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.
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.
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?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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!
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.
SD70DudeFatigue 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
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.
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?
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.
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).
Convicted One I do have one additional question. By saying the "extra board" I assume you mean those employees only work when they get a call. So the guarantee potentially can protect the employee through a slow spell. But how does the guaranteed amount compare to the employees maximum* earning potential through the same time period? *maximum assuming the employee gets a call for work as soon as he is eligible from the previous work period Thanks
I do have one additional question. By saying the "extra board" I assume you mean those employees only work when they get a call. So the guarantee potentially can protect the employee through a slow spell.
But how does the guaranteed amount compare to the employees maximum* earning potential through the same time period?
*maximum assuming the employee gets a call for work as soon as he is eligible from the previous work period
Thanks
Extra boards protect (fill in) vacancies (those layed off for sickness, vacation, etc.) on pools and other assigned jobs. Does what we call "short turn" jobs like dog catching or spotting/pulling elevators, etc. Our Candian friends, and some other US friends, too, may call them "Spare Boards."
The gaurantee is there to protect against the slow times. It can be feast or famine. During the feast one can and does make way over gaurantee. During famine you might work enough to make half of what the gaurantee is.
Normally the extra board and road pools are supposed to be maintained to match the available work. When going between the feast and famine periods, it sometimes takes a week or two to get them adjusted. It's for those times when you go from working on or nearly on your rest to working every 48 or 50 hours between assignments that the guarantee is for.
Some years back I was on the engineer's extra board over the Thanksgiving weekend. They had beefed up the boards in anticipation of record grain train movements. (They only beat the record by a few trains. The big rush didn't really happen.) I got home in the evening on Thursday night, Thanksgiving Day. I didn't lay off. My next call to work was the following Monday morning, something unheard of being both a weekend and holiday. I was off for something like 82 hours. That's what gaurantee is for.
Jeff
Okay, thanks for the extra info Jeff. The extra detail makes the rest of it easier to understand.
I guess I just never knew how lucky I was all those years working a salaried, non-railroad, non-union position where I could just take it for granted that I was going to get the short end on all matters time related.
Our Conductor's road pool, road extra board, and I think the switchman's extra board have gaurantees for each pay period or what we call "half." As in half of the month. The engineer's extra board also has that. Local and maybe yard assignments have, for both train and enginemen, a monthly gaurantee.
If one stays marked up on the pool or extra board, they earn a "bonus" day that they can take as time off (compensated) or take the extra day's pay.
On one of these boards you can take compensated time off without losing the gaurantee. You do lose the bonus day. You can take up to 48 hours uncompensated and only lose two prorated days and the bonus day. 1 minute over 48 hrs and you lose the gaurantee for that half.
Those that have lost gaurantees due to the federal rest requirements can put in a time claim. However, they are not being paid and will eventually go through the arbitraition process as a large group (like a class-action) instead of individual cases.
BaltACDWhen I was still working at CSX the Guarantees were a monthly amount.
Thanks, that helps.
So if that tracks with what Jeff claims, then the railroad is trying to dodge a guaranteed monthly pay minimum based upon one mandatory day "off" work?
Not an expert but that sounds like a problem of sufficient size to merit attention collectively, and not at the individual employee level.
Convicted One jeffhergert On our railroad and portion thereof, the contracts that cover boards with gauranteed pay stipulate that being marked off in a non-compensated status for over 48 hours voids the gaurantee. The railroad currently treats employees in this required Federal mark off status has being the same as if the employee marked off on their own accord in a non-compensated status, such as laying off sick or personal business, voiding the gaurantee Would you mind "fleshing out" some of the parameters of such guarantees? Daily? Weekly? Other? I'm fairly confident that I understand the obvious, but I'm just wondering if there might be more than meets the eye to these scenarios. (example) If somone is working two 7 day stints such as you describe that are wrapped around a shorter work week (mandated by rules) in between I can kinda see why management might be reluctant to pay a full week's guaranteed pay for a week that has been artificially shortened by rules. Seems like such a scenario might potentially give rise to the opportunity to get paid twice for one day of work. Or at least get a paid day off not otherwise earned.
jeffhergert On our railroad and portion thereof, the contracts that cover boards with gauranteed pay stipulate that being marked off in a non-compensated status for over 48 hours voids the gaurantee. The railroad currently treats employees in this required Federal mark off status has being the same as if the employee marked off on their own accord in a non-compensated status, such as laying off sick or personal business, voiding the gaurantee
Would you mind "fleshing out" some of the parameters of such guarantees? Daily? Weekly? Other?
I'm fairly confident that I understand the obvious, but I'm just wondering if there might be more than meets the eye to these scenarios.
(example) If somone is working two 7 day stints such as you describe that are wrapped around a shorter work week (mandated by rules) in between I can kinda see why management might be reluctant to pay a full week's guaranteed pay for a week that has been artificially shortened by rules.
Seems like such a scenario might potentially give rise to the opportunity to get paid twice for one day of work. Or at least get a paid day off not otherwise earned.
When I was still working at CSX the Guarantees were a monthly amount.
When the latest revision of the HOS law was implemented I did a 'quick and dirty' calculation of the rest provisions and determined that the 'earnings potential' for someone who woked EVERY opportunity permitted by the old HOS law had their potential reduced by 28%.
The old law permitted 8 hours off duty as being the complete rest period, knowing that some one could be called after 6 hours off duty to be on duty in two additional hours. The new HOS law requires 10 hours UNDISTURBED rest. With the normal two hour calling cycle - that means 12 hours between On Duty periods. Throw Jeff's 6 & 7 day work periods on top of undisturbed rest and with the stroke of a pen the T&E work force was reduced in relationship to the amount of work that was staffed by personnel under the old HOS law.
I retired before PSR hit CSX so I don't know if they are attacking guarantees using the provisions of the HOS law like UP currently is - when I was working, to my knowldege the HOS law was not being used to 'invalidate' contractual guarantees.
UlrichShareholders (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.
Wow. Referring to anyone as "train trash" or road trash" should result in immediate termination. Paying out the severance, however high it may be, is always cheaper than keeping these people on the payroll where they can inflict further damage.
Would be great if labor had a seat at the shareholder meetings. Put some numbers to unresolved grievances and other issues and run them up the flagpole like the OR. 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.
jeffhergertOn our railroad and portion thereof, the contracts that cover boards with gauranteed pay stipulate that being marked off in a non-compensated status for over 48 hours voids the gaurantee. The railroad currently treats employees in this required Federal mark off status has being the same as if the employee marked off on their own accord in a non-compensated status, such as laying off sick or personal business, voiding the gaurantee
JPS1 SFbrkmn Right now I have 8 RO claims just this yr and all have been declined and then forwarded to the local chairman. What is an RO claim?
SFbrkmn Right now I have 8 RO claims just this yr and all have been declined and then forwarded to the local chairman.
What is an RO claim?
I second that question.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Our managment is just blanket denying just about all claims (mostly used off assignment for us). Also now they are refusing to allow people to take single vacation or personal days due to "manpower shortage". Shortages they created with this "we need to have every single job work every single day" bullcrap.
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
SFbrkmnRight now I have 8 RO claims just this yr and all have been declined and then forwarded to the local chairman.
The HOS changes from about 10 years ago is a perfect example of mistrust by both parties agasinst the other.
It requires freight crews who have worked 6 consecutive job starts (without 24 hours between the end of one tour of duty and the beginning of the next) to be off for 48 hours. If the 6th tour ends at the away from home terminal, you may work a 7th day, but upon tie up require 72 hours off.
On our railroad and portion thereof, the contracts that cover boards with gauranteed pay stipulate that being marked off in a non-compensated status for over 48 hours voids the gaurantee. The railroad currently treats employees in this required Federal mark off status has being the same as if the employee marked off on their own accord in a non-compensated status, such as laying off sick or personal business, voiding the gaurantee.
So some of the employees think the railroad uses this to avoid paying gaurantee. Some of the management thinks this Federal requirement is used by the employees to get "free" (that is time off that can't be counted against you for their attendence policy) time off.
Before someone says, "Well if you're working enough to get Federal required rest, you're making more than gaurantee." Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not. You can work on you're rest one week and sit at home 2 days, or longer, between tours of duty the next. It can also happen that you work enough to get rest at the end of the pay period and spend the first two or three days of the next off for rest. Then the rest of the pay period is slow, but the time off may have voided the gaurantee.
Euclid Electroliner 1935 Almost all people want to be respected and appreciated for what they do and when upper management doesn't it costs the company and it hurt the worker moral. Union contracts came into being to try to codify work rules that have been needed to make management provide what they have agreed to and limit what management may try to expect a worker to do. It is a shame that people need all the "fine print" to make them treat people properly. It is a two way street. If employees want to limit what management expects them to do because employees believe management expects too much, it is not surprising that management will disagree. Both sides expect more than the other side wants to give because each side believes that the other side is not giving enough. They are like buyers and sellers. They have opposing interests. The seller wants to sell for as much as possible and by buyer wants to pay as little as possible.
Electroliner 1935 Almost all people want to be respected and appreciated for what they do and when upper management doesn't it costs the company and it hurt the worker moral. Union contracts came into being to try to codify work rules that have been needed to make management provide what they have agreed to and limit what management may try to expect a worker to do. It is a shame that people need all the "fine print" to make them treat people properly.
It is a two way street. If employees want to limit what management expects them to do because employees believe management expects too much, it is not surprising that management will disagree. Both sides expect more than the other side wants to give because each side believes that the other side is not giving enough. They are like buyers and sellers. They have opposing interests. The seller wants to sell for as much as possible and by buyer wants to pay as little as possible.
If everything was done in 'good faith' it would be a wonderful world.
Management refusing to approve and pay valid claims is BAD FAITH, in fact it undercuts managements position on everything else they may do.
Human interactions rely on trust between the parties involved. Without trust all you are left with is a adversarial relationship.
Electroliner 1935Almost all people want to be respected and appreciated for what they do and when upper management doesn't it costs the company and it hurt the worker moral. Union contracts came into being to try to codify work rules that have been needed to make management provide what they have agreed to and limit what management may try to expect a worker to do. It is a shame that people need all the "fine print" to make them treat people properly.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.