Trains.com

Trial set over UP engineer's request to bring service dog to work

7213 views
140 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, September 12, 2020 6:03 PM

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?

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

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Saturday, September 12, 2020 6:00 PM

tree68

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.

Jeff 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, September 12, 2020 5:48 PM

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.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Saturday, September 12, 2020 2:45 PM

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. 

 

Yes,  symptoms of PTSD could interfere with attention at the job of an engineer

 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, September 12, 2020 1:45 PM

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.

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Saturday, September 12, 2020 12:48 PM

Convicted One
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.  

Nah, Dobies are out, Rottweilers are in!  Wink

Personally, we've got an attack Bassett.  Put out food, she'll attack it.  

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, September 12, 2020 12:34 PM

Euclid
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. 

I mean, we'll see what happens. 

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

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, September 12, 2020 12:27 PM

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. 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, September 12, 2020 12:02 PM

zugmann
we 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.  

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, September 12, 2020 11:53 AM

Man, we found every way from Sunday to justify this not happening on here. 

 

 

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

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Saturday, September 12, 2020 11:48 AM

What if the conductor has a bona fide allergy to dogs?  Who gets bumped off the crew?

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, September 12, 2020 11:37 AM

zugmann
We 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.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, September 12, 2020 11:26 AM

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. 

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

  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 5,636 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Saturday, September 12, 2020 11:25 AM

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? 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:36 AM

Euclid
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?

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?

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:09 AM

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.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, September 11, 2020 7:05 PM

SD70Dude
Is that part of some 28 hour day type plan?

30-hour day, of course.  But the new CFO is shooting for 36 by the end of next year.

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Friday, September 11, 2020 4:25 PM

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.

Jeff

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 4,269 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Friday, September 11, 2020 4:21 PM

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?

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Friday, September 11, 2020 10:28 AM

BaltACD
Likely 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. 

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

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, September 11, 2020 10:13 AM

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.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Friday, September 11, 2020 10:05 AM

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. 

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

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, September 10, 2020 10:49 PM

zugmann
 
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.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Thursday, September 10, 2020 9:29 PM

blue streak 1

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.  

Jeff

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, September 10, 2020 8:53 PM

Would most yard jobs be quieter ?  Not much horn blowing and lower engine speeds ?

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, September 10, 2020 8:06 PM

Thanks Jeff!

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Thursday, September 10, 2020 7:51 PM

BaltACD
A 8 hour yard assignment - no overtime and at home every night? 

A rarity in the post-PSR world. 

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

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Thursday, September 10, 2020 6:57 PM

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

 

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.

Jeff

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, September 10, 2020 5:33 PM

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. 

Sorry your satire is falling flat.  Sorry you see yourself in my GIF's

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 4,557 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Thursday, September 10, 2020 5:21 PM

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

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy