n012944 jeffhergert I expect a strike sometime later this year or early next year when the process under the RLA has taken it's course. It may not last long, just enough time to be put back to work and a Presidential Emergency Board to be named. The unions have taken the (correct) next step. https://atda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Coordinated-Bargaining-Coalition-April-25-2022-Statement.pdf
jeffhergert I expect a strike sometime later this year or early next year when the process under the RLA has taken it's course. It may not last long, just enough time to be put back to work and a Presidential Emergency Board to be named.
I expect a strike sometime later this year or early next year when the process under the RLA has taken it's course. It may not last long, just enough time to be put back to work and a Presidential Emergency Board to be named.
The unions have taken the (correct) next step.
https://atda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Coordinated-Bargaining-Coalition-April-25-2022-Statement.pdf
Maybe they should include the growing Unionization of Starbucks and Amazon into the equation. Carriers think after the mid-terms they will have a GOP congress and SCOTUS to break the union movement after 160 years,
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
An "expensive model collector"
Right now, most of my coworkers are most upset because we haven't had a raise in a few years. Since the last contract expired. (Expired contracts are just extended, except for wage raises.) Also many see some "wins" in other industries and think railroaders should also get some raises in higher percentages than we normally get.
It's better if both sides could come to an agreement, but I'm not sure that's possible. The outcome, via a PEB, always causes me concern. I think the general feeling is with the current party in control, they will be more sympathetic to railroad labor. I'm not sure. An old head, now retired, once told me that it seemed the railroads got most of what they wanted through the PEBs, no matter which party was in.
Jeff
No, you can’t name your price with railroad jobs or many other types of work, but you can be, and often are asked to name your price with some jobs. Some will require you to name your price, and they may not make you an offer if you don’t. Anyone looking for a job should assign a value to the work skills they can provide. They should also compare this value to their cost of doing the work of a job.
My point in asking for a price is that it would quantify the problem if there is a problem with working conditions having worsened while the wages have not changed. People understand the value of money, but they will never understand a rash of complaints about working conditions. It is too deep in the weeds for outsiders to ever understand, and yet the solution needs the help of outsiders, particularly those in government.
In the case of this railroad work, the working conditions are a major cost to the employee. Some people here have mentioned that these working condition costs have risen since the cost cutting associated with PSR has come about. It would be a major benefit to your cause if you could quantify and document the exact details of how the working conditions have suddenly worsened since PSR. Although I would not mention PSR in such documentation because it will only confuse the issue.
EuclidSo I ask what it would take to eliminate the inconvenience.
As you note, it is the irregularity that is the problem.
And the devil is in the details. While a nice, regular schedule would be nice, railroads are linear, even to the extent of trains that run halfway across the country. While train 123 may be scheduled to depart A at 8AM (and actually do so), hitting B at noon and C at 4PM, in reality, a broken knuckle might put 123 in B at 4PM, with the delay cascading along the line. The conflicts that introduces may put 123 even further behind.
It's been noted that the solution is more crews. Finding the balance between enough crews (with wiggle room) and too many crews is the challenge.
Perhaps the solution would be a new HOS law allowing for one start every 24 hours. And that brings its own problems. I doubt the investors would be happy.
My .
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...
Murphy Siding Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid zugmann It's not just about pay. The author of the above article starts out by adding up the hours required for one cycle, including layover hours, and then calculates the dollars per hour provided by his wage. So he has no problem tying the issue directly to wages, even though it is about more than wages. If he can make that point, why can’t I? He says the wage he calculates is not high enough. So I ask, how high should it be? Ask the guy that wrote the article. I figured that since the article was posted here to make a point of pay being insufficient to cover the inconvenience of the work, somebody here could tell me how much pay it would take to include compensation for the inconvenience. But here, I am told that insufficient pay is not the problem, and only the inconvenience is the problem. I have also been told that you cannot put a price on inconvenience. So I ask what it would take to eliminate the inconvenience. For as long as I can remember, people cited the inconvenience of railroad operational work which was the need to be on call, working different shifts, working the least desirable shifts until acquiring considerable seniority, working double shifts, the difficulty of getting enough rest when sleeping during the day, etc. Over the more recent years, other associated problems have been added such as health risk associated with shift work disorders, and the associated safety risks. What can the industry do to at least reduce these inconveniences and dangers? Are you going to work for the railroad? You make it sound like all you have to do is name your price and everything will be fine.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid zugmann It's not just about pay. The author of the above article starts out by adding up the hours required for one cycle, including layover hours, and then calculates the dollars per hour provided by his wage. So he has no problem tying the issue directly to wages, even though it is about more than wages. If he can make that point, why can’t I? He says the wage he calculates is not high enough. So I ask, how high should it be? Ask the guy that wrote the article. I figured that since the article was posted here to make a point of pay being insufficient to cover the inconvenience of the work, somebody here could tell me how much pay it would take to include compensation for the inconvenience. But here, I am told that insufficient pay is not the problem, and only the inconvenience is the problem. I have also been told that you cannot put a price on inconvenience. So I ask what it would take to eliminate the inconvenience. For as long as I can remember, people cited the inconvenience of railroad operational work which was the need to be on call, working different shifts, working the least desirable shifts until acquiring considerable seniority, working double shifts, the difficulty of getting enough rest when sleeping during the day, etc. Over the more recent years, other associated problems have been added such as health risk associated with shift work disorders, and the associated safety risks. What can the industry do to at least reduce these inconveniences and dangers?
Murphy Siding Euclid zugmann It's not just about pay. The author of the above article starts out by adding up the hours required for one cycle, including layover hours, and then calculates the dollars per hour provided by his wage. So he has no problem tying the issue directly to wages, even though it is about more than wages. If he can make that point, why can’t I? He says the wage he calculates is not high enough. So I ask, how high should it be? Ask the guy that wrote the article.
Euclid zugmann It's not just about pay. The author of the above article starts out by adding up the hours required for one cycle, including layover hours, and then calculates the dollars per hour provided by his wage. So he has no problem tying the issue directly to wages, even though it is about more than wages. If he can make that point, why can’t I? He says the wage he calculates is not high enough. So I ask, how high should it be?
zugmann It's not just about pay.
Ask the guy that wrote the article.
Are you going to work for the railroad? You make it sound like all you have to do is name your price and everything will be fine.
His questions are exactly what HR/hiring people everywhere are grappling with. And there are no easy answers, and there's no one size fits all solution. More money for one person will not be the answer for another who values home time more. The best that can be hoped for is a compromise that most people find acceptable.
And don't hire your problems. Companies who are desperate for people may try to cut corners by hiring people who aren't suited.. usually they're "technically qualified" but they fall short on temperment or they have lifestyle requirements that are beyond the scope of the employer to provide.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The "Great Resignation" is hitting many industries. In some cases it is two incomes dropping to one.
In Spain this company's workers voted for a 30 hour work week with a cut in pay.
https://www.desigual.com/en_US/Desigual-statement-4day-working-week.html
The railroads themselves are falling behind on the wage scale paid out. An average OTR driver anymore is making around 70k a year for a rookie and if you get into the specialized areas salaries in the range of 120k to 180k are possible. Heck Walmart just made their base wage for their own fleet 110k a year.
UlrichPeople seem to have more options nowadays.
That extends beyond the workplace.
When I was a kid, it was stay-at-home moms while dad worked. There was always someone to attend the game, play, etc. Of course, they weren't "soccer moms" either - the myriad sports opportunities didn't exist like they do today. Boys might play Little League in the summer, and scholastic sports. The girls had no sports. My high school of over 1,000 students had just six varsity cheerleaders - not a cheer squad numbering 20 or more.
It was entirely a different world.
CSX reports increased Q1 profits on decreased traffic volume
https://www.trainboard.com/highball/index.php?threads/csx-1q22-earnings-soar-on-lower-volume.143795/
BaltACD One thing I don't think anyone appreciates in today's world versus our world when we were young or our parents world. Our parents dealt with the disruptions of The Great Depression which morphed into WW II. We are for the most part 'Boomers' and were raised by our parents to 'go for the dollar', family life was second place to performing your responsibilities of your job - whatever that job was. Today's employable generations were not raised with the specter of The Depression as anything more than something they may have read about in history books - and if the BS that is floating around about today's education, it may be off limits to teach about The Depression. Without having a home life that mentioned on a recurring basis the privations that the parents dealt with as their own experiences during The Depression and WW II - the youth of today feel, rightly or wrongly, that they can always get a job that fits their 'life goals'. They have been imbued with the 'take this job and shove it' ethos.
One thing I don't think anyone appreciates in today's world versus our world when we were young or our parents world.
Our parents dealt with the disruptions of The Great Depression which morphed into WW II. We are for the most part 'Boomers' and were raised by our parents to 'go for the dollar', family life was second place to performing your responsibilities of your job - whatever that job was.
Today's employable generations were not raised with the specter of The Depression as anything more than something they may have read about in history books - and if the BS that is floating around about today's education, it may be off limits to teach about The Depression. Without having a home life that mentioned on a recurring basis the privations that the parents dealt with as their own experiences during The Depression and WW II - the youth of today feel, rightly or wrongly, that they can always get a job that fits their 'life goals'. They have been imbued with the 'take this job and shove it' ethos.
People seem to have more options nowadays. I remember when i entered the workforce in the mid 80s.. it was dismal. Employers were picky, and even the worst jobs had a line up of applicants. The tables have turned it seems.. would be great to be 21 again!
EuclidIf this problem were to be solved by either raising wages or improving conditions, I think it would be much harder to agree on improving conditions. But both could be part of the deal. If the railroads are having trouble finding and keeping people, this is the best time to act. Make a list of ways to improve conditions that would be least objectionable to the industry. They may reject them, but still, there is benefit to identifying them. If you put that ball in their court, they will feel compelled to consider it. They feel the pain of not being able to hire and retain people.
Contract negotiations are on-going without much progress. So yeah, all these revelations you are having aren't exactly new thoughts.
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
One doesn't hear much from the short lines and regionals.. are they also experiencing these types of issues, or is it only the class 1s?
zugmann Euclid hey blame the problem on coming out of the lockdown. But the clear fact is that if a whole category of business cannot find enough employees, they are not paying enough. If you start raising the wages, more and more people will start taking your job offers. Or, instead of massive pay raises that probably won't happen, they could change the conditions of the job so it is more tolerable at current pay. We had plenty of people back before they started changing cutting everything a few years ago (pre-COVID so we can't use that as a handy lie excuse). Heck, we probably wouldn't even be in this mess. I don't know why you are so fixated on just the "raise pay" aspect. But honestly, I don't think raising the pay (to realistic levels*) will solve the problems. It's almost like people DON'T want to work 12-16 hours a day, every day, without the ability to take off.. (And that's not a typo - I've seen many road crews go 12-16 hours until they get DHed back to the home terminal to mark off). *- I mean if they want to pay us a million dollars a year + benefits, I'd be happy to try that out. And before someone asks - I'm closer to the top of the roster than the bottom. So my little bit of gray hair allows me to hold something that does have more work-life balance. But many, many, many below me are not so lucky. Even saying that, I am weighing my options.
Euclid hey blame the problem on coming out of the lockdown. But the clear fact is that if a whole category of business cannot find enough employees, they are not paying enough. If you start raising the wages, more and more people will start taking your job offers.
Or, instead of massive pay raises that probably won't happen, they could change the conditions of the job so it is more tolerable at current pay. We had plenty of people back before they started changing cutting everything a few years ago (pre-COVID so we can't use that as a handy lie excuse). Heck, we probably wouldn't even be in this mess.
I don't know why you are so fixated on just the "raise pay" aspect.
But honestly,
I don't think raising the pay (to realistic levels*) will solve the problems. It's almost like people DON'T want to work 12-16 hours a day, every day, without the ability to take off.. (And that's not a typo - I've seen many road crews go 12-16 hours until they get DHed back to the home terminal to mark off).
*- I mean if they want to pay us a million dollars a year + benefits, I'd be happy to try that out.
And before someone asks -
I'm closer to the top of the roster than the bottom. So my little bit of gray hair allows me to hold something that does have more work-life balance. But many, many, many below me are not so lucky. Even saying that, I am weighing my options.
Euclidhey blame the problem on coming out of the lockdown. But the clear fact is that if a whole category of business cannot find enough employees, they are not paying enough. If you start raising the wages, more and more people will start taking your job offers.
BaltACD Euclid tree68 Euclid He says the wage he calculates is not high enough. So I ask, how high should it be? It's virtually impossible to put a value on the intangibles. What is it worth to be able to sit down with your family for a special occasion? To be able to attend your kid's graduation? To be able to expect to sleep eight hours without having to worry about the crew caller calling before your alarm clock goes off? No amount of money will make the life of inconvenience brought on by working on today's railroads worth it. Even the fellow driving the "honey wagon" gets to sleep in his own bed every night. People put a price on intangibles all the time. When they accept the job, they are putting a price on the intangibles such as working conditions. Those intangible working conditions are part of the terms of the job. And a great many in the employment world are voting with their feet that railroads, at present, are not presenting the work life and home life that makes their compenstation palatable to them - there are other 'better' jobs to their mind. Their actions to steer clear of railroad employment is them placing their value on the intangibles.
Euclid tree68 Euclid He says the wage he calculates is not high enough. So I ask, how high should it be? It's virtually impossible to put a value on the intangibles. What is it worth to be able to sit down with your family for a special occasion? To be able to attend your kid's graduation? To be able to expect to sleep eight hours without having to worry about the crew caller calling before your alarm clock goes off? No amount of money will make the life of inconvenience brought on by working on today's railroads worth it. Even the fellow driving the "honey wagon" gets to sleep in his own bed every night. People put a price on intangibles all the time. When they accept the job, they are putting a price on the intangibles such as working conditions. Those intangible working conditions are part of the terms of the job.
tree68 Euclid He says the wage he calculates is not high enough. So I ask, how high should it be? It's virtually impossible to put a value on the intangibles. What is it worth to be able to sit down with your family for a special occasion? To be able to attend your kid's graduation? To be able to expect to sleep eight hours without having to worry about the crew caller calling before your alarm clock goes off? No amount of money will make the life of inconvenience brought on by working on today's railroads worth it. Even the fellow driving the "honey wagon" gets to sleep in his own bed every night.
Euclid He says the wage he calculates is not high enough. So I ask, how high should it be?
It's virtually impossible to put a value on the intangibles. What is it worth to be able to sit down with your family for a special occasion? To be able to attend your kid's graduation? To be able to expect to sleep eight hours without having to worry about the crew caller calling before your alarm clock goes off?
No amount of money will make the life of inconvenience brought on by working on today's railroads worth it.
Even the fellow driving the "honey wagon" gets to sleep in his own bed every night.
People put a price on intangibles all the time. When they accept the job, they are putting a price on the intangibles such as working conditions. Those intangible working conditions are part of the terms of the job.
And a great many in the employment world are voting with their feet that railroads, at present, are not presenting the work life and home life that makes their compenstation palatable to them - there are other 'better' jobs to their mind. Their actions to steer clear of railroad employment is them placing their value on the intangibles.
Exactly what I would do. If you're not happy and there's no prospect for real change then its time to move on. Nothing wrong with that.. take the initiative, but make sure you're stepping into something better and not off the cliff.
zugmann Ulrich I think so too.. hire bonuses haven't worked in the trucking industry either.. but bonuses are at least evidence that they're attempting to bring people in. Long term (hell even short term) they're a bad idea as they tend to attract everyone who needs quick cash regardless of how qualified they may be. $5000.00 is alot of money to most people.. Well yeah, of course they want to bring people in. But if 999 out of 1000 quit their first month, it isn't really helping the cause. "Welcome to the hiring session you 300 people. To get your $5000 bonus, you need to stay marked up and available for one year, working nights/weekends/holidays on call, and we will do a hair folicle test on you, then subject you to random urinalysis tests... and I see I'm now talking to an empty room"
Ulrich I think so too.. hire bonuses haven't worked in the trucking industry either.. but bonuses are at least evidence that they're attempting to bring people in. Long term (hell even short term) they're a bad idea as they tend to attract everyone who needs quick cash regardless of how qualified they may be. $5000.00 is alot of money to most people..
Well yeah, of course they want to bring people in. But if 999 out of 1000 quit their first month, it isn't really helping the cause.
"Welcome to the hiring session you 300 people. To get your $5000 bonus, you need to stay marked up and available for one year, working nights/weekends/holidays on call, and we will do a hair folicle test on you, then subject you to random urinalysis tests... and I see I'm now talking to an empty room"
How are you getting 300 people to a hiring session these days? We haven't had numbers like that in years. One week of sessions had a total of 10 or 15 people who attended for the entire week. The sessions used to be 25 to 30 people a day for 4 days, for 2 to 3 weeks back to back.
The strings with our hiring bonus were so many "starts," not a calender year. And it was paid in increments. If one quit or was dismissed, any part of the bonus had to be paid back. That's not unreasonable, but what they paid you had taxes taken out. When you paid back you paid the full gross amount of what they paid you.
I noticed out of about 10 new hires, over a few classes, only 2 were left. The rest had already quit or been dismissed.
Yup.. you're preaching to the converted. I've only brought them up as evidence that the railroads aren't (yet) attempting to become zero employee companies. We're a long way from that I think.. but who knows.. Iphones were science fiction not so long ago too.
zugmann A lot of these PSR and PSR-lite programs were never officially referred to as "PSR". But walks, talks, duck and all that.
A lot of these PSR and PSR-lite programs were never officially referred to as "PSR".
But walks, talks, duck and all that.
Yes.. I've also heard them referred to by rather unflattering "unofficial" language as well.
I've noticed that the first railroad out of the gate with PSR, CN, rarely refers to it as PSR anymore. Likely due to the negative connotation of those three letters in the industry, but probably as importantly.. they've evolved and moved away from a fixation on operations and the OR. Now they're nolonger the OR leader by choice.. it looks as if they're following a more balanced approach.
UlrichI think so too.. hire bonuses haven't worked in the trucking industry either.. but bonuses are at least evidence that they're attempting to bring people in. Long term (hell even short term) they're a bad idea as they tend to attract everyone who needs quick cash regardless of how qualified they may be. $5000.00 is alot of money to most people..
Ulrich BaltACD Ulrich BaltACD The only thing the PSR carriers are 'trying' is to eliminate all employees. Hmmm... via hiring bonuses? As flawed as they may be, I don't think that's it. PSR's ultimate aim is to eliminate employees and have a automatic cash machine that dispenses 'shareholder value'. PSR will suffer with employees only as long as it takes to replace them. Only trouble with it is that shareholder value is really only as good as the underlying company those shares represent.. if the company suffers losses or can't function properly then shareholder value goes out the window. I would love a " zero employee business".. no employees..no managers.. just machines that work uncomplainingly 24/7. But that's not even science fiction.. we're into the realm of science fantasy..
BaltACD Ulrich BaltACD The only thing the PSR carriers are 'trying' is to eliminate all employees. Hmmm... via hiring bonuses? As flawed as they may be, I don't think that's it. PSR's ultimate aim is to eliminate employees and have a automatic cash machine that dispenses 'shareholder value'. PSR will suffer with employees only as long as it takes to replace them.
Ulrich BaltACD The only thing the PSR carriers are 'trying' is to eliminate all employees. Hmmm... via hiring bonuses? As flawed as they may be, I don't think that's it.
BaltACD The only thing the PSR carriers are 'trying' is to eliminate all employees.
The only thing the PSR carriers are 'trying' is to eliminate all employees.
Hmmm... via hiring bonuses? As flawed as they may be, I don't think that's it.
PSR's ultimate aim is to eliminate employees and have a automatic cash machine that dispenses 'shareholder value'. PSR will suffer with employees only as long as it takes to replace them.
Only trouble with it is that shareholder value is really only as good as the underlying company those shares represent.. if the company suffers losses or can't function properly then shareholder value goes out the window. I would love a " zero employee business".. no employees..no managers.. just machines that work uncomplainingly 24/7. But that's not even science fiction.. we're into the realm of science fantasy..
PSR is the fantasy. One cannot create goals without dreaming into the world of fantasy.
For the millennia of man's existence until 120 years ago, the idea of flight was sheer fantasy - then along came the Wright Brothers and changed that fantasy into a reality and little would they recognize the state of flight in today's world.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.