It's just shorthand. Every post you make amply demonstrates you are an accomplished desk-jockey expert on everything. Congratulations!
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo I'm not sure if anyone should trust a hazardous train operated by an overweight engineer withsleeo alnea who mightdoze off. It has happened. And the same engineer in need of a emotional support animal? Especially with dogs normally sleeping 12-14 hours a day. If a support animal is allowed in the cab of a locomotive, will they be charged and disciplined if officials find them sleeping? You are only capable of making inane comments. You set them up and I'll knock them out of the park! Q.E.D.
BaltACD charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo I'm not sure if anyone should trust a hazardous train operated by an overweight engineer withsleeo alnea who mightdoze off. It has happened. And the same engineer in need of a emotional support animal? Especially with dogs normally sleeping 12-14 hours a day. If a support animal is allowed in the cab of a locomotive, will they be charged and disciplined if officials find them sleeping? You are only capable of making inane comments. You set them up and I'll knock them out of the park!
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo I'm not sure if anyone should trust a hazardous train operated by an overweight engineer withsleeo alnea who mightdoze off. It has happened. And the same engineer in need of a emotional support animal? Especially with dogs normally sleeping 12-14 hours a day. If a support animal is allowed in the cab of a locomotive, will they be charged and disciplined if officials find them sleeping? You are only capable of making inane comments.
BaltACD charlie hebdo I'm not sure if anyone should trust a hazardous train operated by an overweight engineer withsleeo alnea who mightdoze off. It has happened. And the same engineer in need of a emotional support animal? Especially with dogs normally sleeping 12-14 hours a day. If a support animal is allowed in the cab of a locomotive, will they be charged and disciplined if officials find them sleeping?
charlie hebdo I'm not sure if anyone should trust a hazardous train operated by an overweight engineer withsleeo alnea who mightdoze off. It has happened.
And the same engineer in need of a emotional support animal? Especially with dogs normally sleeping 12-14 hours a day.
If a support animal is allowed in the cab of a locomotive, will they be charged and disciplined if officials find them sleeping?
You are only capable of making inane comments.
You set them up and I'll knock them out of the park!
Q.E.D.
Pretentious aren't you!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Lithonia Operator Just for the record, sleep apnea affects more than obese people. I have it, and I'm 5'11" and 175 lbs. A friend of mine is about the same height, about 160, and is one of the most physically active people I know; he hikes, climbs, scuba dives, sails; and he has sleep apnea also...
Just for the record, sleep apnea affects more than obese people. I have it, and I'm 5'11" and 175 lbs. A friend of mine is about the same height, about 160, and is one of the most physically active people I know; he hikes, climbs, scuba dives, sails; and he has sleep apnea also...
I'm a monitor over at apneaboard. Most people would probably be surprised at how many fit teenagers have apnea. Obesity, if it happens, is a comorbidity, usually a result of insulin resistance, and will only exacerbate obstructive apnea. If one's sleep is severely disrupted due to the apnea, then weight gain, heart arrhythmias, and other disorders are soon to follow.
Lithonia Operator Sleep apnea can be treated very effectively with CPAP. In the case of an obese engineer, I'd by worried more about a heart attack. If the apnea sufferer uses the CPAP every night, he's no more likely to fall asleep than anyone else.
Sleep apnea can be treated very effectively with CPAP. In the case of an obese engineer, I'd by worried more about a heart attack. If the apnea sufferer uses the CPAP every night, he's no more likely to fall asleep than anyone else.
Regrettably, a great many users of CPAP whose daily reports show that their machines are treating them successfully still complain of brain fog, fatigue, and of falling asleep mid-afternoon or during the evening prior to retiring for the day. While many almost instantly find relief and are happy campers within a few days of finding a successful set of pressures from their machines, a worrying number complain of brain fog forever.
Lithonia OperatorJust for the record, sleep apnea affects more than obese people.
I guess if the obese strawman has a dog that barks all night, it might keep him awake?
rdamonIs the 83 pounds referenced in the court documents the weight of a knuckle?
That is about the weight of a standard (type E?) knuckle. There are other knuckele types ansd weights but I do believe that is the most common.
Just for the record, sleep apnea affects more than obese people. I have it, and I'm 5'11" and 175 lbs. A friend of mine is about the same height, about 160, and is one of the most physically active people I know; he hikes, climbs, scuba dives, sails; and he has sleep apnea also.
How about the U P keeping him employed as a signal and switch maintainer, with the necessary training?
Then he should bring his dog to work.
See the Zipper Story in Oct. '17 Trains.
Is the 83 pounds referenced in the court documents the weight of a knuckle?
charlie hebdoI'm not sure if anyone should trust a hazardous train operated by an overweight engineer withsleeo alnea who mightdoze off. It has happened.
Are engineers required to have the equivilent of a 1st class medical like commercial airline pilots?
I'm not sure if anyone should trust a hazardous train operated by an overweight engineer withsleeo alnea who mightdoze off. It has happened.
My heart wants him and the dog to win.
My head isn't sure that's a good idea.
In any event, I doubt the engineer will prevail.
Lithonia OperatorI read about the first ten pages of that legal filing. I don't see any mention that this conductor was promoted to engineer.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/traindog.pdf
A very great deal of the carefully worded discussion seems to hinge on UP saying they did a great deal that the plaintiff utterly denies. Presumably UP has records to substantiate their process and decision-making; it will be interesting if they can't do so.
I read about the first ten pages of that legal filing. I don't see any mention that this conductor was promoted to engineer. My impression is that this is about his conductor job, not an engineer job.
I doubt he will win the case, but I'm kinda hoping he wil.
OvermodAtlas could 'warn the plaintiff of the approach of a migraine
I don't know about that, but it is true that a service dog trained for the purpose can warn someone suffering from epilepsy of an oncoming seizure.
Sometimes even without the training. Dogs can be amazing. Dogs know things.
charlie hebdo But that should be given a chance.
Are you willing to bet your life on that?
I do believe that the subject in question should be given a chance - but should that chance be at the controls of a 100 car train of crude oil, running through your town?
A big deal has been made in other threads of the vetting process for crew members. Would this individual make it past such a vetting process?
Perhaps in the process of recognizing mental illness as a disability, we also need to recognize that it can impair an individual's abilities to perform certain jobs.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Much becomes a great deal clearer from reading this material, including the specific provisions in the ADA that will be noted to govern in the upcoming trial.
Note that this was only a motion denying UP summary judgment, not an indication of what the actual process will produce. UP's counsel involved with this demonstrate a near-astounding ignorance of either the applicable law or the established precedents so far in its interpretation; i also find it interesting that few if any reasons the plaintiff offers as benefits from bringing the dog are credibly associated with having the dog in the cab at work -- as a frequent hemiparetic migraine sufferer I was amused at the claim that Atlas could 'warn the plaintiff of the approach of a migraine'; how this would work will be interesting to see explained in testimony.
One important place that arguments will likely hinge is whether or not Birchfield's accommodation is a precedent UP should be made to follow under the ADA. Now that UP has been set straight on the applicability of benefits to ADA accommodation it will be interesting to see how they explain any difference ... or determine to settle and open a different can of worms.
Beat me to it Vince, "Wanswheel" sent them to me too.
That's fine, as long a one of us got it here.
See what a loss it is that Wanswheel can't do this himself?
Luckily his exile has only 165 years to go.
Overmod My unease at the way this is evolving is that the PTSD has to be played up as debilitating enough to justify the animal, but not so debilitating as to compromise his ability to be safe with one. It seems more than strangely convenient that the disability so perfectly fits this niche.
My unease at the way this is evolving is that the PTSD has to be played up as debilitating enough to justify the animal, but not so debilitating as to compromise his ability to be safe with one. It seems more than strangely convenient that the disability so perfectly fits this niche.
It may be “convenient” if the two opposing outcomes do happen to perfectly balance. However, with the point being debated in a trial, the chance of the two sides agreeing that the perfect balance exists seems slim. More likely, it will seem to be either one way or the other. This thought is not an indication of me having intolerance to vet and his dog. I am only interested in what I see as a serious disagreement between him and U.P. and how this will be argued in court.
Overmod Convicted One If I read the story correctly, the man returned from military service to his former position as conductor, and was subsequently promoted to engineer. Only then did his PTSD become a factor in his ability to perform his duties. Just speculating, but I don't believe that the employer would have difficulty establishing that the employee is no longer functioning in the capacity he was when they hired him. Perhaps it is that I'm still a bit upset at the high-handed new attendance policy... but is UP among the carriers that mandates advance from conductor to engineer 'or else'? If so it occurs to me they've cut themselves off at the knees if they try to claim they shouldn't have to offer reasonable accommodation -- here and perhaps in the copycat suits likely to follow. My unease at the way this is evolving is that the PTSD has to be played up as debilitating enough to justify the animal, but not so debilitating as to compromise his ability to be safe with one. It seems more than strangely convenient that the disability so perfectly fits this niche. I suspect charlie hebdo has some firsthand experience with this and can comment on it without violating patient confidentiality.
Convicted One If I read the story correctly, the man returned from military service to his former position as conductor, and was subsequently promoted to engineer. Only then did his PTSD become a factor in his ability to perform his duties. Just speculating, but I don't believe that the employer would have difficulty establishing that the employee is no longer functioning in the capacity he was when they hired him.
Perhaps it is that I'm still a bit upset at the high-handed new attendance policy... but is UP among the carriers that mandates advance from conductor to engineer 'or else'? If so it occurs to me they've cut themselves off at the knees if they try to claim they shouldn't have to offer reasonable accommodation -- here and perhaps in the copycat suits likely to follow.
My unease at the way this is evolving is that the PTSD has to be played up as debilitating enough to justify the animal, but not so debilitating as to compromise his ability to be safe with one. It seems more than strangely convenient that the disability so perfectly fits this niche. I suspect charlie hebdo has some firsthand experience with this and can comment on it without violating patient confidentiality.
Some direct experience but more from a former classmate head psychologist at a VA. "Convenient"? It might be but that's often the way it goes. His treatment (in part, the dog) may allow him to function adequately as an engineer or may not. But that should be given a chance. I am amazed at the level of intolerance on here to a disabled vet and his dog, especially by non-engineers. Apparently the public service spots about giving vets a chance, hiring the handicapped and Wounded Warriors only apply to those with physical disabilities. 100+ years after the end of WWI with millions of shell shock victims, folks still look askance at mental illness as something less than genuine.
Overmod.. but is UP among the carriers that mandates advance from conductor to engineer 'or else'? If so it occurs to me they've cut themselves off at the knees not having to offer reasonable accommodation
UP is probably my least favorite class one, so if they "lost big" I certainly would not shed a tear.
But I'm trying to keep my personal feelings out of this, and try to make my call based upon what I see as the best outcome. Evidently I am in the minority in that regard.
Admittedly, I don't have a crystal ball, but I would anticipate that they will find an incentivized solution that maintains a paycheck for this guy, while getting him out of the locomotive cab. A "promotion", if you will, with the quote marks connotating a slight amount of sarcasm.
Maybe let him have his dog, hand him a bucket of silver paint and a paint brush, and transfer him to Tennesee pass to keep the signal masts nice and shiny?
Something that doesn't place the public at risk should his condition (unexpectedly) deteriorate further.
Convicted One Perhaps, but let's not lose sight of who is suing who.
Perhaps, but let's not lose sight of who is suing who.
So a veteran who gave time to defend us and got disabled is at fault for suing a company that wouldn't accommodate that disability?
charlie hebdoAnd if your contention is upheld, once again a veteran is screwed.
Without a doubt, this individual was rehired/brought back under provisions intended to protect military vets such as him. Such laws and regulations are a good thing, as such discrimination has been known to exist.
On the other hand, he's apparently not the same person UP hired when he first came on. One must wonder if he would have been hired off the street if he applied today.
I'd be reasonably confident that this will be a factor in the trial.
Convicted OneIf I read the story correctly, the man returned from military service to his former position as conductor, and was subsequently promoted to engineer. Only then did his PTSD become a factor in his ability to perform his duties. Just speculating, but I don't believe that the employer would have difficulty establishing that the employee is no longer functioning in the capacity he was when they hired him.
Convicted One Euclid I am referring to a right to work under the conditions he has set forth. If I read the story correctly, the man returned from military service to his former position as conductor, and was subsequently promoted to engineer. Only then did his PTSD become a factor in his ability to perform his duties. Just speculating, but I don't believe that the employer would have difficulty establishing that the employee is no longer functioning in the capacity he was when they hired him. Conceivably, the stress of becoming an engineer is a contributory factor, that no one could forsee? Sometimes promotions are mistakes.
Euclid I am referring to a right to work under the conditions he has set forth.
If I read the story correctly, the man returned from military service to his former position as conductor, and was subsequently promoted to engineer.
Only then did his PTSD become a factor in his ability to perform his duties.
Just speculating, but I don't believe that the employer would have difficulty establishing that the employee is no longer functioning in the capacity he was when they hired him.
Conceivably, the stress of becoming an engineer is a contributory factor, that no one could forsee? Sometimes promotions are mistakes.
And if your contention is upheld, once again a veteran is screwed.
Wait and see. Depends on the full scope of the lawsuit, which is not stated clearly.
charlie hebdo Euclid zugmann There would be another lawsuit and fast? As I understand it, he is suing for monetary damages as well as the right to bring the dog to work. If U.P. loses the case, I am sure they will have to pay the damges and legal fees of the engineer. But I don't see how they can be sued for refusing to employ the engineer. In the article, the engineer mentions that he feels entitled to enjoy the right to work without discomfort. I doubt that there is such a right. He is already employed, right? If the court says UP must accommodate his disability, they can't get around that by terminating him. Not only could he sue again, the government would charge UP with violations of the applicable labor and ADA provisions. And if the union has any value and teeth, they will take action.
Euclid zugmann There would be another lawsuit and fast? As I understand it, he is suing for monetary damages as well as the right to bring the dog to work. If U.P. loses the case, I am sure they will have to pay the damges and legal fees of the engineer. But I don't see how they can be sued for refusing to employ the engineer. In the article, the engineer mentions that he feels entitled to enjoy the right to work without discomfort. I doubt that there is such a right.
zugmann There would be another lawsuit and fast?
There would be another lawsuit and fast?
As I understand it, he is suing for monetary damages as well as the right to bring the dog to work. If U.P. loses the case, I am sure they will have to pay the damges and legal fees of the engineer. But I don't see how they can be sued for refusing to employ the engineer. In the article, the engineer mentions that he feels entitled to enjoy the right to work without discomfort. I doubt that there is such a right.
He is already employed, right? If the court says UP must accommodate his disability, they can't get around that by terminating him. Not only could he sue again, the government would charge UP with violations of the applicable labor and ADA provisions.
And if the union has any value and teeth, they will take action.
Oh I would not be surprised if it costs U.P. a lot of money, but I doubt that they can be forced to let the engineer work with the service dog.
EuclidI am referring to a right to work under the conditions he has set forth.
deleted
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
Be careful walking through this thread. It's full of slippery slopes today.
Euclid But adding accessibility equipment to all locomotives is probably something that is on the mind of U.P. as they weigh their options in this service dog case.
Once the dike has cracked, expect the deluge.
Perhaps they can train seeing eye dogs to bark-off signal aspects too?
Convicted One Euclid . I doubt that there is such a right. Failure to fulfil a bonafide ADA requirement is considered to violate the disabled employees constitutional rights. So, he will sue, and retire wealthy, if it comes to that.
Euclid . I doubt that there is such a right.
Failure to fulfil a bonafide ADA requirement is considered to violate the disabled employees constitutional rights.
So, he will sue, and retire wealthy, if it comes to that.
I am referring to a right to work under the conditions he has set forth. I don't think that right exists even as a dictate of the ADA. But there may be a right to collect massive damages as a monetary settlement under ADA rights, as you say. But I don't know any details about that. But adding accessibility equipment to all locomotives is probably something that is on the mind of U.P. as they weigh their options in this service dog case.
But hey, you know? I've never seen a locomotive with a wheelchair ramp, either.
So this likely falls into an area where the employee is free to chose a vocation he is 'fit' for. Perhaps the railroad is not the best place for him?
Euclid. I doubt that there is such a right.
charlie hebdo If the ruling is against UP, they would have to let him use the dog and could not fire him for that cause.
If the ruling is against UP, they would have to let him use the dog and could not fire him for that cause.
If the engineer wins his lawsuit against U.P. with a ruling that U.P. refusing the service dog would violate the ADA rule, I assume this does not require U.P. to let him work with the service dog. Why wouldn't U.P. just terminate him?
BaltACD zugmann BaltACD I suspect, in view of PSR and the carrier efforts to reduce manpower counts that the normal yard day is now 12 hours. Two crews to give a job 24 hour coverage. Around here they got rid of a lot of yard jobs. Few that were left got turned into locals. And they don't like 12's. They like 10s. Likely a difference between NS & CSX. I don't know, since I have been blissfully retired for approaching 4 years.
zugmann BaltACD I suspect, in view of PSR and the carrier efforts to reduce manpower counts that the normal yard day is now 12 hours. Two crews to give a job 24 hour coverage. Around here they got rid of a lot of yard jobs. Few that were left got turned into locals. And they don't like 12's. They like 10s.
BaltACD I suspect, in view of PSR and the carrier efforts to reduce manpower counts that the normal yard day is now 12 hours. Two crews to give a job 24 hour coverage.
Around here they got rid of a lot of yard jobs. Few that were left got turned into locals.
And they don't like 12's. They like 10s.
Likely a difference between NS & CSX. I don't know, since I have been blissfully retired for approaching 4 years.
For those on the B&O agreement, CSX wants them tied up after 8.
An "expensive model collector"
zugmann BaltACD It wasn't my job to be popular. It wasn't my job to be an *** either. My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed. How about we leave the medical questions to the qualified medical professionals?
BaltACD It wasn't my job to be popular. It wasn't my job to be an *** either. My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed.
How about we leave the medical questions to the qualified medical professionals?
That is what the Company Physicians are for - they, after examination, decide who is fit for duty. After my cancer surgery and treatment I had to be examined by the Company Physician to get my return to duty slip. I did not need a support animal - I have no idea if I would have been OK'd for duty if I felt I needed one.
jeffhergert zugmann BaltACD It wasn't my job to be popular. It wasn't my job to be an *** either. My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed. How about we leave the medical questions to the qualified medical professionals? We have a guy who had to have a medical implant for his heart. I don't remember if it's a pacemaker or a defibrillator or what. Anyway, his personal doctor has cleared him to return to work. He meets the standards that he could pass the phyiscal to drive truck, even to fly a commercial airplane. But the railroad medical department won't clear him to return to work. There have been other cases similar in that a person's personal doctor says they're ready to return to work but the railroad medical department won't OK them. Many of these people are on short term disability insurance. Once their personal doctor OKs them, even if the medical department doesn't, their short term disability ends. We discussed this at a union meeting where we are considering changes to our union sponsered insurance. Some think this is more than a coincidence. Jeff
We have a guy who had to have a medical implant for his heart. I don't remember if it's a pacemaker or a defibrillator or what. Anyway, his personal doctor has cleared him to return to work. He meets the standards that he could pass the phyiscal to drive truck, even to fly a commercial airplane. But the railroad medical department won't clear him to return to work.
There have been other cases similar in that a person's personal doctor says they're ready to return to work but the railroad medical department won't OK them.
Many of these people are on short term disability insurance. Once their personal doctor OKs them, even if the medical department doesn't, their short term disability ends. We discussed this at a union meeting where we are considering changes to our union sponsered insurance. Some think this is more than a coincidence.
Jeff
Corporate management, aka, lackeys, like to hide behind "policies and procedures" to penalize employees.
zugmannHow about we leave the medical questions to the qualified medical professionals?
Oh come on. What fun would the internet be if we did that?
The WWW is a place where half baked opinion and bluster reign supreme.
BaltACDIt wasn't my job to be popular. It wasn't my job to be an *** either. My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed.
Making a person whole? You think someone who now suffers from PTSD is less than whole? 66% person? How about diabetes? 3/4 person? Myopia? 52% person? Treatments of all kinds for chronic conditions are effective if they allow a person to return to adaptive functioning, but they need to be used. You clearly know little about chronic conditions and handicaps and have even less empathy.
Maybe if rail management weren't living in the stone age, line workers could get the treatments they need instead of trying to hide their conditions.
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo Yes, symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer And from my laymans point of view - a service animal is no GUARANTEE that those flashbacks won't happen and thereby comprimise safety. To my knowledge, limited though it is, there is no real 'fix' to a individual's response to PTSD and its triggers. So if you believe that no treatment works, you're saying anyone with such a condition should be declared unfit and terminated, since reassignment might violate his contract? Man, you must have been really popular with engineers.
BaltACD charlie hebdo Yes, symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer And from my laymans point of view - a service animal is no GUARANTEE that those flashbacks won't happen and thereby comprimise safety. To my knowledge, limited though it is, there is no real 'fix' to a individual's response to PTSD and its triggers.
charlie hebdo Yes, symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer
And from my laymans point of view - a service animal is no GUARANTEE that those flashbacks won't happen and thereby comprimise safety.
To my knowledge, limited though it is, there is no real 'fix' to a individual's response to PTSD and its triggers.
So if you believe that no treatment works, you're saying anyone with such a condition should be declared unfit and terminated, since reassignment might violate his contract? Man, you must have been really popular with engineers.
It wasn't my job to be popular. It wasn't my job to be an *** either. My job was to follow the policies and procedures that the company wanted followed.
If therapy can make a individual 'whole' fine - that is the therapist call, not mine. If the therapist can't make the individual 'whole' I don't feel a support animal is sufficient 'medication' to permit the individual to work in a stressful safety critical position with the lives of himself and others in his control. Are commercial airline pilots working with support animals in the cockpit?
The relevant Agreement(s) will normally outline how such employees can be accomodated.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
jeffhergert kicking cars uphill.
kicking cars uphill.
CN banned that after a fatality a few years ago in Melville, SK. Some cars started rolling back and the conductor got on to apply a handbrake, which didn't work.
She was still on the end of the car when it ran into the other cars on the lead.
https://tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/rail/2017/R17W0267/R17W0267.html
zugmann Are we going to screen everyone's mental halth at regular intervals? Remember that ports of LA engineer who tried to yeet his engine across 3 parking lots into a red cross hospital ship?
Are we going to screen everyone's mental halth at regular intervals?
Remember that ports of LA engineer who tried to yeet his engine across 3 parking lots into a red cross hospital ship?
Maybe they are afraid of what they know they'll find. Once they know about it they will have to deal with it.
jeffhergertWhat if the conductor is scared to death of dogs? Then he/she will need an emotional support animal. Probably not a dog.
You have the chance to come upon dogs out here. Should that person be a RRer?
HAd a conductor that was terrified of spiders. Would spend 3 minutes smacking at a car that had spider webs on it. (I, OTOH, would feel bad if I messed up a spider-bro's web).
I told him to watch out for cool spring mornings when the snakes would come out to sun themselves on the ROW. He wasn't amused.
tree68 What if the conductor has a bona fide allergy to dogs? Who gets bumped off the crew?
What if the conductor has a bona fide allergy to dogs? Who gets bumped off the crew?
What if the conductor is scared to death of dogs? Then he/she will need an emotional support animal. Probably not a dog.
Most of the new cabs are pretty crampt the way it is. Room for a dog, especially a large one, could be an issue on some of the engines.
charlie hebdoYes, symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer
Euclid charlie hebdo Euclid Quote from the article: “He told his bosses that his medical team had recommended he get a service dog to mitigate his flashbacks, anxiety and migraine headaches.” If the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches were not mitigated by a service dog, would those medical problems compromise safety when this engineer is running a train compared to a person running a train without those problems? I am guessing the answer is “yes.” If so, do the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches compromise safety to the point of disqualifying him from running a train? If they do, what assurance is there that the dog will be 100% successful in adequately suppressing those medical conditions that would cause an unacceptable lack of safety? If the dog is required in order to provide adequate safety, how can this be guaranteed? I don’t think that is possible. Guaranteed? Nothing is guaranteed. It's all about probabilities. Meanwhile there are obese engineers with untreated sleep apnea who could have compromised concentration. There are engineers with untreated ADHD who have lapses if attention. Where is the handwringing concern about that? "My use of the term "guaranteed" is just a figure of speech to ask if the dog can be depended on to provide the crucial link to the safety of the engineer's performance, if that is a requirement. This also brings up the question of what actually is that crucial link? But my main question is the first part of the above post in which I ask whether the sypmtoms of flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches would interfere with the engineer's ability to safely run the train. U.P. has apparently concluded that they do not since they have had him running trains without a service dog. It seems hard to make the case that you need the dog to mitigate the disomfort of the potential symptoms, but that those symptoms are not sufficient to compromise the engineer's full attention to working safely.
charlie hebdo Euclid Quote from the article: “He told his bosses that his medical team had recommended he get a service dog to mitigate his flashbacks, anxiety and migraine headaches.” If the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches were not mitigated by a service dog, would those medical problems compromise safety when this engineer is running a train compared to a person running a train without those problems? I am guessing the answer is “yes.” If so, do the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches compromise safety to the point of disqualifying him from running a train? If they do, what assurance is there that the dog will be 100% successful in adequately suppressing those medical conditions that would cause an unacceptable lack of safety? If the dog is required in order to provide adequate safety, how can this be guaranteed? I don’t think that is possible. Guaranteed? Nothing is guaranteed. It's all about probabilities. Meanwhile there are obese engineers with untreated sleep apnea who could have compromised concentration. There are engineers with untreated ADHD who have lapses if attention. Where is the handwringing concern about that?
Euclid Quote from the article: “He told his bosses that his medical team had recommended he get a service dog to mitigate his flashbacks, anxiety and migraine headaches.” If the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches were not mitigated by a service dog, would those medical problems compromise safety when this engineer is running a train compared to a person running a train without those problems? I am guessing the answer is “yes.” If so, do the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches compromise safety to the point of disqualifying him from running a train? If they do, what assurance is there that the dog will be 100% successful in adequately suppressing those medical conditions that would cause an unacceptable lack of safety? If the dog is required in order to provide adequate safety, how can this be guaranteed? I don’t think that is possible.
Quote from the article:
“He told his bosses that his medical team had recommended he get a service dog to mitigate his flashbacks, anxiety and migraine headaches.”
If the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches were not mitigated by a service dog, would those medical problems compromise safety when this engineer is running a train compared to a person running a train without those problems? I am guessing the answer is “yes.”
If so, do the flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches compromise safety to the point of disqualifying him from running a train?
If they do, what assurance is there that the dog will be 100% successful in adequately suppressing those medical conditions that would cause an unacceptable lack of safety?
If the dog is required in order to provide adequate safety, how can this be guaranteed? I don’t think that is possible.
Guaranteed? Nothing is guaranteed. It's all about probabilities. Meanwhile there are obese engineers with untreated sleep apnea who could have compromised concentration. There are engineers with untreated ADHD who have lapses if attention. Where is the handwringing concern about that?
"My use of the term "guaranteed" is just a figure of speech to ask if the dog can be depended on to provide the crucial link to the safety of the engineer's performance, if that is a requirement. This also brings up the question of what actually is that crucial link?
But my main question is the first part of the above post in which I ask whether the sypmtoms of flashbacks, anxiety, and headaches would interfere with the engineer's ability to safely run the train. U.P. has apparently concluded that they do not since they have had him running trains without a service dog.
It seems hard to make the case that you need the dog to mitigate the disomfort of the potential symptoms, but that those symptoms are not sufficient to compromise the engineer's full attention to working safely.
Yes, symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer
The dog's presence really doesn't bother me. It's the employee's dependency on the dog that bothers me.
I just get this vision in court after some incident, with the plaintiff's attorney asking "And just what was the dog doing at the moment your employee ran over my client?"
I don't believe that any railroad wants to put their head in that barrel.
If the guy get's permission for the dog, my bet is he gets reassigned to a position with limited public exposure.
Convicted OneOh, I think that a couple Dobermans would make a nice crew addition, say on a local working questionable neighborhoods. So, I'm not entirely opposed to the concept.
Nah, Dobies are out, Rottweilers are in!
Personally, we've got an attack Bassett. Put out food, she'll attack it.
EuclidIt seems hard to make the case that you need the dog to mitigate the disomfort of the potential symptoms, but that those symptoms are not sufficient to compromise the engineer's full attention to working safely.
I mean, we'll see what happens.
zugmannwe found every way from Sunday to justify this not happening on here.
Oh, I think that a couple Dobermans would make a nice crew addition, say on a local working questionable neighborhoods. So, I'm not entirely opposed to the concept.
Man, we found every way from Sunday to justify this not happening on here.
zugmannWe can say the same for a conductor.
But a conductor is just a single risk, by adding a dog we are doubling the probability, aren't we?
Plus, and I know this sounds horrible, but I'd likely be more emotionally attached to "my" animal being sick, than a conductor. Not that I wouldn't care about a conductor, but I believe I would have more .....sensitivity?....if my dog suddenly turned sick.
You can ask a conductor "are you okay?" You really can't ask a dog that, you have to focus your attention upon it, and deduce your answer based upon observations.
Convicted One What happens if the dog suddenly starts barfing, right at a moment that is critical to the engineer's attention? Where will the priorities stand?
We can say the same for a conductor.
EuclidIf they do, what assurance is there that the dog will be 100% successful in adequately suppressing those medical conditions that would cause an unacceptable lack of safety?
I agree. Plus, if the man's well being is dependent upon the animal, then the well being of the animal is going to be crucial to the man. What happens if the dog suddenly starts barfing, right at a moment that is critical to the engineer's attention? Where will the priorities stand?
SD70DudeIs that part of some 28 hour day type plan?
Engineers on some of our yard and local jobs have to keep a delay report. They have to indentify the times when they were stopped and why. The yard engines are supposed to be in motion within 10 minutes of the on duty time.
Many of our yards have "footboard" yardmasters. That is the yard engine foreman also acts as yardmaster. Deciding where to build pick ups, where to have set outs placed and how to switch the cars, how many to handle in each cut, which track to place the cars on, etc. And the foreman has 10 minutes to plan this work. Of course it takes longer than 10 minutes to line everything up.
In the meantime, the yard engine sits. Management higher up sees (by GPS) the engine sitting. They don't take into account the why (the reason local management wants the documentation) nor do they probably care. All they see is no movement and then think the job should be cut off because it doesn't have enough work to keep the engine moving. It's been suggested while waiting to just move the engines back and forth on the lead while waiting so GPS shows it moving.
PSR in action.
zugmann And they don't like 12's. They like 10s.
Is that part of some 28 hour day type plan?
Or can you guys also give notice of your intent to book rest after 10 hours?
BaltACDLikely a difference between NS & CSX. I don't know, since I have been blissfully retired for approaching 4 years.
About 40 years of change in those 4.
BaltACDI suspect, in view of PSR and the carrier efforts to reduce manpower counts that the normal yard day is now 12 hours. Two crews to give a job 24 hour coverage.
zugmann BaltACD A 8 hour yard assignment - no overtime and at home every night? A rarity in the post-PSR world.
BaltACD A 8 hour yard assignment - no overtime and at home every night?
A rarity in the post-PSR world.
More likely on Yard assignments than Pool road assignments. PSR world or not. I was trying to be kind, knowing that PSR is not.
I suspect, in view of PSR and the carrier efforts to reduce manpower counts that the normal yard day is now 12 hours. Two crews to give a job 24 hour coverage.
blue streak 1 Would most yard jobs be quieter ? Not much horn blowing and lower engine speeds ?
Would most yard jobs be quieter ? Not much horn blowing and lower engine speeds ?
Depends on how hard they work the engine kicking cars. A couple of our yards they are kicking cars uphill.
Thanks Jeff!
BaltACDA 8 hour yard assignment - no overtime and at home every night?
Convicted One Flintlock76 what practical purpose does that policy serve with a railroad? I don't know of any other business that has a policy like that. Maybe someone can explain it to me? Not by any means proposing to be an expert. But once at a NS hiring session it was explained to me by an interviewer that it is a tool to negate seniority. You might otherwise get a conductor who get's a nice, cushy assignment, with enough seniority to be untouchable, and he just happily rots there for 30 years. I welcome anyone with actual first-hand experience in the trade to confirm or refute that, along with their personal observations....but that's the way it was told to me. Additionally, if you have a tradition of firing engineers over petty violations, it makes sense to maintain a ready reserve, in waiting. I don't think there is an iron clad requirement that you have to become an engineer immediately after graduating the academy. I think that many return to the role of conductor, despite their qualification to be an engineer. They become a "super sub" of sorts
Flintlock76 what practical purpose does that policy serve with a railroad? I don't know of any other business that has a policy like that. Maybe someone can explain it to me?
Not by any means proposing to be an expert. But once at a NS hiring session it was explained to me by an interviewer that it is a tool to negate seniority.
You might otherwise get a conductor who get's a nice, cushy assignment, with enough seniority to be untouchable, and he just happily rots there for 30 years.
I welcome anyone with actual first-hand experience in the trade to confirm or refute that, along with their personal observations....but that's the way it was told to me.
Additionally, if you have a tradition of firing engineers over petty violations, it makes sense to maintain a ready reserve, in waiting. I don't think there is an iron clad requirement that you have to become an engineer immediately after graduating the academy. I think that many return to the role of conductor, despite their qualification to be an engineer. They become a "super sub" of sorts
It's a way to ensure there is a supply of engineers.
Originally, engineers hired out directly into engine service. Usually as a fireman, but in later years into a training program. I believe it was the 1972 contract that said preference in hiring for engine service would go to current trainmen. One could still hire out of the street if there wasn't enough trainmen willing to go into engine service. The 1985 contracts required all train service employees hired after that date would have to go to engine service when called to do so.
Going into engine service is still somewhat voluntary. When they put out a call for engine service, it's still bid on a seniority basis. As long as enough trainmen fill the open slots, it's possible to remain a trainman and let younger (seniority wise) people go around you into engine service. Out of my 1998 trainman's class, there are still 2 or 3 who didn't go into engine service. I went as soon as I was able (2004 date) and there have been many engineers set up since then. Those out of my class are pretty safe in not being forced to engine service. But, if the need arose, they could be forced to do so per the contract.
Even if they needed to force trainmen to engine service, my understanding is that they will force the youngest trainmen first. So my trainmen classmates are still pretty safe.
That's how it works for us. Zug can say if it works the same for his employer.
Now once you're an engineer, someplaces will allow you to set yourself back if you can't hold an engineer's assignment within your home terminal or zone. This is partly because many seniority districts have been expanded over the years. So if engineer Smith can't work an engineer's job at home, he doesn't have to chase his seniority and work 200 miles away as an engineer. He can set himself back to conductor, even though there might be junior engineers working at that 200 mile away location.
We had that arrangement until a junior conductor at a terminal on the other side of the seniority district complained. He searched the actual contracts and found the practice of engineer's setting themselves back was not covered. It had been done for years, but wasn't codified in the agreements. (The junior conductor was tired of getting bumped off a fairly easy, high paying assignment by engineers who set themselves back when they couldn't hold that terminal as an engineer.) Now engineers have to exhaust all engineer assignments on the seniority district before being set back. This means some possibly working 100 to 200 miles from home, usually the least desirable/lowest paying job with no lodging provided because it's a "seniority move" not a forced move. Some guys have experienced being forced (excuse me, exercising their seniority to the only job they can hold), getting to the terminal and being bumped. Then going to the next engineer's job to open, arriving and again being bumped before working. There have been a few people who had enough of the bouncing around and have quit the railroad because of it.
I think eventually, the railroads want everyone dual engine/train service qualified. Some say they'll only have one big extra board, but I think they'll still maintain the different engine and train service boards. You'll be able to work either side of the cab depending on your seniority. I know some small railroads work that way. I also know some who've said if they ever went to that, they wouldn't mind working as a conductor during the warm months and an engineer during the cold ones.
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo BaltACD D.Carleton All this will do is drive us one step closer to autonomous trains. Operated by support animals for kibble and bits. You seem to have some nasty animosity towards support dogs and/or maybe folks with PTSD. So says mr. sarcasm - your screen name says it all. So says the guy with the childish footnotes/cartoons. You can't respond with anything beyond snark because what I said is true. zug operates locomotives. You didn't. Joe McMahon operated them for many years and he had you pegged correctly as a desk jockey.
BaltACD charlie hebdo BaltACD D.Carleton All this will do is drive us one step closer to autonomous trains. Operated by support animals for kibble and bits. You seem to have some nasty animosity towards support dogs and/or maybe folks with PTSD. So says mr. sarcasm - your screen name says it all.
charlie hebdo BaltACD D.Carleton All this will do is drive us one step closer to autonomous trains. Operated by support animals for kibble and bits. You seem to have some nasty animosity towards support dogs and/or maybe folks with PTSD.
BaltACD D.Carleton All this will do is drive us one step closer to autonomous trains. Operated by support animals for kibble and bits.
D.Carleton All this will do is drive us one step closer to autonomous trains.
Operated by support animals for kibble and bits.
You seem to have some nasty animosity towards support dogs and/or maybe folks with PTSD.
So says mr. sarcasm - your screen name says it all.
So says the guy with the childish footnotes/cartoons. You can't respond with anything beyond snark because what I said is true. zug operates locomotives. You didn't. Joe McMahon operated them for many years and he had you pegged correctly as a desk jockey.
Sorry your satire is falling flat. Sorry you see yourself in my GIF's
Flintlock76what practical purpose does that policy serve with a railroad? I don't know of any other business that has a policy like that. Maybe someone can explain it to me?
Question: As I understand it, this engineer has a disability that presents various symptoms on an unpredictable basis, and the point of the dog is to prevent the symptoms of the disability from activating. What exactly are the possible symptoms of the engineer’s disability?
Say this engineer was running a train without the dog, and the symptoms were to activate. What effect would these symptoms have on the engineer’s ability to properly run the train?
BaltACDI suspect this situation has been created by the 'mandatory promotion' provisions that were written into the contracts that apply to Conductors in the 1990's and 21st Century.
Now that's something else I have trouble wrapping my head around. "Up, or out!"
I can understand the military having that policy, you can't have 45 year old privates lead by 50 year old lieutenants, those days are LONG gone. And I've heard some law firms have that policy as well, that is, if you aren't made a partner within a certain amount of time you're history, but what practical purpose does that policy serve with a railroad? I don't know of any other business that has a policy like that. Maybe someone can explain it to me?
zugmannI'm guessing you'd have to go to medical school to learn that.
How about a nice stuffed Teddy Bear? Is there anything in the rules against Teddy Bears?
And what happens if you die on hours of service out in the boonies, and the Renzenberger guy who comes to fetch you is allergic to dogs?
One thing that hasn't been identified - what kind of engineer assignments is the individual seeking the support animal for?
A 8 hour yard assignment - no overtime and at home every night?
A road job in pool service - first in - first out during all hours of the day and night; 12 hours on duty occasionally HOS on line of road and taking 14 -16 hours or more to get to the destination terminal, tying up at the away from home lodging facility with the service animal; staying away from home for 16 - 24 - 36 hours or more before being called on duty to go home. A life that could be considered 'animal cruelty' if it wasn't happening to humans.
Flintlock76A question I don't think anyone's brought up yet, but will the in-cab environment be safe for the dog? I'm thinking about noise levels, exhaust fumes, or any other things that might be detremental to the dogs health and well being.
Good point, what happens if the dog suddenly enters a distress condition, potentially distracting the engineer at a crucial moment?
As an employer, I would want no part of that. (exposure)
BaltACDJust trying to understand what 'holes in his personality' that the dog fills that would make his performance safe and up to par with the dog as opposed to being unsafe and below par without the animal.
I don't really care about the presence of dogs in locomotives, one way or the other.
But if the argument to justify having the animal present is going to be based upon the engineer somehow "not being whole" unless the animal is present, then I believe that the railroad is opening itself up to additional liability for placing such an employee in a position where the safety of others can potentially be at risk.
You get into a real murky area of having to establish the dog's competency as well as the engineer's in the moments immediately leading up to whatever incident might be litigated.
I don't think the RR's want any part of that.
Plus, is it really humane to place a dog in such an environment for extended periods? Too often I think we focus on what is in the best interest of the human, with little compassion for what the animal is expected to endure.
zugmann rdamon I think Jeff's comments about being offered a non road job at the same pay will be the result. How does that work when someone is hired as an agreement employee with seniority, though?
rdamon I think Jeff's comments about being offered a non road job at the same pay will be the result.
How does that work when someone is hired as an agreement employee with seniority, though?
Probably something like the "light duty" offered by the company when unable to fully work their normal assignment after having surgery or some other medical reason. I don't know if it's the same system wide, but our neck of the woods offers up to 30 days a year. They have them printing out paperwork, keeping the printers filled with paper, etc.
Maybe they could train the dog to sniff out hot boxes, too.
Flintlock76 A question I don't think anyone's brought up yet, but will the in-cab environment be safe for the dog? I'm thinking about noise levels, exhaust fumes, or any other things that might be detremental to the dogs health and well being. People do put up with things that an animal might not want to.
A question I don't think anyone's brought up yet, but will the in-cab environment be safe for the dog? I'm thinking about noise levels, exhaust fumes, or any other things that might be detremental to the dogs health and well being.
People do put up with things that an animal might not want to.
I was wondering about that also, specifically the noise level. But the guy must know the dog well enough to know how it would likely react. It's also possible he (in cahoots with a sympathetic conductor) has already had the dog along for a ride and observed how it did.
I find myself rooting for the man and the dog, not the company. But I'd agree this is a thorny situation. I can see both sides.
BaltACD charlie hebdo The question is why some on here seem to think having a companion dog disqualified a guy from running an engine safely? A guy grossly overweight is OK, but not someone who depends on that dog for emotional support ? Double standard and evidence of bias. Just trying to understand what 'holes in his personality' that the dog fills that would make his performance safe and up to par with the dog as opposed to being unsafe and below par without the animal.
charlie hebdo The question is why some on here seem to think having a companion dog disqualified a guy from running an engine safely? A guy grossly overweight is OK, but not someone who depends on that dog for emotional support ? Double standard and evidence of bias.
Just trying to understand what 'holes in his personality' that the dog fills that would make his performance safe and up to par with the dog as opposed to being unsafe and below par without the animal.
You will have to trust the experts (psychologists) on that. There are thousands of cases of brave wounded veterans who function quite well with at least some time daily with their dogs. I saw a fair amount about that and I am a professional. You aren't nor ever were an engineer.
I thought the line of thinking was using trained monkeys?
D.CarletonAll this will do is drive us one step closer to autonomous trains.
All this will do is drive us one step closer to autonomous trains.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
zugmann BaltACD Just trying to understand what 'holes in his personality' that the dog fills that would make his performance safe and up to par with the dog as opposed to being unsafe and below par without the animal. I'm guessing you'd have to go to medical school to learn that.
BaltACD Just trying to understand what 'holes in his personality' that the dog fills that would make his performance safe and up to par with the dog as opposed to being unsafe and below par without the animal.
I'm guessing you'd have to go to medical school to learn that.
I concur - I suspect UP have their doctors involved in their decisions in this matter.
The question is why some on here seem to think having a companion dog disqualified a guy from running an engine safely? A guy grossly overweight is OK, but not someone who depends on that dog for emotional support ? Double standard and evidence of bias.
charlie hebdoThe question is why some on here seem to think having a companion dog disqualified a guy from running an engine safely? A guy grossly overweight is OK, but not someone who depends on that dog for emotional support ? Double standard and evidence of bias.
rdamonI think Jeff's comments about being offered a non road job at the same pay will be the result.
From the article:
But Union Pacific denied the request, saying it was unclear how a dog would react to dangerous conditions at the rail yard such as moving cars and locomotives; that there was no infrastructure to support a dog on a train or on overnight trips that Hopman's conductor job sometimes required; and that the dog could pose a risk to other employees. At the time, Atlas hadn't completed his 18-month service dog training. But after the training was completed in April 2017, Hopman again sought permission to bring Atlas to work with him. This time, he cited the dog's training that was designed, among other things, to keep him focused on his service duties in varied environments, and even to go without a potty break for 14 hours, if necessary.
But Union Pacific denied the request, saying it was unclear how a dog would react to dangerous conditions at the rail yard such as moving cars and locomotives; that there was no infrastructure to support a dog on a train or on overnight trips that Hopman's conductor job sometimes required; and that the dog could pose a risk to other employees.
At the time, Atlas hadn't completed his 18-month service dog training. But after the training was completed in April 2017, Hopman again sought permission to bring Atlas to work with him. This time, he cited the dog's training that was designed, among other things, to keep him focused on his service duties in varied environments, and even to go without a potty break for 14 hours, if necessary.
I think Jeff's comments about being offered a non road job at the same pay will be the result.
selector The organization that must respond has to make a case for 'bonafide operational requirement.' For service personnel in the Canadian military, the bottom line when such rulings go before the courts is whether the person can be placed as a sentry to guard a military or government establishment without food, drink, or other eventually necessaries (yes, that's a legal and correct term...necessaries), including medications, for extended periods in all kinds of weather. Think if a Type 1 diabetic who requires at the very least a replenishment of insulin if he/she has a pump, or who needs regular injections, or recourse to meals. This may not be practicable or even possible during an insurrection or other emergency where the person's terms of service and job description require them to proceed as directed and to stand guard for many hours, without relief. Similarly, what restriction on an engineer's stated duties and terms of employment are there when a dog is permitted in the cab? What unacceptable liabilities will underwriters have to accept, or the public, or the employer if the dog is deemed essential by judgement, and that such requirements are deemed to be reasonable and enforceable? If one develops a condition that precludes that bottom line of standing guard at a gate, or along a fenceline, for hours without rest or reprieve, Canadian service personnel's cases go before a medical board. They are almost universally designated as unsuitable for service in any capacity, at which they are released from their current terms of service. This is supported on the basis of 'equity in service' where all service personnel are required to be able to serve at least in this very limited, but essential, capacity, other restrictions, limitations (including medical), and other impediments of a more temporary or lesser degree notwithstanding. "So, UPRR will have to generate a convincing a robust argument that having even a well-trained and highly necessary animal in the cab of an operating engineer is going to be a detriment, perhaps even a danger, to the engineer, his crew, and/or to the public."
The organization that must respond has to make a case for 'bonafide operational requirement.' For service personnel in the Canadian military, the bottom line when such rulings go before the courts is whether the person can be placed as a sentry to guard a military or government establishment without food, drink, or other eventually necessaries (yes, that's a legal and correct term...necessaries), including medications, for extended periods in all kinds of weather. Think if a Type 1 diabetic who requires at the very least a replenishment of insulin if he/she has a pump, or who needs regular injections, or recourse to meals. This may not be practicable or even possible during an insurrection or other emergency where the person's terms of service and job description require them to proceed as directed and to stand guard for many hours, without relief.
Similarly, what restriction on an engineer's stated duties and terms of employment are there when a dog is permitted in the cab? What unacceptable liabilities will underwriters have to accept, or the public, or the employer if the dog is deemed essential by judgement, and that such requirements are deemed to be reasonable and enforceable?
If one develops a condition that precludes that bottom line of standing guard at a gate, or along a fenceline, for hours without rest or reprieve, Canadian service personnel's cases go before a medical board. They are almost universally designated as unsuitable for service in any capacity, at which they are released from their current terms of service. This is supported on the basis of 'equity in service' where all service personnel are required to be able to serve at least in this very limited, but essential, capacity, other restrictions, limitations (including medical), and other impediments of a more temporary or lesser degree notwithstanding.
"So, UPRR will have to generate a convincing a robust argument that having even a well-trained and highly necessary animal in the cab of an operating engineer is going to be a detriment, perhaps even a danger, to the engineer, his crew, and/or to the public."
selector's argument and those of BaltACD [ :re; the VA, etc. ] are in the area's that I had concerns with. As a vet with a VA rating I am fascinated with the problems contained in this story about the UPRR engineer and his issues with employment in an industry that one does not usually see the issues surrounding his medical 'issues' everyday.
To the problems with definitions: the arguments are definitely specific to the terms 'SERVICE Animal and THERAPY animal.
The Service dog is a 'Trained animal' its duties are specific to the individual. Normally, a trained [trained in conjunction with its vet/handler] the service dog is assigned for one or two specific duties. [Such a trained dog carries 'papers' to show its certification and training] A couple of those duties might require the animal to fetch a dropped item for its owner; open a door, or even assist the peron in a street crossing type situation.
The Therapy dog/animal(?) is essentially, not normally, formally trained. It is simply a companion; mostly, they are there to 'calm' its person who can be 'unstable' (physically or mentally) in 'stressful' situations (?).
The Therapy animal definition is somewhat problematic (?) Hence; one may have seen stories written of Therapy animales that ran the range and scope of types from gerbils to dogs to large fowl, (?) The A.D.A. definitions/regulatiions are apparently open to 'interpretations(?)'. Which is where many of the problems arise when the public is presented with such creatures. There are no specific papers issued for therapy animals; except ,maybe, by the patients Therapist ior possibly another clinition on the case(?).
As a regular volunteer at our local VA Hospital, I have seen some strange Therapy animals, and some very well-trained service dogs, in my duties there.
BaltACD's question about Service Dogs in the cabs of locomotives, asks several solid questions in regards to a service dog in the cab; and its interactions in that environment.
Enforcement of the provisions of the A.D.A. seem to have been all over the spectrum. I have no idea how the outcome of one will come out. An obvious solution seems to be a job transfer the individual and his service dog to some other duties on the railroad. Will be interesting to find out its outcome.
Will this dog qualify as a emotional support animal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkcKdfL7G3A
caldreamer Under ADA he is allowd to have a therapy dog with him at work/ He will win his case aaginst UP.
Under ADA he is allowd to have a therapy dog with him at work/ He will win his case aaginst UP.
Doesn't the ADA use the wording "reasonable accomodation" for employment? It will be up to a judge to "reasonable" in the context of his current employment. Possibly employment in another job with the UP but at his engineer pay rate.
I'm not a lawyer and I only stayed at a Best Western last night.
BaltACD zugmann BaltACD How is it that he worked as a Conductor without need for the therapy animal. but now that he is an engineer he needs the animal. There is a lot more mental stress on that side of the cab. And that's not even factoring in all the PSR-EHH BS that is in play. If you can't emotionally handle the stress of 'promotion' to the other side of the engine it is time to look for another form of work - within or without your present employer. Personally, I don't see how a 'support animal' will assist the person to make correct decisions at the proper times in the operation of a locomotive and the train which it will be hauling. I suspect this situation has been created by the 'mandatory promotion' provisions that were written into the contracts that apply to Conductors in the 1990's and 21st Century.
zugmann BaltACD How is it that he worked as a Conductor without need for the therapy animal. but now that he is an engineer he needs the animal. There is a lot more mental stress on that side of the cab. And that's not even factoring in all the PSR-EHH BS that is in play.
BaltACD How is it that he worked as a Conductor without need for the therapy animal. but now that he is an engineer he needs the animal.
There is a lot more mental stress on that side of the cab. And that's not even factoring in all the PSR-EHH BS that is in play.
If you can't emotionally handle the stress of 'promotion' to the other side of the engine it is time to look for another form of work - within or without your present employer.
Personally, I don't see how a 'support animal' will assist the person to make correct decisions at the proper times in the operation of a locomotive and the train which it will be hauling.
I suspect this situation has been created by the 'mandatory promotion' provisions that were written into the contracts that apply to Conductors in the 1990's and 21st Century.
Given the difference of opinions, i'd defer to that of an actual engineer like zugmann.
selector They are almost universally designated as unsuitable for service in any capacity, at which they are released from their current terms of service.
In the Marines we used the term "non-deployable," which is really a way of saying they're unsuitable for a combat role. An exception can be made (and usually is) for staff NCOs or officers posessing an invaluable skill, in which case they're classified as "Limited Duty" and allowed to stay on until they reach enough time in service to qualify for retirement.
I believe all the other services have the same policy.
Around here we have several drivers that carry dogs with them as travel companions. We require documention of their current shots a deposit for any damage that is refunded if the truck is clean after they switch or leave the carrier. These dogs all can make the leap from the ground into the cab of any of our trucks from ground level with out a problem. We have several beagles a couple labs 1 German Shepard and a few other breeds or mixed dogs in the fleet. Our drivers know that at the shippers and receivers that the dog stays in the cab unless the customer gives the okay for them to be outside. We also require they clean up after their dogs in terms of waste. It can be done as 2 of these dogs are Service animals for PTSD of their owners that are Iraq war vets. One is a Beagle the other is a Toy poodle crossed with a Daushound. Those 2 dogs literally can have a steak put in front of them and NOT eat it unless told they can.
Will the animal climb cab steps on its own? That first step is a big one from ground level, or from ground level at the edge of the ballast.
So, UPRR will have to generate a convincing a robust argument that having even a well-trained and highly necessary animal in the cab of an operating engineer is going to be a detriment, perhaps even a danger, to the engineer, his crew, and/or to the public.
BaltACDHow is it that he worked as a Conductor without need for the therapy animal. but now that he is an engineer he needs the animal.
tree68We talk a lot here about vetting potential crew members. Would this fellow pass the initial vetting as a new hire? I understand the PTSD thing and sympathize with it. But at some point we need to ask if we want someone whose condition calls for a service/support animal at the controls of a 15,000 foot train of crude oil... Harsh, I know.
I understand the PTSD thing and sympathize with it. But at some point we need to ask if we want someone whose condition calls for a service/support animal at the controls of a 15,000 foot train of crude oil...
Harsh, I know.
How is it that he worked as a Conductor without need for the therapy animal. but now that he is an engineer he needs the animal.
Why aren't effective treatments being developed for PTSD, rather changing all the surroundings around a individual with PTSD.
PTSD individuals need treatment and therapy to allow them to function in society as it exists rather than to change everything in society.
VA personnel heed to be enhanced with more therapists with more training and more funding to assist the multitude of servicemen whose service placed them in the positions that generate PTSD. Private helthcare plans need to cover PTSD, not just brush it aside as most do these days.
Healthcare needs to be all about HEALTH, not about profit.
caldreamerUnder ADA he is allowd to have a therapy dog with him at work/ He will win his case aaginst UP.
Not sure the ADA applies here. Railroads have their own federal regulatory regime, and and it could be that FRA regulations (however they might pertain to this situation) would supercede the ADA (I am no lawyer and do not know for sure one way or the other). ADA has been around for some 30 years and the RRs have not had to make locomtive cabs accessible to wheel chairs yet.
What happens if the other person in the cab has a severe dog allergy? Serious question as I know people with dog allergies.
With respect to service versus therapy dogs, service dogs typically get a lot more training than therapy dogs and this are allowed in places where therapy dogs can be excluded.
Dogs go to the vet all the time...it shouldn't be a problem!
We talk a lot here about vetting potential crew members. Would this fellow pass the initial vetting as a new hire?
steve-in-kvilleMaybe this varies from state to state, but a service dog can go about anywhere, but the other can be asked to leave? Could be wrong there. BTW- I can't find the link to this article.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/sep/07/dog-at-work-suit-heads-to-trial/?latest
Fear of unknown possible ramifications of allowing an animal on a train by UP may be the reason for denying request. But I expect they will loose this case. Typical management fear of change and setting precients.
charlie hebdo Obviously some folks here are fans of the politics of resentment.
Obviously some folks here are fans of the politics of resentment.
Not at all. What alphas said and what I concur with is in too many cases it seems to be the nature of some to abuse a priviledge when that priviledge is extended.
And as far as I know the admission of service and therapy dogs to business establishments is a priviledge, not a right. Most places extend the priviledge gladly because it's the right thing to do and it's good for business as well.
By the way, I'm all in favor of that UP engineer having his therapy dog on board. Why not? Animals as "train crew" used to be an old railroad tradition. Dogs, cats, parrots, ducks, and bunny rabbits used to be quite common as pets of the train crews.
Regards - Steve
alphasIt is heavily abused and that's why various states are cracking down on it.
Yeah, the therapy chickens, iguanas, et. al. raised a few eyebrows.
In some states anyone can get a pet named as a "companion". Allows you to have a pet in otherwise non-pet places. It is heavily abused and that's why various states are cracking down on it.
They refer mostly to the same usage. Service dogs are trained to assist folks with a diagnosed disability. Therapy dogs are a subset used for people with a diagnosed mental health condition in which a companion dog reduces anxiety.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.