You only get what you pay for.......article in Trains

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

rrnut282: Crew salaries on railroads don't have nearly the same range of as they do at airlines (at least the old-line, unionized airlines). The difference between new-hire and old-head is at most 25% pay, and often it's identical. When I say it would be an immediate increase in crew costs by 50%, I'm not making that up.

Second, I'd like you to reconsider your appeal to morality about putting family before money. It's not that easy for the railroader. The money isn't THAT great, and money is something that families need, too. I can only speak for myself here, but I can't go around telling people that they should take a cut in pay because it's better for them. Who am I to make that sort of judgement?

rrnut282 - You should see the tombstone for Pseudo-Mookie - I WOULD rather be at work than home. At least the work here is interesting to me!

Mark - the railroads have changed in the last couple of decades, I know - but the thinking in the 40's, 50's and 60's was that the railroad paid so much better than most other jobs, it was worth the sacrifice to family and social life to make that kind of money. And the pension was decent, so salt away what you could - after you bought all the toys you wanted. And....in the 40's and 50's - mothers were at home to keep the home fires burning, so you didn't have as much guilt by not being there. SHE would take care of the home and kids for you.

Mook

[bobwilcox]

Mark Your column was excellant but I got the impression you may feel this problem is not going to get solved. I think because it is so important it well get "solved' but how the works its way out I do not have a clue.

[rrnut282]

I used to work in the airlines and I had to put many crews in the jumpseat of the cockpit to get hem into the hub where they were paid (a little less than actually flying) to sit and wait until needed or their time was up. They had a pilot for every type of aircraft that flew standing by, just in case someone else got sick en-route or had an emergency (fairly strict about what constituted an emergency, too). Factor in the difference between a mainline pilot's salary and an engineer's (3X or more) and I don't see the railroad's point about prohibitive cost. As far as the crew's unwillingness to give a little either, shame on them for putting the almighty dollar ahead of spending time with the wife and kids. They're only around for a little while. When was the last time you heard a deathbed confession," I should have spent more time at the office?" I know I would trade a few dollars for a good night's sleep once in a while.

[Mookie]

I will be brief.

Good points! I just read the article and at the time thought "Mark is reading my mind!"

Many years ago - railroading wasn't all that wonderful as the old timers will remember, but the men made very good money and that made up for a lot of no family time, not the best working conditions, and not much personal life, either.

But taking up Zardoz thoughts - what about new doctors - they work how many hours on call with little or no sleep and the medical community doesn't change any of their working conditions. Plus they probably don't make all that much money.

So guess it is a trade-off and the amount of money to make while railroading will always be a lure for some - just like gambling. Some people don't gamble and some don't want to make those kinds of sacrifice. Others will always be willing. So why should the railroads or medical community change? The oops will always be covered by insurance or offset by the bottom line.

[zardoz]

Mark wrote an interesting piece in the latest issue of Trains regarding the issue of wages vs working conditions. While I agree completely with his accounts, I would like to add a few comments. I am going to paraphrase some of Mark's comments, as I do not have the magazine with me.

"Railroads do not want the expense of crews on duty with no train to run, due to circumstances beyond the railroad's control. The added expense is not worth it to avoid the potential risk of a fatigued crewman".

My response: How often would that happen? My guess is not all that much on a large Class 1; even if the train the crew was called for was delayed, there would usually be another one along in a few hours. So how much would that really cost? Most of us balance risk and potential loss vs safety and potential gain when we buy insurance, drive too fast, drink too much, spend too much, etc. We make a decision based on what we are willing to lose vs what we stand to gain. In the case of the railroads not willing to incur the slight operational expense of the occasionally delayed train, I would think the potential gain (no crews sitting idle) vs the potential risk of crewmen falling asleep on a moving train would be so minimal that it would not be an issue. Shows you what I know.

Back in the 90's (I am being deliberately vague for obvious reasons) an extra-board engineer on a Suburban train fell asleep on his run into Chicago. He went through a 35mph curve at over 70mph and through a manual interlocking (luckily it was lined for his route). His 10-car train was fully loaded (about 2000 souls). If he had tipped the train or crashed into a conflicting move, how many "sitting crew's" salaries would it have taken to pay off all the lawsuits? This incident is just one of numerous ones I know about. Add this to the number of stories you would get from other railroaders, and you can see why the railroad's attitude seems questionable.

How many collisions are attributed to crew fatigue? When trains hit head-on, run thru siding switches, or rear-end each other, I would wager fatigue is a cause in may of them. I have no quoteable facts to back me up, just 20 years of railroad experience. Sure, for the most part the railroads have been fairly lucky. Not often collisions result in much damage beyond railroad property. But it could take just the right set of conditions (haz-mat, passenger train, concentrated populations) to really hit a railroad hard in the pocketbook.


On the other side of the coin, many years ago the CNW and the unions, in response to the issue of extra-board lifestyles, tried to come to an agreement to improve the lives of those on call. Various ideas were brought up, such as call 'windows' for crewmen, and having to take whatever class of service was available during your call window (yard, thru freight, passenger), rather than being on the passenger board, freight board, etc. (there were other suggestions, but the example I used is the one I remember best). The railroad at that time was not willing to pay a 'guarantee' if a person was not needed, and the crewmen were not willing to give up the occasional day's pay if not called, nor were they willing to have to take whatever class of service for which they were called, even though they would be used in 'their' class as first choice, and only put into a different class as neccessary. This had nothing to do with seniority districts, everyone would stay in the territory they were hired in. To me, it was the same sort of thinking the railroads used: unwilling to take a small loss for (what I perceived) as potentially great gain. I tried to convince others that having to work a different class would not happen that often and was not the better lifestyle worth it? But apparently not; the majority of crewmen decided that they were willing to give up something resembling a normal lifestyle for the few dollars more per year.

So a stalemate was reached and nothing was changed.