Automation is coming to the RR industry whether we like it or not, Its already happening overseas.
Euclid Murphy Siding Improvements, yes. Nationalization, no. What improvements are you referring to, and how could they be obtained?
Murphy Siding Improvements, yes. Nationalization, no.
What improvements are you referring to, and how could they be obtained?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
CSSHEGEWISCHThe New York Stock Exchange may only be open for six hours per day but the traders themselves and their support staffs put in longer hours than that covering after-hours trading and other exchanges globally. Many traders do not have a long-term vision. That's the problem.
Many traders do not have a long-term vision. That's the problem.
But even the 'back office' staff gets to go home with some form of regular schedule. They don't get called at 3 AM to be in the office at 5 AM and have no real idea of when or where they will stop working and have no idea of if and/or when they will get home and for how long they will be at home once they actually get there.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Overmod MidlandMike Overmod Nationalization would likely get rid of railroad retirement. The discussion probably stops right there. The Railroad Retirement Board is a Federal Government agency. Why would nationalization affect that? The shoe may be on the other foot when the Government is the one paying instead of the one mandating.
MidlandMike Overmod Nationalization would likely get rid of railroad retirement. The discussion probably stops right there. The Railroad Retirement Board is a Federal Government agency. Why would nationalization affect that?
Overmod Nationalization would likely get rid of railroad retirement. The discussion probably stops right there.
The Railroad Retirement Board is a Federal Government agency. Why would nationalization affect that?
The shoe may be on the other foot when the Government is the one paying instead of the one mandating.
IIRC Social Security was modeled after the RR Retirement Board. The Feds also pay military retirements, and their own federal employee retirements, and Amtrak retirements. I don't think covering more railroad retirements as the thing that they would see as the problem with nationalization.
MidlandMikeIIRC Social Security was modeled after the RR Retirement Board. The Feds also pay military retirements, and their own federal employee retirements, and Amtrak retirements. I don't think covering more railroad retirements as the thing that they would see as the problem with nationalization.
But you can rest assured that Nationalization would create the cry to have RRB retirement benefits reduced to the level of Social Security.
BaltACDBut you can rest assured that Nationalization would create the cry to have RRB retirement benefits reduced to the level of Social Security.
BaltACD MidlandMike IIRC Social Security was modeled after the RR Retirement Board. The Feds also pay military retirements, and their own federal employee retirements, and Amtrak retirements. I don't think covering more railroad retirements as the thing that they would see as the problem with nationalization. But you can rest assured that Nationalization would create the cry to have RRB retirement benefits reduced to the level of Social Security.
MidlandMike IIRC Social Security was modeled after the RR Retirement Board. The Feds also pay military retirements, and their own federal employee retirements, and Amtrak retirements. I don't think covering more railroad retirements as the thing that they would see as the problem with nationalization.
Murphy SidingHave they done that with military retirements,their own federal employee retirements, and Amtrak retirements?
When I first entered federal service as a civilian, I was under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). I paid no Social Security.
I left the government to attend college full time. I had no intention of going federal again, but...
When I re-entered federal service it was in a transition period. I was now under "CSRS Offset," where I remained until I retired. And I paid into SS.
What is "Offset" you may ask. And well you should, as it's an approach that could be taken if the feds took over RRR.
When I retired at 59 (I had enough time and service) I received the full annuity due me under CSRS. Until I hit 62, when I was eligible to file for Social Security. Lo, and behold, comes a letter in the mail stating that my CSRS annuity would be reduced by $X. Curiously, that was exactly what my Social Security monthly check would be.
And that, folks, is the "offset."
If I could have lived on just the CSRS annuity, I could have waited a few years to draw a larger SS payment, but...
Draw your own conclusions (about RRR, not my situation).
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...
Murphy Siding BaltACD MidlandMike IIRC Social Security was modeled after the RR Retirement Board. The Feds also pay military retirements, and their own federal employee retirements, and Amtrak retirements. I don't think covering more railroad retirements as the thing that they would see as the problem with nationalization. But you can rest assured that Nationalization would create the cry to have RRB retirement benefits reduced to the level of Social Security. Have they done that with military retirements,their own federal employee retirements, and Amtrak retirements?
Have they done that with military retirements,their own federal employee retirements, and Amtrak retirements?
RRB retirement benefits seriously outstrip SSI benefits on the same service levels - OF COURSE both railroad EMPLOYEES and the railroad EMPLOYERS contribute to RRB system at a higher rate than the others contribute to SSI. There is no free lunch and railroad employees pay more for the higher retirement they get when the time comes.
Until sometime in the mid 1970's it was possible for railroad retirees to double dip in both RRB and SSI if they had sufficient employment under each system to qualify for retirement.
I can't speak to either military or government employment issues. I am not sure, but I suspect that many Amtrak employees may be covered by RRB, as Amtrak is a railroad.
So we go back to featherbedding? And all of the regulations that bankrupted the rrs in the East? And the loss of more freight back to trucks?
Euclid I see two problems: One is the shortage of manpower is making working conditions more stressful, and the other is that the same shortage of manpower is also causing a slowdown in productivity, which may interfere with the common carrier obligation. The first problem belongs to the employees, and the second one belongs to the Government. So I believe that any movement toward a solution will be most likely driven by the Government’s problem. And their most probable remedy will be lots of new regulatory mandates for taking the health and safety risk out of railroad working conditions. A more distant remedy would be some type of nationalization with which they staff the railroads with a sufficient amount of labor to get the job done on time. Maybe they could just mandate that. I conclude that with the Government solving the problem, Labor will get the improved working conditions they are asking for. As far as pay and retirement benefits, Labor will get whatever it requires to staff the operation. But there will be no more hollowing out the company for short term investor gain, which everyone agrees is the central problem.
azrailSo we go back to featherbedding? And all of the regulations that bankrupted the rrs in the East? And the loss of more freight back to trucks?
21st Century 'feather bedding' exists in the Board Rooms and the interlocking directors amongst many companies.
azrail So we go back to featherbedding? And all of the regulations that bankrupted the rrs in the East? And the loss of more freight back to trucks?
Those same regulations didn't bankrupt railroads like the Southern or N&W or C&O. The actual problems were: 1. Overbuilt for the second half of 20th century, poor management (drferred maintenance, poor choices in modern motive power, etc.) and raking off revenue for dividends.
Agree with your analysis but I think your solutions won't happen.
Murphy Siding Euclid I see two problems: One is the shortage of manpower is making working conditions more stressful, and the other is that the same shortage of manpower is also causing a slowdown in productivity, which may interfere with the common carrier obligation. The first problem belongs to the employees, and the second one belongs to the Government. So I believe that any movement toward a solution will be most likely driven by the Government’s problem. And their most probable remedy will be lots of new regulatory mandates for taking the health and safety risk out of railroad working conditions. A more distant remedy would be some type of nationalization with which they staff the railroads with a sufficient amount of labor to get the job done on time. Maybe they could just mandate that. I conclude that with the Government solving the problem, Labor will get the improved working conditions they are asking for. As far as pay and retirement benefits, Labor will get whatever it requires to staff the operation. But there will be no more hollowing out the company for short term investor gain, which everyone agrees is the central problem. Where will the government find all these extra employees if the railroads can't?
Where will the government find all these extra employees if the railroads can't?
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid I see two problems: One is the shortage of manpower is making working conditions more stressful, and the other is that the same shortage of manpower is also causing a slowdown in productivity, which may interfere with the common carrier obligation. The first problem belongs to the employees, and the second one belongs to the Government. So I believe that any movement toward a solution will be most likely driven by the Government’s problem. And their most probable remedy will be lots of new regulatory mandates for taking the health and safety risk out of railroad working conditions. A more distant remedy would be some type of nationalization with which they staff the railroads with a sufficient amount of labor to get the job done on time. Maybe they could just mandate that. I conclude that with the Government solving the problem, Labor will get the improved working conditions they are asking for. As far as pay and retirement benefits, Labor will get whatever it requires to staff the operation. But there will be no more hollowing out the company for short term investor gain, which everyone agrees is the central problem. Where will the government find all these extra employees if the railroads can't? The government will raise the pay as high as needed to fill the jobs. The private railroad industry won’t do that. I recall reading that the CEO for CSX advocated creating 2 or 3 tiers of employment based on the adversity of the work. One tier may have regular working hours during daytime, regular 2 consecutive days off, etc. Another tier would have unpredictable hours, and days off, require full time availability with minimum rest, etc. Then these three tiers would be paid different rates according to the good/bad working conditions. Maybe the Government would do something like that. Everyone would be happy.
A most interesting concept, but how do you propose to sell it to the various unions?
CSSHEGEWISCH A most interesting concept, but how do you propose to sell it to the various unions?
We are getting to the point where there are some jobs that many people won't do no matter what the pay is. And not just transportation sector jobs, but many blue collar industrial and skilled trades jobs.
That's what the railroads and ever other industry that can't find enough new hires is up against. The railroads do have it harder for some crafts that require time away from home, even at times when things are turning slower and road service employees are getting more time at home. You'll always have to some extent times when you are home don't equal to the time you need to be home.
Throw in that when times are slower and people are getting more time at home the companies, especially in the current PSR slash and burn era, want to immediately cut boards so a new hire finds themselves furloughed for who knows how long. They are quicker to cut then to add back when conditions change.
Jeff
PS. Also for the trainmen side, which is the entry level for train and engine service, it doesn't help when the major carriers' keep saying we want to get rid of conductors yesterday.
jeffhergertWe are getting to the point where there are some jobs that many people won't do no matter what the pay is. And not just transportation sector jobs, but many blue collar industrial and skilled trades jobs. That's what the railroads and ever other industry that can't find enough new hires is up against. The railroads do have it harder for some crafts that require time away from home, even at times when things are turning slower and road service employees are getting more time at home. You'll always have to some extent times when you are home don't equal to the time you need to be home. Throw in that when times are slower and people are getting more time at home the companies, especially in the current PSR slash and burn era, want to immediately cut boards so a new hire finds themselves furloughed for who knows how long. They are quicker to cut then to add back when conditions change. Jeff PS. Also for the trainmen side, which is the entry level for train and engine service, it doesn't help when the major carriers' keep saying we want to get rid of conductors yesterday.
Throughout the 21st Century the carriers have tirelessly worked to eliminate 'learning' positions. They really don't want to 'train' someone to become a Conductor nor do they want to train someone to become a Engineer. All the 'learning' positions that existed at one time - Brakemen, Fireman etc. have been elminated in the name of 'eliminating featherbeding'. With PSR pareing boards in all crafts beyond the bone it is little wonder the carriers are having issues staffing their operations. Especially when the statement gets made that employees don't benefit the company.
Euclid I recall reading that the CEO for CSX advocated creating 2 or 3 tiers of employment based on the adversity of the work. One tier may have regular working hours during daytime, regular 2 consecutive days off, etc.
That sounds like regular jobs and extra lists with extra steps.
Pretty much how much of the RR works today. Well, until PSR eliminated many regular jobs/pools. And that's when the employment shortages began. Then reducing training time hasn't helped.
But I'm sure many of the PSR fangirls will tell you that's just a coincidence.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann Euclid I recall reading that the CEO for CSX advocated creating 2 or 3 tiers of employment based on the adversity of the work. One tier may have regular working hours during daytime, regular 2 consecutive days off, etc. That sounds like regular jobs and extra lists with extra steps. Pretty much how much of the RR works today. Well, until PSR eliminated many regular jobs/pools. And that's when the employment shortages began. Then reducing training time hasn't helped. But I'm sure many of the PSR fangirls will tell you that's just a coincidence.
Euclid zugmann Euclid I recall reading that the CEO for CSX advocated creating 2 or 3 tiers of employment based on the adversity of the work. One tier may have regular working hours during daytime, regular 2 consecutive days off, etc. That sounds like regular jobs and extra lists with extra steps. Pretty much how much of the RR works today. Well, until PSR eliminated many regular jobs/pools. And that's when the employment shortages began. Then reducing training time hasn't helped. But I'm sure many of the PSR fangirls will tell you that's just a coincidence. The article I referred to was by James Foote of CSX as his idea for addressing the problem of bad working conditions driving workers away. But in reading it again, I am not sure how it would work. Maybe he is only talking about giving people more flexibility in time off and choice of jobs. But if that is the case, the jobs with the worst working conditions would apparently still have to done by somebody. I must have misunderstood what he was saying. Or maybe it was not specific enough to be a true solution to the problem. In any case, (as I understood it) the premise was to raise the pay for the jobs having the worst working conditions high enough to attract people willing to accept those conditions. For the current pay, employees would have much better working conditions than before because they could simply refuse the worst conditions without any penalty or loss of pay. https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/csxs-foote-blaming-psr-for-rail-problems-is-nonsense/
There are three things that employees assess when making the decisions about the jobs they 'want' to work. It is not a simple 1 +2 = 3 kind of decision for most employees.
Determinate #1 is pay rateDeterminate #2 is hours the job is scheduled to workDeterminate #3 is the rest days of the job.
None of those determinates apply to T&E pool or extra board service, you get what you are called for, when you are called for it.
Where employees have a choice, pay rate is not always the biggest thing in the selection process - trick that the job works or rest days are a very big selection reason for how it fits into the individuals perception of his family life and personal interests. Seniority is what gives one the opportunity to choose.
Remember, effective Sept. 26, 2022, Foote is history at CSX.
BaltACD Euclid zugmann Euclid I recall reading that the CEO for CSX advocated creating 2 or 3 tiers of employment based on the adversity of the work. One tier may have regular working hours during daytime, regular 2 consecutive days off, etc. That sounds like regular jobs and extra lists with extra steps. Pretty much how much of the RR works today. Well, until PSR eliminated many regular jobs/pools. And that's when the employment shortages began. Then reducing training time hasn't helped. But I'm sure many of the PSR fangirls will tell you that's just a coincidence. The article I referred to was by James Foote of CSX as his idea for addressing the problem of bad working conditions driving workers away. But in reading it again, I am not sure how it would work. Maybe he is only talking about giving people more flexibility in time off and choice of jobs. But if that is the case, the jobs with the worst working conditions would apparently still have to done by somebody. I must have misunderstood what he was saying. Or maybe it was not specific enough to be a true solution to the problem. In any case, (as I understood it) the premise was to raise the pay for the jobs having the worst working conditions high enough to attract people willing to accept those conditions. For the current pay, employees would have much better working conditions than before because they could simply refuse the worst conditions without any penalty or loss of pay. https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/csxs-foote-blaming-psr-for-rail-problems-is-nonsense/ There are three things that employees assess when making the decisions about the jobs they 'want' to work. It is not a simple 1 +2 = 3 kind of decision for most employees. Determinate #1 is pay rateDeterminate #2 is hours the job is scheduled to workDeterminate #3 is the rest days of the job. None of those determinates apply to T&E pool or extra board service, you get what you are called for, when you are called for it. Where employees have a choice, pay rate is not always the biggest thing in the selection process - trick that the job works or rest days are a very big selection reason for how it fits into the individuals perception of his family life and personal interests. Seniority is what gives one the opportunity to choose. Remember, effective Sept. 26, 2022, Foote is history at CSX.
PSR's goal is to have as few assets as possible doing as much work as possible. That includes human assets (employees) as well as engines, cars, yards, etc. They like to blame the downturn brought on by Covid as the reason so many were furloughed, but the furloughs started way before the pandemic. In my area, most of those that were furloughed because of the pandemic came back when recalled because their time cut off wasn't very long and they had a lot of time invested in the job. (Although some with a lot of time in didn't return or quit soon after.) The ones that were lost were those before the pandemic who were at the bottom of the roster and would get cut off for a few months, recalled for a couple of weeks and then cut off again. All because they were trimming jobs where ever they could. Many yard and local jobs that had a switchman/brakeman helper saw the helper eliminated. Unit trains would be combined over parts of their runs. Some very irregular unit trains saw their traffic moved into manifests. Instead of one 100 car unit train every 10 days, have that traffic move in daily 10 car blocks in manifest trains. That same formula, "sweating the assets" as EHH called it, applied to people as well as equipment.
Unfortunately when "sweating the assets" you reach a point where you run out of people because everyone is either off in Federal required rest or in undesturbed rest or layed off (which is what the new attendence polices are meant to reduce, so they can cut extra boards that fill vacancies due to those lay offs.) or working and there's no one to run trains. So you grudgingly have to recall furloughed people, the same as when you don't fix locomotives you have to pull some out of storage. The difference is, the locomotives can't go out and find other jobs. People can, and do. People don't have to wait for the railroad to call them back, and many didn't.
Our tentative agreement calls for assigned rest days. My home terminal is going to have one or more pools do a pilot program, I believe to prepare for the rest days called for in the TA. The TA calls for rest days to be voluntary, but from what I've heard our pilot project will make them mandatory. During the life of the test period, engineer's pools will have a gaurantee at the current extra board gaurantee rate. The project will either be a cycle of 11 days on and 4 days off or 7 days on 3 days off. Pool engineers were polled as to which cycle they preferred to test. The gaurantee isn't docked for the assigned days off.
They probably wouldn't have needed to go this route had they only staffed extra boards as they used to and gotten rid of the new attendence policies, allowing people to take time off when they wanted. The vast majority layed off when they needed, but didn't abuse the old system and it seemed to work. There are always those times, around major holidays for example, when many would lay off, but that still happens even with the new policies.
The railroads are reaping what they sowed.
jeffhergertThey probably wouldn't have needed to go this route had they only staffed extra boards as they used to and gotten rid of the new attendence policies, allowing people to take time off when they wanted
Even when our list is slow, having 2 rest days a cycle is so nice. 2 days you can lose the phone if you want. I don't ever want to go to a list without rest days again.
EuclidMy suggestion above as a way to solve the bad working condition problem is something I think would work,
The tier work? That already existed. Until PSR elimenated oh so, many regular/carded/call window jobs, making everything crappy unassigned pool work. Locally, we're slowly getting some more carded jobs back, but it's still a shadow of what it was jsut a few years ago.
We have a truck driver shortage. Shall we have the gov't take over the trucking industry?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.