 |
Re: Full NTSB report on the 2011 BNSF rear-end collision at Red Oak, IA [link]
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 06-01-2012 - 19:07
Average Joe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why should they have to make up excessive overtime
> earnings? Why do crews complain of too many
> hours, exhaustion, too much time away from family,
> etc. and then torpedo any attempt to rectify that
> sitution? I don't get it.
Yes, I see that you don't.
It has nothing to do with "excessive overtime earnings," whatever you think those are. Rather, it involves the recovery of lost earnings as a result of either a company- or government-mandate for forced non-paid time off in addition to what's already federally required. The newly revised HOS law provides for some relief to this, fortunately.
What crews "complain" about is when the railroad refuses to allow them to lay off when requested . . . unless they lie and say they're sick. The railroads are notoriously poor manpower managers, and since labor is their Number One avoidable cost, they do whatever they can to keep the costs as low as they can. One way to do this is to keep the boards short and work people as much as they can. If someone lays off too much, they're subject to discipline up to and including dismissal under the railroads' Availability Policy, which is something the railroad establishes on its own (i.e., it's not part of collective bargaining and the unions have no say in it). Forcing crews to work long, irregular hours for days on end increases the chances for fatigue related accidents.
As an example, Union Pacific in the last few years has hired a glut of new trainmen in the Roseville Service Unit - way more than are currently needed, or will be needed in the forseeable future. When they have more than they need and they want to reduce the amount of "guarantee" payments being made, they cut the boards, triggering a series of seniority related bumping. Eventually, junior trainmen have no place to go, and are furloughed. If the railroad cuts the boards short, the likelihood of the railroad denying layoff requests increases, forcing people to work more and more without needed time off.
Because of the glut of trainmen in the RVSU, last month Union Pacific issued a bulletin inviting trainmen to temporarily "borrow out" to the Houston Service Unit. Apparently there's a shortage of trainmen there, likely because of the availablity of better, higher-raying jobs in the Gulf Coast area. In the bulletin it clearly stated that to receive one's full earnings, anyone who "borrowed out" would need to stay continuously marked up and be available for work for 26 consecutive days each month, then the railroad would allow them to have 4 unpaid days off. What a deal!
Something that the unions have periodically proposed as a means to create more regular hours, and thus lessen fatigue, is for the railroads to establish regular "calling windows" for freight crews, such as between 6 AM and 2 PM, 2 PM and 10 PM, and 10 PM and 6 AM. The railroads have historically been opposed to this not only because of the anytime-of-the-day manner in which trains need to be called, but because "calling windows" would require them employ substantially more crews, since only 1/3 of the people would be available to be used at any particularly time. And that doesn't even address the issue of payment to crews who are not used during their "calling window" timeslot. What about payment for them?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why should they have to make up excessive overtime
> earnings? Why do crews complain of too many
> hours, exhaustion, too much time away from family,
> etc. and then torpedo any attempt to rectify that
> sitution? I don't get it.
Yes, I see that you don't.
It has nothing to do with "excessive overtime earnings," whatever you think those are. Rather, it involves the recovery of lost earnings as a result of either a company- or government-mandate for forced non-paid time off in addition to what's already federally required. The newly revised HOS law provides for some relief to this, fortunately.
What crews "complain" about is when the railroad refuses to allow them to lay off when requested . . . unless they lie and say they're sick. The railroads are notoriously poor manpower managers, and since labor is their Number One avoidable cost, they do whatever they can to keep the costs as low as they can. One way to do this is to keep the boards short and work people as much as they can. If someone lays off too much, they're subject to discipline up to and including dismissal under the railroads' Availability Policy, which is something the railroad establishes on its own (i.e., it's not part of collective bargaining and the unions have no say in it). Forcing crews to work long, irregular hours for days on end increases the chances for fatigue related accidents.
As an example, Union Pacific in the last few years has hired a glut of new trainmen in the Roseville Service Unit - way more than are currently needed, or will be needed in the forseeable future. When they have more than they need and they want to reduce the amount of "guarantee" payments being made, they cut the boards, triggering a series of seniority related bumping. Eventually, junior trainmen have no place to go, and are furloughed. If the railroad cuts the boards short, the likelihood of the railroad denying layoff requests increases, forcing people to work more and more without needed time off.
Because of the glut of trainmen in the RVSU, last month Union Pacific issued a bulletin inviting trainmen to temporarily "borrow out" to the Houston Service Unit. Apparently there's a shortage of trainmen there, likely because of the availablity of better, higher-raying jobs in the Gulf Coast area. In the bulletin it clearly stated that to receive one's full earnings, anyone who "borrowed out" would need to stay continuously marked up and be available for work for 26 consecutive days each month, then the railroad would allow them to have 4 unpaid days off. What a deal!
Something that the unions have periodically proposed as a means to create more regular hours, and thus lessen fatigue, is for the railroads to establish regular "calling windows" for freight crews, such as between 6 AM and 2 PM, 2 PM and 10 PM, and 10 PM and 6 AM. The railroads have historically been opposed to this not only because of the anytime-of-the-day manner in which trains need to be called, but because "calling windows" would require them employ substantially more crews, since only 1/3 of the people would be available to be used at any particularly time. And that doesn't even address the issue of payment to crews who are not used during their "calling window" timeslot. What about payment for them?
