jeffhergertI think the reason now that people that know railroaders don't want to work for the railroad isn't the on-call, work all the time lifestyle, etc. Although that is beginning to come into play. It's more the treatment and attitudes the field workers get from the higher levels of management. And sometimes from the lower levels, too. And especially how they hire people, train them, and then furlough them. Then expect them after being furloughed, to come back when the railroad calls, work a week or two, and then be cut off again. And repeat. Those hiring bonuses they were paying a while back on the surface was to get people to sign on. Their biggest reason was more of insurance that the person would come back when recalled. They were structured to be paid in increments and a requirement to work so many times before they wouldn't need to be paid back to the railroad. I don't think anyone hired in my area with the bonus as yet fulfilled the full requirement. They would be on furlough right now. Jeff
It's more the treatment and attitudes the field workers get from the higher levels of management. And sometimes from the lower levels, too. And especially how they hire people, train them, and then furlough them. Then expect them after being furloughed, to come back when the railroad calls, work a week or two, and then be cut off again. And repeat. Those hiring bonuses they were paying a while back on the surface was to get people to sign on. Their biggest reason was more of insurance that the person would come back when recalled. They were structured to be paid in increments and a requirement to work so many times before they wouldn't need to be paid back to the railroad. I don't think anyone hired in my area with the bonus as yet fulfilled the full requirement. They would be on furlough right now.
Jeff
Like most things that get peddled in today's world. The DEVIL is in the details - and the lawyers write the details with a health dose of 'bait and switch' hidden in the proverbial 'legal gotcha'. Promise the World, deliver very little.
About 8 or 10 years ago, CSX was pushing 'profit sharing' in lieu of the contract negotiated schedule of raises for the following period of the contract (3 years I think). Despite all the politicking the company did when the NLRB released the results of the ATDA vote on the issue - the vote was 310 - 0 to reject profit sharing and follow the pay schedule of the contract. During my 26+ years in the ATDA there were numerous votes on a variety of issues - this was the ONLY vote I ever saw being unanimous.
Several other crafts took the profit sharing deal - in the end they paid the price of a bad deal. Yes, the company tries to play the crafts as being idiots.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Flintlock76 Thanks Vince! Now, per some of the other comments I've been reading, a personal story. Without boring everyone with all the details several years before I retired we had a morale issue in the local office that reached all the way to corporate. This morale issue was company-wide but one of our people had the guts to scream about it. Anyway, corporate sent down some people to hear what a focus group of employees had to say about the situation. I was part of the group, and we had plenty to say, believe me. I was sitting across from one of the corporate reps, nothing between us, and I looked him in the eyes and said... "Let me tell you something after everything else you've heard here. This (particular) business world we live in isn't as big as you think it is. The grapevine and jungle telegraph are pretty widespread, and sooner or later the word is going to get around that this is not a company you want to work for! And when employees leave, as they all will do eventually, you're going to have one hell of a time replacing them! And then where will you be?" Did they listen? Beats me, but I'm retired now and could care less. I can't help but think railroads, the "Big Seven" anyway, might just be in the same situation if they don't change their ways. Then where will they be?
Thanks Vince!
Now, per some of the other comments I've been reading, a personal story.
Without boring everyone with all the details several years before I retired we had a morale issue in the local office that reached all the way to corporate. This morale issue was company-wide but one of our people had the guts to scream about it.
Anyway, corporate sent down some people to hear what a focus group of employees had to say about the situation. I was part of the group, and we had plenty to say, believe me.
I was sitting across from one of the corporate reps, nothing between us, and I looked him in the eyes and said...
"Let me tell you something after everything else you've heard here. This (particular) business world we live in isn't as big as you think it is. The grapevine and jungle telegraph are pretty widespread, and sooner or later the word is going to get around that this is not a company you want to work for! And when employees leave, as they all will do eventually, you're going to have one hell of a time replacing them! And then where will you be?"
Did they listen? Beats me, but I'm retired now and could care less.
I can't help but think railroads, the "Big Seven" anyway, might just be in the same situation if they don't change their ways. Then where will they be?
I sometimes think that's what they want. Then they'll say it's not that we want to go to one person crews, or automate this or that. We HAVE TO because we can't get anyone to work for us.
I think the reason now that people that know railroaders don't want to work for the railroad isn't the on-call, work all the time lifestyle, etc. Although that is beginning to come into play.
Great post! Luv it.
The closest Lady Firestorm's ever come to being a railroader is when her safety valves blow, usually once or twice a week.
The closest I've ever come to being a railroader is when my cross-compound pump freezes, usually about the same time Lady F's valves lift.
jeffhergert BaltACD Railroads, especially on the field operations side of the business, is not the kind of job that prospective employees in the 21st Century can understand the requirements upon their time and lives unless they have had a CLOSE, likely familial, relationship to one that is employed in the crafts that are field operations. It is not 9 to 5, Monday through Friday kind of employment situation. Those that have no REAL understanding of the requirements are gone almost befor the ink dries on their application form. And anymore most who see what's it like through a relative's experiences want nothing to do with the railroad. Jeff
BaltACD Railroads, especially on the field operations side of the business, is not the kind of job that prospective employees in the 21st Century can understand the requirements upon their time and lives unless they have had a CLOSE, likely familial, relationship to one that is employed in the crafts that are field operations. It is not 9 to 5, Monday through Friday kind of employment situation. Those that have no REAL understanding of the requirements are gone almost befor the ink dries on their application form.
Railroads, especially on the field operations side of the business, is not the kind of job that prospective employees in the 21st Century can understand the requirements upon their time and lives unless they have had a CLOSE, likely familial, relationship to one that is employed in the crafts that are field operations. It is not 9 to 5, Monday through Friday kind of employment situation. Those that have no REAL understanding of the requirements are gone almost befor the ink dries on their application form.
And anymore most who see what's it like through a relative's experiences want nothing to do with the railroad.
The pay that railroaders get comes at a cost.
When you choose a career - there are always costs for the pay.
Remember the Hotels dot Com ad where the two mothers are dissing their 'friend's' video that Captain Obvious is playing for them as the friend enjoys a beach vacation. They question why they can't be in their friends position, to which Captain Obvious responds with one word - Condoms.
Ulrich Back in 82 when I applied to work at CN and CP the very first question was "do you have a relative who works for the railroad?". According to both companies answering NO to that question meant that your chances of getting hired were slim to none (and the CP guy went so far as to say "and Slim has already left town"). So I'm assuming if you had a spouse who was already hired then your own chances of getting hired were significantly greater.
Back in 82 when I applied to work at CN and CP the very first question was "do you have a relative who works for the railroad?". According to both companies answering NO to that question meant that your chances of getting hired were slim to none (and the CP guy went so far as to say "and Slim has already left town"). So I'm assuming if you had a spouse who was already hired then your own chances of getting hired were significantly greater.
Some railroads had prohibitions on hiring close relatives on the same seniority district for train/engine service. I was told it was so one bad accident didn't wipe out a family.
CNW was like that. There were a few cases of sons having to hire out on an adjoining district from their fathers. UP doesn't, so we've had brothers and sons hire out on the same district. No daughters so far, but it was one son who's parent was his mother, an engineer.
Other railroads either didn't have or removed the prohibition. Some places, you needed to know someone already working. I was told the CRANDIC used to be like that. It wasn't so much that they wouldn't hire someone without a connection, just that when a job opened up, someone already knew of a candidate looking for a good job. Especially during times when any job was hard to find.
I wasn't volunteering for the RR when the ex was around, so no.
I did know of a couple on a shortline where he was signal and she was a dispatcher. I think both have retired now.
E1935's comment on voices reminds me of broadcast radio. One rarely had an accurate picture of the face behind the voice. Seeing the personalities in person was often a bit of a shock.
A young woman on a local station had a voice like honey. She wasn't ugly, but she wasn't the ravishing beauty one might have pictured her as. More like "frumpy."
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...
In '56 when I started working for the PRR, the clerk in the Engineering department in Cincinnati was Bill Bergen and his wife was the PRR evening telephone switchboard operator. At that time, I didn't know that. Later, when I was assigned to Columbus, after work, I would go to the switchboard and using an idle position I'd use an idle carrier line to Cincinnati where Mrs Bergen would connect me to my future wife. Her voice was the most pleasant that I can remember. I envisioned a sweet young thing but she was a nice sixty year old matron. Can't tell what one looks like from their voice.So I knew a married couple working for the same RR.
Thinking back over my 40 years of interacting with railroads as a customer; I can only recollect three instances where husband and wife worked for the same railroad although one of those couples, the wife in sales and the husband an engineer; had both hired out on the Frisco and managed to "make it work" through BN and into BNSF despite location and position changes. The engineer husband died of cancer and the salesperson wife retired from BNSF about four years ago.
I had a Santa Fe salesman early in my career whose father was an engineer and mother was a clerk. As I recollect, he had several other extended family members who also worked for the Santa Fe.
Curt
In the late 80's and early 90's both members working postions with CSX created many issues as various departments were tranferred to Jacksonville from Baltimore and other locations at various times. In the cases where one one of the individuals worked craft positions that were rooted in the other than Jacksonville locations, severe family hardships were created. Some were resolved and others ended up in either resignation from CSX or divorce court.
[quote user="Ulrich"]
Probably fairly common.. I know of husbands and wives who work as pilots..truck drivers.. doctors. Likely because they met on the job or while in training. And who better to understand railroad culture than a spouse who also works in that culture?
[/quote']
Absolutely, Ulrich! Before I retired (2003) it was really getting to be a common siuation in the trucking industry... The company I worked for had a number of husband-wife teams, in all aspects of our team operations. And an active efforys to recruit and hire more, at that time. Some companies seemed to feel that a Husband-wife team was far more reliable, and job focused. Unlike some single driver operators, who 'never knew' IF a truck was going to deliver as scheduled. In which conditions they had to rely on GPS location systems, or cell phones. or satellite based comm.
In the railroad industry. I could see spouses working in it, but I am not sure how 'management' would handle 'those situations' [supervision, scheduling, etc] Not even sure that management [risk] would allow spouses to work together (ie: T&E assignments) . Just some random thoughts.
Call me CRAZY or getting a severe case of Coronavirus 'Cabin Fever'
But I happened to read an article, on-line, that stated in part, that some 3.5 million Americans are 'driving trucks' [Also, would possibly, reflect an even larger number working 'within' the Trucking Insustry?]
Article linked here @ https://www.breitbart.com/education/2020/03/18/truckers-are-keeping-american-supply-chains-and-americans-alive/
My point is, within the RAILROAD Industry, as well; I would suspect that there would have to be a number of 'Spouse's' whose [insert appropriate designator(?) ] would also be employed by the same railroad, or another railroad in the area(?).
My best guess, is that they would, generally, be empoyed by the 'same' RR company(?). The vagueries of 'scheduling' being what they are...
I personally, can cite at least one couple that, BOTH, work for the same company.
MY question is: How 'common or un-common' is this situation?
Nationwide, the law of averages; says there HAVE to be a 'large'(?) number?
The spouse could be in the same 'operational'department, or in an administrative department. My additional guess, is that such a relationship would be extremely difficult, but could be 'workable'
Enquiring Minds, etc.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.