In trouble because he waved.

[Anonymous]

tree68

 

 

Euclid

In his blog, Steve said he has a photo. 

 

 

Ahh - I missed that.

If the employee is recognizable, though, this could go beyond "face in the crowd" exemptions from getting "models" releases.

You only need a model release if you're using someone else's likeness to promote an idea (advertising use). This is called the Right of Publicity. News use, fine art, and personal use are all protected by the First Amendment.

Note that this is separate from the Right of Privacy. Publicity is for publishing the photo, Privacy is for actually taking the photo. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy on the front porch of a locomotive, but you do in your bedroom with your blinds are closed.

[edblysard]

dakotafred

Just read the subject blog post. By the time Steve G. and his pals had descended to hiding in the weeds, the whole thing had become low, childish comedy on both sides.

The conductor is obviously a cretin whose behavior was unprofessional and probably unsafe. That he could be spared from the cab for such antics could be turned into a strong argument for one-man crews, at least on that line.

As for Steve G.: He is HOW old, and has been taking pictures for HOW many years?  

 

Not picking a fight, but…

 

Dakota Fred….why is it you seem to think the conductor shouldn’t leave the cab?

 

There have been several days where I not only leave the cab and go back to the trailing unit, ride on the front platform getting in a smoke and a cup of coffee, but more often than not, I never get in the cab the entire day, so why would you think it was not safe for him to be out there?

 

And I wonder who the blogger would have written to and complained about if, once he drove all that way, and discovered the special train he wanted to photograph was running long hood out?

 

According to his posting, he and his buddy drove there for other photographic efforts, and the train he is griping about was an added “bonus” they discovered once they were there…

 

[dakotafred]

Ed: Please read my post again. I didn't say a conductor never has legitimate business outside the cab of a moving train.

However, in this case, if something had happened, the guy could hardly have pled legitimate business. And the company doesn't need employees showing gratuitous disrespect to members of the public. (And I hope non-trespassing railfans are still considered members of the public.) 

[edblysard]

"The conductor is obviously a cretin whose behavior was unprofessional and probably unsafe. That he could be spared from the cab for such antics" ....

So, again, what was "unsafe" about him being "spared from the cab"?

[dakotafred]

edblysard

"The conductor is obviously a cretin whose behavior was unprofessional and probably unsafe. That he could be spared from the cab for such antics" ....

So, again, what was "unsafe" about him being "spared from the cab"?

 

I think my meaning is clear enough -- nobody else seems to have had trouble understanding it -- and does not need another repetition.

[schlimm]

dakotafred

 

 

edblysard

"The conductor is obviously a cretin whose behavior was unprofessional and probably unsafe. That he could be spared from the cab for such antics" ....

So, again, what was "unsafe" about him being "spared from the cab"?

 

 

 

 

I think my meaning is clear enough -- nobody else seems to have had trouble understanding it -- and does not need another repetition.

 

Perfectly clear and beyond contoversy.  The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot by two mopes engaging in juvenile behaviors.  The camera guy named Steve sounds like a troller while the conductor seems to have had issues.

[Euclid]

I can see how a trainman might get nervous about being photographed up close and personal, considering the context of strict rules and people watching for compliance with those rules.  I can also see how a crewmember could overreact to a sense of entitlement to not be photographed at work.

Perhaps this will lead to a new law saying that you cannot photograph trainmen on duty because it might distract them and threaten public safety. 

Here is a video that I believe depicts the same sort of thing that Steve describes.  Although, I cannot be sure of what is going on.  It is a very good shot of an impressive train.  But that little bit of odd behavior of the engineer and conductor seems weird and a little ominous. 

I assume that the crew out of the cab and apparently mimicking someone taking photos is to send a message to the person doing the video.  I also assume that this relationship began sometime prior to this time of this video sequence. 

What I cannot determine is the spirit of the two people sending this message.  But in any case, I think this surely adds a strange touch to the video.  Here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmCXJaA-eaA&mode=related&search=

So what do you think this was all about?  Were the conductor and engineer trying to ruin the video?  In the comments, people speculate about what the crew was doing, and nobody concludes that they were trying to ruin the shot or acting out of spite.  To me, this shows how people might misinterpret the intent of such antics. 

[gardendance]

I have a cheap internet connection with low data limits, so I have to wait till I get to the library to watch videos.

I too would like to see the photo the blog poster mentioned. Other than the union rep saying "his guys did not like being photographed and just wanted to be left alone" there's nothing to hint that the blogger has evidence that the conductor wasn't trying to help enhance the photographer's enjoyment. As a couple of other commenters have said, don't some people want to have crew waving? I know when I've taken video I'll wave to the crew and hope they wave back. Does the photo show that the conductor's wave is an obscene gesture? How does the blogger know what the conductor's intent was?

[tree68]

gardendance

How does the blogger know what the conductor's intent was?

Until someone talks to the conductor, we won't know.  The inference, of course, is that because said conductor repeatedly appeared on the front platform, with the door open, he was trying to ruin their otherwise pristine 3/4 views of the locomotives.  One might also conclude that if said interference wasn't his intent, he wouldn't have continued to do so after the first couple of times, and particularly not when they "ambushed" the train at one crossing.

Or not.

Personally, if I'd drawn that conclusion during the chase, I think I'd have hidden my camera as well as possible in the surroundings and perhaps used a cable or other remote release (assuming I had one) so they couldn't see me at all.  At least until I waved as they went past me...  

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Norm48327

Personal opinion, but I'm disappointed Trains editors let that blog slip through. It never should have been published as all it serves to do is create aanimosity between railfans and railroaders. The letter was uncalled for. Steve should have cut his loses and not whined about it. Railfans will suffer because of it for some time to come.

"+1"

Some of the comments to the blog suggested that railfans at trackside will need or want to have a T-shirt with a "I am not Steve Glischinski" on it. 

We should all know this: THE RAILROAD - AND ITS EMPLOYEES - HAVE NO DUTY TO POSE AND 'MAKE NICE' FOR OUR PHOTOGRAPHS.  NONE. 

Me, I'd be happy with any photograph of the train.  The con on the front porch waving would be a nice added touch - no problem with that.  Link to one of my favorite photos - indeed, one of my best 2 or 3: https://www.flickr.com/photos/48838227@N02/6910326129/in/photostream/#  

What this reminds me of is the 'rivet-counter' syndrome - people who are so obsessed with the equipment that they ignore the people who operate and maintain it, and the context and purpose, etc. for which it exists in the first place.  Many of us try to add the human element to the photos - it's a quality that many of the better photos in Trains have - and this guy is complaining about it.  Sorry, no sympathy here.

- Paul North.     

[Firelock76]

That video of the Conrail crew stepping out of the cab, one of them with a camera of his own reminds me of a bit of railfan footage I've seen of the old New York and Long Branch taken back in the '50s.

As a Pennsy K4 is passing the railfans movie camera the fireman gives the fan a big smile, and then PRESTO!  He pulls out a movie camera of his own and starts filming the railfan!

Is it a spoiled shot?  Not in my opinion.  It's priceless! It cracks me up every time I see it! How often do you look at a piece of vintage film and make a human connection with a long-ago and certainly now passed-on railroader? 

Railroading ain't just equipment.  It's people too, probably more so than equipment, for what good is the equipment without people to run it?

[Euclid]

Steve said: “I checked with a couple of my friends at CN who were privy to what happened, and apparently it was not pretty. The crew indeed got called on the carpet, and when the incident came up they immediately attempted to blame us!”

Why did the crew get called on the carpet?  Is there a rules violation involved in waving or leaving the cab?

Or did Steve’s complaint letter allege some other behavior that was a rules violation? 

There is a lot of talk about this episode involving overreaction on the part of both parties.  If the letter only says what Steve tells us happened, then it seems to me that it was only CN that overreacted.  I am surprised that a large railroad company would have even answered the letter, let alone get bent out of shape over it. 

There must be more to this story.      

[gardendance]

There could be more to the story, but at this point all we know is what little Steve said. For all we know he's making up the whole thing, including the "not pretty" part.

[wanswheel]

Euclid

I am surprised that a large railroad company would have even answered the letter

 

Perhaps a railroad is wary of authors.

[jeffhergert]

Euclid

Steve said: “I checked with a couple of my friends at CN who were privy to what happened, and apparently it was not pretty. The crew indeed got called on the carpet, and when the incident came up they immediately attempted to blame us!”

Why did the crew get called on the carpet?  Is there a rules violation involved in waving or leaving the cab?

Or did Steve’s complaint letter allege some other behavior that was a rules violation? 

There is a lot of talk about this episode involving overreaction on the part of both parties.  If the letter only says what Steve tells us happened, then it seems to me that it was only CN that overreacted.  I am surprised that a large railroad company would have even answered the letter, let alone get bent out of shape over it. 

There must be more to this story.      

 

Waving by itself wouldn't be a rules violation.  Going out on the lead platform while (I'm assuming) at track speed might be.  You would really need to see their safety rules to answer that.  (Maybe he wasn't wearing safety glasses or ear plugs while outside of the cab.)

Under GCOR (which the CN doesn't use) you could stretch a couple of rules to cover this situation.

1.6 Conduct.  "Employees must not be:  1. Careless of the safety of themselves or others.  2. Negligent  3.  Insubordinate  4. Dishonest  5. Immoral  6. Quarlelsome or 7. Discourteous.  

Any act of hostility, misconduct, or willful disregard or negligence affecting the interest of the company or it's employees is cause for dismissal and must be reported.  Indifference to duty or to the performance of duty will not be tolerated."

1.9 "Employees must behave in such a way that the railroad will not be criticized for their actions."  This one has gotten guys in trouble because of their actions at the away from home motels while off duty.

I'm sure the CN US rules have some similar provision(s).  It would be a stretch to apply those rules to this situation, but they are good at stretching things when they feel like it.  (You never know, they could've been looking for something to get the conductor on.)

Jeff

  

 

[schlimm]

I thought Steve was likely a juvenile, acting in an entitled manner.  Turns out he is an older guy and acts in both a juvenile and entitled manner.

http://cs.trains.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-components-avatars/00-00-35-34-17/4TTTNMFRUUDL.jpg

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Euclid

Steve said: “I checked with a couple of my friends at CN who were privy to what happened, and apparently it was not pretty. The crew indeed got called on the carpet, and when the incident came up they immediately attempted to blame us!” . . . [snipped - PDN]

Reminds me of a certain story in "A Treasury of Railroad Folklore" (edited by Botkin & Harlow) about a dispatcher who was less than completely courteous to a conductor ("Pop" something).  One night Pop called and whined to the DS about the problems he was having with a carload of mules.  The DS finally told Pop: "Bring those mules in, even if it takes all day and all night - we want to make conductors out of them !"  Pop complained and the DS was called on the carpet by the Superintendent the next day and made to apologize to Pop.  After Pop left, the two division officials bent over the desk, convulsed with laughter. 

I can well imagine the same reaction by the CN super and the crew to Glischinski's self-righteous gripe.

- Paul North.    

[Euclid]

Jeff,

Those rules are quite interesting in the context of this letter to the CN fiasco.  I guess I was aware of rules to that effect, but I have never seen them laid out that explicitly. I can see how things like “indifference to the performance of duty” could be in the eyes of the beholder.  It seems like both a hard charge to prove and a hard charge to defend against, and yet they say it will not be tolerated. 

Rule 1.9 says "Employees must behave in such a way that the railroad will not be criticized for their actions."  

A heated letter to CN in this case would certainly be interpreted by the railroad as “criticism.”  So I guess they would be obligated to go forward with a hearing to find out what happened.  That is, if it was a heated letter.      

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Just a passing comment, if anyone cares: Tyler, in his post above, accurately and succinctly summarized what he calls the the model release, Right of Publicity, and Right of Privacy, as a general statement of the law on those subjects in most jurisdictions.    

- Paul North. 

[coborn35]

I was given a front row seat when this letter was written in 2010. I had a few very good friends who worked for the CN when this happened. Please stop saying "he got in trouble because he waved". You sound so stupid. That could not be further from the truth. The conductor repeatedly opened the door at crossings, engineer turned the lights off at crossings, middle fingers and other etc. The letter was sent to the Superintendent, who in turn attempted to discipline the employees. If anyone is familar with their investigation system, I need say no more. This letter (attempt to get guys fired to the guys up here) was posted behind a locked glass case in the Proctor, MN yard office (AND REMAINS THERE TO THIS VERY DAY!!!) and inspired an entire generation of railroaders that hate railfans. Thats not even close to an exageration. Crews now commonly fly toilet paper out the windows, shut lights off and flip railfans off, mostly because of this letter. It created an us vs them mentality. Those are the facts. Why TRAINS decided to stir the pot 5 years later and make things even worse for those who railfan up here is beyond me but I can attest that all the guys up here are aware this was posted again and are just as mad as they were before. Good job ESPN, er, I mean TRAINS.

[zugmann]

coborn35

Please stop saying "he got in trouble because he waved". You sound so stupid

I came up with the title as a way to grab attention to the thread, and to play off of the non-waving controversies of the past on here.   I know we are only hearing one side of the story, and the truth is never what is reported.

 

If you think this is bad, you should read some of the responses to this topc in the Trains.com facebook page (also the conductor involved is posting to that (or so he says) and even included the supposed photo in question.  

 

But as an aside, some of those respondents better hope the company doesn't see the stuff (threats) they are writing if they are a RR employee.  Some of that crap could get them fired.

Bottom line - big brother (or uncle railfan) is always watching.  Be governed accordingly. And any railroader that flips people off or turns off lights at a grade xing should be fired.  Sorry, but there is NO excuse to act like that.

[Ulrich]

Flipping the bird? Yes, should be fired. Lights on/off?... firing would be too severe and probably illegal.  

[zugmann]

Ulrich

 Lights on/off?... firing would be too severe and probably illegal.  

 

In the US, that's all federal law.  Probably decertifiable if caught - although I'm not 100% certain on it.  But I sure as heck wouldn't take that chance.  Not to mention the lawsuits/criminal charges if you hit someone at a crossing with your lights off. 

 Flipping the bird is more a company "conduct unbecoming" type charge.  Still stupid to do either one.  People need to grow up. There's always going to be whiney railfans trying to cause trouble.  Comes with the territory.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Ulrich

Flipping the bird? Yes, should be fired. Lights on/off?... firing would be too severe and probably illegal.

As zugmann said, it's the other way around, as far as I know.  Company rules may justify firing for the bird, but the FRA would have a hard time - First Amendment doctrine might well treat that as "protected speech".  Other violation(s), however, may get to the same result.  

- Paul North. 

[Euclid]

I doubt that a company would have to put up with employees insulting the public under the premise that the employees have the right to free speech. 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Free speech may protect the employee from government action only; not much protection against private (i.e., company) action.  Pay attention to that difference - government vs. private - it's critical on many other issues as well.

- Paul North.    

[Euclid]

Euclid

I doubt that a company would have to put up with employees insulting the public under the premise that the employees have the right to free speech. 

 

I might not have made that clear.  I did not mean to suggest that free speech would protect the employee.  I meant that I do not think that free speech would protect the employee.  In other words, I assume that an employee could be fired for playing games with the ditch lights or giving the finger to members of the public.  They could probably also be fired for trailing toilet paper out the window. 

[Murphy Siding]

zugmann

If you think this is bad, you should read some of the responses to this topc in the Trains.com facebook page (also the conductor involved is posting to that (or so he says) and even included the supposed photo in question.  

 I must be blind.  Can you give me some direction to find this?

[tree68]

Murphy Siding

I must be blind.  Can you give me some direction to find this?

The URL is in the very first post of the thread.

[Murphy Siding]

tree68

 

 

Murphy Siding

I must be blind.  Can you give me some direction to find this?

 

 

The URL is in the very first post of the thread.

 

  I meant link to the the Facebook page with the photo.