Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low
Author: Conductor
Date: 06-02-2010 - 22:33

Bill and Steve hiring high tech jobs cannot be reasonably compared with a railroad hiring conductors and engineers to work night and day in isolated and remote areas.

I've done my share of complaining about silly positions union management has taken over the years. Regardless, I've been a conductor in the middle of "bloody no where" and suffered from a variety of conditions created by junior management. If you've been in that position, you know there is no single "go to" person except for your local chairman. Even in the 21st Century, there is a need for unions. I think that need is directly proportional to the size of the company you work for and the degree to which your railroad operates away from the mainstream.

One story to help illustrate my point: you are called to work a specific job that should have brought you home the same day. Unfortunately, the crew office misinterpreted the vacancy and you found yourself overnighting at a terminal many miles from town and without food. The local chair got the company to taxi you into town for a hot meal (that the company paid for) and a taxi back to the bunkhouse, a request the crew office had originally denied. The local chair was able to determine the calling bureau had misrepresented the assignment and was able to convince the crew supervisor to remedy the situation. Sadly, as many who work for large railroads and have seniority numbers with three or more digits know, some problems just can't be solved by an individual.

Robert, call your local chairman. Their job is to investigate this kind of issue.



Subject Written By Date/Time (PST)
  Union Pacific sinks to a new low Robert 06-02-2010 - 14:54
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Bill B 06-02-2010 - 15:25
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low M. Harris 06-02-2010 - 16:37
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low WAF 06-02-2010 - 18:23
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OPRRMS 06-02-2010 - 19:19
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Beaver 06-02-2010 - 19:36
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OTN 06-02-2010 - 19:41
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Confused 06-02-2010 - 19:46
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low WAF 06-03-2010 - 08:52
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low E 06-03-2010 - 09:50
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low SP 8800 06-02-2010 - 20:20
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Jesse 06-02-2010 - 21:02
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low fkrock 06-03-2010 - 09:27
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Beaver 06-02-2010 - 21:46
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Conductor 06-02-2010 - 22:33
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low SLOCONDR 06-02-2010 - 22:33
  MESSAGE FOR SLOCONDR smitty195 06-02-2010 - 23:48
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low theconductor 06-02-2010 - 23:20
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Sam Reeves 06-03-2010 - 10:19
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low WAF 06-03-2010 - 15:42
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low SP8800 06-02-2010 - 22:55
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Robert 06-02-2010 - 23:26
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low DHB 06-03-2010 - 07:34
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OTN 06-03-2010 - 10:13
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Peter D Sr 06-03-2010 - 12:24
  Unions and railroads OPRRMS 06-03-2010 - 12:46
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Kevin Dunwoody 06-03-2010 - 13:32
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Mike Swanson 06-03-2010 - 21:45
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Taxpayer 06-03-2010 - 21:06
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low kEVIN dUNWOODY 06-04-2010 - 11:59
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OldPoleBurner 06-05-2010 - 12:44
  Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-03-2010 - 17:43
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-03-2010 - 18:56
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-03-2010 - 20:00
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) One more go 'round 06-04-2010 - 12:23
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) jwl 06-04-2010 - 12:59
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) KIE 06-04-2010 - 17:55
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-04-2010 - 21:17
  Re: Answers for the future Severe Duty 06-04-2010 - 22:46
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-05-2010 - 09:19
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) Tom Moungovan 06-05-2010 - 10:17
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) WAF 06-05-2010 - 10:50
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-05-2010 - 11:24
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-05-2010 - 13:23
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-05-2010 - 15:51
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) WAF 06-05-2010 - 16:54
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-05-2010 - 17:13
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-05-2010 - 18:47
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-06-2010 - 07:32
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) WAF 06-06-2010 - 08:08
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-06-2010 - 13:04


Go to: Message ListSearch
Subject: 
Your Name: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **     **  ********   ********  **     ** 
 ***   ***   **   **   **     **  **        **     ** 
 **** ****    ** **    **     **  **        **     ** 
 ** *** **     ***     ********   ******    **     ** 
 **     **    ** **    **         **         **   **  
 **     **   **   **   **         **          ** **   
 **     **  **     **  **         ********     ***    
This message board is maintained by:Altamont Press
You can send us an email at altamontpress1@gmail.com