QUOTE: (The following story by Larry Swisher was published by the Bureau of National Affair’s Daily Labor Report on November 26.) WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Negotiations between a dozen unions and the five largest U.S. freight railroads for new contracts to cover 155,000 employees have barely begun but already face stumbling blocks, according to labor representatives. Although face-to-face sessions have yet to be scheduled, the latest round of national bargaining officially began Nov. 1, when the National Carriers' Conference Committee, representing the railroads, began exchanging written lists of demands with the unions, which negotiate separately except on health and welfare issues. Heading the carriers' list of major demands is a proposal to do away with minimum crew sizes on trains as well as to eliminate the different operating employee crafts, such as engineer, conductor, and switchman. Instead, the railroads want to be able to use a single qualified "transportation employee" to operate a train under some conditions instead of the current requirement for at least one engineer and one conductor on each locomotive. Unions leaders said the proposal raises safety and other concerns and has the potential of forcing some of the various unions that represent the operating crafts to go out of business or merge with others. Paul Thompson, president of the United Transportation Union, which represents most conductors, said because of the railroads' "extreme" demands, "we are in store for a difficult round of negotiations." The unions also are fighting another sweeping proposal by the railroads to replace the industry's unique workers' compensation system, established under the 1908 Federal Employees' Liability Act. That law permits railroad workers who suffer serious injuries on the job to sue companies for damages in addition to lost wages and medical costs. Labor leaders vowed to oppose the railroads' bid to develop a legislative proposal for Congress that would enact a no-fault-type program like the joint federal-state workers' compensation system for on-the-job injuries in most other industries. The current contracts, which become amendable Jan. 1, will remain in effect indefinitely as long as negotiations continue. In previous rounds, the two sides sometimes have taken three or four years to reach agreements. Don Hahs, president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, which represents 30,000 engineers and other railroad workers, said the key issue in this round of negotiations is the carriers' proposal to do away with the traditional train operating and engine service crafts and consolidate them into a "transportation employee" category, working under a single collective bargaining agreement. "I doubt very seriously that they'll get to that point," Hahs told BNA Nov. 19. Hahs said he believes the railroads' underlying goal is to secure changes in the contracts that will enable them to dictate how many employees and which ones will make up the crew for any train, depending on the workload and trip. "Everything with the carriers is cost control--doing more with less," he said. "People are not equipment." The carriers, which include the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co., CSX Transportation, Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Norfolk Southern Railway Co., and Union Pacific, have increased volume, revenues, and employment over the past year as economic growth has picked up. Currently, because of a shortage of qualified crews and booming freight business, employees are working too many days and shifts without sufficient rest, Hahs and UTU officials agreed. "They are being pushed in many cases beyond their limit," Hahs said, adding that a number of accidents have occurred recently because of fatigue. The far-reaching implications of the railroads' train crew proposal prompted BLE, which competes with UTU for membership among operating employees, to ask all rail unions to join in a coalition to bargain collectively with the carriers, presenting a united front against the crew change. By agreeing to bargain jointly, the unions could prevent the railroads from reaching a detrimental agreement with one union that would become a pattern for subsequent negotiations with the others, Hahs said. UTU represents about 46,000 employees. In response to the coalition proposition, UTU along with most other major rail labor organizations sent representatives to a meeting Nov. 22 in Washington, D.C., aimed at reaching agreement on the proposed coalition. UTU and the Transportation Communications Union declined to join, however, according to Hahs and a UTU spokesman. Organizations representing maintenance of way employees, signalmen, firemen, and oilers agreed to be part of the group, Hahs said, and most other unions also are expected to join. "Obviously we left the door open for the others to reconsider and be a part of it as time goes by," he told BNA Nov. 23. Even without UTU and TCU, the group will represent a majority--probably about 53 percent--of all railroad workers, he said. UTU spokesman Frank Wilner said UTU already has an agreement with the carriers that every train will carry a conductor, while BLE does not have a similar agreement for engineers. "Only a fool would open the hen house door and provide a power of attorney and negotiating power to someone who might not have the best interests of the UTU at heart," Wilner said. Freight Railroads Seek Productivity Gains The current contracts require the railroads to use more employees than needed with today's improved technology and increased use of computers and other technology, NCCC Chairman Robert Allen said Nov. 9. "So we want to use only those number of employees required, not more," Allen said in an interview. The fact that the operating employees have two unions is "their business," he said. "But it's like having two unions in the cockpit of an airplane. It doesn't make sense." If the change to a one-person crew means the two unions have to merge, "so be it," he said. Unlike most railroad unions, UTU is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO, and the rivalry between UTU and BLE has intensified since BLE members voted in December 2001 to reject a proposed merger with UTU (237 DLR A-1, 12/12/01). This year, both BLE and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, which represents about 35,000 workers, voted to join the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as independent divisions in a new railway conference of the IBT. The carriers' group explained that over the past 20 years, new technologies, such as remote control devices, have been introduced that improve both the safety and productivity of railroad operations. Despite recent growth in freight volume and income, companies still struggle to fund the high capital costs of building and maintaining rail infrastructure, Allen said. Consolidating the operating employee crafts and reducing crew sizes will lead to "steady business growth, new job opportunities in the long run, and a stronger, more balanced national transportation system," the railroads said. A growing number of retirements among the aging rail workforce will allow the productivity improvements to be made without causing employees to lose jobs, Allen said. Amtrak, which bargains separately from the freight carriers, has used one-person passenger train crews on limited-duration trips for many years, he said. "When we can safely operate with one person, that's what we're after," Allen said. But Hahs said one-person Amtrak trains are allowed only on trips lasting less than six hours. The Northeast corridor, where most of those trains operate, has automatic train stops, so if something happens to the engineer, the train cannot move, he said. "There's a lot to be considered" in discussing crew sizes and composition, Hahs said. He suggested that the railroads would be better off keeping two operating employees on each train but training conductors to relieve engineers for short periods en route to reduce fatigue. "It would make for safer operating and wouldn't take near the redefining of the workplace," he said. Workers' Compensation System Called 'Corrupt.' Allen criticized the rail workers' compensation system under the Federal Employees' Liability Act as a "a fault-based system that pits one side against the other." Many injury claims end up in court and jury trials, he said. "A lot of time and money" is spent on the process, and a large portion of the damages awarded goes to trial lawyers, not the employees, Allen said. "This system breeds corruption," he added. "We feel strongly that FELA needs to be changed," he said. "We're asking labor to work with us on a win-win solution and together go to Congress." Critics of the system gained fuel for their arguments with the recent convictions of two former UTU officials on racketeering charges for soliciting cash payments from lawyers who received official approval from the Cleveland-based union to represent members in FELA cases. In July, a federal judge sentenced former UTU presidents Byron Boyd of Seattle and Charles A Little of Leander, Texas, to serve two years in prison without parole and forfeit to the government $100,000 each in racketeering proceeds (134 DLR A-14, 7/14/04). UTU spokesman Frank Wilner said replacing FELA would reduce safety and that the union responded to the scandal by terminating the two officers and establishing an ethics board headed by former National Mediation Board Chairman Joshua Javits. The new board has created and will enforce rules of conduct for UTU-approved attorneys as well as for all UTU officers, members, and employees. To continue to be designated by the union to represent members, attorneys had to attest in writing that they did not make any such illegal cash contributions. "When juries award damages under FELA, strong messages are sent to carriers that they cannot ignore workplace safety without paying an even greater price than if they corrected the unsafe workplace conditions to begin with," UTU's Thompson said. The railroads need to do a better job of "protecting the public and their employees from real dangers rather than attacking an injury compensation program," Wilner said. "This is another shocking example of putting profit above safety."
QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel European railroads run freight trains with one-man-crews. there is no safety-problem.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel European railroads run freight trains with one-man-crews. there is no safety-problem. Ah, but thefre are other issues. Check out this month's TRAINS magazine article about european freight railroading. Simply put, one man crews run shorter, lighter trains and are less able to perform switching enroute. In addition, there can be safety issues as well... LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by CHPENNSYLVANIA In the past how many people worked on a single freight train. Also, how about passenger trains. In the late 60's I heard more people worked on some trains than rode them California Zepher
QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller In the old days, didn't the Conductor outrank the Engineer? And today with 2 man crews, doesn't the Engineer outrank the Conductor? How have the duties of the Conductor changed? When they got rid of cabooses, did the former Conductors get demoted?
QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy Technically you could say that the conductor is still the boss, even though if that train goes through a red light, both conductor and engineer will be responsible.
QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy Technically you could say that the conductor is still the boss, even though if that train goes through a red light, both conductor and engineer will be responsible. But aren't today's conductors paid less and have less experience than the engineers? It seems a little backwards to call the conductor the boss. I always thought that in the old days, engineers were promoted to become conductors, but today conductors are promoted to become engineers. Maybe the term conductor is a misnomer for the modern position. Do today's conductors do paperwork for managing their trains?
QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller But aren't today's conductors paid less and have less experience than the engineers? It seems a little backwards to call the conductor the boss. I always thought that in the old days, engineers were promoted to become conductors, but today conductors are promoted to become engineers. Maybe the term conductor is a misnomer for the modern position. Do today's conductors do paperwork for managing their trains?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Nora QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller But aren't today's conductors paid less and have less experience than the engineers? It seems a little backwards to call the conductor the boss. I always thought that in the old days, engineers were promoted to become conductors, but today conductors are promoted to become engineers. Maybe the term conductor is a misnomer for the modern position. Do today's conductors do paperwork for managing their trains? It was explained to me one time that when there used to be larger crews, brakemen were promoted to conductor and firemen were promoted to engineer, and those were two separate things. That's how I understood it, anyway. As far as I know, ever since there have been only conductors and engineers on most trains, new employees start off as conductors and then get promoted to engineer. But don't quote me on that...I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I am wrong. :)
QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin Single man crews can be done, but will it save? First you should have CTC or some other train control that the engineer can keep his eyes on the road, we have CTC in many places but not everywhere yet. Then you need to address breakdowns such as broken hoses, bad orders, knuckes including some of the false alarms. This can be done by running shorter trains and/or having mobile brakeman in pickup trucks roaming the roads around the subdivision. Then you have work on route, swichting at lineside industries and yards. This again can use the mobile brakeman or increased staff at yards. Some technoligies could help. Then you have to deal with bad weather. Trains would get over the road slower, block swapping less of an option (or run short trains again). But like I said, it can be done, but would it save money?
QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy QUOTE: Originally posted by Nora QUOTE: Originally posted by ajmiller But aren't today's conductors paid less and have less experience than the engineers? It seems a little backwards to call the conductor the boss. I always thought that in the old days, engineers were promoted to become conductors, but today conductors are promoted to become engineers. Maybe the term conductor is a misnomer for the modern position. Do today's conductors do paperwork for managing their trains? It was explained to me one time that when there used to be larger crews, brakemen were promoted to conductor and firemen were promoted to engineer, and those were two separate things. That's how I understood it, anyway. As far as I know, ever since there have been only conductors and engineers on most trains, new employees start off as conductors and then get promoted to engineer. But don't quote me on that...I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I am wrong. :) That's correct Nora. There used to be "Train Service" (Brakemen and Conductors) and "Engine Service" (Firemen and Engineers). As you stated, Brakemen would become Conductors and Firemen would become Engineers. Depending on seniority in their area, some brakemen would transfer from Train service to Engine service because their seniority could hold better jobs on the other board, and visa versa, a fireman my transfer from engine service to train service so he could hold a better job. Generally you didn't go back and forth, you were usually one or the other and that would be your career path (Train or Engine Service). That's also why you have engineers out there that have never been conductors, and conductors out there that never took engineer training, those guys are the last of the breed, as now all new hires start in train service then are trained too become engineers when seniority permits. Now, with the article above, it sounds like the RRs want to get rid of the titles of "Conductors and Engineers" and just have a single employee that is qualified to run a train. A "Train Service Employee." Now how that would work with new hires is beyond me, I would have to think new hires would have to be paired up with someone for a substancial amount of time before they would be "let loose" to run an entire train all on their own. It's the evolution of the running trades - so to speak.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282 IIRC the Indiana RR also has remote controlled power switches so that the engineer can also 'key up" a switch when needed on the radio. (Like keying up the dispatcher only it bends the iron instead of attracting the dispatcher's attention.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.