Balt, about how long did a fireman or brakeman work before being promoted? I know some never took promotion--I knew a few flagmen who were getting along in years.
Johnny
Buslist Remember that was the union position when the the IC proposed a slimed down low cost (prior to dereg) operation on the Iowa Devision. IIRC the IC wanted 2 man crews and extended crew districts to divert traffic from the CNW. The Unions shot it down.
Remember that was the union position when the the IC proposed a slimed down low cost (prior to dereg) operation on the Iowa Devision. IIRC the IC wanted 2 man crews and extended crew districts to divert traffic from the CNW. The Unions shot it down.
Your unintentonal spelling error here might be an accurate portrayal, after all. Back then, two-man crews wouldn't have cut it. Much has been done technologically to make them more palatable. Yet there times when these crews, which look so good on paper, are faced with superhuman challenges just to get their trains over the road. Oh, they earn their money, all right.And thank you, Jay, for bringing reality into play. In my employment days, I took the overtime when I was stuck with it, but never really volunteered for more than an eight-hour day. There are a few "Twelve and tow, or we don't go" folks out there, but I suspect that the closest thing they have to a family is probably the bar owner and the barmaid.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
BaltACD Considering how we've gone from 5 person crews to 2, extended crew districts to reflect more reasonable work times, closed a lot of operator/agent offices, mechinized MOW etc. I'd say it was a lot more than 1%. Technological advancement in MofW, computers, hardware and communications form the bulk of the jobs that no longer exist - not 'featherbeding'. Part of the problem the carriers are presently trying to work their way through is the lack of trained personnel to step into needed positions of Conductor and Engineer - positions that in days gone by had apprentice personnel in the form of brakemen and firemen already on the property learning their craft. Now if you need Engineers you hire someone off the street process them through training to be able to work as a Conductor/Brakeman for a year or so and then force them into Engineer Training where they relinquish their Conductor/Brakeman Seniority and are school taught the basics of locomotive mechanical, electrical and air brake operation that has to cover the wide variety of locomotives today's Class 1 carriers utilize - both EMD and GE as well as any orphans that may exist on a property. After passing the classroom education they are then put out in the field as Engineer Trainees on the territory where they will establish their seniority. After a indeterminate period of time, being taught by current engineers they will have a test ride with a Road Foreman of Engines and either become a qualified Engineer or require more OJT training or a determination that they will never be a Engineer and given their exit interview from the company. From the determination of need to having a qualified engineer you are talking nearly two years.
Considering how we've gone from 5 person crews to 2, extended crew districts to reflect more reasonable work times, closed a lot of operator/agent offices, mechinized MOW etc. I'd say it was a lot more than 1%.
Technological advancement in MofW, computers, hardware and communications form the bulk of the jobs that no longer exist - not 'featherbeding'. Part of the problem the carriers are presently trying to work their way through is the lack of trained personnel to step into needed positions of Conductor and Engineer - positions that in days gone by had apprentice personnel in the form of brakemen and firemen already on the property learning their craft. Now if you need Engineers you hire someone off the street process them through training to be able to work as a Conductor/Brakeman for a year or so and then force them into Engineer Training where they relinquish their Conductor/Brakeman Seniority and are school taught the basics of locomotive mechanical, electrical and air brake operation that has to cover the wide variety of locomotives today's Class 1 carriers utilize - both EMD and GE as well as any orphans that may exist on a property. After passing the classroom education they are then put out in the field as Engineer Trainees on the territory where they will establish their seniority. After a indeterminate period of time, being taught by current engineers they will have a test ride with a Road Foreman of Engines and either become a qualified Engineer or require more OJT training or a determination that they will never be a Engineer and given their exit interview from the company. From the determination of need to having a qualified engineer you are talking nearly two years.
I don't disagree with you at all except for you emotional 1% comment. Let's face it the union mentality to protect their craft in the face of advanced technology held the industry back for years, it wasn't only over regulation. The industry would probably be gone or nationalized today if it wasn't rationalized. So get off the 1% thing.
Buslist I don't disagree with you at all except for you emotional 1% comment. Let's face it the union mentality to protect their craft in the face of advanced technology held the industry back for years, it wasn't only over regulation. The industry would probably be gone or nationalized today if it wasn't rationalized. So get off the 1% thing.
Having lived on both side of the Management/Union divide - I stand by Management's exaggeration of 'Union Work Rules' - THAT MANAGEMENT AGREED TO IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS.
Contracts apply to all parties that signed the contracts - Management and Union.
Everybody 'spins' situations to what they percieve to be their 'best PR' benefit - Management and Labor.
If 'Management' had their true beliefs, employees would pay the company for the opportunity to work - having to pay employees decreases the profits available to management bonus' and stockholder return.
Management has the belief that 'any idiot' off the street can do any job that Contract Labor can do, and most likely better (until they hire people off the street). Labor, conversly, knows that Managment has been staffed with the off the street idiots. I have been the idiot on both sides of the Labor/Management divide in my 49 year career.
The reality is the BOTH Labor and Management are needed to make the company operate and hopefully operate efficiently. Remember Management is charged with making the plans for efficient operation - when labor performs the plans that managment designs in the manner that management intended and the plans fail, who is to blame. You know what Managements answer is, even before the question gets asked.
Railroads live and die based upon their operating plans. Plans that work have traffic moving fluidly across the network. Plans that don't work end up in a congested network, where, if the carrier is lucky they will be able to handle yesterday's freight tomorrow or maybe the day after, all the while tieing up valuable resources of motive power and manpower.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Having lived on both side of the Management/Union divide - I stand by Management's exaggeration of 'Union Work Rules' - THAT MANAGEMENT AGREED TO IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS. Contracts apply to all parties that signed the contracts - Management and Union. Everybody 'spins' situations to what they percieve to be their 'best PR' benefit - Management and Labor. If 'Management' had their true beliefs, employees would pay the company for the opportunity to work - having to pay employees decreases the profits available to management bonus' and stockholder return. Management has the belief that 'any idiot' off the street can do any job that Contract Labor can do, and most likely better (until they hire people off the street). Labor, conversly, knows that Managment has been staffed with the off the street idiots. I have been the idiot on both sides of the Labor/Management divide in my 49 year career. The reality is the BOTH Labor and Management are needed to make the company operate and hopefully operate efficiently. Remember Management is charged with making the plans for efficient operation - when labor performs the plans that managment designs in the manner that management intended and the plans fail, who is to blame. You know what Managements answer is, even before the question gets asked. Railroads live and die based upon their operating plans. Plans that work have traffic moving fluidly across the network. Plans that don't work end up in a congested network, where, if the carrier is lucky they will be able to handle yesterday's freight tomorrow or maybe the day after, all the while tieing up valuable resources of motive power and manpower.
As I said I don't necessarily disagree with you. But of course management agreed to those terms with the blackmail of a strike. Of course the unions eliminated the possibility of management running through a strike by requiring licenses for certain operating positions (all my N&W friends had strike operating assignments prior to that). But beyond that get over what is past and let's talk about how to move forward!
BuslistAs I said I don't necessarily disagree with you. But of course management agreed to those terms with the blackmail of a strike. Of course the unions eliminated the possibility of management running through a strike by requiring licenses for certain operating positions (all my N&W friends had strike operating assignments prior to that). But beyond that get over what is past and let's talk about how to move forward!
A strike on the railroad would be squashed by court injuction (or whatever) in about 30 minutes. There is no threat to management in that one.
And if the managers came up through the ranks, then the required certifications (put in place by the government, not the unions) wouldn't be an issue. They'd already HAVE them.
If we don't follow our contracts we get pulled from service. If the carriers don't follow the contracts all we can do is put in a claim that'll be denied. Just how it is.
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
zugmann Buslist As I said I don't necessarily disagree with you. But of course management agreed to those terms with the blackmail of a strike. Of course the unions eliminated the possibility of management running through a strike by requiring licenses for certain operating positions (all my N&W friends had strike operating assignments prior to that). But beyond that get over what is past and let's talk about how to move forward! A strike on the railroad would be squashed by court injuction (or whatever) in about 30 minutes. There is no threat to management in that one. And if the managers came up through the ranks, then the required certifications (put in place by the government, not the unions) wouldn't be an issue. They'd already HAVE them. If we don't follow our contracts, and we get pulled from service. If the carriers don't follow the contracts, all we can do is put in a claim that'll be denied. Just how it is.
Buslist As I said I don't necessarily disagree with you. But of course management agreed to those terms with the blackmail of a strike. Of course the unions eliminated the possibility of management running through a strike by requiring licenses for certain operating positions (all my N&W friends had strike operating assignments prior to that). But beyond that get over what is past and let's talk about how to move forward!
If we don't follow our contracts, and we get pulled from service. If the carriers don't follow the contracts, all we can do is put in a claim that'll be denied. Just how it is.
Not to mention (but I will) that if the strike process is taken all the way, it is possible to have a contract imposed upon both parties. A PEB, Presidential Emergency Board, composed of people picked by the POTUS, can recommend what a contract, or portions of a contract, should say if both sides can't agree on something. The PEB's recommendations aren't binding by themselves, both sides can reject them. That opens up the process to allow congress to vote a contract in or out, usually what the PEB recommendations are. Although I believe congress can come up with their own "solutions," not just what the PEB recommends. PEB descisions usually favor managment over labor, even when the PEB is picked by a Democrat.
How would you like your pay, working conditions and fringe benefits (not to mention if your job is even retained-one man crews) decided by politicians? Anymore, strikes are more a threat to labor than management.
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.