 |
Re: Here we go again
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 05-08-2011 - 10:54
>My favorite part is when "the carrier" let him resume road service. Doesn't the union care if someone unsafe in on the road? No, they protect even the worst of the worst...
This isn't necessarily true. When I was still firing, I asked a 1930s guy about getting off the hook if I screwed up by getting by a red signal which had been preceded by a yellow. He told me to take my medicine (be fired for a while--and learn from the experience) because "we", meaning the rest of the engineers, wouldn't want someone like me out there because I might kill one of them. Needless to say, I was a little taken back because I though the uinion was supposed to stick by us no matter what. However, it's a very legitimate and cogent concept, and over the years since, I've passed the story along whenever the appropriate situation arose. What has muddied the waters considerably these days are the creeping HR departments with their diversity policies, 1-800-snitchlines, and all that happy horse exhaust.
>I know what you're feeling, but the union's opinion is irrelevant in the eye's of the carrier.
In most cases, this is the rule.
>The union is also bound to protect the memberships' interest, bopth personal and as a whole.
The union can be held liable for the willing (i.e. deliberate and/or premeditated) failure to protect the members' interest. In other words, all a union can do is exert peer pressure. If it cooperates with the company in firing someone, it's liable to that individual. There are ways, however, to get rid of the bad apples, although they can be frustratingly time-consuming. In the Kismet wreck, the company erred by sending a unqualified individual out on the road, and it isn't the first nor last time, nor railroad, to do this sort of thing (for example, the grinder train runaway on Donner). Last I heard the whole crew was fired fired, meaning they haven't been reinstated, although this is probably not the last word (the Donner thing resulted in the de-horning of an MTO, a company officer, who went back to running and subsequently got fired [for something else]).
This isn't necessarily true. When I was still firing, I asked a 1930s guy about getting off the hook if I screwed up by getting by a red signal which had been preceded by a yellow. He told me to take my medicine (be fired for a while--and learn from the experience) because "we", meaning the rest of the engineers, wouldn't want someone like me out there because I might kill one of them. Needless to say, I was a little taken back because I though the uinion was supposed to stick by us no matter what. However, it's a very legitimate and cogent concept, and over the years since, I've passed the story along whenever the appropriate situation arose. What has muddied the waters considerably these days are the creeping HR departments with their diversity policies, 1-800-snitchlines, and all that happy horse exhaust.
>I know what you're feeling, but the union's opinion is irrelevant in the eye's of the carrier.
In most cases, this is the rule.
>The union is also bound to protect the memberships' interest, bopth personal and as a whole.
The union can be held liable for the willing (i.e. deliberate and/or premeditated) failure to protect the members' interest. In other words, all a union can do is exert peer pressure. If it cooperates with the company in firing someone, it's liable to that individual. There are ways, however, to get rid of the bad apples, although they can be frustratingly time-consuming. In the Kismet wreck, the company erred by sending a unqualified individual out on the road, and it isn't the first nor last time, nor railroad, to do this sort of thing (for example, the grinder train runaway on Donner). Last I heard the whole crew was fired fired, meaning they haven't been reinstated, although this is probably not the last word (the Donner thing resulted in the de-horning of an MTO, a company officer, who went back to running and subsequently got fired [for something else]).
