I haven't read much about the relationship between labor and management but I know most railroad employees are union. Would be curious to hear stories.
No. Claims submitted, that are good, are constantly declined. The workforce has to fight, scratch and claw just to get paid correctly. This creates yet more 'us vs. them' culture. Many claims get paid but that is through a process that can take months and even yrs in some cases. Right now I have 8 RO claims just this yr and all have been declined and then forwarded to the local chairman. Two from last yr were paid a couple halfs ago. A constant cat and mouse game. gets old but now is the norm. Young guys have to be alert or $$$ can be lost in wages
SFbrkmn please offer some details of the clains being disputed. Most of us have no idea of the details of the Agreement between the unions and RRs.
Run-around claims, where you're first out on the board and they use someone behind you, good for 4 hrs pay, used to be paid right away. Not anymore for us. Lately they have to be processed through the appeals process.
Others are extensive wait for a room at the away from home lodging facility. I waited for 90 minutes a few weeks ago. My denial had on it to turn in the claim to my local chairman (something that should be done anyway) for resolve at a later conference. That's unusual wording for a denial.
For road crews coming into a terminal with a switch engine on duty to put you're train away, they are supposed to yard you on a track that will hold you're train. Failing that, you are allowed to "double" those cars of your train that won't fit on other tracks. The idea is for the road crew to put away their train in the least amount of moves.
What is done sometimes (OK, most of the time at my home terminal) is to yard you on a track and then start saying, "Yard on track X, cut here and place them to track Y, then cut here place them to track Z." All while the yard engine stopped in the clear watches. Now none of the tracks are usually filled once done. Some of the tracks (Y and Z) may even have cars on them that you are told to tie into. That's called yard switching and is a claim for 8 hours at yard rates for the road crews.
There are some others. All are penalty claims for the carrier violating the contract they agreed to. All former arbitrary payment claims, like connecting air hoses where a carman is on duty, or the engine holding onto cars when going from the train to yard to make a pick-up, are gone. Either not available to those hired after 1985 and/or bought out in later contracts to those hired before 1985.
Even some things that would once have rated a penalty claim have been changed by agreements. On some (maybe all?) roads where they've gone to hourly pay rates instead of miliage based, my example of road crews doing switching is not a penalty. The inbound crew can yard their train in any manner instructed, and use any remaining HOS time to switch cars, do air tests, etc.
The appeals process can take years. Some claims get lumped together with other similar claims from all employees, others may get individual attention. Every so often, the union and carrier meet to resolve those claims. The carrier may offer to settle these claims at something less then their face value. Say 50 to 75 cents on the dollar. If the union agrees, the railroad pays off the claims. If they can't agree, they go to arbitration. (For those claims being handled individually, they will ask the claimant if they are willing to take what the railroad is offering. I had a run-through home terminal claim that they offered to pay at about 4/5ths of the claim submitted. I took it.) Arbitration is a gamble. Those who serve as arbitrators are agreed to by both carrier and union. Those who seem to give more one sided deciscions may not be agreed to be used in the future by the other side.
While I'm under no illusion of what management thinks of their employees, the denying of claims is just them trying to save themselves money. What illustrates what those in management/management support at the higher levels is this. One of our conductors transferred over to become a dispatcher. A dispatcher is management on our railroad. (One Director said he thought a dispatcher's job is only an entry level job to management. And that attitude shows sometimes.) This guy had a conference in the headquarters building. He was having lunch in the building's cafeteria. (Open by the way to anyone, railroad employee or not, downtown.) He kept hearing people at a neighboring table talking about, "train trash." He finally asked them what they were talking about. The answer was that "train trash" meant those who worked the trains. He did ask them if they realized that those working the trains were the ones that provided the service customers pay us for. I never heard if they gave a response.
Train Trash
Sorry to hear that, but know it doesn't (or didn't) apply to all dispatchers. But I can vouch that I received several paychecks well after I retired, due to claims that were finally fully processed.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Jeff, reading about your yard work reminded me of a brief conversatin I had with a Southern road engineman in Charlotte, N.C., in the early fifties. Back then, when the SB Peach Queen came in in the morning, both ends were worked--Pullmans were taken off the rear and storage mail cars came off the front end. The engineman told me that they were allowed to make one switching move to set the storage mail out, and if they made more moves they were given extra pay.
I know, different roads, different rules..
Johnny
My husband tells stories of how office workers used to call the OTR drivers road trash at one larger carrier he worked for. Boss there did not belive him at first so he carried in a mini tape recorder one day. He busted 3 load planners calling him road trash when he walked into the office and then went down to the CEO's office and said this is what the people that plan our loads think of the people that pay their wages think of us. The CEO immediatly walked upstairs told those 3 people to go home grab 3 weeks worth of clothes and get into a truck with their so called Road Trash and see what they actually did. The worst behaving one was sent with my husband and after 1 week she was begging to come home saying that my husbands job was way to hard and she missed her comforts of home and such. Needless to say after 3 weeks of his running almost 11K miles in that time her attitude changed and when she was returned all the while getting her normal pay for her job she was salaried so no overtime she stopped with the road trash talk. She had her eyes opened big time.
His boss made it a new policy after hearing that all office personal had to spend 2 weeks a year out on the road with a driver. Guess what happened to the negative treatment of the drivers in the office it quit faster than a blink of an eye and driver turnover dropped by 80% at this carrier. I luckily don't have to do that here at my job. Why my boss knows if I get out of control all my boss has to due is call my hubby and say straighten her out please. The rest of the office is getting ready for the rotating week long trips with their drivers each one spends a week with a van then a tanker puller in the fleet. Oh the fun they have in that time frame and the complaints I get from the drivers about the habits of the office workers slowing down my drivers.
Shadow the Cats owner My husband tells stories of how office workers used to call the OTR drivers road trash at one larger carrier he worked for. Boss there did not belive him at first so he carried in a mini tape recorder one day. He busted 3 load planners calling him road trash when he walked into the office and then went down to the CEO's office and said this is what the people that plan our loads think of the people that pay their wages think of us. The CEO immediatly walked upstairs told those 3 people to go home grab 3 weeks worth of clothes and get into a truck with their so called Road Trash and see what they actually did. The worst behaving one was sent with my husband and after 1 week she was begging to come home saying that my husbands job was way to hard and she missed her comforts of home and such. Needless to say after 3 weeks of his running almost 11K miles in that time her attitude changed and when she was returned all the while getting her normal pay for her job she was salaried so no overtime she stopped with the road trash talk. She had her eyes opened big time. His boss made it a new policy after hearing that all office personal had to spend 2 weeks a year out on the road with a driver. Guess what happened to the negative treatment of the drivers in the office it quit faster than a blink of an eye and driver turnover dropped by 80% at this carrier. I luckily don't have to do that here at my job. Why my boss knows if I get out of control all my boss has to due is call my hubby and say straighten her out please. The rest of the office is getting ready for the rotating week long trips with their drivers each one spends a week with a van then a tanker puller in the fleet. Oh the fun they have in that time frame and the complaints I get from the drivers about the habits of the office workers slowing down my drivers.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingDoes that have anything to do with Class 1 railroads and their relationship with railroad unions?
Not directly, but very illustrative of two solitudes working for the same company, whether it be railroad, trucking, or any other industry with blue and white collar workers. The result is a lack of respect in both directions and poor relations.
cx500 Murphy Siding Does that have anything to do with Class 1 railroads and their relationship with railroad unions? Not directly, but very illustrative of two solitudes working for the same company, whether it be railroad, trucking, or any other industry with blue and white collar workers. The result is a lack of respect in both directions and poor relations.
Murphy Siding Does that have anything to do with Class 1 railroads and their relationship with railroad unions?
It goes to show that sometimes the people in the ivory towers need to be reminded especially in the transportation business just who is out there everyday on the front lines are the ones that generate the revenue that pays for everything.
CShaveRR Sorry to hear that, but know it doesn't (or didn't) apply to all dispatchers. But I can vouch that I received several paychecks well after I retired, due to claims that were finally fully processed.
No, it doesn't apply to all dispatchers. Like anything else, it takes time to learn how things 'work'. The new dispatchers, just turned loose on their own, sometimes don't make the best decisions. That's just part of the learning process. Those that just look at it like a stepping stone either really don't get (or try to get) the hang of it or once they do, they move out to other management assignments.
I guess I should clarify the "train trash" comment. The comment was overheard by a dispatcher, but the others involved were from other departments within the headquarters building.
Jeff
RailRoader608 asked this question the title of this thread:
"Does Class 1 management have a good relationship with the railroad unions?".
I would say the answer is no. They have opposing interests. That is their "relationship."
Company cultures eminate from the top. And if the top respects their employees, it works to the benefit of all. If the top thinks most of the "trash" are sluffing off or ripping them off they try to impose draconian efforts to "shape up" the "trash. I am constantly reminded of the Rodney King's plea, "CAN'T WE JUST GET ALONG"
When I worked with union electricians doing work on electronic equipment, they were supposed to do any phyical wiring work. I was new in power substations and many had been there for twenty years or more. But they wanted to learn what the equipment did and why things needed to be done in specific ways and I took the time to explain and teach them and they appreciated it. They taught me many things I didn't know and I was glad to learn why they did things the waay they did. They kept me safe and working with high voltage equipment that was important. I never had any one file a claim against me, They learned that if I needed "union" work done after hours, I would get them called to do it. Also, they knew I might use a screw driver and lift a wire without calling them. Another engineer (electrical, not locomotive) would ask the union worker to carry his test equipment as if it was his duty. He requested in a commanding voice. Union electrician was suddenly too busy to do it. That engineer also on another occasion had a complaint lodged against him.
Almost all people want to be respected and appreciated for what they do and when upper management doesn't it costs the company and it hurt the worker moral. Union contracts came into being to try to codify work rules that have been needed to make management provide what they have agreed to and limit what management may try to expect a worker to do. It is a shame that people need all the "fine print" to make them treat people properly.
Euclid RailRoader608 asked this question the title of this thread: "Does Class 1 management have a good relationship with the railroad unions?". I would say the answer is no. They have opposing interests. That is their "relationship."
Electroliner 1935Almost all people want to be respected and appreciated for what they do and when upper management doesn't it costs the company and it hurt the worker moral. Union contracts came into being to try to codify work rules that have been needed to make management provide what they have agreed to and limit what management may try to expect a worker to do. It is a shame that people need all the "fine print" to make them treat people properly.
It is a two way street. If employees want to limit what management expects them to do because employees believe management expects too much, it is not surprising that management will disagree. Both sides expect more than the other side wants to give because each side believes that the other side is not giving enough. They are like buyers and sellers. They have opposing interests. The seller wants to sell for as much as possible and by buyer wants to pay as little as possible.
Euclid Electroliner 1935 Almost all people want to be respected and appreciated for what they do and when upper management doesn't it costs the company and it hurt the worker moral. Union contracts came into being to try to codify work rules that have been needed to make management provide what they have agreed to and limit what management may try to expect a worker to do. It is a shame that people need all the "fine print" to make them treat people properly. It is a two way street. If employees want to limit what management expects them to do because employees believe management expects too much, it is not surprising that management will disagree. Both sides expect more than the other side wants to give because each side believes that the other side is not giving enough. They are like buyers and sellers. They have opposing interests. The seller wants to sell for as much as possible and by buyer wants to pay as little as possible.
Electroliner 1935 Almost all people want to be respected and appreciated for what they do and when upper management doesn't it costs the company and it hurt the worker moral. Union contracts came into being to try to codify work rules that have been needed to make management provide what they have agreed to and limit what management may try to expect a worker to do. It is a shame that people need all the "fine print" to make them treat people properly.
If everything was done in 'good faith' it would be a wonderful world.
Management refusing to approve and pay valid claims is BAD FAITH, in fact it undercuts managements position on everything else they may do.
Human interactions rely on trust between the parties involved. Without trust all you are left with is a adversarial relationship.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The HOS changes from about 10 years ago is a perfect example of mistrust by both parties agasinst the other.
It requires freight crews who have worked 6 consecutive job starts (without 24 hours between the end of one tour of duty and the beginning of the next) to be off for 48 hours. If the 6th tour ends at the away from home terminal, you may work a 7th day, but upon tie up require 72 hours off.
On our railroad and portion thereof, the contracts that cover boards with gauranteed pay stipulate that being marked off in a non-compensated status for over 48 hours voids the gaurantee. The railroad currently treats employees in this required Federal mark off status has being the same as if the employee marked off on their own accord in a non-compensated status, such as laying off sick or personal business, voiding the gaurantee.
So some of the employees think the railroad uses this to avoid paying gaurantee. Some of the management thinks this Federal requirement is used by the employees to get "free" (that is time off that can't be counted against you for their attendence policy) time off.
Before someone says, "Well if you're working enough to get Federal required rest, you're making more than gaurantee." Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not. You can work on you're rest one week and sit at home 2 days, or longer, between tours of duty the next. It can also happen that you work enough to get rest at the end of the pay period and spend the first two or three days of the next off for rest. Then the rest of the pay period is slow, but the time off may have voided the gaurantee.
SFbrkmnRight now I have 8 RO claims just this yr and all have been declined and then forwarded to the local chairman.
What is an RO claim?
Our managment is just blanket denying just about all claims (mostly used off assignment for us). Also now they are refusing to allow people to take single vacation or personal days due to "manpower shortage". Shortages they created with this "we need to have every single job work every single day" bullcrap.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
JPS1 SFbrkmn Right now I have 8 RO claims just this yr and all have been declined and then forwarded to the local chairman. What is an RO claim?
SFbrkmn Right now I have 8 RO claims just this yr and all have been declined and then forwarded to the local chairman.
I second that question.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
jeffhergertOn our railroad and portion thereof, the contracts that cover boards with gauranteed pay stipulate that being marked off in a non-compensated status for over 48 hours voids the gaurantee. The railroad currently treats employees in this required Federal mark off status has being the same as if the employee marked off on their own accord in a non-compensated status, such as laying off sick or personal business, voiding the gaurantee
Would you mind "fleshing out" some of the parameters of such guarantees? Daily? Weekly? Other?
I'm fairly confident that I understand the obvious, but I'm just wondering if there might be more than meets the eye to these scenarios.
(example) If somone is working two 7 day stints such as you describe that are wrapped around a shorter work week (mandated by rules) in between I can kinda see why management might be reluctant to pay a full week's guaranteed pay for a week that has been artificially shortened by rules.
Seems like such a scenario might potentially give rise to the opportunity to get paid twice for one day of work. Or at least get a paid day off not otherwise earned.
Wow. Referring to anyone as "train trash" or road trash" should result in immediate termination. Paying out the severance, however high it may be, is always cheaper than keeping these people on the payroll where they can inflict further damage.
Would be great if labor had a seat at the shareholder meetings. Put some numbers to unresolved grievances and other issues and run them up the flagpole like the OR. Shareholders (well.. at least the ones who take at least a semi active interest in their holdings) have a vested interest in seeing the businesses they own free of labor strife.. and that of course means living up to contracts and doing whatever it takes to run it fairly.
UlrichShareholders (well.. at least the ones who take at least a semi active interest in their holdings) have a vested interest in seeing the businesses they own free of labor strife.. and that of course means living up to contracts and doing whatever it takes to run it fairly.
That is the way it ought to be, but probably far from the way it is. Modern shareholders are interested in what maximizes their perceived value, not in what 'does the right thing' either long-term or in terms of improving corporate efficiency, let alone effectiveness. That is how the original perversions of "PSR" as implemented Mantle Ridge style came to be imposed, when sometimes even a moment's reflection from outside the profession would reveal the relative idiocy (I suggest enhanced use of flat switching with 10mph cuts made from ballast as a cardinal example).
The railroads have always been a sort of dramatic example of structural misfit between what management values and wants to optimize and what workers generally care about. Just as most managers or administrators need to keep tax-avoidance strategies strongly in mind while making decisions, they want to avoid any 'unnecessary' payments to employees -- whether they think of it as 'money left on the table', I can't say, but it probably often seems that way -- and the clever strategy often used by folks in the insurance industry, to keep people in the dark and pay out as little as possible as grudgingly as possible wherever marketing says you won't lose anything, is in use wherever penny-pinchers can work it.
Convicted One jeffhergert On our railroad and portion thereof, the contracts that cover boards with gauranteed pay stipulate that being marked off in a non-compensated status for over 48 hours voids the gaurantee. The railroad currently treats employees in this required Federal mark off status has being the same as if the employee marked off on their own accord in a non-compensated status, such as laying off sick or personal business, voiding the gaurantee Would you mind "fleshing out" some of the parameters of such guarantees? Daily? Weekly? Other? I'm fairly confident that I understand the obvious, but I'm just wondering if there might be more than meets the eye to these scenarios. (example) If somone is working two 7 day stints such as you describe that are wrapped around a shorter work week (mandated by rules) in between I can kinda see why management might be reluctant to pay a full week's guaranteed pay for a week that has been artificially shortened by rules. Seems like such a scenario might potentially give rise to the opportunity to get paid twice for one day of work. Or at least get a paid day off not otherwise earned.
jeffhergert On our railroad and portion thereof, the contracts that cover boards with gauranteed pay stipulate that being marked off in a non-compensated status for over 48 hours voids the gaurantee. The railroad currently treats employees in this required Federal mark off status has being the same as if the employee marked off on their own accord in a non-compensated status, such as laying off sick or personal business, voiding the gaurantee
When I was still working at CSX the Guarantees were a monthly amount.
When the latest revision of the HOS law was implemented I did a 'quick and dirty' calculation of the rest provisions and determined that the 'earnings potential' for someone who woked EVERY opportunity permitted by the old HOS law had their potential reduced by 28%.
The old law permitted 8 hours off duty as being the complete rest period, knowing that some one could be called after 6 hours off duty to be on duty in two additional hours. The new HOS law requires 10 hours UNDISTURBED rest. With the normal two hour calling cycle - that means 12 hours between On Duty periods. Throw Jeff's 6 & 7 day work periods on top of undisturbed rest and with the stroke of a pen the T&E work force was reduced in relationship to the amount of work that was staffed by personnel under the old HOS law.
I retired before PSR hit CSX so I don't know if they are attacking guarantees using the provisions of the HOS law like UP currently is - when I was working, to my knowldege the HOS law was not being used to 'invalidate' contractual guarantees.
BaltACDWhen I was still working at CSX the Guarantees were a monthly amount.
Thanks, that helps.
So if that tracks with what Jeff claims, then the railroad is trying to dodge a guaranteed monthly pay minimum based upon one mandatory day "off" work?
Not an expert but that sounds like a problem of sufficient size to merit attention collectively, and not at the individual employee level.
Our Conductor's road pool, road extra board, and I think the switchman's extra board have gaurantees for each pay period or what we call "half." As in half of the month. The engineer's extra board also has that. Local and maybe yard assignments have, for both train and enginemen, a monthly gaurantee.
If one stays marked up on the pool or extra board, they earn a "bonus" day that they can take as time off (compensated) or take the extra day's pay.
On one of these boards you can take compensated time off without losing the gaurantee. You do lose the bonus day. You can take up to 48 hours uncompensated and only lose two prorated days and the bonus day. 1 minute over 48 hrs and you lose the gaurantee for that half.
Those that have lost gaurantees due to the federal rest requirements can put in a time claim. However, they are not being paid and will eventually go through the arbitraition process as a large group (like a class-action) instead of individual cases.
Okay, thanks for the extra info Jeff. The extra detail makes the rest of it easier to understand.
I guess I just never knew how lucky I was all those years working a salaried, non-railroad, non-union position where I could just take it for granted that I was going to get the short end on all matters time related.
I do have one additional question. By saying the "extra board" I assume you mean those employees only work when they get a call. So the guarantee potentially can protect the employee through a slow spell.
But how does the guaranteed amount compare to the employees maximum* earning potential through the same time period?
*maximum assuming the employee gets a call for work as soon as he is eligible from the previous work period
Thanks
Overmod Ulrich Shareholders (well.. at least the ones who take at least a semi active interest in their holdings) have a vested interest in seeing the businesses they own free of labor strife.. and that of course means living up to contracts and doing whatever it takes to run it fairly. That is the way it ought to be, but probably far from the way it is. Modern shareholders are interested in what maximizes their perceived value, not in what 'does the right thing' either long-term or in terms of improving corporate efficiency, let alone effectiveness. That is how the original perversions of "PSR" as implemented Mantle Ridge style came to be imposed, when sometimes even a moment's reflection from outside the profession would reveal the relative idiocy (I suggest enhanced use of flat switching with 10mph cuts made from ballast as a cardinal example). The railroads have always been a sort of dramatic example of structural misfit between what management values and wants to optimize and what workers generally care about. Just as most managers or administrators need to keep tax-avoidance strategies strongly in mind while making decisions, they want to avoid any 'unnecessary' payments to employees -- whether they think of it as 'money left on the table', I can't say, but it probably often seems that way -- and the clever strategy often used by folks in the insurance industry, to keep people in the dark and pay out as little as possible as grudgingly as possible wherever marketing says you won't lose anything, is in use wherever penny-pinchers can work it.
Ulrich Shareholders (well.. at least the ones who take at least a semi active interest in their holdings) have a vested interest in seeing the businesses they own free of labor strife.. and that of course means living up to contracts and doing whatever it takes to run it fairly.
That's true.. and that's why I'm in favor of activist investors (or at least mutual fund managers who show up at the meetings) who take an active interest in the companies they invest in. Personally I invest on my own, and I bring that up only because I'm probably a typical long term investor.. I want the companies I invest in to do well over the short term but more importantly over the next 20 years. And that means having a vested interest in minimizing labor turmoil..
Personally I don't like the trend towards index funds... people invest in a bunch of companies without really knowing or caring about any one of them. And it gives the fund managers an "out"..i.e. CSX is down but hey P&G is up so don't worry about it". Nobody prepared to kick up sand when things aren't done right.. I would much rather have someone like Bill Ackman stir things up by putting his own coin on the line.. makes it better for the rest of us to have active owner representation.
Convicted One I do have one additional question. By saying the "extra board" I assume you mean those employees only work when they get a call. So the guarantee potentially can protect the employee through a slow spell. But how does the guaranteed amount compare to the employees maximum* earning potential through the same time period? *maximum assuming the employee gets a call for work as soon as he is eligible from the previous work period Thanks
Extra boards protect (fill in) vacancies (those layed off for sickness, vacation, etc.) on pools and other assigned jobs. Does what we call "short turn" jobs like dog catching or spotting/pulling elevators, etc. Our Candian friends, and some other US friends, too, may call them "Spare Boards."
The gaurantee is there to protect against the slow times. It can be feast or famine. During the feast one can and does make way over gaurantee. During famine you might work enough to make half of what the gaurantee is.
Normally the extra board and road pools are supposed to be maintained to match the available work. When going between the feast and famine periods, it sometimes takes a week or two to get them adjusted. It's for those times when you go from working on or nearly on your rest to working every 48 or 50 hours between assignments that the guarantee is for.
Some years back I was on the engineer's extra board over the Thanksgiving weekend. They had beefed up the boards in anticipation of record grain train movements. (They only beat the record by a few trains. The big rush didn't really happen.) I got home in the evening on Thursday night, Thanksgiving Day. I didn't lay off. My next call to work was the following Monday morning, something unheard of being both a weekend and holiday. I was off for something like 82 hours. That's what gaurantee is for.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.