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.
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?
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
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
Corporate management, aka, lackeys, like to hide behind "policies and procedures" to penalize employees.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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"
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?
If the ruling is against UP, they would have to let him use the dog and could not fire him for that cause.
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.
There would be another lawsuit and fast?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Be careful walking through this thread. It's full of slippery slopes today.
deleted
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.
EuclidI 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.
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.
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.
Wait and see. Depends on the full scope of the lawsuit, which is not stated clearly.
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.
And if your contention is upheld, once again a veteran is screwed.
Perhaps, but let's not lose sight of who is suing who.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Convicted One 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?
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.
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.
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 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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.