September. If the vote goes up, huge freight trains could rumble through towns across the western U.S. with just an engineer onboard, no conductor.
: FTA:'... 'The Craft War’
"...The secret pact is controversial even among leaders of SMART. But division leaders responsible for the contract are pushing it hard.
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, a Teamsters division, represents most engineers. Both SMART and the BLET formally oppose one-person crews, though they haven’t exactly presented a strong united front.
The rivalry between the unions—and a fatalistic sense that the change is inevitable—have fueled a series of backstabbing deals.As crews dwindled, the rail unions mainly battled over who would represent the remaining workers.
“While the unions had been on and off paying lip service to the idea of a two-person crew and intolerance for single-person crews, they’ve also been hedging their bets, saying ‘Meanwhile we’re going to cut whatever deal we need to make sure if there’s going to be a last man standing, by God, it’s going to be us,’” sighs Kaminkow..."
My Union officials negotiated a 'profit sharing' agreement with my carrier.
When the details of the agreement were published and put up for vote of the union membership -
the vote was 317 Against - ZERO For.
Just because union officials negotiate something, doesn't mean the rank and file will agree with it. As can be seen from the above vote - the officials that negotiated the agreement didn't even vote for it.
First time in my life I have EVER seen a unanimous union vote.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Over on a rail labor forum, many are afraid that some will only see the $5000.00 signing bonus and maybe the "promise" of generous labor protection.
My latest issue of Railway Age has a couple of articles and columns devoted to this. The editorial recalls an old (1958) RA issue where they tackled work rules issues, many that they called "feather bedding." Frank Wilner in his column, he also wrote the feature article, talks about how the protections could allow some to have a guaranteed income for 30 years without being active on the property. (Note. He actually is praising BNSF and the Smart/UTU GCA that negotiated the agreement. How forward looking it is for both sides and doesn't adversely affect anyone.) Yeah, that will happen. I'm sure once they have this or similar agreements in place, we'll be hearing again about feather bedding and how those displaced shouldn't be entitled to income for life.
I believe there were many back around the creation of Conrail who complained about the unions wanting labor protections for displaced workers. I believe John Kneilling was one of the most vocal through his columns about how railroaders thought they were entitled to jobs for life.
Jeff
I care about keeping trains moving across the land!
Trains are mechanical items manufactured by man, maintained by man, used by man and abused by man - mechanical things fail - generally at the most inopportune time and inaccessible location. Having a one man crew will exacerbate the length of all delays.
You can have all the Master Conductors you want - unless they are ON the train that has trouble - there is delay getting their manpower in play - delay that works against the Sole Operator's Hours of Service time, further clogging the line involved.
On my carrier, a train with HAZMAT goes into emergency in multiple track territory, NO TRAIN can pass until the last HAZMAT in the train has been inspected and KNOWN to be on the rail. On a 9000-10000 Foot train you are talking 1.5 to 2 hours to get to the rear of the train (Remember, train is being INSPECTED and the walking conditions are main track ballast - not a sidewalk.) and then the operator has to return to the head end.
jeffhergertI believe there were many back around the creation of Conrail who complained about the unions wanting labor protections for displaced workers.
All workers were covered by "NY Dock" which essentially guaranteed them income protection for 5 years based on their recent history. So, if a guy worked a ton of overtime prior to "day one", he was guaranteed that amount of money for five years (he couldn't turn down overtime, though.)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.