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?
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Jeff
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.
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
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.