CSX crews most Road Jobs with Pool Crews.
These crew protect a designated Pool Turn. The Pool Crews are called on a as needed basis. The Pools are advertised with a designated monthly minimum earnings amount - the amounts vary with the working territory that Pool covers. If the Pool doesn't turn fast enough, the minimum earnings amount then applies as a guarantee. The number of turns in a Pool are periodically adjusted with the Union's and Local Management in conference - this will occur either weekly or each pay period. (CSX operates in New York which requires weekly pay days).
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Ulrich Overmod Ulrich Shareholders (well.. at least the ones who take at least a semi active interest in their holdings) have a vested interest in seeing the businesses they own free of labor strife.. and that of course means living up to contracts and doing whatever it takes to run it fairly. That is the way it ought to be, but probably far from the way it is. Modern shareholders are interested in what maximizes their perceived value, not in what 'does the right thing' either long-term or in terms of improving corporate efficiency, let alone effectiveness. That is how the original perversions of "PSR" as implemented Mantle Ridge style came to be imposed, when sometimes even a moment's reflection from outside the profession would reveal the relative idiocy (I suggest enhanced use of flat switching with 10mph cuts made from ballast as a cardinal example). The railroads have always been a sort of dramatic example of structural misfit between what management values and wants to optimize and what workers generally care about. Just as most managers or administrators need to keep tax-avoidance strategies strongly in mind while making decisions, they want to avoid any 'unnecessary' payments to employees -- whether they think of it as 'money left on the table', I can't say, but it probably often seems that way -- and the clever strategy often used by folks in the insurance industry, to keep people in the dark and pay out as little as possible as grudgingly as possible wherever marketing says you won't lose anything, is in use wherever penny-pinchers can work it. That's true.. and that's why I'm in favor of activist investors (or at least mutual fund managers who show up at the meetings) who take an active interest in the companies they invest in. Personally I invest on my own, and I bring that up only because I'm probably a typical long term investor.. I want the companies I invest in to do well over the short term but more importantly over the next 20 years. And that means having a vested interest in minimizing labor turmoil.. Personally I don't like the trend towards index funds... people invest in a bunch of companies without really knowing or caring about any one of them. And it gives the fund managers an "out"..i.e. CSX is down but hey P&G is up so don't worry about it". Nobody prepared to kick up sand when things aren't done right.. I would much rather have someone like Bill Ackman stir things up by putting his own coin on the line.. makes it better for the rest of us to have active owner representation.
Overmod Ulrich Shareholders (well.. at least the ones who take at least a semi active interest in their holdings) have a vested interest in seeing the businesses they own free of labor strife.. and that of course means living up to contracts and doing whatever it takes to run it fairly. That is the way it ought to be, but probably far from the way it is. Modern shareholders are interested in what maximizes their perceived value, not in what 'does the right thing' either long-term or in terms of improving corporate efficiency, let alone effectiveness. That is how the original perversions of "PSR" as implemented Mantle Ridge style came to be imposed, when sometimes even a moment's reflection from outside the profession would reveal the relative idiocy (I suggest enhanced use of flat switching with 10mph cuts made from ballast as a cardinal example). The railroads have always been a sort of dramatic example of structural misfit between what management values and wants to optimize and what workers generally care about. Just as most managers or administrators need to keep tax-avoidance strategies strongly in mind while making decisions, they want to avoid any 'unnecessary' payments to employees -- whether they think of it as 'money left on the table', I can't say, but it probably often seems that way -- and the clever strategy often used by folks in the insurance industry, to keep people in the dark and pay out as little as possible as grudgingly as possible wherever marketing says you won't lose anything, is in use wherever penny-pinchers can work it.
Ulrich Shareholders (well.. at least the ones who take at least a semi active interest in their holdings) have a vested interest in seeing the businesses they own free of labor strife.. and that of course means living up to contracts and doing whatever it takes to run it fairly.
That is the way it ought to be, but probably far from the way it is. Modern shareholders are interested in what maximizes their perceived value, not in what 'does the right thing' either long-term or in terms of improving corporate efficiency, let alone effectiveness. That is how the original perversions of "PSR" as implemented Mantle Ridge style came to be imposed, when sometimes even a moment's reflection from outside the profession would reveal the relative idiocy (I suggest enhanced use of flat switching with 10mph cuts made from ballast as a cardinal example).
The railroads have always been a sort of dramatic example of structural misfit between what management values and wants to optimize and what workers generally care about. Just as most managers or administrators need to keep tax-avoidance strategies strongly in mind while making decisions, they want to avoid any 'unnecessary' payments to employees -- whether they think of it as 'money left on the table', I can't say, but it probably often seems that way -- and the clever strategy often used by folks in the insurance industry, to keep people in the dark and pay out as little as possible as grudgingly as possible wherever marketing says you won't lose anything, is in use wherever penny-pinchers can work it.
That's true.. and that's why I'm in favor of activist investors (or at least mutual fund managers who show up at the meetings) who take an active interest in the companies they invest in. Personally I invest on my own, and I bring that up only because I'm probably a typical long term investor.. I want the companies I invest in to do well over the short term but more importantly over the next 20 years. And that means having a vested interest in minimizing labor turmoil..
Personally I don't like the trend towards index funds... people invest in a bunch of companies without really knowing or caring about any one of them. And it gives the fund managers an "out"..i.e. CSX is down but hey P&G is up so don't worry about it". Nobody prepared to kick up sand when things aren't done right.. I would much rather have someone like Bill Ackman stir things up by putting his own coin on the line.. makes it better for the rest of us to have active owner representation.
Then you would be interested to learn that the railroads Ackman has invested in have terrible relationships with their employees and unions.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Looks as if that's true across the board... i.e. "train trash" at UP certainly doesn't suggest that things are any better there... can't blame Ackman for that one or even activist investors in general.
This type of behavior and overall poor employment relations is far less prevalent where the owner of the business is on the premises. This is because the owner has a vested interest in seeing management and labor working well and in harmony. Where companies are publicly traded the "owners" are not on the premises and often don't care much about what happens day to day.. a situation that is compounded by the fact that railroads are large and complex..where people are sometimes hired and promoted without the proper vetting.. That's how so called managers who refer to their people as train trash get in.
It's a systemic problem.. the net affect is that the "ownership" is very passive.. and getting more passive by the day as more investors go the index fund route. Would be much better if the owners/shareholders have more to lose.. an activist investor who is willing to put a significant amount of his own money on the line is closer to having the "owner" of the business on the premises.. as it is the collective ownership doesn't care.. do whatever you want.. a perfect recipe to ensure that decisions go unchecked.
jeffhergert That's what gaurantee is for.
Thanks! I recall from an NS hiring session here that all road crews working out of this location work off the extra board. Is that common?
SFbrkmn No. Claims submitted, that are good, are constantly declined. The workforce has to fight, scratch and claw just to get paid correctly. This creates yet more 'us vs. them' culture. Many claims get paid but that is through a process that can take months and even yrs in some cases. Right now I have 8 RO claims just this yr and all have been declined and then forwarded to the local chairman. Two from last yr were paid a couple halfs ago. A constant cat and mouse game. gets old but now is the norm. Young guys have to be alert or $$$ can be lost in wages
No. Claims submitted, that are good, are constantly declined. The workforce has to fight, scratch and claw just to get paid correctly. This creates yet more 'us vs. them' culture. Many claims get paid but that is through a process that can take months and even yrs in some cases. Right now I have 8 RO claims just this yr and all have been declined and then forwarded to the local chairman. Two from last yr were paid a couple halfs ago. A constant cat and mouse game. gets old but now is the norm. Young guys have to be alert or $$$ can be lost in wages
Similar situation at CN. Runarounds and held-&-not-used claims are regularly denied, and the pay office is always looking for any reason to cut stuff, even if it is obviously legit.
But by far the two biggest issues we have are conductor-only violations and rest notice violations.
Our contract has a number of restrictions on what conductor-only crews can do, similar to what Jeff described at UP. This section of the agreement was ignored by the company on a daily basis, and eventually resulted in arbitrator-imposed penalty payments, which have increased to the current level of 400 miles (the equivalent of 32 hours pay) for each violation, doled out to the individual employees involved and the union, to help cover the administrative cost of grieving these obvious violations.
Rest notice. There is a article in our contracts which allows crews to notify the RTC (dispatcher) that we will not work past the 10th hour of a shift, provided we give at least 3 hours advance notice. But the company started ignoring this as well, and we ended up with penalty payments of 50 or 100 miles to each employee for being worked 30 or 60 minutes past the time we filed notice for rest. When faced with the staggering cost of paying all these claims, the company simple chose not to. This fight went on for years, and was eventually addressed in our last contract when the company finally agreed to pay the claims. They have been pretty good lately, but I have heard credible stories lately that certain folks in upper management want to start cutting everything again.
In my mind actions like these are stealing, plain and simple. The employer is withholding monies that rightfully belong to the employees.
And I could go on all day with examples like these...
P.S: I would mention Hunter Harrison's nicknames for Canadian employees, but they are so obscene I would surely get banned.
Ulrich Looks as if that's true across the board... i.e. "train trash" at UP certainly doesn't suggest that things are any better there... can't blame Ackman for that one or even activist investors in general. This type of behavior and overall poor employment relations is far less prevalent where the owner of the business is on the premises. This is because the owner has a vested interest in seeing management and labor working well and in harmony. Where companies are publicly traded the "owners" are not on the premises and often don't care much about what happens day to day.. a situation that is compounded by the fact that railroads are large and complex..where people are sometimes hired and promoted without the proper vetting.. That's how so called managers who refer to their people as train trash get in. It's a systemic problem.. the net affect is that the "ownership" is very passive.. and getting more passive by the day as more investors go the index fund route. Would be much better if the owners/shareholders have more to lose.. an activist investor who is willing to put a significant amount of his own money on the line is closer to having the "owner" of the business on the premises.. as it is the collective ownership doesn't care.. do whatever you want.. a perfect recipe to ensure that decisions go unchecked.
If Ackman cared about employee relations he would not have hired a management team with a history of union-busting and intimidation tactics. Or at minimum, he could have instructed said management to tread more lightly, and show some basic respect.
Ackman and his protege (Hilal) hired that same guy twice, and did nothing to temper his attitude. Actions (or inactions) speak louder than words.
This is somewhat unrelated, but I'm reading about these phone calls giving two hours notice to be on site and ready to work. Is that typical in the rail industry? That sounds so much more difficult than having regularly scheduled shifts. Do people like that "wait for a call" scheduling or would they prefer a set schedule if possible?
RailRoader608 This is somewhat unrelated, but I'm reading about these phone calls giving two hours notice to be on site and ready to work. Is that typical in the rail industry? That sounds so much more difficult than having regularly scheduled shifts. Do people like that "wait for a call" scheduling or would they prefer a set schedule if possible?
The 2 hr call has been the industry standard for longer than any of us have been alive.
Most everyone would prefer some form of schedule, but as a whole we cannot seem to agree on what form that would take, and how much earning potential we would end up losing. And of course the companies do not want anything that would limit operational flexibility or end up making them have to hire more employees.
Fatigue is a major problem in the rail industry due to employees working on call, and has been for many years.
SD70Dude Ulrich Looks as if that's true across the board... i.e. "train trash" at UP certainly doesn't suggest that things are any better there... can't blame Ackman for that one or even activist investors in general. This type of behavior and overall poor employment relations is far less prevalent where the owner of the business is on the premises. This is because the owner has a vested interest in seeing management and labor working well and in harmony. Where companies are publicly traded the "owners" are not on the premises and often don't care much about what happens day to day.. a situation that is compounded by the fact that railroads are large and complex..where people are sometimes hired and promoted without the proper vetting.. That's how so called managers who refer to their people as train trash get in. It's a systemic problem.. the net affect is that the "ownership" is very passive.. and getting more passive by the day as more investors go the index fund route. Would be much better if the owners/shareholders have more to lose.. an activist investor who is willing to put a significant amount of his own money on the line is closer to having the "owner" of the business on the premises.. as it is the collective ownership doesn't care.. do whatever you want.. a perfect recipe to ensure that decisions go unchecked. If Ackman cared about employee relations he would not have hired a management team with a history of union-busting and intimidation tactics. Or at minimum, he could have instructed said management to tread more lightly, and show some basic respect. Ackman and his protege (Hilal) hired that same guy twice, and did nothing to temper his attitude. Actions (or inactions) speak louder than words.
Unions at both carriers alive and well and doing just fine. Ackman and team aggressive? For sure.. Intimidating?.. probably. One needs to be that way in business.. doesn't matter if you're running a railroad or a dry cleaner. If you're a pussycat today you will be roadkill tomorrow. But that doesn't preclude being fair and respectful.
SD70DudeFatigue is a major problem in the rail industry due to employees working on call, and has been for many years.
RailRoader608Well that's a bit frightening. Is fatigue a problem the industry is looking to address? Or is it so ingrained in the culture everyone accepts it as 'that's how we do things'?
There has never been any real question that "fatigue" is a vicious and severe problem in railroading, and that steps toward its eradication would be both sensible and valuable.
The problem lies in the fundamental nature of "railroading" as, for want of a more exact technical term, a 'capitalist' enterprise. As a train is made up, a crew is needed for it ASAP; as the train works its way over the road, crews are needed for relief where and when necessary; as the train arrives at yarding points, crews are needed to receive and work with it. All this within, say, a two-hour window.
Now, remember the definition of 'engaged to be waiting'. A railroad loses substantial amounts of money if it has to pay employees to sit around waiting for trains, or worse, have them go home after waiting the Federally-mandated number of hours and have a train 'show up' a short time later. So the railroads instituted the idea of 'calling' when a train comes, at any "legal" time day or night, without much regard to egghead niceties like 'circadian rhythms', and then in a misguided attempt at discipline (reminiscent of the theories behind bans on personal electronics) bans things like napping at sidings without much regard to egghead niceties like the SAC practice of power naps. Government of course jumps in with do-gooder legislation that doesn't address the fundamental issue much, if at all. And railroaders as a breed, much like workers enduring an idiotic rolling-shift scheduling system in a factory, have to suck it up and learn to take it. (This for some reason always reminds me gently of the 'market failure' of the Bishop coupling knife...)
It is difficult to conceive just how much of a wrench would be thrown into any contemporary railroad's operation, PSR or not, were 'sensible' measures of fatigue eradication to be tried. Instead it is much easier to treat things like 'sleep apnea' as diseases subject to insurance coverage, rather than fatigue sequelae as they almost certainly usually are, and make the poor enginemen crank up CPAP machines during their inadequate sleepy time.
Do not expect humans to like this, unless they be stockholders with relatively flinten hearts; do not expect any management that expects to stay in for more than a couple of months to make meaningful changes that actually improve anything. I have been working on semi-autonomous solutions that can and would, in fact, help "the root causes", but they involve both technological and cultural changes that are probably best 'imposed via a Government funded mandate'. As would any meaningful change likely have to be.
Not mentoned is the various abilities of union representation. The discusssion has been from the operating perspective. But, I had an experience when the NS was rebuilding the grade crossings and signals in Sharon, PA. I was talking to the MOW / signal crews as a railfan when they first arrived in town. A backhoe operator was frinedly and informative. A month later they had worked north through town and were near my favorite hardware store. The backhoe operator saw me, stopped his machine and stopped me to share the story of his 10 day suspension. He had never been instructed as to the warning posts for natural gas lines and what they meant. His duties were most often out on the ROW and not in a town. He was not instructed or informed about natural gas lines that passed under the one of the grade crossing and struck and severed it. NS suspeneded him for two weeks. When I asked him if he had submitted a grievance, he said that his union representative told him he was lucky he wasn't fired and that was that. I was surprised as unions in industry would have taken the grievance. They would have argued that management had failed to train and inform. Management negligence contributed to the accident. My experience as a management representative in Western Pennsylvania with both public unions and industrial unions has been a vigorous pursuit for their members, often maddeningly so and sometimes without merit. But, their dogged pursuit was somewhat admirable except that I was on the receiving end!
SAMUEL C WALKERI was surprised as unions in industry would have taken the grievance. They would have argued that management had failed to train and inform.
In what universe does someone qualified to run a backhoe, and skilled in its use, not already know about 'call before you dig' and the various markers for underground surprises?
That is CERTAINLY not something that "Norfolk Southern management" should have to conduct special briefings about in order to be legally protected against negligence claims or whatever. Unless we want to replicate the HIPAA silliness ad nauseam in industry, with mandatory safety meetings and trainings before every job covering (and subsequently 'testing mastery' afterward) every potential overhead or underground contingency.
Overmod SAMUEL C WALKER I was surprised as unions in industry would have taken the grievance. They would have argued that management had failed to train and inform. In what universe does someone qualified to run a backhoe, and skilled in its use, not already know about 'call before you dig' and the various markers for underground surprises? That is CERTAINLY not something that "Norfolk Southern management" should have to conduct special briefings about in order to be legally protected against negligence claims or whatever. Unless we want to replicate the HIPAA silliness ad nauseam in industry, with mandatory safety meetings and trainings before every job covering (and subsequently 'testing mastery' afterward) every potential overhead or underground contingency.
SAMUEL C WALKER I was surprised as unions in industry would have taken the grievance. They would have argued that management had failed to train and inform.
At CSX every form of job action involving employeeS, the employees involved were required to have a 'job briefing' to cover such things as particular circumstance that would be unique and different in this job vs. past jobs and any particular safety requirements that would be different from the norm. As work progressed and circumstance changed, an additional 'job briefing' would be required so as to keep all involved in the job on the 'same page of the playbook'.
In the case of your NS backhoe operator - his supervisor should have pointed out the requirements in working around underground utilities, and the supervisor SHOULD have notified the proper authorities of the utilities of the NS's impeding work actions around those utilities.
In my local area, there are multiple radio advertisements about the need to call 'Miss Utility' BEFORE digging around underground utilities and a requirement to hand dig in their immediate area. Wasn't there recently a natural gas explosion in Durham, NC when a construction crew struck a natural gas line?
Ulrich SD70Dude Ulrich Looks as if that's true across the board... i.e. "train trash" at UP certainly doesn't suggest that things are any better there... can't blame Ackman for that one or even activist investors in general. This type of behavior and overall poor employment relations is far less prevalent where the owner of the business is on the premises. This is because the owner has a vested interest in seeing management and labor working well and in harmony. Where companies are publicly traded the "owners" are not on the premises and often don't care much about what happens day to day.. a situation that is compounded by the fact that railroads are large and complex..where people are sometimes hired and promoted without the proper vetting.. That's how so called managers who refer to their people as train trash get in. It's a systemic problem.. the net affect is that the "ownership" is very passive.. and getting more passive by the day as more investors go the index fund route. Would be much better if the owners/shareholders have more to lose.. an activist investor who is willing to put a significant amount of his own money on the line is closer to having the "owner" of the business on the premises.. as it is the collective ownership doesn't care.. do whatever you want.. a perfect recipe to ensure that decisions go unchecked. If Ackman cared about employee relations he would not have hired a management team with a history of union-busting and intimidation tactics. Or at minimum, he could have instructed said management to tread more lightly, and show some basic respect. Ackman and his protege (Hilal) hired that same guy twice, and did nothing to temper his attitude. Actions (or inactions) speak louder than words. Unions at both carriers alive and well and doing just fine. Ackman and team aggressive? For sure.. Intimidating?.. probably. One needs to be that way in business.. doesn't matter if you're running a railroad or a dry cleaner. If you're a pussycat today you will be roadkill tomorrow. But that doesn't preclude being fair and respectful.
The union-busting tactics take the form of disproportionately following around and harassing local union reps while they are at work, and deliberately causing a massive number of grievances (cut time claims, excessive discipline) with the intent of clogging up the grievance resolution and arbitration system so grievances are no longer resolved in a timely manner, so that the union would be forced to expend more and more resources fighting these battles and members would lose faith in the union's ability to resolve their grievances. All while EHH attempted to force in his ideal contract (hourly rate of pay, almost no personal rest, conductor-only everything, etc).
Those tactics only partly worked. Yes, the unions still exist but the arbitration system has been clogged up for years, and in many cases grievances drag on for years longer than they should (you can imagine how this has gone over out on the property). Union dues ended up increasing because of all the related costs as well. There were two major strikes at CN over EHH trying to impose his contract, and he ended up losing those particular battles.
Now for some examples of intimidation, and the attitude that created these filters down from the top, and the employees get to bear the brunt of it.
Intimidation is when you yell, scream and swear at your employees instead of talking to them respectfully.
Intimidation is when you follow crews around, hide in the weeds, and hand out demerits or suspensions for every possible rule violation, no matter how small.
Intimidation is when you cancel the napping pilot program, and send the trainmasters out to sneak onto locomotives in the middle of nowhere.
Intimidation is when you refuse to allow employees to book "unfit" and instead force them to come to work tired, under threat of harsh discipline.
Intimidation is when you force employees to work with equipment that is unsafe or not properly equipped, like using a yard engine with worn-out brakes or taking a locomotive without DB into mountain-grade territory, and then discipline and harass them after accidents happen.
I could go on all day, but I'll let these guys take over for a bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmPm6Fpd0ic
What a way to run a railroad.
The gas line was marked with a five foot vertical 2.5 inch pipe that its its top had an open pipe welded at at an angle of 30 degrees of a length of about 12 inches. Such markers are typically decades old with faded paint and havinng suface rust. There was / is no written markings on such markers. Modern markers are typiccaly vertical polymer pipes with corporate colors and written information. The marker described also serves as an exhaust for the gas line that is within a larger tube. As the operator most likely was trained for modern markings encountered out on an ROW, he ws not prepared for the marking that essentially was / is a piece of functioning industrial archaeology.
SD70DudeIntimidation is when you cancel the napping pilot program, and send the trainmasters out to sneak onto locomotives in the middle of nowhere.
What was that?
Sounds terrible.. and all the more reason to have actively participating competent ownership. How is it that Ackman was able to swoop in like he did anyway? It happened because under the previous management regime CP was a sitting duck, with the worst numbers of any class 1. There would have been no Ackman had investors/owners at the time taken a more active role in the business.. perhaps by insisting on better results from the previous management team. Same story at CSX a decade earlier with the Children's Investment Fund.. how is that they were able to sweep in and set the tune? The answer, again, other investors by and large passively allowed that to happen. This happens because there's not enough capable ownership on hand that cares about what happens day to day.. The answer is more accountability to ownership.. not less. BNSF is probably a good example where ownership (in the form of BH) is on hand and on site.. instead of a bunch of investors who don't know or care about what they own, they've got a few capable people who own the bulk of it. The other roads need something similar.. at least one owner who has a ton of skin in the game.. and a ton to lose if things go sideways.
charlie hebdo SD70Dude Intimidation is when you cancel the napping pilot program, and send the trainmasters out to sneak onto locomotives in the middle of nowhere. What was that?
SD70Dude Intimidation is when you cancel the napping pilot program, and send the trainmasters out to sneak onto locomotives in the middle of nowhere.
I've forgotten some specifics, but basically the pilot project attempted to reduce fatigue by allowing crews of stopped trains to nap if tired. The crews of extended-run (double-sub) trains were even empowered to request that the RTC put their train into a siding for 20 or 30 minutes, for the specific purpose of taking a power nap.
CN ended up deciding that this was not a worthwhile project, and so it ended.
The only lasting legacy of the pilot program is the fully reclining seats that new locomotives of that time were ordered with, some of them have not yet been replaced.
Ulrich Sounds terrible.. and all the more reason to have actively participating competent ownership. How is it that Ackman was able to swoop in like he did anyway? It happened because under the previous management regime CP was a sitting duck, with the worst numbers of any class 1. There would have been no Ackman had investors/owners at the time taken a more active role in the business.. perhaps by insisting on better results from the previous management team. Same story at CSX a decade earlier with the Children's Investment Fund.. how is that they were able to sweep in and set the tune? The answer, again, other investors by and large passively allowed that to happen. This happens because there's not enough capable ownership on hand that cares about what happens day to day.. The answer is more accountability to ownership.. not less. BNSF is probably a good example where ownership (in the form of BH) is on hand and on site.. instead of a bunch of investors who don't know or care about what they own, they've got a few capable people who own the bulk of it. The other roads need something similar.. at least one owner who has a ton of skin in the game.. and a ton to lose if things go sideways.
I agree that shareholders have a right to demand results, and that a corporation benefits from having large shareholders who want it to do well in the long-term. And of course that management apathy leaves a company vulnerable to hostile takeovers and management change. Apathy is good for no one, not the customers, not the employees, and certainly not the apathetic managers.
But I do not think that Ackman/Hilal/TCI Fund are examples of good shareholders. All three of them wanted results NOW, as one would expect from hedge funds. Ackman and Hilal were perfectly willing to overlook all the downsides of Hunter Harrison when they hired him, and the employees & customers of CP & CSX suffered, and continue to suffer for it.
I've often wondered if Bill Gates would have become the majority shareholder of CN, were it not for our federal government's restriction on how much one shareholder can own.
Overmod RailRoader608 Well that's a bit frightening. Is fatigue a problem the industry is looking to address? Or is it so ingrained in the culture everyone accepts it as 'that's how we do things'? There has never been any real question that "fatigue" is a vicious and severe problem in railroading, and that steps toward its eradication would be both sensible and valuable. The problem lies in the fundamental nature of "railroading" as, for want of a more exact technical term, a 'capitalist' enterprise. As a train is made up, a crew is needed for it ASAP; as the train works its way over the road, crews are needed for relief where and when necessary; as the train arrives at yarding points, crews are needed to receive and work with it. All this within, say, a two-hour window. Now, remember the definition of 'engaged to be waiting'. A railroad loses substantial amounts of money if it has to pay employees to sit around waiting for trains, or worse, have them go home after waiting the Federally-mandated number of hours and have a train 'show up' a short time later. So the railroads instituted the idea of 'calling' when a train comes, at any "legal" time day or night, without much regard to egghead niceties like 'circadian rhythms', and then in a misguided attempt at discipline (reminiscent of the theories behind bans on personal electronics) bans things like napping at sidings without much regard to egghead niceties like the SAC practice of power naps. Government of course jumps in with do-gooder legislation that doesn't address the fundamental issue much, if at all. And railroaders as a breed, much like workers enduring an idiotic rolling-shift scheduling system in a factory, have to suck it up and learn to take it. (This for some reason always reminds me gently of the 'market failure' of the Bishop coupling knife...) It is difficult to conceive just how much of a wrench would be thrown into any contemporary railroad's operation, PSR or not, were 'sensible' measures of fatigue eradication to be tried. Instead it is much easier to treat things like 'sleep apnea' as diseases subject to insurance coverage, rather than fatigue sequelae as they almost certainly usually are, and make the poor enginemen crank up CPAP machines during their inadequate sleepy time. Do not expect humans to like this, unless they be stockholders with relatively flinten hearts; do not expect any management that expects to stay in for more than a couple of months to make meaningful changes that actually improve anything. I have been working on semi-autonomous solutions that can and would, in fact, help "the root causes", but they involve both technological and cultural changes that are probably best 'imposed via a Government funded mandate'. As would any meaningful change likely have to be.
RailRoader608 Well that's a bit frightening. Is fatigue a problem the industry is looking to address? Or is it so ingrained in the culture everyone accepts it as 'that's how we do things'?
Bravo!
That's the best summary of our sad reality that I have ever seen.
Unfortunately this is the only "autonomous solution" that I have heard of so far, and it does nothing to address the root causes of fatigue:
https://www.progressrail.com/en/innovation/fatigue.html
Nice to see that the corporate "monitoring centre" will be alerted. I wonder how many demerits each microsleep or distraction will warrant?
SD70Dude Ulrich Sounds terrible.. and all the more reason to have actively participating competent ownership. How is it that Ackman was able to swoop in like he did anyway? It happened because under the previous management regime CP was a sitting duck, with the worst numbers of any class 1. There would have been no Ackman had investors/owners at the time taken a more active role in the business.. perhaps by insisting on better results from the previous management team. Same story at CSX a decade earlier with the Children's Investment Fund.. how is that they were able to sweep in and set the tune? The answer, again, other investors by and large passively allowed that to happen. This happens because there's not enough capable ownership on hand that cares about what happens day to day.. The answer is more accountability to ownership.. not less. BNSF is probably a good example where ownership (in the form of BH) is on hand and on site.. instead of a bunch of investors who don't know or care about what they own, they've got a few capable people who own the bulk of it. The other roads need something similar.. at least one owner who has a ton of skin in the game.. and a ton to lose if things go sideways. I agree that shareholders have a right to demand results, and that a corporation benefits from having large shareholders who want it to do well in the long-term. And of course that management apathy leaves a company vulnerable to hostile takeovers and management change. Apathy is good for no one, not the customers, not the employees, and certainly not the apathetic managers. But I do not think that Ackman/Hilal/TCI Fund are examples of good shareholders. All three of them wanted results NOW, as one would expect from hedge funds. Ackman and Hilal were perfectly willing to overlook all the downsides of Hunter Harrison when they hired him, and the employees & customers of CP & CSX suffered, and continue to suffer for it. I've often wondered if Bill Gates would have become the majority shareholder of CN, were it not for our federal government's restriction on how much one shareholder can own.
And I agree that Ackman, Hilal and company could have done a better job in bringing about much needed change. Certainly the intimidation tactics you've described are counterproductive to say the least.
At least it appears that CN and CP are through the worst of it now... both companies have good leadership, and they're both investing heavily in infrastructure improvements. Hopefully you railroaders have seen some of that over the last year as well... some cause for optimism.
jeffhergertRun-around claims, where you're first out on the board and they use someone behind you, good for 4 hrs pay, used to be paid right away. Not anymore for us. Lately they have to be processed through the appeals process.
Really interesting stuff!
What's really wierd about this claim denial stuff is that 15 years ago, or so, UP's own company, PST, which is the system most RRs use, was in the process of automating the claims system based on the rules in the agreement for paying claims. The idea was to take a lot of the workload from the folks reviewing the claims.
Of course, part of the justification was mgt's basic mistrust of the train crews - always assuming they were trying to get away with something. So, stupid, in my opinion.
Way back at the begining of the Conrail split, I chatted a good bit with and engineer on the Chicago line. He was really dispirited how poorly NS mgt was treating the train crews. Conrail at least tried to outfit the locomotive cabs decently and make the work environment the best they could (key word: "tried") . They also tried to give the crews the best possible view of where they stood and what the train line up looked like. NS's data was a mess and mgt was not sympathetic and the train crews were dispirited.
The mistrust is deeply rooted. There has to be a culture change to fix the problem. With everyone neck deep in PSR, I doubt it'll get any better any time soon.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Actually, most places have or had a contractual 90 minute call (the old CNW contracts read 1 hour) for those who lived within one and one half miles of the reporting location, it being understood that callers would not be required to go outside of those limits. Of course, it's been years since individual terminals had callers and most places adopted the use of telephones for calling way back in the early 20th centure. Although, when my home terminal still had callers, they were known to get in the company car and go out looking for crews.
Many metro locations have had 2 and even 3 hour calls for many years, due to traffic considerations. My home terminal just started 2 hour calls, up from 90 minute calls, a few months back. Mostly because so many live way, way out of the 1 and 1/2 mile limit. I now live 5 minutes away. At our away from home terminals we still get a 90 minute call.
I don't mind working on call. What I don't like are the line ups. Some of the fatigue issues are because the line ups are so bad. I've fallen back or moved up 8 or 12 hours as estimated train times change. Line ups are usually listed by the closest trains at the top, those farther out down and so on. Some of the trains are what I call "ghost trains". They may have power assigned but no cars or cars but no power or nothing assigned at all. They'll eventually run but who knows when. Some times a train passes a CAD reporting location and the computer jumps it way ahead of where it should be, or may drop one way down which is close to being called. Then they may decide to tie down a train for staging or whatever. Sometimes because there may be different crew boards, a train may be on one board's line up but called off a different board.
Example. When I was firing (learning to be an engineer)on the north pool out of Des Moines one Friday night about 1030pm, the turn I was assigned to was 4 times out. There was only one train listed, expected about 6am the next morning. I told my wife I was going to bed. Thirty minutes later the phone was ringing, the railroad calling me to work on a dead head. What had happened in those 30 minutes? The first out engineer was called for a train that was on a Boone line up but regularly called out of Des Moines. The second out engineer was called off his turn to work a yard vacancy, the extra board being exhausted. The third and fourth out engineers (I being assigned to the fourth out guy) were both called for deadheads to the away from home terminal that weren't on the line up.
Jeff
oltmannd jeffhergert Run-around claims, where you're first out on the board and they use someone behind you, good for 4 hrs pay, used to be paid right away. Not anymore for us. Lately they have to be processed through the appeals process. Really interesting stuff! What's really wierd about this claim denial stuff is that 15 years ago, or so, UP's own company, PST, which is the system most RRs use, was in the process of automating the claims system based on the rules in the agreement for paying claims. The idea was to take a lot of the workload from the folks reviewing the claims. Of course, part of the justification was mgt's basic mistrust of the train crews - always assuming they were trying to get away with something. So, stupid, in my opinion. Way back at the begining of the Conrail split, I chatted a good bit with and engineer on the Chicago line. He was really dispirited how poorly NS mgt was treating the train crews. Conrail at least tried to outfit the locomotive cabs decently and make the work environment the best they could (key word: "tried") . They also tried to give the crews the best possible view of where they stood and what the train line up looked like. NS's data was a mess and mgt was not sympathetic and the train crews were dispirited. The mistrust is deeply rooted. There has to be a culture change to fix the problem. With everyone neck deep in PSR, I doubt it'll get any better any time soon.
jeffhergert Run-around claims, where you're first out on the board and they use someone behind you, good for 4 hrs pay, used to be paid right away. Not anymore for us. Lately they have to be processed through the appeals process.
Railroads have long had a reputation for unenlightened and ineffective managememt, about as bad as any industry in the US. Most have them, particularly (though hardly limited to) southern roads like the NS, have an old boy attitude of treating their workers with a total lack of deceny, i.e. with utter contempt. And the worse things get on the bottom line, the worse it gets for the workers. Changing a backward culture like that is nearly impossible.
jeffhergertActually, most places have or had a contractual 90 minute call (the old CNW contracts read 1 hour) for those who lived within one and one half miles of the reporting location, it being understood that callers would not be required to go outside of those limits. Of course, it's been years since individual terminals had callers and most places adopted the use of telephones for calling way back in the early 20th centure. Although, when my home terminal still had callers, they were known to get in the company car and go out looking for crews. Many metro locations have had 2 and even 3 hour calls for many years, due to traffic considerations. My home terminal just started 2 hour calls, up from 90 minute calls, a few months back. Mostly because so many live way, way out of the 1 and 1/2 mile limit. I now live 5 minutes away. At our away from home terminals we still get a 90 minute call. I don't mind working on call. What I don't like are the line ups. Some of the fatigue issues are because the line ups are so bad. I've fallen back or moved up 8 or 12 hours as estimated train times change. Line ups are usually listed by the closest trains at the top, those farther out down and so on. Some of the trains are what I call "ghost trains". They may have power assigned but no cars or cars but no power or nothing assigned at all. They'll eventually run but who knows when. Some times a train passes a CAD reporting location and the computer jumps it way ahead of where it should be, or may drop one way down which is close to being called. Then they may decide to tie down a train for staging or whatever. Sometimes because there may be different crew boards, a train may be on one board's line up but called off a different board. Example. When I was firing (learning to be an engineer)on the north pool out of Des Moines one Friday night about 1030pm, the turn I was assigned to was 4 times out. There was only one train listed, expected about 6am the next morning. I told my wife I was going to bed. Thirty minutes later the phone was ringing, the railroad calling me to work on a dead head. What had happened in those 30 minutes? The first out engineer was called for a train that was on a Boone line up but regularly called out of Des Moines. The second out engineer was called off his turn to work a yard vacancy, the extra board being exhausted. The third and fourth out engineers (I being assigned to the fourth out guy) were both called for deadheads to the away from home terminal that weren't on the line up. Jeff
Before I retired CSX implemented a Crew Balancing Tool - not for the crews but for Chief Dispatchers to minimize 'crew management costs'. Those costs include the payment of 'held away' at the away from home terminal (including lodging expenses) as well as deadheading costs (which in addition to payments to the crew also include the costs of the means of transportation).
The staff that programmed the 'tool' thought it was wonderful. Those of us who were 'required' to use it viewed it as 10 sledge hammer being used for an operation that required a Phillips head screwdriver. I formulated 20 or more changes to the logic being used by the application to suggest 'decisions' that were in error and was considered a 'trouble maker'.
The real problem for crews, as I see it, is where they have gotten their required rest (either at home or away) and don't get called until their 'personal day' has them ready to go back to bed. If crews are called consistantly 'on their rest' or shortly after they can go on and on and on; however, if a crew becomes 'rested; at 0800 and doesn't get called until 2300 the crew is now in a 'danger zone'. They are well rested in respect to the HOS law and they are on their last legs on the human rest cycle.
Deadheads are a Wild Card in crews being able to 'understand the board' as the board at home is not looking at what the board is at the away from home terminal. From the Chief Dispatcher perspective, you are trying to see into the next day when you Deadhead to the away terminal (2 hour call, 2 to 6 hour transport to the away terminal, 12 hours rest at the away terminal) as the minimum time required to have an additional crew able to be called at the away terminal is 16 hours and in many cases several hours more. If you don't plan for the 'ghost train'; when it does run there may only be a 'ghost crew' able to operate it.
The CSX 'standard' call time allowance is 2 hours, home or away. Certain pools are designated 'Interdivisional' and get a 3 hour call time allowance at the Home Terminal. (Example: the Richmond-Philadelphia ID pool was created from, and available to crews headquarted at Richmond and Baltimore - the 3 hour allowance gives men domiciled at Baltimore the opportunity to report for duty 'on time' with the nominal 2 hour highway trip from Baltimore). All away crews get a 2 hour call.
RailRoader608 SD70Dude Fatigue is a major problem in the rail industry due to employees working on call, and has been for many years. Well that's a bit frightening. Is fatigue a problem the industry is looking to address? Or is it so ingrained in the culture everyone accepts it as 'that's how we do things'?
SD70Dude Fatigue is a major problem in the rail industry due to employees working on call, and has been for many years.
It's a problem the industry would love to solve without having to spend more than two nickels and 15 minutes of thought.
So, yes and no. Mostly no. The attitude is often "for what you're being paid, you shouldn't have fatigue issues."
There are a lot of win-win things the railroads could do - and some might become more attractive with PSR.
You can "card" jobs. A crew owns a job. Same start time (plus or minus) every day. PSR tries to make operations occur reliably 7 days a week and eliminates few day a week unit trains, folding traffic into the merchadise trains. So, this is a fit.
You can turn crews back mid-district. Operate half way up, swap crews, head back home. RR saves lodging, meal and taxi costs. Crews get home. PSR tends to concentrate traffic, so mid-district swapping becomes more viable.
One problem is the HOS law says six days on, two off. Or 7 days on, three off. How do you work that requirement into 7 day operations? Particularly, how would you card it? One crew 4 days a week, the other 3? Or just chain two crews, 6 days on, 6 days off?
Fatigue would be an easy problem to solve if it were only caused by insufficient sleep during time off. But that is old school thinking. The new medical paradigm is that fatigue cause is not limited to insufficient sleep. It is also caused by various sleep disorders, and any amount of nightshift work. A person can be aflicted without knowing it or feeling tired. Only testing can diagnose it.
oltmanndThere are a lot of win-win things the railroads could do - and some might become more attractive with PSR. You can "card" jobs. A crew owns a job. Same start time (plus or minus) every day. PSR tries to make operations occur reliably 7 days a week and eliminates few day a week unit trains, folding traffic into the merchadise trains. So, this is a fit. You can turn crews back mid-district. Operate half way up, swap crews, head back home. RR saves lodging, meal and taxi costs. Crews get home. PSR tends to concentrate traffic, so mid-district swapping becomes more viable. One problem is the HOS law says six days on, two off. Or 7 days on, three off. How do you work that requirement into 7 day operations? Particularly, how would you card it? One crew 4 days a week, the other 3? Or just chain two crews, 6 days on, 6 days off?
The reality is that the carriers have tried every 'solution' you have stated - some work, some don't.
Even PSR is customer dependent on when traffic is made available for movement and when bulk commodity customers get involved in the traffic mix all bets are off. Remember, one of tha hallmarks of PSR is doing away with yards, primarily hump yards but also some flat switch yards.
Going back in time on single track routes, most crew change locations (at least on CSX) had a small yard that was able to 'stage' a train or two for whatever operational needs may be...in the 'plant rationalization' mania of the late 80's and early 90's those yards were eliminated; at most crew change locations the only thing left was a passing siding. Then the 'reduce the head count' wave began where crews were 'cut to the bone' in number. Next thing you know you can't get a crew to run a through train through the location, if you park the train on the crew change passing siding - now you can't operate another train to the crew change location unless you KNOW there is a crew available for it - if not it gets parked at the siding before the crew change location - and so on and such forth! Next thing you know - without crews - you have 100 or more miles of railroad locked down - when you do come up with crews they are going to have to run a long distance before they can meet another 'active' train.
The latest change in the HOS regulations were occasioned, in part, by the operating crafts going to the 'authorities' complaining about the rest provisions that were in the prior version of the HOS regulation.
Be careful what you ask for - you may get it; and what you get will be different in details that you didn't ask for.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.