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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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..
zugmann Ulrich Hmmm... via hiring bonuses? As flawed as they may be, I don't think that's it. A few grand is not going to convince someone to spend a long time in the industry.
Ulrich Hmmm... via hiring bonuses? As flawed as they may be, I don't think that's it.
A few grand is not going to convince someone to spend a long time in the industry.
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..
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
UlrichHmmm... via hiring bonuses? As flawed as they may be, I don't think that's it.
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
I've seen little evidence of them "trying".
zugmann 3) cry to the gov't that they need one-man crews.
3) cry to the gov't that they need one-man crews.
Or in some cases three man or no man crews.. maybe staffing levels should reflect the work being undertaken.
[quote user="Overmod"]
zugmann3) cry to the gov't that they need one-man crews./quote]If I were in the government, I'd give them the one-man crews... then strictly enforce the rules for No. 1 brake tests, procedure after undesired brake application, engineer's attendance on the engine when stopped... ...bet the railroads change their tune on "PSR" PDQ... The problem is that the misery to the single men while the bean-counters figure it out is unconscionable.
...bet the railroads change their tune on "PSR" PDQ...
The problem is that the misery to the single men while the bean-counters figure it out is unconscionable.
They're trying.. not everything is an easy fix. Maybe PSR needs to be tweeked, fixed, or replaced.. They're trying.. The world is in a constant state of flux.. working conditions that were acceptable 50 years ago are nolonger acceptable. Trade patterns are constantly changing, as is the competitive environment. It's much easier to point out problems than to fix them..
[quote user="zugmann"]3) cry to the gov't that they need one-man crews./quote]If I were in the government, I'd give them the one-man crews... then strictly enforce the rules for No. 1 brake tests, procedure after undesired brake application, engineer's attendance on the engine when stopped...
Euclid 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?
It may be a wage issue for him, but he is not everyone.
Some want better working conditions.
Some want more pay for current conditions.
Some want a little from column A, and a little from column B.
And some just want to watch the world burn.
Supply and demand rules.. if enough people quit the employer can 1) fix the issue to improve retention and productivity or 2) leave it and get really good at hiring and training new people continuously. The cheaper more tenable option is 1).. even if it involves a pay hike.
EuclidHe 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.
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...
zugmannIt's not a make-believe concept. It was real.
No question. Getting back to real in today's financial atmosphere will be a challenge.
zugmannIt's not just about pay.
It will probably come back to that too as that would be preferrable to chronic understaffing .. perpetual recruiting.. big hire bonuses.. etc. At some point reason prevails.
tree68From the railroad standpoint, having enough staff (crews) to provide some semblance of a normal life (ie, regular hours) would require a substantial increase in the employment rolls. Even if one is only paid when one works, there are still background costs in keeping people on board.
But we ***HAD*** that semblance just a few years ago.
Extra boards were staffed. We had preferred pools. Yard jobs. Jobs that didn't work 12+ hours every day.
It was all flushed away quickly with PSR and PSR-lite.
It's not a make-believe concept. It was real.
Ulrich They've also got to look at the lifestyle issues he brings up. Very few people would want to be on call around the clock or tethered to their jobs.. valid point.
They've also got to look at the lifestyle issues he brings up. Very few people would want to be on call around the clock or tethered to their jobs.. valid point.
Not railroad, but illustrative, is the fire service.
Outside major metropolitan areas, fire departments are frequently staffed by respond-from-home personnel. Most are volunteer, many are paid-on-call, but generally speaking, they don't spend their day (or night) at the station.
Clearly, the hours are irregular.
The tipping point for conversion to a full-time paid crew is when the call volume reaches a point where the respond-from-home staffing is no longer adequate to provide the level of response required.
This is definitely a money decision. A paid four person crew for one apparatus - factoring in vacation time, sick time, and other costs and benefits - will cost at least a half million dollars per year. Were my fire district to do so would well more than double the fire tax.
And that's just for a "first aid" firefighting capability. A consensus standard for staffing for your garden variety structure fire calls for fifteen personnel, all with specific duties. But I digress.
From the railroad standpoint, having enough staff (crews) to provide some semblance of a normal life (ie, regular hours) would require a substantial increase in the employment rolls. Even if one is only paid when one works, there are still background costs in keeping people on board.
The same can be said for motive power.
As has been noted, the railroads are no longer being run by business people - they are being run by investors. Customer and employee satisfaction are way down the list in their priorities. Moving money to the bottom line where it can be harvested is the goal.
I think I've mentioned before that in many cases it's not a matter of a particular service making money - it's a case of said service making enough money.
Euclid zugmann Well if it is not just about pay, what do you want the company to do? Give me a list of exactly what combination of work tasks, work conditions, and pay would be acceptable. Only the empolyees can decide that.
zugmann
Well if it is not just about pay, what do you want the company to do? Give me a list of exactly what combination of work tasks, work conditions, and pay would be acceptable. Only the empolyees can decide that.
"Give me a list".
Demanding.
So, um, no.
I pretty much outlined the basics.
Euclid Ulrich They've also got to look at the lifestyle issues he brings up. Very few people would want to be on call around the clock or tethered to their jobs.. valid point. There are an infinite number of things people would not want to do as part of their job. Making those things less objectionable would always help; but there will still never be agreement on what is acceptable. So employees do the things, and the company hands them a check. So the employees must decide what the job of worth, and demand that amount. If the pay is deemed too low for the work, then don’t take the job. So there must be some amount of pay that railroaders would generally accept, given they working conditions. So what is that pay amount? The problem will never be solved unless that question is answered. And only the railroaders can answer it.
Probably, but changing a few things in the quality of life department may in the longterm be cheaper than simply throwing money at the problem through huge wage increases. I'm sure if the pay was raised to 250k alot more people would put up with being tethered to the job with almost no quality time off. But the better solution would be along the lines of quality of life improvement and a wage that would be attractive to people who have other options.
Euclid And only the railroaders can answer it.
And we have. It's not just about pay.
A lot of people leave the RR for lower-paying jobs to have more work-life balance. Esp younger guys. A few extra thousands aren't going to sway them to stay.
A lot has changed since the PSR and PSR-lite operating plans took hold. But just about all the changes made the work-life balance worse. There was a time (not too long ago) when you could have somewhat of a schedule here after a few years. Those days are gone. We hope for them to come back, but I don't know. And I don't know if there is enough money (that would be reasonable enough for the company to give, let's be honest) that would make this job desirable to new people.
Pay is part of the problem,yes, but not the only problem. And I typed this out yesterday, so just scroll down and read what I wrote.
BaltACD Another viewpoint https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/the-game-has-changed/
Another viewpoint
https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/the-game-has-changed/
Ulrich A good thought provoking article, but he should have left the last paragraph out...i.e railroads are too big to fail.. when they crash and burn they are rewarded with a large taxpayer bailout...When was the last time that happened?
A good thought provoking article, but he should have left the last paragraph out...i.e railroads are too big to fail.. when they crash and burn they are rewarded with a large taxpayer bailout...When was the last time that happened?
Conrail is the last time I can think of, almost half a century ago.
An "expensive model collector"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.