schlimm Those golden watch retirement gifts are ancient history. Loyalty is a two-way street; corporations dropped loyalty to employees as a value long ago.
Those golden watch retirement gifts are ancient history. Loyalty is a two-way street; corporations dropped loyalty to employees as a value long ago.
The gold-watch retirement gifts aren't totally dead, or they weren't when I retired from my first career in May 2011. I was given a decent little desk clock, which now adorns the credenza at my current job. After 22 years with the same agency, and 32 years with the same government, I felt I had earned it.
However, you are correct that loyalty from employer to employee is pretty much gone. I watched bosses who destroyed people's lives for no good reason serve out their time with no visible consequences. I can only hope that karma is a mutant ninja female dog from Hell, and remembers those bosses.
When I was working, (I retired 10/2/06) the company still gave employees who were a little higher than I was dinners when they retired. I was given a party in the plant, and some gifts--one of which was a large framed picture of a European train on a bridge (I asked if it was known what and where, and was told that there was something on the back of the picture about it, and there was a paper backing covering it). The best gift was from two employees with whom I had interfaced--a small desktop statuette of a man in a hula skirt and the saying, "Retired, and no longer taking any c**p." The two who gave it to me had never given me any difficulty.
One of my supervisors knew less about my job than I did; two or three times after I did something that was done occasionally, yet I saw the necessity of doing them, he thought I had done something extraordinary, and gave me an award (for doing my job, as I saw it).
Johnny
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
jeffhergert Don't forget it's drilled into young people's head that they will change jobs, if not entire career paths, every couple of years. Jeff
Speakinga s a 30-something, it wasn't so much drilled as was observed. People working for 20-30 years to walk and and be given a pink slip makes you realize there is no such thing as loyalty in the real world. Get as much as you can when you can. Not many industries that will provide a life of employment. And yes, that includes the railroads anymore. Who knows if I'll be out here another 30 years (by choice or not).
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann MP173 I certainly would not expect a lower management person to remain at a long hour, high stress job simply to climb the management ladder...at least not today.
MP173 I certainly would not expect a lower management person to remain at a long hour, high stress job simply to climb the management ladder...at least not today.
Paul_D_North_Jr After all, the annual reports all say "employees are the most important assets of the company", - Paul North.
- Paul North.
While almost every company, railroad or otherwise, seems to say that quote, they all don't exactly think that. To modify it to how many of them really feel about their workers you need to delete "the most important" and "of the company" and drop the "t" from assets.
Jeff
MP173 Today's young adults move rapidly between jobs. That is a factor which I have observed for about the last 10 years. Why? There are several theories out there, but my belief is that (in addition to this being a much more mobil society in terms of communication) many of these 30 year olds watched their parents get downsized from their jobs 10-15 years ago. Mom and dad would march off to the job they had for years and one day a decision was made to eliminate 10,000 (fill in the blank) jobs and suddenly there was instability in their homes. I certainly would not expect a lower management person to remain at a long hour, high stress job simply to climb the management ladder...at least not today. Ed
Today's young adults move rapidly between jobs. That is a factor which I have observed for about the last 10 years.
Why? There are several theories out there, but my belief is that (in addition to this being a much more mobil society in terms of communication) many of these 30 year olds watched their parents get downsized from their jobs 10-15 years ago. Mom and dad would march off to the job they had for years and one day a decision was made to eliminate 10,000 (fill in the blank) jobs and suddenly there was instability in their homes.
I certainly would not expect a lower management person to remain at a long hour, high stress job simply to climb the management ladder...at least not today.
Ed
Don't forget it's drilled into young people's head that they will change jobs, if not entire career paths, every couple of years.
MP173Why? There are several theories out there, but my belief is that (in addition to this being a much more mobil society in terms of communication)...
I think the communication is a huge factor. Why send a letter that will take 2-4 days to reach its intended recipient when you can just send a text or an email?
People have moved around for years - my mother and several friends packed up and headed to California for a couple of years shortly after WWII. They all came back to NY. There are plenty of other similar stories, both individuals and en masse (moving to Detroit for auto industry jobs).
The communication means there's a greater awareness of what lies beyond the fence, and it doesn't take days or weeks of word-of-mouth for that information to spread.
Too, I don't think that families and communities are as close-knit as they used to be. You stayed in your home town because, well, it was your home town. That loyalty has faded.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I had a manager that believed, "anybody can do any job". I proved him wrong!
I told him I was the CEO that day and said, "YOU'RE FIRED!" (This was long before 'The Donald' tried to copyright the phrase for his "Idiot Apprentice" TV show.)
Didn't work anyway.
I always considered him the epitome of the 'Peter Principle'.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
MP173I certainly would not expect a lower management person to remain at a long hour, high stress job simply to climb the management ladder...at least not today.
Don't forget the low pay.
The 3 comments above are excellent and 'on-point', I believe.
In A Treasury of Railroad Folklore (Bodkin & Harlow, circa 1946, cited by Deggesty above), is the following observation: "As long as they keep promoting clerks to trainmasters, crews will have good jobs. It's the repetition" [of the operating pattern that is the crews' advantange].
BaltACD: That is a nuanced (not good) viewpoint - and a kind of "survivor" mentality - that I've not seen or heard of before. Reality today is that no one who is any good will put up with that long and type of meniality when there are so many other choices open to them (see many John Kneiling columns to the same effect). So longevity in a position per se is not necessarily a good quality (see below). Wonder what the 'turnover' rate is at those levels - avg. years service per person ?
Schlimm & Norm: "+1"
Norm: 1) Giving up seniority is required to prevent conflicts-of-interest between a supervisor and his union brothers. This is a common labor relations problem in almost any unionized business. 2) Supervisors come, and then they go, but the crews stay - and become real experts in all of the special local provisions of the union contracts regarding extra pay, scope of each "job" / crew assignment, etc.
3) When I first started working for a track construction/ maintenance business, I was intended to become essentially a Track Supervisor = Roadmaster. The 'old heads' told me it would take about 2 years to become familiar with the material side of the position (esp. rail sections and turnout components). They were right, too - mainly because our territory covered several different railroads: PRR, RDG, CNJ, LV, L&NE, DL&W, B&O, WM, and NYC, plus a bunch of shortlines, industrial plants, and military bases (67-1/2 lb. Russian rail, for example), etc.
More generally: How is the competence/ effectiveness of a trainmaster objectively and quantifiably standardized and evaluated ? (other than zero safety incidents that quarter or year). A lot is out of their control - traffic volume, weather, motive power and track conditions, crew availability, etc. But even if that could be taken into account - how does management tell the good ones from the bad ones ? Does it even care ? (though it should) An occasional poster here - Selector - used to evaluate officer candidates in and for one of the Canadian armed forces - maybe he has some insights.
schlimm Management trainees were hired with a college degree minimum, but then spent several years gaining experience at lower levels so that they had at minimum some first-hand working knowledge of many sectors of their corporations.
That would be beneficial to both the corportaion and the newly promoted individual. Knowledge of what you're going to supervise is invaluable assuming one is capable of handling the suprevisory position. I know of one track supervisor who was hired 'off-the-street'. He tried to learn all he could from the people under him but finally conceded defeat and took another position with the railroad.
Promoting from within but denying those individuals the right to keep their seniority in their craft and forfeiting their right to return to same prompts people to say 'no way'. Lose seniority rights, have nothing to fall back on, and if things go south you're out the door. Management wonders why people won't accept that? It ain't rocket science.
Norm
Paul and Balt: The question of promotion from the ranks of union/contract employees to various levels of management vs. direct entry to the management track post bachelors or MBA degrees is one that has concerned many corporations besides the rails. There are advantages and negatives to both policies. ~30 years ago, corporations like IBM, pre-break up AT&T and Sears, among others, used a hybrid approach. Management trainees were hired with a college degree minimum, but then spent several years gaining experience at lower levels so that they had at minimum some first-hand working knowledge of many sectors of their corporations. AFAIK that approach ended. It's a real shame to see the waste of internal resources that we see today.
Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD Within my area of responsibility over the past year at least 6 Trainmasters have 'moved on'. Either went back on their contract seniority, went to various short line operations or sought other employement. Can't keep up with the changes without a scorecard, and Division Management won't produce a scorecard (because I don't think they know when the next shoe will drop). I have noted that, and am so tempted to ask that question from the floor at the next annual meeting of stockholders of the Class Is in which I own shares (includes CSX, NS, and CN). After all, the annual reports all say "employees are the most important assets of the company", so why is it that those assets are being wasted, lost (especially the training costs), and abused ? Failure to answer or to be able to answer that turnover question - especially if forewarned in advance by a letter to that effect - is pretty good evidence of management incompetence or neglect of the assets of the company, for which the management is supposed to be the trustees. Next question is why isn't it stated in the annual report, SEC 10-K, or reports to the FRA and STB ? Inexperience affects the safety of the operation too, another purported goal of the railroad and all of those organizations. I'll probably be too busy this year to try that stunt. Next year is a definite possibility, though. Worst they can do is throw me out, but it can be submitted in advance as a proposed resolution, which forces it to be considered at some level. - Paul North.
BaltACD Within my area of responsibility over the past year at least 6 Trainmasters have 'moved on'. Either went back on their contract seniority, went to various short line operations or sought other employement. Can't keep up with the changes without a scorecard, and Division Management won't produce a scorecard (because I don't think they know when the next shoe will drop).
I have noted that, and am so tempted to ask that question from the floor at the next annual meeting of stockholders of the Class Is in which I own shares (includes CSX, NS, and CN). After all, the annual reports all say "employees are the most important assets of the company", so why is it that those assets are being wasted, lost (especially the training costs), and abused ? Failure to answer or to be able to answer that turnover question - especially if forewarned in advance by a letter to that effect - is pretty good evidence of management incompetence or neglect of the assets of the company, for which the management is supposed to be the trustees. Next question is why isn't it stated in the annual report, SEC 10-K, or reports to the FRA and STB ? Inexperience affects the safety of the operation too, another purported goal of the railroad and all of those organizations.
I'll probably be too busy this year to try that stunt. Next year is a definite possibility, though. Worst they can do is throw me out, but it can be submitted in advance as a proposed resolution, which forces it to be considered at some level.
Just a personal thought as I have known several of our 'Ivory Tower' senior managers for approaching 30 years - years when they were lowly peeons (yes 2 e's).
They believe they aren't special didn't accrue any knowledge from their experiences and just morphed into their positions of power. With that being their percieved position - anybody hired off the street can do any position in the company - preferably without training, because training is expensive.
The reality is they are belitteling the efforts and experience that they had to put in to get in those positions as well as the efforts and experiences of those that now hold those intermediate positions. A sad state of affairs.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
ChuckCobleigh seppburgh2 A Treasury of Railroad Folklore maybe where I read it first. Just Googled and located the story, along with other good side splitters, at: http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/rr_jokes.html The last story about the frozen chicken is alleged to have happened at Lockheed Burbank during L-1011 development and testing, due to an inexperienced test manager. Captured in super slo-mo Hulcher camera action.
seppburgh2 A Treasury of Railroad Folklore maybe where I read it first. Just Googled and located the story, along with other good side splitters, at: http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/rr_jokes.html
A Treasury of Railroad Folklore maybe where I read it first. Just Googled and located the story, along with other good side splitters, at:
http://www.spikesys.com/Trains/rr_jokes.html
The last story about the frozen chicken is alleged to have happened at Lockheed Burbank during L-1011 development and testing, due to an inexperienced test manager. Captured in super slo-mo Hulcher camera action.
Oldies, but still good for a laugh.
blue streak 1 Deggesty man, complete with yellow gloves and shades who was riding, on a branch, in a coach with a coal stove . He complained about the cold air in the coach, and was told that it was cold because the heater was at the rear of the car. His response was to order that the car be operated with the heater at the front--despite the fact that there was no way to turn the car at the end of the branch. Jeff DEG: Since we can assume that this was a dead end branch wouldn't going the other way would put the stove in front ?
Deggesty man, complete with yellow gloves and shades who was riding, on a branch, in a coach with a coal stove . He complained about the cold air in the coach, and was told that it was cold because the heater was at the rear of the car. His response was to order that the car be operated with the heater at the front--despite the fact that there was no way to turn the car at the end of the branch. Jeff
man, complete with yellow gloves and shades who was riding, on a branch, in a coach with a coal stove . He complained about the cold air in the coach, and was told that it was cold because the heater was at the rear of the car. His response was to order that the car be operated with the heater at the front--despite the fact that there was no way to turn the car at the end of the branch.
DEG: Since we can assume that this was a dead end branch wouldn't going the other way would put the stove in front ?
Remember the 'wrong side of the tracks'?
Stove in the front of the car would cause its smoke to trail over the car while it is moving. Shouldn't be 'that big' of a consideration, but it could be.
Thanks, seppburgh2. I recognized a few of the anecdotes and enjoyed re-reading them--and enjoyed reading those that were new to me.
seppburgh2, that sounds as though it is from A Treasury of Railroad Folklore.
There are some gems in there, telling of middle management types who were hired off the street--such as the man who saw, while riding up and down, short lengths of rail with bent ends here and there and suggested that they be removed and put to good use after the ends were straightened. And there was the man, complete with yellow gloves and shades who was riding, on a branch, in a coach with a coal stove . He complained about the cold air in the coach, and was told that it was cold because the heater was at the rear of the car. His response was to order that the car be operated with the heater at the front--despite the fact that there was no way to turn the car at the end of the branch.
Jeff Hergert and Paul North may be able to quote some more examples.
Bobo probably outperformed all the other middle managers.
In another vein, a certain engine had been shopped and then was put out on the line. The engineer on the first run was having trouble getting the engine to run smoothly; the road foreman of engines was also on board, and when he saw the engineer's trouble, he put his crocheting down, went over, asked the engineer to get up, sat down, and tamed the engine. He had apparently come up from the ranks.
Within my area of responsibility over the past year at least 6 Trainmasters have 'moved on'. Either went back on their contract seniority, went to various short line operations or sought other employement. Can't keep up with the changes without a scorecard, and Division Management won't produce a scorecard (because I don't think they know when the next shoe will drop).
Of course some folks on here would say welcome to the real world of capitalism, where there is no job security.
BaltACD Today's railroads prefer to hire Trainmasters off the street so they can hold them hostage for their jobs as they have no contract positions to fall back on and no experience to know how badly they are being taken advantage of.
Still doesn't work. They just quit. So instead of having someone go back to the ranks (and still contribute to the company) they are providing that initial experience for the college grads to use to get a job at a better company. Guess that's nice of them.
jeffhergertA few who have looked into going over to the dark side that our company is now asking a person to give up their seniority in their old craft to be considered. One or two said they were told they would have to give it up. Jeff
Seems to be a pattern going around the industry where management doesn't want ANY employee (including non-contract) to have a fall back position. "My STUPID way or on the street you go, profitability be damned."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.