Hey Zugman you have union representation...no? Then why not get them involved in this SAFETY issue instead of whining about it here?...just an IDEAR...
hahahahahahahahaha
Ulrich wrote:I would take all that bitchin with a grain of salt...some people are just never happy.
Crews should be happy they are placed in an unsafe situation?
Do you even work for a railroad?
Ulrich wrote:Hey Zugman you have union representation...no? Then why not get them involved in this SAFETY issue instead of whining about it here?...just an IDEAR...hahahahahahahahaha
Attention please!
Could some of you please check around your villages..it appears that your idiot is missing.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Harry_Runyon wrote: Ulrich wrote:I would take all that bitchin with a grain of salt...some people are just never happy. Crews should be happy they are placed in an unsafe situation?Do you even work for a railroad? Obviously not or else he would understand where we are coming from. It's so easy for everyone to say that we female dog too much because they have never been in our shoes. Screw Six Flags save your money and just ride with some of these screw ball drivers, I promise it's way more of an adreniline rush. There are some good drivers out there but the bad ones far out weigh the good ones. Ulrich, lets strap you in with a driver who has been up 24 hours and has missing screws, driving a cab that is less than safe on an unfamiliar stretch of road at 2 am and see how happy that makes you.
Obviously not or else he would understand where we are coming from. It's so easy for everyone to say that we female dog too much because they have never been in our shoes. Screw Six Flags save your money and just ride with some of these screw ball drivers, I promise it's way more of an adreniline rush. There are some good drivers out there but the bad ones far out weigh the good ones. Ulrich, lets strap you in with a driver who has been up 24 hours and has missing screws, driving a cab that is less than safe on an unfamiliar stretch of road at 2 am and see how happy that makes you.
Murphy Siding wrote: As scary as these situations sound, why doesn't it become a bigger issue at contract time?
My guess is that the railroads don't want to pay more money for better drivers. Some of those companies pay their drivers somewhere around minimum wage. Some drivers I know are retired and do it because they like it, these are generally the best drivers.
Yes I am union, and yes, this issue is beat with a dead horse to the carriers. But the lowest dollar wins. Tell you what; how about you get a job with the railroad and actually ride these vans and then report back? Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
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
In Iowa depending where you, the UP uses Rentzenberger, Express Shuttle, a local company aroung Clinton whose name I can't remember, and Armadillo/Rail Crew Express. There is also a small company used for back up in the North Central Iowa area.
Armadillo was rumored to have ties to the UP through a relative of a board member. From what I understand, Rail Crew Express (RCX) is headquarted in Canada but is tied to Armadillo. One driver said when RCX took over they had to reapply for their jobs at lower pay.
I was told a story about a crew that was picked up over at Otis (near Cedar Rapids). They were dead on the law. Once loaded up, both crewmembers went to sleep while the van took off for Clinton. When one of them woke up, they found a driver who was close to running out of driving time and lost. Turns out the driver who was fairly new made a few wrong turn and ended up near Manchester, Iowa. They were able to get the driver back to Marion, Iowa. That's where the driver ran out of hours. They had called for another van. The one that shows up is also out of hours. Another call is made and a third van is dispatched. Meanwhile, the second van is going back to Clinton, so the original van wants to follow him, but neither can take passengers. The crew is made to take their luggage out and left at a convenience store while both vans take off. It's about 4AM and the crew calls the corridor manager. He immediately orders a taxi out of Cedar Rapids to pick them up, appologizes for what's happened and promises to talk to the van company. All told, they were close to 20 hours on duty before finally tying up at Clinton.
I've been lucky. I've never had that big of a problem like they had.
Jeff
Ulrich wrote: Hey Zugman you have union representation...no? Then why not get them involved in this SAFETY issue instead of whining about it here?...just an IDEAR...hahahahahahahahaha
Sure laugh at this. For years this has been an issue. Carriers hires contactors. Complaints to carrier are sent to contractor. At one time, when a crew slid off an icy road in Central Iowa, the carrier said it was not responsible since it was a contractor, despite the crew still being on duty. Courts made short order of that issue. Carrier asked for "van" insurance, no dice. Contractor short of help, hires any mope that can walk and sign their name and are ill trained. Contractors have no way of handling and tracking complaints on drivers. Some contractors treat their drivers worse than railroads as far as rest issues.
To their credit. Carriers will no longer deadhead or send out crews on the branch when vans cannot run. Local van managers look at regional road conditions before sending a driver out in winter, and has authority over UP and the van HQ on this issue. Van company now has 4WD vehicles for use on branch line territory. No more will a large rear wheel van with no rear heat be sent out on icy roads to carry crews. Vans are cleaned every day. Employees are empowered to refuse a van or driver on sight.
Is it any wonder, the old heads jump off of road jobs in the winter months because of the van issues? I no longer have to worry, I work a yard job. This is not about whining, it is about our lives.
You sir, need to get a clue. The UTU and BLE have been fighting this issue for years. And now as a BLE officer, I can attest there is no more single issue that upsets my members than vans and their drivers.
The Big Six have gotten so big, I'm surprised they don't each buy a chauffeur service and make it a corporate captive -- with standards, and not in thrall to other events, like proms and snowstorms. Because it IS a big labor issue, and it would seem it could be settled cost-effectively by a more engaged management.
It's been an issue for years? Then what's wrong with your union representation? If it were me I would kick up a stink to get this fixed OR find another job...one that doesn't endanger my life. But HEY...that's just me!
Seriously...we're not splitting the atom here..
al-in-chgo wrote: Ulrich wrote:Why not give crews an allowance and they use that to arrange their own transportation? That way they can hire who they want and quit their griping over who their employer chooses.Or use Enterprise and rent the cars? Or would that be too expensive? Or would the crews be collectively too tired to take the wheel?
Ulrich wrote:Why not give crews an allowance and they use that to arrange their own transportation? That way they can hire who they want and quit their griping over who their employer chooses.
Or use Enterprise and rent the cars? Or would that be too expensive? Or would the crews be collectively too tired to take the wheel?
I think insurance would be issues with both of those ideas.
An "expensive model collector"
This should be an easy fix...govern the vehicles for one thing, make sure the drivers are trained properly and otherwise qualified, amd make sure they are scheduled properly. I know I'm leaving out alot of the detail...the HOW and the how much $$$...but that's the idea.
Truckers have long since learned that SPENDING money on their drivers and recruitment process to ensure that drivers are qualified translates into long term SAVINGS down the road. Safe carriers are ultimately more cost effective than their less professional corner cutting rivals. That same reasoning would also apply to crew transporters.
Maybe Trains could do a story on crew transporters...let's hear the other side of the story.
Ulrich wrote: This should be an easy fix...govern the vehicles for one thing, make sure the drivers are trained properly and otherwise qualified, amd make sure they are scheduled properly. I know I'm leaving out alot of the detail...the HOW and the how much $$$...but that's the idea. Truckers have long since learned that SPENDING money on their drivers and recruitment process to ensure that drivers are qualified translates into long term SAVINGS down the road. Safe carriers are ultimately more cost effective than their less professional corner cutting rivals. That same reasoning would also apply to crew transporters. Maybe Trains could do a story on crew transporters...let's hear the other side of the story.
What other side of the story? Fact, the industry is competitive. Fact, they pay their drivers very little. Fact, they never have enough equipment or drivers. Fact, scheduling in certain times of the year just will not work due to shortages of manpower and equipment. Fact, the carriers will only pay the minimum in a particular market. Fact, during bad weather, there is never any way of having enough vans on the road, if at all.
Now, who the hell do you think will work long hours for $7 (sometimes less) an hour and be on call? There are times when there are almost no calls in a week. We can run an ad for drivers for weeks without getting one application. There are places that can hire them, but end up shipping them off to out of town terminals to work all the time. How long would anyone put up with that?
Keep the guesses coming tho, it is entertaining to read.
Ulrich wrote:Every industry is competitive...that's capitalism. Another fact to be considered...the railroads today are more profitable than ever, so there's money on the table to fix this problem. There's no need to hire underqualified people at $7.00 an hour. The crux of the problem appears to be a lack of leadership...you need someone who will say "let's get er done". We're not talking the impossible here...nobody is asking for the unions or the rails to cooperate on putting a man on Mars. Lots of much bigger problems have been solved in the past...If this is indeed a serious safety issue like you say it is then it should never have been allowed to drag on for years. But I'll conceed that people with the "let's get er done" attitude are few and far between today...Given a problem most will ask for a raise and then come up with 50 reasons why it can't be done.
Again you miss the point in all this. The carriers only want the best value. The Labor Organizations want safety. Since this is in part, a working condition, the Labor Organizations have a right in negotiating a resolution. However, we are talking about contractors, and not company owned services. That is very hard to negotiate since it has been proven, the carrier has no say in the overall operations of a contractor, except to lay out specifications for contracting. I have yet to see a labor agreement, which covers the behaviors of entities not directly involved in the negotiations.
An example. We have a city street leading into our yard. It is not improved at all, laden with potholes, and hazards (excessive dust). Since it effects the employees covered under a labor agreement, you would think those conditions could be fixed. Yet, the City cannot be forced by any labor agreement, nor will the carrier force the City, to improve that road. Neither party has any standing. The same exists with the relationship between carrier and van contractor. There is no law that supports it.
All I've stated is that this safety issue is fixable and that it has been allowed to drag on for so long is inexcusable. If the basic setup (i.e. carrier hiring contractors) is a problem then that should be addressed. Your membership can make that recommendation.
Things can be fixed very quickly...and sadly...all it would take to fix this is one serious accident.
It is quite obvious you do NOT work for a railroad. Please, you are really embarrassing yourself on this one. And there have been lots of van accidents over the years - and we are no closer to having real paid operators. By the time the railroad can get rid of one, another fly-by-night van service starts up with low rates and crappy vans.
Ulrich wrote:All I've stated is that this safety issue is fixable and that it has been allowed to drag on for so long is inexcusable. If the basic setup (i.e. carrier hiring contractors) is a problem then that should be addressed. Your membership can make that recommendation. Things can be fixed very quickly...and sadly...all it would take to fix this is one serious accident.
QUOTE: It is quite obvious you do NOT work for a railroad. Please, you are really embarrassing yourself on this one. And there have been lots of van accidents over the years - and we are no closer to having real paid operators. By the time the railroad can get rid of one, another fly-by-night van service starts up with low rates and crappy vans.
Really, was that tone necessary? - a. s.
No...I don't work for a railroad..I own a trucking biz and happen to like trains. I've also had some dealings with the railroads as a customer. I don't feel embarrassed...I think the embarrassment rightly belongs to your industry collectively for not being able to solve this simple problem. Instead of hiring fly by nighters why not hire legitimate operators who have verifiable standards? That's all I'm saying and you guys are telling me that's impossible. Well...if it's impossible then find another job or put up with it... what other options are there?
zugmann wrote:It is quite obvious you do NOT work for a railroad. Please, you are really embarrassing yourself on this one. And there have been lots of van accidents over the years - and we are no closer to having real paid operators. By the time the railroad can get rid of one, another fly-by-night van service starts up with low rates and crappy vans. Ulrich wrote:All I've stated is that this safety issue is fixable and that it has been allowed to drag on for so long is inexcusable. If the basic setup (i.e. carrier hiring contractors) is a problem then that should be addressed. Your membership can make that recommendation. Things can be fixed very quickly...and sadly...all it would take to fix this is one serious accident.
csx engineer
Ulrich wrote:No...I don't work for a railroad..I own a trucking biz and happen to like trains. I've also had some dealings with the railroads as a customer. I don't feel embarrassed...I think the embarrassment rightly belongs to your industry collectively for not being able to solve this simple problem. Instead of hiring fly by nighters why not hire legitimate operators who have verifiable standards? That's all I'm saying and you guys are telling me that's impossible. Well...if it's impossible then find another job or put up with it... what other options are there?
And as the owner of a company , are you prepared to say that you don't go with a low-ball bidder for a service to save yourself a few bucks?
I just get sick of arguing with people. Yes, there are aspects of our jobs that suck (just like anyone else). Why do we talk about them here? Look at the title of the site,,,,
Harry_Runyon wrote: Ulrich wrote: No...I don't work for a railroad..I own a trucking biz and happen to like trains. I've also had some dealings with the railroads as a customer. I don't feel embarrassed...I think the embarrassment rightly belongs to your industry collectively for not being able to solve this simple problem. Instead of hiring fly by nighters why not hire legitimate operators who have verifiable standards? That's all I'm saying and you guys are telling me that's impossible. Well...if it's impossible then find another job or put up with it... what other options are there?And as the owner of a company , are you prepared to say that you don't go with a low-ball bidder for a service to save yourself a few bucks?
Ulrich wrote: No...I don't work for a railroad..I own a trucking biz and happen to like trains. I've also had some dealings with the railroads as a customer. I don't feel embarrassed...I think the embarrassment rightly belongs to your industry collectively for not being able to solve this simple problem. Instead of hiring fly by nighters why not hire legitimate operators who have verifiable standards? That's all I'm saying and you guys are telling me that's impossible. Well...if it's impossible then find another job or put up with it... what other options are there?
Sure. Who among us wouldn't? Unless it could cost us our life. That's why we always hire union electricians instead of one of those "fix everything" guys.
Plus, even choosing the high bidder on such a transporation contract would not guarantee safer or better drivers and equipment. The van company would still hire the cheapest labor it could find. Wouldn't you?
I don't see how being a railroader or non-railroader would change a person's way of understanding this problem. If these RR-hired van drivers and rides are TRULY so life-threatening, wouldn't common sense dictate everyone in the crew splits the cost and use a cellphone to call a local cab company instead of taking a death ride? If I honestly had that much fear for my life, I'd never get into the vehicle.
NO, I'm on duty. So I have to take the RR-provided ride.
Besides, I ain't paying for a ride. Next thing they'll want us to buy our own fuel for the engine.
al-in-chgo wrote: QUOTE: It is quite obvious you do NOT work for a railroad. Please, you are really embarrassing yourself on this one. And there have been lots of van accidents over the years - and we are no closer to having real paid operators. By the time the railroad can get rid of one, another fly-by-night van service starts up with low rates and crappy vans. Really, was that tone necessary? - a. s.
I actually think it is warranted. Since Ulrich refuses to listen to those who actually work for the railroads.
RRKen wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: QUOTE: It is quite obvious you do NOT work for a railroad. Please, you are really embarrassing yourself on this one. And there have been lots of van accidents over the years - and we are no closer to having real paid operators. By the time the railroad can get rid of one, another fly-by-night van service starts up with low rates and crappy vans. Really, was that tone necessary? - a. s. I actually think it is warranted. Since Ulrich refuses to listen to those who actually work for the railroads.
It sounded a little belligerent to me, too. Why is it necessary to work for a railroad to understand what's being discussed here? It's not that complicated. If a van driver is driving erratically and you feel you're in severe danger, use your cell phone and report him to the police. Isn't that one of your rights?
Is this a widespread problem? I have never seen a multi-railroad worker passenger van wreck reported in the Chicago area, and there's a lot of railroads here.
You RR guys shouldn't be short-tempered with the rest of us. If you don't like a question or opinion or are tired of hearing what you consider stupid stuff like this, just ignore the thread instead of dressing the guy down by telling him he is embarrassing himself.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.