https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/stb-chairman-says-higher-pay-would-help-solve-railroad-crew-shortages/
My impression is that it's more about working conditions, time off, etc. than pay.
Still in training.
I think Oberman is right when he says that if companies are not able to hire enough people, they are not paying enough. Supply and demand is all that determines pay, so if supply is too low in general, it proves that the wages are too low. But when I mentioned this in another thread, I was told that railroaders want better conditions rather than more pay.
The problem is that increasing pay is a lot simpler than improving condtions. The only way to handle this is to offer higher pay -or- an alternative of better conditions and see which choice the employees will accept.
What I would like to see is a list of specific improved condtions that labor would accept as a solution to the problem.
New hires coming in know what the pay is, they just don't know the "real" working conditions. Since railroad employees on this forum say that most don't come back from furlough leads me to believe that it was the working conditions that they didn't like.
EuclidWhat I would like to see is a list of specific improved condtions that labor would accept as a solution to the problem.
Read the proposals & section 6 notices. It's been out there for a while.
Higher pay will attract workers, but better working conditions will keep people from quitting. Most of the people that quit from my terminal took jobs with lower pay. And these weren't brand new guys, either. Most had at least 5 years in.
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
EuclidSupply and demand is all that determines pay
That is such an over-simplified perspective that it is practically useless. As other posters have said, working conditions seem to be a larger factor. Jobs are not the same as bushels of corn.
EuclidSupply and demand is all that determines pay, so if supply is too low in general, it proves that the wages are too low
Higher pay will seduce a new round of ignorants to "take the cheese". But eventually they will wonder where their lives went, and they'll quit too.
If they raise the pay high enough, it will attract workers who will be more than satisfied at the start of their career, and still have enough satisfaction to be willing to stay after they have worked long enough to realise how miserable the job is.
EuclidIf they raise the pay high enough, it will attract workers who will be more than satisfied at the start of their career, and still have enough satisfaction to be willing to stay after they have worked long enough to realise how miserable the job is.
You would be amazed how many, within their 90 day probationary period vote with a 'up yours'. Many more after 1 year and those that PSR mandate to be furloughed. FOGETABOUTIT.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Would they all come back if the companies tripled the pay?
EuclidWould they all come back if the companies tripled the pay?
Right now it looks to be anywhere from 17 - 30% raise based on proposals to the PEB.
The PEB could come up with their own numbers below or above that, but I highly doubt it.
Let's stay in the real world - but if we're going to indulge fantasy:
while many probably would come back for 3x, I'm sure some wouldn't.
Euclid If they raise the pay high enough, it will attract workers who will be more than satisfied at the start of their career, and still have enough satisfaction to be willing to stay after they have worked long enough to realise how miserable the job is.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid Would they all come back if the companies tripled the pay?
Of course not. Same situation where I work. There are simply some things that all the money in existance wouldn't entice me to do.
It's not pay for many. We're losing people who are going to jobs that pay (at best for many) 60 to 70% of what they make on the railroad. But they have days, and often weekend days, off. (A few have, or have tried, to get on with Amtrak, other commuter agencies, or short line/regionals that have more of a scheduled routine-but still pay into Railroad Retirement.)
Most of the people are leaving because of being forced to work all the time, mostly on jobs that require spending time away from home in a motel. The new attendence policies are making it hard to take uncompensated time off. Compensated time off, vacation-single days or by the week and paid personal leave days, do not count against the attendence policies. However, getting permission to use paid leave days or single day vacation days may be next to impossible to arrange. (We have a pilot program to preapprove paid leave and single vacation days, but you have to almost schedule two months in advance. For specific holidays, you have to try the minute they reach the advance window, about 5 months out.)
Scheduled days off, even if a rotating schedule, I think would go a long way to help retain people. We tried them once on our extra boards and everybody liked them. You may not have had the same days off every week and some cycles you might have week day rest days. Still it gave a chance for planning some events. If we had them (rest days) then the attendence policies might make some sense.
One thing about the pandemic related furloughs. Those aren't the people that didn't come back. Most of our furloughs that happened because of the pandemic were people that had thought they were safe from ever being furloughed again. They also weren't cut off that long.
The biggest losses, those that don't come back, are from the PSR related furloughs because of deep cuts in jobs. They hit those at and those towards the bottom who instead of getting furloughed less as they gained seniority, started getting cut more and for longer times off. We had hiring bonuses, $10K to $25K depending on location, that were paid in increments. I believe it was supposed to be paid out in 3 or 4 parts, each succeeding level reached after working so many "starts" (Job start. Instead of hours worked, we use job start because the job might be 4 or 5 hours or 10 to 12 hours or more on duty.) I think the starts to get the entire bonus was supposed to be equal to a year or year and a half. I don't know that anyone ever made it to that level, at least in my corner of the railroad. (Anyone who was furloughed and refused recall had to pay back any portion of the bonus already received.)
We haven't had a raise in a few years. Most raises in the past have just off-set employee health care contributions/co-pays. I'm not saying a raise isn't due, but that alone, even if enough to actually get a ahead for once, isn't going to get people to stay or want to come work here.
Jeff
Carriers want to offer a 3% raise and in turn raise what is paid for health insurance by the same amount and other tricks of the trade.
Offering more money is much easier than improving work/life balance. Transportation, particularly the operating side of it, has always been hard on home life... which is why so many say its not a job but a way of life. Unlike other jobs, the job itself requires travel and being away from home constantly. That's the nature of the beast..and there's really not much any carrier can do about something that is intrinsic to the job itself. And instead of trying to make the job as closer to "regular hours and time off" as possible, carriers should try to hire people who understand and accept the nature of the job..and of course pay accordingly.
UlrichAnd instead of trying to make the job as closer to "regular hours and time off" as possible, carriers should try to hire people who understand and accept the nature of the job..and off course pay accordingly.
Yeah, that isn't going to happen. Even with pay raises, people don't want to waste their life away on the railroad - esp. today's companies that have so little regard for anyone. Jobs where you can't mark off if you're sick without risk of disciplinary action. Today's railroads aren't the same beasts they were even a few years ago. And it's a change that only those that lived it can comprehend.
I've seen so many jobs/ preferred pools that were eliminated with everything being basically a giant extra list anymore. Even a few years ago, there were jobs to (for lack of better term) look forward to in a few years. But guys aren't going to spend 25+ years waiting for the phone to ring at all times day or night. There's a lot of guys just waiting to see what the new contract says. A lot more than I think many realize.
so, to make this clear:
IT'S. NOT. JUST. A. MATTER. OF. PAY.
UlrichOffering more money is much easier than improving work/life balance. Transportation, particularly the operating side of it, has always been hard on home life... which is why so many say its not a job but a way of life. Unlike other jobs, the job itself requires travel and being away from home constantly. That's the nature of the beast..and there's really not much any carrier can do about something that is intrinsic to the job itself. And instead of trying to make the job as closer to "regular hours and time off" as possible, carriers should try to hire people who understand and accept the nature of the job..and off course pay accordingly.
Most already accept the 'nature of the job' what they are no longer accepting is having any ability to plan for 'their life' ie. Family matters, Doctors - all the things most employees take for granted in their employment careers.
T&E crews complain about getting 'bad calls' on their trains when the call is initiated roughly two hours before the on duty time. Try forecasting your life's need of days off, a week, a month, two months out so you can 'get permission' to use the benefits your craft contract provide for.
I guess maybe better the devil you know than the one you don't. As bad as things are or appear to be, they can always get much worse. Look at all the people barely making it.. and the people camped out in tents in most cities.. homelessness has exploded over the last half decade.. but on the bright side, those folks have all the time in the world to plan. We have it pretty good.. we have jobs or are retired and have a home with heating and AC.. put it into perspective... we're the top 1% of humanity.. we're relatively compfy.. no threats at our doorstep and nothing trying to kill us..
That's a cop-out argument.
Yes, things can be worse - but they can be better.
It's not an argument.. it's perspective. Of course, things can always be better. But it really is worth sometimes to take stock of what one has instead of lamenting what's missing in one's life..
UlrichIt's not an argument.. it's perspective. Of course, things can always be better. But it really is worth sometimes to take stock of what one has instead of lamenting what's missing in one's life..
And that's why companies can't get people. Of course you're also from Canada, so I'm guessing healthcare issues are slightly different.
Ulrich I guess maybe better the devil you know than the one you don't. As bad as things are or appear to be, they can always get much worse. Look at all the people barely making it.. and the people camped out in tents in most cities.. homelessness has exploded over the last half decade.. but on the bright side, those folks have all the time in the world to plan. We have it pretty good.. we have jobs or are retired and have a home with heating and AC.. put it into perspective... we're the top 1% of humanity.. we're relatively compfy.. no threats at our doorstep and nothing trying to kill us..
zugmann Ulrich It's not an argument.. it's perspective. Of course, things can always be better. But it really is worth sometimes to take stock of what one has instead of lamenting what's missing in one's life.. And that's why companies can't get people. Of course you're also from Canada, so I'm guessing healthcare issues are slightly different.
Ulrich It's not an argument.. it's perspective. Of course, things can always be better. But it really is worth sometimes to take stock of what one has instead of lamenting what's missing in one's life..
Healthcare here is publicly funded... apart from that our doctors and nurses and hospitals are pretty much like yours.. Like you guys, we have our challenges.
Backshop Ulrich I guess maybe better the devil you know than the one you don't. As bad as things are or appear to be, they can always get much worse. Look at all the people barely making it.. and the people camped out in tents in most cities.. homelessness has exploded over the last half decade.. but on the bright side, those folks have all the time in the world to plan. We have it pretty good.. we have jobs or are retired and have a home with heating and AC.. put it into perspective... we're the top 1% of humanity.. we're relatively compfy.. no threats at our doorstep and nothing trying to kill us.. Yeah! While we're at it, let's get rid of unions, OSHA and the EPA. Then you'll know how "good" you used to have it.
Yeah! While we're at it, let's get rid of unions, OSHA and the EPA. Then you'll know how "good" you used to have it.
No, but a trip to Congo for a year might prove to be enlightening.. we have it pretty good here.. I know.. the job isn't perfect.. and we're "unfullfilled".. but a bit of time in the jungles of Congo will make you forget your troubles.
UlrichNo, but a trip to Congo for a year might prove to be enlightening.. we have it pretty good here.. I know.. the job isn't perfect.. and we're "unfullfilled".. but a bit of time in the jungles of Congo will make you forget your troubles.
We're just diving deeper into the rediculous here.
And we wonder why companies can't get people.
zugmann Ulrich No, but a trip to Congo for a year might prove to be enlightening.. we have it pretty good here.. I know.. the job isn't perfect.. and we're "unfullfilled".. but a bit of time in the jungles of Congo will make you forget your troubles. We're just diving deeper into the rediculous here. And we wonder why companies can't get people.
Ulrich No, but a trip to Congo for a year might prove to be enlightening.. we have it pretty good here.. I know.. the job isn't perfect.. and we're "unfullfilled".. but a bit of time in the jungles of Congo will make you forget your troubles.
There are a number of reasons why SOME companies can't get people.. demographics.. poor employers, poor planning, better opportunities for job seekers..etc. In 1985 8000 applicants applied for 50 job vacancies at a GM plant in Oshawa.. can we therfore conclude that GM is Nirvana?.. the best employer on the planet in 1985? Of course not.. Likewise we can't conclude that an employer today is poor simply because that employer is short staffed and can't imminently find the help they need.
Really reaching here.
Whatever. Plenty of people here and elsewhere (and in congressional testimonies) have spoken on the issues. Ignore them all you want.
zugmann Really reaching here. Whatever. Plenty of people here and elsewhere (and in congressional testimonies) have spoken on the issues. Ignore them all you want.
Not my hill to die on.. and some of those talking heads say pay more.
Amazon.com: King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa eBook : Hochschild, Adam, Kingsolver, Barbara: Kindle Store
Backshop Ulrich No, but a trip to Congo for a year might prove to be enlightening.. we have it pretty good here.. I know.. the job isn't perfect.. and we're "unfullfilled".. but a bit of time in the jungles of Congo will make you forget your troubles. Even better, let's go back to the old Belgian Congo. I just read this book a little while ago. Why pay people to gather latex for you when you can hold their families hostage and kill them if they don't make quota? IIRC, the population of the Congo was halved due to King Leopold, who wasn't even Belgian. Those wacky European royalty! Amazon.com: King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa eBook : Hochschild, Adam, Kingsolver, Barbara: Kindle Store
Even better, let's go back to the old Belgian Congo. I just read this book a little while ago. Why pay people to gather latex for you when you can hold their families hostage and kill them if they don't make quota? IIRC, the population of the Congo was halved due to King Leopold, who wasn't even Belgian. Those wacky European royalty!
Sounds like an interesting read. We've come a long way since King Leopold.. brutalizing people and holding them hostage is expensive.. much cheaper to pay people in distressed far off countries much less... out of sight out of mind.. the middleman gets his 300% markup and we still get our junk cheap (and bonus, we still feel good about ourselves as no heads or arms were lopped off). Now just imagine if we could somehow get those little brown fingers to run our supply chain too.. imagine the savings!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.