PEB 250
Site is legitimate and document is there -- download it as PDF as quick as you can "just in case".
Recommendation summary starts on p.116. Now watch the excitement from the men and the management!
An opinion from one of my coworkers when I was working
In my opinion (the views expressed in this post belong to the post creator and not the organization, its affiliates, or employees) 22% GWI is an insult to what every single one of us was put through in the Pandemic as we watched our very own Brothers & Sisters pass away. Not a single thank you from the carriers or any bonuses to thank us for our hard work. The PEB says they can’t include historic inflation into the GWI as a factor in coming up with the 22% number. I believe we should be up at 28-35% GWI. As for healthcare, it doesn’t look good this go around either and essentially they want to uncap health care. As a gimmick they are offering a $1,000 bonus for each year of service; essentially $5k that will be paid out. Remember that you lose about half of that to taxes. You’d only be getting $2.5k. I’m voting NO on the proposed agreement! Don’t sell out to the corporations! Please feel free to share so everyone has a chance to read the entire recommendation from the PEB 250. Would love to hear what many have to say after they read it as well.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Balt's post seems to follow the general sentiment I am hearing. It sounds like we will walk.
An "expensive model collector"
From page 32..
"The Carriers maintain that capital investment and risk are the reasons for their profits, not any contributions by labor. The Carriers further argue that there is no correlation historically between high profits and higher compensation, either in the freight rail industry or more generally. To the contrary, one of the Carriers’ experts maintained that the most profitable companies are not those whose compensation is the highest. The Carriers assert that since employees have been fairly and adequately paid for their efforts and do not share in the downside risks if the operations are less profitable, then they have no claim to share in the upside either."
IF there wasn't an anymore inflammatory paragraph than this.. I don't know what is..
This alone would make me resign. I wouldn't even wait for a strike..
It's basically true, from a financier's point of view. Railroaders are supposed to be compensated on the basis of the actual time and work they put in, plus fair benefits. They get this as agreed whether the railroad is profitable or not. They could negotiate for a pro-rata share of the profits... as in the bonus system for top-level executives... but anyone wanna bet how far that would fly in practice, even with an amenable Government?
Someone who remembers the 'employee owned' C&NW might comment on how profits, if any, were "shared" above dividends to shareholders.
The percentage of employees who participated in C&NW ownership war relatively low.
I would opine that perhaps the "fairly compensated" factor is dependent on one's point of view.
I'm sure the investors consider anything over the minumum wage to be a waste of their money.
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...
The floggings will continue until the employees are happy.
BaltACDThe floggings will continue until the employees are happy...
SD60MAC9500 From page 32.. "The Carriers maintain that capital investment and risk are the reasons for their profits, not any contributions by labor. The Carriers further argue that there is no correlation historically between high profits and higher compensation, either in the freight rail industry or more generally. To the contrary, one of the Carriers’ experts maintained that the most profitable companies are not those whose compensation is the highest. The Carriers assert that since employees have been fairly and adequately paid for their efforts and do not share in the downside risks if the operations are less profitable, then they have no claim to share in the upside either."
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingAre these the same folks that can't hire enough employees right now? Don't the employees share in "the downside" by being laid off the minute traffic slows? I wonder how that capital investment and risk are going to make them profits without any contributions by labor?
Is it just me or do I smell "Too big to fail!" coming over the horizon?
Flintlock76 Murphy Siding Are these the same folks that can't hire enough employees right now? Don't the employees share in "the downside" by being laid off the minute traffic slows? I wonder how that capital investment and risk are going to make them profits without any contributions by labor? Is it just me or do I smell "Too big to fail!" coming over the horizon?
Murphy Siding Are these the same folks that can't hire enough employees right now? Don't the employees share in "the downside" by being laid off the minute traffic slows? I wonder how that capital investment and risk are going to make them profits without any contributions by labor?
I am wondering what form that might take. If the companies won't pay enough to attract sufficient labor, and the Country needs the rail transporation, something has to give. What will it be?
Euclid Flintlock76 Murphy Siding Are these the same folks that can't hire enough employees right now? Don't the employees share in "the downside" by being laid off the minute traffic slows? I wonder how that capital investment and risk are going to make them profits without any contributions by labor? Is it just me or do I smell "Too big to fail!" coming over the horizon? I am wondering what form that might take. If the companies won't pay enough to attract sufficient labor, and the Country needs the rail transporation, something has to give. What will it be?
Extended use of automation, whether the automation actually works or not. It just has to be good enough. Railroads aren't the only ones looking at replacing people with machines. Almost all say it's because they can't hire enough people to fill their needs. That in the long run it might save them money on employee costs is just an unintentional benefit.
There are other ways, too. Like getting more work out of those left. There is of course, a wall that you eventually come up against. But there's actually two walls. One is concrete and finite, the one where you have X number of people and they can actually work only so much. The other is more artificial and some may be more like hurdles. I'm thinking of things like the off days on regular assignments, paid personal and vacation days or weeks. Also things that would require changes in law, like repealing or amending working limits provided by Hours of Service/RSIA laws. Repealing or amending the Family Medical Leave Act. (Even before the recent harsh attendence policy changes many employees were getting FMLA. With the changes it's use as increased. You couldn't be denied being layed off and it didn't, and doesn't, affect the attendence policies. Managers currently encourage employees to get it for qualifying things that require taking time off on a quasi-schedule. I believe they really want to build a case that it's abused too much and needs to be repealed or amended to not cover railroad employees.)
I would like to think that some of these things won't, even can't happen. But I believe the current age of the employee or potential employee having the upper hand is transitory. Eventually employers will again have the advantage.
Jeff
EuclidI am wondering what form that might take. If the companies won't pay enough to attract sufficient labor, and the Country needs the rail transporation, something has to give. What will it be?
Don't know, but I'm sure it will require billions (at least) of your tax dollars being pumped into them to make whatever they want to work, work.
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
I am actually not surprised at the recommendations. I've tried telling co-workers that when you compare class one railroaders with every other blue collar worker, we're towards the top end. Which the class ones are quick to point out.
So many would respond with the gains made by other workers who were on strike over the last year or so. That people in general were more supportive of working people. Too some extent maybe, but many of those had in years past taken major consessions on wages and benefits. Even so, those that made gains haven't reached the levels they would've been at had they not made the original consessions years ago.
If it came right down to it, the average person doesn't have a clue in what it takes to make the premium wages the railroad pays. (It's the lifestyle, the call at all hours in any kind of weather any day of the year, time away from home - maybe working at an outlying point hundreds of miles from home. Etc.) The railroads play on this with their propaganda, twisting numbers to make class one railroaders out to be overpaid, primadonna, whiners. I believe the PEB members saw through the railroads smoke and mirrors, but also took into account where railroaders are compared to everyone else.
There are parts of the recommendations that the PEB has sent back to both parties for further negotiations, and barring agreement on them, binding arbitration. Some of those items I want no part of, like the new bidding system. Where in effect you have to rebid your current job every so often. I believe NS and CSX have this in whole or on part of their systems. (Zug, do you have this?)
The self-supporting pool concept also is suspect. (The reason is to get rid of or drastically reduce, the guaranteed extra boards that cover pool vacancies.) To be self-supporting, you'll need enough to run the volume of traffic even with vacancies. So the pools get flooded with excess people. (I know right now this is less of a problem since they're short handed.) But what if people don't lay off as much? My pool doesn't have a guarantee. If we go to self-supporting pools, will we get a guarantee? Right now, even short handed, my terminal and pool can be feast or famine. It's either work on or nearly on my rest or sit 48 or more hours between calls. (Even during the slower stretches, we have some who think we work too much.) In times past, when the slow stretches lasted too long, one could go to an extra board. But the idea is to get rid of them.
I don't have the answers, but it will be interesting times come the middle of September.
jeffhergert... The self-supporting pool concept also is suspect. (The reason is to get rid of or drastically reduce, the guaranteed extra boards that cover pool vacancies.) To be self-supporting, you'll need enough to run the volume of traffic even with vacancies. So the pools get flooded with excess people. (I know right now this is less of a problem since they're short handed.) But what if people don't lay off as much? My pool doesn't have a guarantee. If we go to self-supporting pools, will we get a guarantee? Right now, even short handed, my terminal and pool can be feast or famine. It's either work on or nearly on my rest or sit 48 or more hours between calls. (Even during the slower stretches, we have some who think we work too much.) In times past, when the slow stretches lasted too long, one could go to an extra board. But the idea is to get rid of them. I don't have the answers, but it will be interesting times come the middle of September. Jeff
Before I retired from CSX in 2016 - I recall seeing Divisional Notices being published quarterly that listed each Assignment/Pool/Yard Job/Extra Board on the division and their guaranteed earnings. Jobs would be bulletined as necessary to fill vacancies on the positions.
I don't know what the effective date of the contracts that expired in 2019 were, however, I suspect what I was seeing was in accordance with that contract, at least as it applied to CSX and the agreements that were effective on CSX. CSX had local agreements recognizing each of the legacy carriers that formed CSX - they are all different.
Not having been T&E I know there are more inticacies buried in the various agreements than I can comprehend.
BaltACD jeffhergert ... The self-supporting pool concept also is suspect. (The reason is to get rid of or drastically reduce, the guaranteed extra boards that cover pool vacancies.) To be self-supporting, you'll need enough to run the volume of traffic even with vacancies. So the pools get flooded with excess people. (I know right now this is less of a problem since they're short handed.) But what if people don't lay off as much? My pool doesn't have a guarantee. If we go to self-supporting pools, will we get a guarantee? Right now, even short handed, my terminal and pool can be feast or famine. It's either work on or nearly on my rest or sit 48 or more hours between calls. (Even during the slower stretches, we have some who think we work too much.) In times past, when the slow stretches lasted too long, one could go to an extra board. But the idea is to get rid of them. I don't have the answers, but it will be interesting times come the middle of September. Jeff Before I retired from CSX in 2016 - I recall seeing Divisional Notices being published quarterly that listed each Assignment/Pool/Yard Job/Extra Board on the division and their guaranteed earnings. Jobs would be bulletined as necessary to fill vacancies on the positions. I don't know what the effective date of the contracts that expired in 2019 were, however, I suspect what I was seeing was in accordance with that contract, at least as it applied to CSX and the agreements that were effective on CSX. CSX had local agreements recognizing each of the legacy carriers that formed CSX - they are all different. Not having been T&E I know there are more inticacies buried in the various agreements than I can comprehend.
jeffhergert ... The self-supporting pool concept also is suspect. (The reason is to get rid of or drastically reduce, the guaranteed extra boards that cover pool vacancies.) To be self-supporting, you'll need enough to run the volume of traffic even with vacancies. So the pools get flooded with excess people. (I know right now this is less of a problem since they're short handed.) But what if people don't lay off as much? My pool doesn't have a guarantee. If we go to self-supporting pools, will we get a guarantee? Right now, even short handed, my terminal and pool can be feast or famine. It's either work on or nearly on my rest or sit 48 or more hours between calls. (Even during the slower stretches, we have some who think we work too much.) In times past, when the slow stretches lasted too long, one could go to an extra board. But the idea is to get rid of them. I don't have the answers, but it will be interesting times come the middle of September. Jeff
On a now defunct forum populated mostly by railroaders from all over, guys were talking about this new bid assignment system. I remember a CSX guy (There were sub-forums for each class one.) talking about going to this system. It happened two or three years ago.
Every period, and I don't remember how long the period lasts, you rebid your job. It's like how some of our yards work. In the yards it's called a "Daily Mark Up Board." Every day you had to call in on a bid recorder telephone line, leaving your name and ID and then what jobs you wanted to work the next day. You listed them in preference order. The bid clerk would take all the bids and assign each yard job by seniority and after assignments were made you called the line and found out which assignment you received.
I believe the system referred to in the carrier's proposal is the same basic system, but for all assignments: road pools, yard, local and extra boards. Instead of calling by phone, you maintain in preference order the assignments you want in the computer. If the bids are maintained, so that you don't have to fill out bids for every new cycle it might not be so bad. Except for those at the bottom of pools and extra boards who might find out that they now are assigned some where else. Woe be to those that either don't fill out enough options or forget to fill out the bids.
If the railroads want it, they have a reason and it isn't to help employees know where or when they are going to work.
Murphy Siding SD60MAC9500 From page 32.. "The Carriers maintain that capital investment and risk are the reasons for their profits, not any contributions by labor. The Carriers further argue that there is no correlation historically between high profits and higher compensation, either in the freight rail industry or more generally. To the contrary, one of the Carriers’ experts maintained that the most profitable companies are not those whose compensation is the highest. The Carriers assert that since employees have been fairly and adequately paid for their efforts and do not share in the downside risks if the operations are less profitable, then they have no claim to share in the upside either." Are these the same folks that can't hire enough employees right now?Don't the employees share in "the downside" by being laid off the minute traffic slows?I wonder how that capital investment and risk are going to make them profits without any contributions by labor?
Are these the same folks that can't hire enough employees right now?Don't the employees share in "the downside" by being laid off the minute traffic slows?I wonder how that capital investment and risk are going to make them profits without any contributions by labor?
The minute you get hired you get furloughed... For them to say that's not a downside?.. Back around 2002 I got a job offer from NS out of its Toledo Terminal. The only problem I would be furloughed as soon as I got hired... Yeah I'm good...
The outright lie that labor doesn't add to the bottom line is disrespectful.. I guess ghost must operate trains these days. I wouldn't tell anybody to try and hire on the rails these days.. With the exception of a shortline or regional.
Labour is viewed as a cost, not an asset. And a cost is something you try to reduce or get rid of.
It's the same with operations and customer service, they shoot themselves in the foot all the time by giving up on dollars of revenue so they can cut cents of costs.
CP's Canadian guys just got 'awarded' a two year contract at 3.5% per year. Apparently that's all the union asked for (they must have made their submission before the recent inflation surge became apparent).
Our CTY contract expired on July 1, of course we're still working as negotiations continue. Probably going to be another strike this winter.
As for labour not adding anything to the bottom line, when I was the conductor on an outlying switcher assignment I would end up adding revenue and improving car utilization simply by ignoring our paperwork and talking to the customers to find out what they actually wanted (they would often forget to order a full spot of cars or release ones they had finished with). If I obeyed the paperwork and our official company policies plenty of cars would get delayed by an extra day or two and a bunch more carloads per day would end up leaving on trucks.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
When I worked under the CSX bid system you entered a list of your prefered jobs in the computer and it was retained there until you changed it or the available jobs changed. The assignments were awarded once per week according to senoirty.
This weekly awarding of prefered assignments helped people change assignments more easily since under the old system you couldn't change assignments unless you were displaced off your current job, another job was vacated, or a new one created.
I used this to move to a yard job for awhile if I wanted a regular schedule and then back to a road assignment. It also worked for moving to a different home terminal.
Mark
SD70DudeLabour is viewed as a cost, not an asset. And a cost is something you try to reduce or get rid of. ...
...
You get the biggest cost reductions by eliminating the occupants of the Board Room.
Questions: Do CP and CN in Canada have crew shortages? Are CN and CP empoloyees in Canada as dissatisfied with working conditios as USA operating employees appear to be? Are CP and CN in any way thyinking of ground-based conductors and one-man train crews?
And does Canadian praqctse have anything to teach USA Class-!s?
What about the larger USA Regionals?
An awful lot has changed since 70 years ago and my Boston & Maine days. There was nothing like the employee dissatisfaction that has existed for the past several yeaers, particularly worse with bso-called PSR (whach I claim should be called Asset Utilization Railroading as opposed to Customer Resposive Railroading, and both need Precision._)
PEB set a baseline for how much workers can expect in terms of wages and health care benefits and costs. Not surprisingly, PEB did not make recommendations for much else. Really, trying to get into the details of bid processes, layoff and attendance policies, and crew consists. But now that a baseline is set, the individual crafts are free to negotiate tradeoffs where they get quality-of-life improvements for reductions in the proposed wage increases. People here have claimed that wages are not the most important factor, so should we expect to see such deals being cut (or at least offered up by the unions) on the TYE side?
(I don't think that MOW and MOE have quite the same concerns with quality-of-life issues, so I doubt they would be interested.)
Dan
SD60MAC9500 From page 32.. "The Carriers maintain that capital investment and risk are the reasons for their profits, not any contributions by labor. The Carriers further argue that there is no correlation historically between high profits and higher compensation, either in the freight rail industry or more generally. To the contrary, one of the Carriers’ experts maintained that the most profitable companies are not those whose compensation is the highest. The Carriers assert that since employees have been fairly and adequately paid for their efforts and do not share in the downside risks if the operations are less profitable, then they have no claim to share in the upside either." IF there wasn't an anymore inflammatory paragraph than this.. I don't know what is.. This alone would make me resign. I wouldn't even wait for a strike..
Labor is one input needed to make the business run. Many others are needed too. Suppose Exxon and BP said, "The railroads are making their huge profits only because we have supplied them with diesel fuel, therefore we deserve higher prices for that fuel."
I mean, what the carriers articulated is the basis of capitalism: investors buy inputs from suppliers and add value; labor is an input they need to buy, and workers sell their labor in exchange for wages. I don't see how it's offensive or insulting.
And having this view doesn't prevent you from placing special min,-monetary value on employees, just like most companies have special relationships with some of their suppliers. A company like, say, Loram has special strategic relationships with its Class 1 customers, and a big enough downturn in the rail industry could put Loram out of business. But Loram still understands that they don't have an ownership interest in those railroads and don't get a share of their profits.
daveklepper Questions: Do CP and CN in Canada have crew shortages? ... What about the larger USA Regionals?
Questions: Do CP and CN in Canada have crew shortages?
Maybe you've missed this info, it has been mentioned several times but bears repeating: almost every company in North America, in almost every industry, is having trouble hiring and retaining people. Period.
There's some anecdotal evidence that railroads are having it worse than other industries, but apparently no hard numbers to back that up - or at least, it doesn't sound like labor organizations submitted any such comparisons to the PEB.
dpeltier daveklepper Questions: Do CP and CN in Canada have crew shortages? ... What about the larger USA Regionals? Maybe you've missed this info, it has been mentioned several times but bears repeating: almost every company in North America, in almost every industry, is having trouble hiring and retaining people. Period. There's some anecdotal evidence that railroads are having it worse than other industries, but apparently no hard numbers to back that up - or at least, it doesn't sound like labor organizations submitted any such comparisons to the PEB. Dan
Not hard to understand why.. the baby boomer generation is retiring in droves now, and other inputs like the pandemic and poor planning (at some companies) simply exacerbates this trend. We knew it was coming.. even we boomers retire and won't live forever. That's not to say that all labor shortages and retention issues are due to the retirement curve, but a big part of it is. Looking back to the late 60s and 70s all companies good and bad had their pick for just about any job. Some of the companies I worked for didn't even have HR or hiring departments. Good luck trying to get on at most places unless you had someone pulling for you on the inside. A couple of people from my HS graduating class got on with CN in 1979.. both had connections on the inside that got them in. Both are still with CN today. Were companies back then so much better? Not a chance.. they were for the most part worse in every way.. but lots of desperate young people around back then so it didn't matter as every crummy job had multiple applicants.
The funny thing is that there are so many parallels to what occurred to cause early demise of large steam road power in the latter half of the 1940s. Guess people think Santayana's observation is just a platitude or a cliche...
And yet we have objections to single physical man on the locomotive, and no human-scheduled calls, and no active fatigue-reducing measures, and... well, I think we'll see the same sort of changes to operating paradigms that occurred in shop practice three-quarters of a century ago.
Financiers may not like it. Screw 'em. Sorry not to be family-friendly.
A growing economy combined with a shrinking pool of available labor will only further incentivize automation and better pay and working conditions for those who are left. Henry Ford came up with the assembly line to avoid having to rely on a large pool of skilled craftsmen... the assembly line allowed the automotive industry to grow exponentially through the use of largely unskilled labor. Similar changes will be required going forward to address labor shortages which are here for the longterm. Businesses will need to adapt to this new reality or go under.
Methinks part of the problem is summed up in a relatively recent "saw:" A lot of kids get out of college expecting to find a position and end up with a job. Some won't accept that and end up in mom & dad's basement until they do find something they consider suitable.
Today's potential worker has a far different expectation of what a "job" is. And that expectation isn't spinning lug nuts on car wheels or moving rolls of paper around paper mills. Industry with smokestacks is a dying breed in this country.
Another factor I've heard from two very different sources - those entering the workforce today are from a generation that oftimes has never heard the word "no."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.