Ulrich wrote:Well hopefully you guys get this resolved and get the safe transportation that you deserve.. for the rest of us...there may be a business opportunity here..
go ahead..get some vans and give it a shot.. maybe you can do better.. but my bets are you will find out that you will have the same divers that are just layed off from the company that lost the contract to you applying for the jobs....
csx engineer
Find me a taxi that would come to some of the places we go to..... We have no choice but to get in those vans. If we don't, then we would be looking for new jobs real quick. And the old addage rings true - you get what you pay for! It takes money to buy new vans, maintain them, and hire drivers. Less money and something has to suffer.
Steam Is King wrote:So it sort of comes down to money because the RR is suposed to pay for the ride, not the crew members.But I'd say even though you;ve complained for years, as long as crews keep getting into those vans the RR won't do anythingto change this.plus what"s the gaurantee paying more for the service will get you better vans and drivers?Chico
So it sort of comes down to money because the RR is suposed to pay for the ride, not the crew members.But I'd say even though you;ve complained for years, as long as crews keep getting into those vans the RR won't do anythingto change this.plus what"s the gaurantee paying more for the service will get you better vans and drivers?
Chico
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
sanvtoman wrote: ....Anyway on this topic of underqualified drivers next time you see a van from an old folks home take a look at who is driving. Next time you see an ambulette or a wheelchair van look at the drivers.
....Anyway on this topic of underqualified drivers next time you see a van from an old folks home take a look at who is driving. Next time you see an ambulette or a wheelchair van look at the drivers.
Also check out your local school bus drivers.....
I stated in my previous post that we used to have messenger checkers years ago. They were members of the clerks union that hauled crews. Anyway on this topic of underqualified drivers next time you see a van from an old folks home take a look at who is driving. Next time you see an ambulette or a wheelchair van look at the drivers. I wouldnt let the family dog go with these people more less a loved one. Also in Ohio some private ambulance drivers make 8 dollars or so. As others have stated it all boils down to who is the cheapest. I can tell you when i was working no officials rode in pool vans. They rode in company cars or passenger cars that have big rear windows. I was fortunate enough to see Hays T Watkins himself. What a treat.
Are there any numbers to support this safety issue...i.e. number of injuries and deaths? Just curious..
Yeah, so we report a van. What will that get us? We will get crap for delaying a train. Or we will sit in a hotel for 40 hours because the TM will "forget" to arrange transportation home. Payback is a pain.
Yes, there are more wrecks than you will hear about. Just like there are more derailments than you will read about on internet forums.
As far as being short-tempered, I have been on both sides of the fence. I used to be a fan, now I am a rail. That is why I interject a little reality. I'm sure there are people on this forum that actually appreciate or enjoy a little inside view of how it "really works". You are also free to ignore comments from us. The track ain't just rule 251...
Poppa_Zit wrote: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.
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.
Never said I had all the answers...all I've said is this should be fixable... that you guys shouldn't have to put up with unsafe crew transport conditions year after year. We sent men to the moon almost 40 years ago...we put rovers on Mars over 30 years ago. We've unravelled the mysteries of DNA, and we've been able to CLONE other species. Those things are in the realm of the POSSIBLE. Surely then coming up with a safe method of train crew transport is also within the realm of the possible...I know I'm an outsider looking in...but am I wrong? Maybe look at other industries for help..there's no shame in that. The school boards all run relatively safe operations with minimum wage drivers...that's just one example.
Ulrich wrote:Trucks are governed at 58 mph...and to answer Mr. Runyon's question, I take safety into account when quoting on business and when sourcing out to supplier vendors. You'd be surprised (I know I was when I looked at the data not long ago)...I rarely go for the lowest bid. I make more money overall by making a little bit on alot of loads then a lot on a few loads. Also, my customers are Fortune 500, and they don't put up with service failures...if I go cheap I risk losing the business...no second chances. So, the short anwser is I rarely go for the lowest bid.
someone made the comment about just calling a "true" taxi and splitting the bill.. it dont work like that.. the carriers DO NOT re-emburse us for for transportation costs when they are provideing a taxi for us.. and as zug said.. labor agreements dont alow us to do this even if a crew was stuiped enought to want to try it... we have to use company provided transporation.. aka contracted taxi service...that is just how it is... bottom line there....
so yes..it dose make a BIG differnce to someone that is outside the industury to say something about this situation..but unless YOU ARE A RAILROADER...and KNOW all the RULES REGULATIONS AND UNION COLLECTIVE BARGINGING AGREEMENTS IN PLACE... you will not understand where we are comeing from and why some of you are off base in your comments...
Things seem so simple when your on the outside looking in.. but belive me..they arent as simple as some people would like to make them seem... and this whole tread is a prime example how some people that are not in the industury think they know all the awnsers to all the questions without ever walking a moment in a railroaders shoes...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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,,,,
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 $$$...but that's the idea. Truckers have long since learned that SPENDING money on their drivers and recruitment process to ensure that drivers are qualified translates into long term SAVINGS down the road. Safe carriers are ultimately more cost effective than their less professional corner cutting rivals. That same reasoning would also apply to crew transporters. Maybe Trains could do a story on crew transporters...let's hear the other side of the story.
This should be an easy fix...govern the vehicles for one thing, make sure the drivers are trained properly and otherwise qualified, amd make sure they are scheduled properly. I know I'm leaving out alot of the detail...the HOW and the how much $$$...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.
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"
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..
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.