Well, this is sickening. Apparently, according to the story, the conductor was just trying to sign out and go home after work. A "fellow" rail employee jumped him from behind and took a knife to his hair.
The company is in hot water over this. Maybe they didn't handle it correctly. But the perp did plead guilty and is no longer working for the railroad (albeit force retired).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-conductor-sues-ic-over-racially-hostile-work-environment-20140204,0,61039story29.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-conductor-sues-ic-over-racially-hostile-work-environment-20140204,0,6103929.story
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...
If the allegations against CN/IC are anywhere near correct - there needs to be a full house cleaning of management.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Even 18 years ago, before my move to Jerusalem, I fetl that railroad and transit management had really matured on this issue and the racial and religious discrimiination had just about dissapeared. I hope that the allegations cam be proved false or that this is a very very minority occurance.
That's disappointing, hopefully they throw the book at those who are responsible. They need to clear out the management there and start fresh.
If you read the comments following the article, it becomes easy to understand how common this sort of thing is. CN/IC needs to be more up to date with their "corporate culture" if not to besocially enlightened, then at least to limit liability exposure.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
tree68 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-conductor-sues-ic-over-racially-hostile-work-environment-20140204,0,6103929.story
FTL:[snip]"..at the internal hearing, in December 2012, the incident was characterized as “horseplay” and the company took no further action, according to the lawsuit. While he was told to come back to work, Perry refused out of fear for his safety..."
"...“No reasonable person is going to go back to a workplace where their life is at risk,” said one of his lawyers, Lisa Banks. “Particularly in an environment like a railroad where it’s a dangerous place to be anyway. When co-workers say they’re not going to watch your back, aren’t going to help in the yard, an accident could happen easily.”
"The lawsuit claims the way co-workers and supervisors treated Perry before and after the attack is consistent with a racially hostile company culture in which racial slurs are commonly used."
"Perry’s lawyers say that Perry was singled out for particularly hostile treatment due to his aspirations to move up at the railroad company. He interviewed for a vacant rail traffic controller position in August 2012, they said"
"A class-action lawsuit was brought by African-American employees against Illinois Central Railroad and its parent company, Canadian National Railway, in 2007 involving allegations that minority employees were overlooked for management positions and other promotions..." {snip]
I've got no hard and fast answer to this situation, except to make a couple of points.
A.) Mr. Perry wore a hairstyle that seemed to engender negative reactions within his employee community. That negativity carried over into his pool of immediate supervisors. The railroad environment as stated in the article is very dangerous, and workers need to be able to count on their co-workers predictability in actions expected on the job. It would seem that in case of the Conductor, his hair style was a flash-point for negative expectations where he was concerned with his co-workers. The fired attacker was obviously 'set-off' and reacted negatively to what he might have viewed as a 'threat' to his fellow co-workers, by one man who was flaunting his co-workers, and creating a hostile work environment.(?)
B.) It would seem that this violent act was not a 'spur of the moment reaction' to the Conductor's hair style. At a guess, I would suggest that this was building up over a protracted period of time? Negative actions and reactions within a 'tight- knit' community of co-workers, should be patently obvious to a front-line supervisor , who would be working closely with the same group over a long period of time. Apparently, instead of being proactive and defusing this situation it was allowed to grow and fester and become the incident it has become.
In this day and time, work place violence ( 'going postal') is not an uncommon abberation. There are many outside forces ( social and political?) that act on individuals and they react differently, and unpredictably; based on their presonal histories.
CN/IC are now in a position of having to react, after the fact, rather than able to be proactive. Human Resources professionals should have been earlier into this situatioin to defuse it, and provide training and personnel solution to this situation. Now it will be up to the Law Department to sort it out and save the IC/Cn as much money as possible. My prediction is that this will be an ugly personnel lesson for the CN/IC, and an expensive one to boot.
On the face of it, the matter was handled appropriately by the management and by investigating company officials, at least on the day and the next. The police were correct to investigate and arrest, and to recommend that the victim report and claim the incident as racially motivated...i.e., harassment...to the HR function at IC. Apart from the obvious physical assault, the law courts was the place to establish whether an indictment and trial were in the offing for the racial/hate component.
It's outrageous, but on the basis of what I read in the article, I believe the initial responses were correct and reasonable.
I suspect that there will now be close scrutiny of two things: the published and enforced policies dealing with workplace violence and harassment, but also the general leadership culture. When things go wrong, I always look first to the leadership to determine their part or negligence as the case may be.
selectorOn the face of it, the matter was handled appropriately by the management and by investigating company officials, at least on the day and the next.
Appropriately?.
"On the day of the assault, the lawsuit alleges, Canadian National's internal police insisted on limiting its report to the physical nature of the assault, directing Perry to contact the human resources department to report discrimination.
Perry made several unreturned calls to a harassment hotline and to a manager of internal audits for parent company, Canadian National, and later tried to submit a handwritten statement to three company officials, according to the suit. Each of them, including a defendant in the lawsuit, refused, the lawsuit said.
“The company appeared steadfast in its refusal to hear about, consider, or take any action with respect to the discriminatory motivations for the attack,” the lawsuit states.
Once Perry's letter was accepted, according to the lawsuit, the company placed three other employees cited in Perry's complaint on leave and scheduled a hearing.
A notice that went out to everyone involved, however, contained Perry's home address, according to the lawsuit."
The presiding judge thought the incident should have been treated as a felony hate crime.
The letter was accepted, but we don't know when and under what circumstances. The claim is that several "company officials" refused to accept the letter. I get very little of value from that statement because I don't know the circumstances or the authorities involved. Remember, the company may have been following procedures prescribed by its internal policies. Perhaps the 'officials' were not authorized to accept such entreaties informally, especially if the case is being handled in other venues under the policies.
I don't like seeing that the complainant's home address was included in any announcements for wide distribution...that part is puzzlng and alarming. But apart from that, it seems to me that we are hearing only one side of the matter. I find it hard to accept that the company is as badly broken as the news item and its feeders are suggesting.
-Crandell
At risk of sounding like I'm taking management's side here, we simply don't know all of the facts.
The implications of the earlier lawsuit notwithstanding, we don't know this isn't a case of someone figuratively repeatedly saying "punch me," then complaining that "he hit me first" when someone actually does.
If this was an unprovoked act, then heads should roll. If the conductor in question was actually a party in his own fate, then the fellow that attacked him should still be held responsible for the attack, but the hate crime aspect then becomes a non-issue, as I see it.
Three sides to every story Crandell. The plaintiff's, the defendant's, and the truth. I suspect the latter is somewhere in between.
Norm
tree68 At risk of sounding like I'm taking management's side here, we simply don't know all of the facts. The implications of the earlier lawsuit notwithstanding, we don't know this isn't a case of someone figuratively repeatedly saying "punch me," then complaining that "he hit me first" when someone actually does. If this was an unprovoked act, then heads should roll. If the conductor in question was actually a party in his own fate, then the fellow that attacked him should still be held responsible for the attack, but the hate crime aspect then becomes a non-issue, as I see it.
And to Norm's previous POST:
Methinks Norm 8327 and tree68 are pretty much on target. Absolutely we do not know the WHOLE story !
WE have heard just the Plaintiff's side ( Via his attorney) . Personaly, I have been cut up believing what an attorney has said. My main argument was to the point that Larry posted..."...If this was an unprovoked act, then heads should roll. If the conductor in question was actually a party in his own fate..."
Rather than a 'chip on his shoulder'; The Conductor was "flaunting" his dreadlocks style hair do. Maybe, he was looking for a fight (?). My point was that the the First Line Supervisor should have been aware of the discord in the party of co-workers, and headed off the 'confrontation' before it got to the point that it did. The Supervisor should have been able to kick the potential problem up to a higher authority(?). Thus heading off the stage that things are at currently, "... the my lawyer can whip your lawyer stage..." It would have at least kept the CN/IC in a better position that it now finds itself, but then that why the Company has a whole department of Lawyers.
schlimm selectorOn the face of it, the matter was handled appropriately by the management and by investigating company officials, at least on the day and the next. Appropriately?. "On the day of the assault, the lawsuit alleges, Canadian National's internal police insisted on limiting its report to the physical nature of the assault, directing Perry to contact the human resources department to report discrimination. Perry made several unreturned calls to a harassment hotline and to a manager of internal audits for parent company, Canadian National, and later tried to submit a handwritten statement to three company officials, according to the suit. Each of them, including a defendant in the lawsuit, refused, the lawsuit said. “The company appeared steadfast in its refusal to hear about, consider, or take any action with respect to the discriminatory motivations for the attack,” the lawsuit states. Once Perry's letter was accepted, according to the lawsuit, the company placed three other employees cited in Perry's complaint on leave and scheduled a hearing. A notice that went out to everyone involved, however, contained Perry's home address, according to the lawsuit." The presiding judge thought the incident should have been treated as a felony hate crime.
I am with schlimm, this was a hate crime and must be prosecuted as such, and CN should have fired him immediately once it verified that fact. If this had happened in Canada (it likely wouldn't have, but that is a personal conceit) the perpetrator would not still be employed. The idea that "he brought it on himself" is extremely offensive, sort of like saying that a rape victim brought it on herself becasue of how she dressed. An assault is never acceptable no matter the circumstances, unless it was a reaction to harassment from the victim previously, and there isn't one bit of evidence that the victim was harassing his attacker previously as an excuse. I can't help but think that the "let's wait until the facts are in" bit would be not be present here if the perpetrator were black and the victim were white.
samfp1943Mr. Perry wore a hairstyle that seemed to engender negative reactions within his employee community.
I'm afraid I don't follow your point, Sam. I can't see why a hairstyle should engender any reaction from anyone within or outside of the employee community.
John
"My point was that the the First Line Supervisor should have been aware of the discord in the party of co-workers, and headed off the 'confrontation' before it got to the point that it did."
Sam, I'm certain during the course of our careers we've had 'stupidvisors' who had their head where the sun don't shine. See no evil, hear no evil.....
John WR samfp1943Mr. Perry wore a hairstyle that seemed to engender negative reactions within his employee community. I'm afraid I don't follow your point, Sam. I can't see why a hairstyle should engender any reaction from anyone within or outside of the employee community. John
As a point of curiosity, would you hire some youngster with a punk haircut that is dyed parrot green to interact with your customers?
Norm48327 John WR samfp1943Mr. Perry wore a hairstyle that seemed to engender negative reactions within his employee community. I'm afraid I don't follow your point, Sam. I can't see why a hairstyle should engender any reaction from anyone within or outside of the employee community. John As a point of curiosity, would you hire some youngster with a punk haircut that is dyed parrot green to interact with your customers?
Norm48327:
The point I was trying to make is that sometimes older people tend to look on younger generations, and they can sometimes view styles with a jaundiced eye...Things like facial piercings and body modifications with the current generations, 'Tat's' might also follow into that area as well... They may make 'statements' for the younger generations, but push the envelope with older generations...
In the 1960s and 70s, The "beat Generation" , and the " Hippie Movement" would bring up similar confrontational feelings on both sides of the 'adult' population. Having grown up in Memphis, in the 1950s I was present when Elvis Presley came on the scene, when Rock and Roll started hitting the big time Music scene. The events surrounding those events would be mind-boggling to todays youthful society. That was my point referencing the Conductor's hair style, is all. Ultimately, we are all shaped by the events of the times we lived with. The hair style may have just been his way to make a 'statement' or it might have been the key to creating a confrontational situation on the job(/)
AS to the lst question: ".../quote] As a point of curiosity, would you hire some youngster with a punk haircut that is dyed parrot green to interact with your customers?
I think you know the answer... A person who effect a 'style' such as that, or any other facial type change; is just limiting their ability to get or improve their employment in the business world. They have IMHO severely limited their potential opportunities, particularly, when interacting with face-to-face customer contact.
You and I are pretty much on the same page Sam.
John WR I can't see why a hairstyle should engender any reaction from anyone within or outside of the employee community.
I can't see why a hairstyle should engender any reaction from anyone within or outside of the employee community.
Oh, come on!
Depends on where you live, of course. But I can assure you that, in Wyoming, railroaders are as backward on this issue as they were 40 years ago. I know because, at a reunion I was unwise enough to attend, I was attacked by some (admittedly senile) old fellow workers because of facial hair that was no different than I had worn so many years before.
Ignorant is ignorant ... and there is no statute of limitations. And anybody who thinks we are becoming more rather than less tolerant is living in a fool's paradise.
I was around as a young teen when the Beatles came to pass. Danged long-haired freaks. The adults of the time were not impressed.
ACYNobody had any obligation to impress them. Back in the 1950's and 1960's, there were hip young folks who were attacked & had their hair (scalp and facial) forceably cut by the upstanding protectors of public morality and decency. Guess that's why Kris Kristofferson wrote "Jesus Was A Capricorn". It's been fifty or sixty years now, and some folks still don't get the idea of Constitutional rights. If a person wants to pursue his happiness by having long hair, he shouldn't be physically attacked for it. He should also not expect to be offered the Presidency of the Company. Look at the rulebook. If it says he can't have hair longer than a certain length, then he needs to cut it or quit (or work to get the rule changed). If the rulebook doesn't prohibit long hair, then it's nobody else's business. In any event, the Company needs to be proactive in preventing physical attacks against anybody. That's the Company Police's job, after all. I suppose there may be facts we haven't heard here, because we have only heard one side; but unless something pretty remarkable is revealed, it looks like the guy has a good case.
Norm48327As a point of curiosity, would you hire some youngster with a punk haircut that is dyed parrot green to interact with your customers?
Norm,
The issue here is that one man came up behind another man and attacked the second man with a knife.
To satisfy your curiosity, I have never owned a business of any kind. If I did own a business where my employees had direct contact with the public I doubt I would consider hair color as disqualifying an applicant. Where I live (New Jersey) many people dye their hair. A green haired employee is as no more likely to repel some customers as he is likely to attract others.
But the CN/IC is a freight railroad. There is no direct customer interaction by operating employees. So the issue is really the attack with a knife.
samfp1943 I think you know the answer... A person who effect a 'style' such as that, or any other facial type change; is just limiting their ability to get or improve their employment in the business world. They have IMHO severely limited their potential opportunities, particularly, when interacting with face-to-face customer contact.
Sam,
I am one of the "older people." I am 74. I would never ever deliberately disfigure my own body with a tattoo. And as far as piercings go I would never even have my own ears pierced much less have other parts of my body pierced. That can lead to health problems. But I am conservative enough to still believe in the Declaration of Independence including the right to "pursuit of happiness." If other people do things to their bodies that have no effect on me I see no reason to get involved.
In this care there was no tattoo and no body piercing. And there is an attack with a knife from behind. If my life experience teaches me anything it teaches me that as people go about their business they should be safe and secure and not have to worry about attacks from behind with a knife or any other kinds of attacks.
dakotafredOh, come on!
Fred,
If you are inviting me to come with you to meet men with facial hair I happily accept the invitation. I am interest in US railroad history. And my impression is that a lot of railroaders in the 19th and 20th centuries sported facial hair as well as a lot of other men from that age. So yes, anyone who would criticize you for that style reveals his own ignorance. But I certainly hope the people who criticized you at least limited their behavior to personal uncalled for remarks and none of them actually attacked you.
I agree that this was wrong.
When I read, "attacked from behind with a knife", I picture a very violent event, a "Bowie knife with a jagged edge", a tussle with one of those involved possibly being thrown to the ground and an attendant amount of yelling and screaming and such...
But then I read where one of the company statements was that is was "characterized as horseplay"...
I picture that as more like the victim was engrossed in doing something and the "attacker" tiptoed up behind him and stealthily selected one long braid of the hair-do and using the small blade of his pen-knife quickly severed the hair somewhere along its length and then ran away, giggling, while victim turned around and said, "Hey! What'd you do?"
UNACCEPTABLE behavior on the part of the "attacker", but hardly a violent "ATTACK from behind with a knife".
When I was a kid, the fashion for a while was loose baggy pants held up with an elastic waist band and it was "funny" for a jokester to sneak up from behind and jerk the pants down, exposing the persons underwear (if they were rich enough to afford underwear). Do that today and you might end up on the sexual predator list, depending on how savvy a lawyer is engaged by the victim of the "joke".
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
samfp1943 tree68 At risk of sounding like I'm taking management's side here, we simply don't know all of the facts. The implications of the earlier lawsuit notwithstanding, we don't know this isn't a case of someone figuratively repeatedly saying "punch me," then complaining that "he hit me first" when someone actually does. If this was an unprovoked act, then heads should roll. If the conductor in question was actually a party in his own fate, then the fellow that attacked him should still be held responsible for the attack, but the hate crime aspect then becomes a non-issue, as I see it. And to Norm's previous POST: Posted by Norm48327 on Wed, Feb 5 2014 12:51 PM Three sides to every story Crandell. The plaintiff's, the defendant's, and the truth. I suspect the latter is somewhere in between. Norm Methinks Norm 8327 and tree68 are pretty much on target. Absolutely we do not know the WHOLE story ! WE have heard just the Plaintiff's side ( Via his attorney) . Personaly, I have been cut up believing what an attorney has said. My main argument was to the point that Larry posted..."...If this was an unprovoked act, then heads should roll. If the conductor in question was actually a party in his own fate..." Rather than a 'chip on his shoulder'; The Conductor was "flaunting" his dreadlocks style hair do. Maybe, he was looking for a fight (?). My point was that the the First Line Supervisor should have been aware of the discord in the party of co-workers, and headed off the 'confrontation' before it got to the point that it did. The Supervisor should have been able to kick the potential problem up to a higher authority(?). Thus heading off the stage that things are at currently, "... the my lawyer can whip your lawyer stage..." It would have at least kept the CN/IC in a better position that it now finds itself, but then that why the Company has a whole department of Lawyers.
Are you serious right now? Is it 1960 again? Why in the world would a hairstyle cause an employee to become so enraged he physically assaults someone with a deadly weapon?
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
John WR;
My guess we are somewhat kindred spirits. I am 71, enjoy History ( any History, and RR History in particular). I am a Veteran and lived in the Memphis,Tn.area most of my adult life. As a teenager working in the construction trade in Memphis, I got to know another young man, also working as a truck driver for an Electrical Contractor in Memphis; he went on to be a great success in the music business, but that is another story..
As a teen I was able to be in and around the Round House at a local RR Yard, with a neighbor, more than once witnessing 'horseplay'; it was always done in good spirits, but I can look back,to see that it could have turned into an ugly situation,quickly. I also saw it at another facility where I had acquaintances, and similar 'horseplay'. Such activities can take place in those environment, as men are working hard together, and their 'horseplay' can sometimes be borderline to the dangerous side, ( welders putting a ground on a beam that a co-worker is about to strike an arc on) springs to mind. 'Venting' while on the job can be a double-edged sword.
I do not mean to condone unsafe, or the kind of 'horseplay' that the Conductor suffered, but as I said, I can see where given strained inter-personal relationships, on the job 'horseplay' can get, rapidly out of hand..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.