How People Voted
 |
 |
65% For, 35% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
P.L. 110-432, The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007 (104 comments ↓ | 14 wiki edits: view article ↓)
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
H.R. 2095 would amend title 49, United States Code, to prevent railroad fatalities, injuries, and hazardous materials releases, and it would authorize the Federal Railroad Safety Administration.
Detailed Summary
Railroad Safety Enhancement Act of 2008 - (Sec. 3) Amends federal transportation law to authorize appropriations for FY2008-FY2013 for: (1) railroad safety, including the safe transportation of hazardous materials; (2) research and development (R&D); (3) the purchase of Gage Restraint Measurement System vehicles and track geometry vehicles or other comparable technology to assess track safety; and (4) rail security personnel in Department of Transportation (DOT) regional offices and in Washington, DC.
<b>Title I: Railroad Safety Risk Reduction and Strategy - </b>(Sec. 101) Requires the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to have an Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, who shall be the FRA's Chief Safety Officer.
(Sec. 102) Directs the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to develop: (1) a long-term railroad safety strategy that includes an annual plan for meeting specific goals; and (2) a railroad safety risk reduction pilot program (with appropriations authorized for FY2009-FY2010).
(Sec. 104) Directs the Secretary to require each railroad carrier that is a Class I railroad, a railroad carrier that has inadequate safety performance, or a railroad that provides intercity passenger or commuter rail passenger transportation to develop, and submit for FRA approval, a railroad safety risk reduction program, including technology implementation and fatigue management plans, to reduce the rate of railroad accidents and injuries. Grants the Secretary authority to assess civil penalties for violations of such requirements.
(Sec. 105) Directs the Secretary to ensure that railroad carriers required to submit a railroad safety risk reduction program that includes in its technology implementation plan a schedule for implementation of a positive train control system complies with such schedule by December 31, 2018, unless the railroad implements its system by an earlier date.
(Sec. 106) Revises hours of service requirements for a train employee to provide that such employee may not be required to be on duty: (1) where the employee has spent in any calendar month a total of 276 hours on duty, or waiting for transportation, or in deadhead transportation (limbo time), to a place of final release, or in any other mandatory service for the carrier; (2) for more than 12 consecutive hours; or (3) unless the employee has had at least 10 consecutive (currently, eight consecutive) hours off duty during the previous 24 hours. Prohibits requiring or allowing such an employee to remain or go on duty after that employee has initiated an on-duty period each day for: (1) six consecutive days, unless the employee has had at least 48 consecutive hours off duty at the employee's home terminal; or (2) each day for seven consecutive days, if permitted by a collective bargaining agreement or provided for by a pilot program, unless the employee has had at least 72 consecutive hours of duty at a home terminal.
Caps the total number of hours that a train employee may spend on-duty and waiting for deadhead transportation on a train at 15 hours, unless the train is delayed by an accident, a major equipment failure, or a delay resulting from a cause unknown and unforeseeable to a railroad carrier.
Revises hours of service requirements for signal employees, including signal employees of contractors or subcontractors. Repeals the requirement that a signal employee have at least eight consecutive hours off duty during any 24 hour period. Makes 12 consecutive hours the maximum time on duty, unless the employee has had at least 10 consecutive hours off duty during the previous 24 hours.
Prohibits a signal employee from being allowed to go on duty under certain emergency authority to conduct routine repairs, routine maintenance, or routine inspection of signal systems.
Prohibits a railroad or railroad contractor or subcontractor from communicating with a train or signal employee during time off duty, except to notify the employee of an emergency situation.
Authorizes a railroad and its directly affected employees to develop jointly, and submit for the Secretary's approval, an alternate hours of service regime that would increase the maximum hours an employee may be allowed to remain on duty or decrease the minimum hours an employee may be required to rest.
Subjects commuter and intercity passenger rail employees to existing hours of service requirements, until the earlier of: (1) the effective date of new regulations establishing different hours of service requirements for such employees; or (2) three years after enactment of this Act.
Authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations that make certain additional changes to hours of service requirements in order to improve safety and reduce employee fatigue.
Directs the Secretary to conduct at least two pilot projects to analyze specific practices which may be used to reduce fatigue for train, engine, and other railroad employees.
(Sec. 107) Exempts from certain public disclosure requirements, and from discovery or admission into evidence in a private court case, any information the Secretary has obtained as part of a railroad's risk reduction program or pilot program, except to enforce or carry out federal law.
<b>Title II: Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Pedestrian Safety and Trespasser Prevention - </b>(Sec. 201) Requires the Secretary to issue guidance to passenger railroads on methods and strategies to prevent pedestrian accidents, injuries, and fatalities at or near passenger stations.
(Sec. 202) Directs the Secretary annually to identify the 10 states receiving federal funds for highway-rail grade crossing safety projects that have had the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions in the preceding year.
Authorizes the Secretary to require such states, as a condition for receiving future federal funds, to develop a State Grade Crossing Action Plan approved by the Secretary that identifies specific solutions for improving the safety at highway-rail grade crossings. Requires the Secretary to assist states in developing and implementing such Plans.
(Sec. 203) Directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations to require each railroad carrier to remove from its active rights-of-way at all public highway-rail grade crossings, including at all private highway-rail grade crossings open to unrestricted public access, any vegetation which may obstruct the view of a pedestrian or a vehicle operator of a train's approach.
Requires the Secretary to develop model legislation for states to address such grade crossings which have only passive warnings.
(Sec. 204) Directs the Secretary to issue regulations for establishment of a national crossing inventory that requires each railroad carrier and state to report to the Secretary current information about previously unreported highway-rail grade crossings, with annual updates on all grade crossings in the state concerned. Establishes civil penalties for violation of such requirements by a railroad carrier.
(Sec. 205) Replaces the expired pilot demonstration program for emergency notification of grade crossing problems with a permanent system.
Directs the Secretary to require each railroad carrier to: (1) establish a telephone service (which the Secretary may also require to be a dedicated toll-free telephone) to receive directly calls reporting malfunctions of signals, disabled vehicles blocking railroad tracks at grade crossings, obstructions to the view of a train's approach, or other related safety information; (2) warn any trains operating near the grade crossing immediately upon receiving such a report, and contact appropriate public safety officials to direct traffic and remove any disabled vehicle; (3) timely investigate any report of a view obstruction and remove it if possible, or correct any other reported unsafe circumstance; and (4) ensure placement of the telephone number and certain other explanatory information on signs at each grade crossing.
(Sec. 206) Directs the FRA to make grants to Operation Lifesaver to: (1) carry out a public information and education program to help prevent and reduce railroad incidents, injuries, and fatalities, and to improve awareness along railroad rights-of-way and at highway-rail grade crossings; and (2) implement a pilot Railroad Safety Public Awareness Program addressing the need for targeted and sustained community outreach on rail and grade crossing safety. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2013.
(Sec. 207) Directs the Secretary to make grants to up to three states annually to develop or continue public education activities and enforcement of highway-rail crossing safety laws. Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2013.
(Sec. 208) Directs the Secretary to: (1) review current local, state, and federal laws regarding trespassing and vandalism on railroad property and violations of highway-rail grade crossing warning signs; and (2) develop and make available to state and local governments model state legislation providing for civil or criminal penalties, or both, for violations of highway-rail grade crossing warning signs.
Authorizes the Secretary to purchase items of nominal value and distribute them to the public without charge as part of an educational or awareness program to improve the safety of highway-rail crossings and prevent trespass on railroad rights-of-way.
(Sec. 209) Authorizes railroad carriers to submit for the Secretary's approval new technology providing warning to highway users at highway-rail grade crossings. Declares that: (1) such Secretarial approval preempts state law concerning the adequacy of such technology; and (2) a carrier shall not be liable for damages to persons or property as a result of an accident at a grade crossing that is protected by approved technology.
<b>Title III: Federal Railroad Administration - </b>(Sec. 301) Requires the Secretary to gradually increase the number of rail safety-related employees at the FRA by 25 in each fiscal year for FY2008-FY2013.
(Sec. 302) Increases penalties for violations of rail safety regulations prescribed or orders issued by the Secretary, including violations related to rail accident reporting and hours-of-service.
(Sec. 303) Requires the Secretary annually to make publicly available, and publish on the FRA public website, a report of all railroad enforcement actions taken by the Secretary or the FRA during the prior fiscal year.
(Sec. 304) Revises the Secretary's authority to prohibit an individual from performing safety-sensitive functions in the railroad industry because of previous violations of hazardous materials transportation laws.
(Sec. 305) Allows the Secretary to authorize officers, employees, or agents (with or without making their presence known) to intercept and record a radio communication, with or without the consent of the sender or other receivers of the communication, where such communication is broadcast or transmitted over a radio frequency which is authorized for use by one or more railroad carriers by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and primarily used by such railroad carriers for communications in connection with railroad operations. Allows such activities for purposes of accident prevention and accident investigation. Sets forth uses of information obtained through such activities.
(Sec. 306) Requires the Secretary to prescribe procedures with respect to requests for waivers of regulations or orders issued in emergency situations. Authorizes the Secretary to prescribe temporary emergency waiver procedures without first providing an opportunity for public comment. Requires the Secretary to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing after issuing an emergency waiver.
(Sec. 307) Authorizes the FRA Administrator and designated employees to have access to federal and state criminal history and other law enforcement records to protect the safety and security of railroad operations.
Prohibits the Administrator, however, from using such access to conduct criminal investigations.
(Sec. 308) Requires the Secretary to update the FRA website to: (1) help the public find current information regarding FRA activities; and (2) provide a mechanism for the public to report to the FRA potential violations of federal railroad safety and hazardous materials transportation laws and orders.
<b>Title IV: Railroad Safety Enhancements - </b>(Sec. 401) Directs the Secretary to issue regulations to require railroad carriers and railroad contractors and subcontractors to develop for the Secretary's approval plans for training members of certain crafts or classes of employees on federal railroad safety laws, regulations, and administrative orders.
(Sec. 402) Directs the Secretary to report to specified congressional committees about whether the certification of certain crafts or classes of railroad carrier or railroad carrier contractor or subcontractor employees is necessary to reduce the number and rate of railroad accidents or to improve railroad safety.
(Sec. 403) Requires the Secretary to: (1) study whether the required intervals of track inspections for each class of track and track remedial action requirements should be amended, and whether different track inspection and repair priorities or methods should be required; and (2) issue and implement recommendations for changes to federal track safety standards based on the results of the study.
(Sec. 404) Requires the Secretary to study methods to improve the safety of rail passenger station platform gaps to: (1) comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (2) minimize the associated safety risks of such gaps for railroad passengers and employees.
(Sec. 405) Directs the Secretary to study and report to specified congressional committees on the safety impact of the use of personal electronic devices, including cell phones, video games, and other distracting devices, by safety-related railroad employees during work. Authorizes the Secretary to study other elements of the locomotive cab environment and their effect on an employee's health and safety.
Authorizes the Secretary, based on the conclusions of the studies, to: (1) prohibit the use of such devices during work, unless they are being used in accordance with railroad operating rules; and (2) issue regulations to improve elements of the cab environment to protect an employee's health and safety.
(Sec. 406) Requires the Secretary to establish grants programs for: (1) railroad safety technology; and (2) railroad safety infrastructure improvements. Sets the federal share of project costs for each program at 50%. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2013.
(Sec. 408) Authorizes the Secretary to impose additional conditions for the movement of a defective or insecure locomotive or car to make repairs while on a railroad line.
(Sec. 409) Requires the Secretary to prescribe standards governing the development and use of rail safety technology in dark territory (any territory in a railroad system that does not have a signal or train control system installed or operational).
(Sec. 410) Revises rail employee sleeping quarters requirements to require a railroad carrier that provides sleeping quarters for its employees to provide indoor toilet facilities, potable water, and other features to protect their health.
Requires the Secretary to issue regulations that: (1) govern the use of camp cars for employees and any individuals employed to maintain a railroad carrier's right of way; and (2) may prohibit the use of such cars, if necessary, to protect the health and safety of employees.
(Sec. 411) Adds as an act of a railroad employee protected from employer retaliation the employee's: (1) request that a railroad carrier provide first aid, medical treatment, or transportation to a medical facility or hospital after being injured during the course of employment; or (2) compliance with treatment prescribed by a physician or licensed health care professional.
States that a railroad carrier's refusal to permit an employee to return to work upon his or her release shall not be considered discrimination if such refusal complies with the carrier's medical standards for fitness for duty.
(Sec. 412) Authorizes the Secretary, upon petition by a group of commonly controlled railroad carriers operating within the United States as a single, integrated rail system, to treat such group as a single railroad carrier for railroad safety purposes.
(Sec. 413) Requires the Secretary to study and report to Congress on the impacts of repealing a provision of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 which preempts state laws from requiring certain crew requirements in the former region of the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail).
(Sec. 414) Requires any nonfederal alcohol and drug testing program of a railroad carrier to provide that all post-employment tests of the specimens of employees performed under the program be conducted using a scientifically recognized method of testing capable of determining the presence of the specific analyte at a level above the cutoff level established by the carrier.
Requires each railroad carrier that has such a testing program to provide a redress process for its employees who were determined to be in violation of the program.
(Sec. 415) Directs the Secretary to require each Class I railroad, each intercity passenger railroad carrier, and each commuter railroad carrier to develop, and submit for the Secretary's approval, a critical incident stress plan that provides for: (1) debriefing, counseling, guidance, and other appropriate support services to be offered to an employee affected by a critical incident; (2) relief from the balance of duty tour of any employee involved in a critical incident; (3) relief from duty of a requesting employee who witnessed a critical incident; and (4) leave from normal duties as necessary for an employee to receive preventive services, treatment, or both, related to the incident.
(Sec. 416) Requires the Secretary to study and report to Congress on the potential hazards to which railroad carrier employees and railroad contractors or subcontractors are exposed during the transportation of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
(Sec. 417) Requires the Secretary to complete a rulemaking proceeding to revise railroad employee alcohol and controlled substance testing requirements to cover all railroad carrier employees and railroad contractors or subcontractors who perform maintenance-of-way activities.
<b>Title V: Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance - </b>(Sec. 501) Directs the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), as soon as practicable after being notified of a rail passenger accident resulting in major loss of life, to provide certain assistance to families of passengers involved in the accident.
(Sec. 502) Requires a rail passenger carrier to submit to the NTSB, the Secretary, and the Secretary of Homeland Security a plan for addressing the needs of families of passengers involved in an accident of a rail passenger carrier intercity train resulting in major loss of life. Provides for funding for FY2008.
(Sec. 503) Requires the Secretary to establish a task force to develop a model plan and recommendations on how passenger rail carriers can provide assistance and notification to families of passengers involved in rail accidents.
<b>Title VI: Clarification of Federal Jurisdiction Over Solid Waste Facilities - </b>Clean Railroads Act of 2007 - (Sec. 602) Exempts solid waste rail transfer facilities from the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board (effectively allowing state and local authorities to regulate such facilities).
(Sec. 603) Requires a solid waste rail transfer facility, within 90 days after the enactment of this Act, to comply with all federal and state solid waste environmental laws (except those requiring permits).
Provides that such facilities shall not be required to possess a permit (other than a siting permit) from the appropriate permitting agency as complying with federal and state solid waste environmental laws: (1) if within six months after enactment of this Act the facility has applied, in good faith, for all required permits; and (2) until the permitting agency has either approved or denied the permit application.
Provides that such facilities that do not possess a siting permit shall not be required to possess a siting permit or to comply with state land use requirements in order to operate, provided the facility has a land-use exemption properly issued by the Board.
(Sec. 604) Authorizes the Board to issue a land-use exemption for a solid waste rail transfer facility operated or proposed to be operated by or on behalf of a rail carrier if: (1) state or local law affecting the siting unreasonably burdens the interstate railroad transportation of solid waste, or discriminates against such transportation and a solid waste rail transfer facility, or a rail carrier that owns or operates such a facility petitions the Board for such an exemption; or (2) the governor (or designee) of a state in which a facility that is already operating is located petitions the Board to initiate a permit proceeding for that particular facility.
Allows the Board to issue a land use exemption only if the facility at the existing or proposed location does not pose an unreasonable risk to public health, safety, or the environment. Prohibits any such land-use exemption for a solid waste rail transfer facility proposed to be located on land within the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Trails System, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, a National Reserve, a National Monument, or certain lands for which a state has implemented a conservation management plan, if the facility's operation would be inconsistent with restrictions placed on such land.
<b>Title VII: Technical Corrections - </b>(Sec. 701) Makes technical corrections to limitations on the use of local rail freight assistance. Considers any repaid portion of the U.S. Government's share of money, and any contingent interest recovered, to be state funds.
Redefines "motor carrier" to exempt from unified carrier registration system plan and agreement requirements any carrier that the board of directors of the unified carrier registration plan determines appropriate.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 10/6/2008: Presented to President.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
(read more ↓)
[60 views]
Cost per :
Learn More
See How Your Representatives Voted:
See Related Bills:
See Bills on the Same Subject:
Accident prevention, Actions and defenses, Administrative remedies, Business, Civil rights, Colorado, Communications, Congressional reporting requirements, Criminal justice, Damages, Department of Labor, Department of Transportation, Disciplining of employees, Discrimination in employment, Dismissal of employees, Emergency communication systems, Emergency management, Emergency medicine, Employee rights, Employee training, Employers' liability, Environmental protection, Executive departments, Executive reorganization, Families, Family services, Federal advisory bodies, Federal employees, Fines (Penalties), Government employees, Government information, Government paperwork, Government procurement, Government publicity, Governmental investigations, Hazardous substances, Hours of labor, Job training, Judicial review, Labor, Law, Licenses, Limitation of actions, Maintenance and repair, Medical care, Medical instruments and apparatus, Medical supplies, Medicine, Occupational health and safety, Public contracts, Public service advertising, Punitive damages, Railroad accidents, Railroad commuting traffic, Railroad employees, Railroad equipment, Railroad freight operations, Railroad passenger traffic, Railroad safety, Railroads, Research and development facilities, Right-of-way, Safety appliances, Science policy, State and local government, State laws, Telecommunication, Telephone, Traffic accidents and safety, Traffic signs and signals, Transportation, Transportation of hazardous substances, Transportation planning, Transportation research, Tunnels, Wage restitution, Whistle blowing (more subjects ↓)
See Bills in the Same Budget Category:
Tax and Revenue, Transportation
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Steven Weems
May 8, 2007, 9:36pm (report abuse)As an employee of a major railroad I say that this bill MUST be passed to ensure that myself, my co-workers, and future generations of railroaders have a safer work environment.
Sam Botts
May 9, 2007, 12:51am (report abuse)How will this impact the hours of service for train dispatchers ?
Paul McGuffin
May 14, 2007, 8:16pm (report abuse)As a retired Union Pacific/Southern Pacific engineer, I can say... if "Limbo Time" is not addressed, the bill is worthless. On my last four trips from Tucson to El Paso, the shortest trip was 14 hours, the longest was 18. I have heard of Los Angeles crews being on train for over 20 hours.
Paul McGuffin
PLACIDO
May 15, 2007, 2:03pm (report abuse)Paul McGuffin, they rush the LA guys to LA.. and then let them rot outside the yard until just before they are on the law. how nice of them.
Sam Botts, if I remember right this new deal is sort of mirroring the DSs deal, they can only work so many extra shifts until they are forced to take X time off. I'm sure your local chair can get you a copy.
Anonymous Engineer
May 21, 2007, 3:28am (report abuse)Pass the bill. Make it law. Eliminate limbo time. Give me whistleblower protection. I don't want to type my name because the BNSF might be monitoring this. After the bil gets signed into law, then the FRSA can reduce maximum time on duty to ten hours. That would eliminate nearly every "bad trip", and improve rail safety one thousand fold.
Anonymous Engineer
May 25, 2007, 5:51am (report abuse)Pass the law, I'm tired of being hung out to dry every trip. Eliminate Limbo, get us off the trains before our 12 hours is up. Its gotten rediculus, we sit on these trains waiting sometimes up to 4 hours after our time is up for rest.
Anonymous
May 26, 2007, 9:50am (report abuse)Everyone should closely think through the consequences here. Railroads will be forced to remove the ID runs an put all crews back on short pools. You will make 100 miles/trip and will have to work every day making less money than crews make today. This will also speed the implementation of 1 man crews. Paul Thompson is either too stupid or just too short sited to underdtand this.
RFE From BNSF
May 31, 2007, 10:29pm (report abuse)Dear Mr. Anonymous
The UTU has very wise leaders that know exactly what they are doing. The BLET has just received in their hands the first step to 1 man crews which will be the first step to not having anyone on the train. I’m glad I don’t work on the railroad you work on. It must be bad to consider you can only make 100 miles in 10 hours. The bill has pros and cons as all do.
Mr. Thompson is a very wise and respected man; you must be one of the guys that has his union meeting out in the parking lot with the other kids that don’t know what a union is.
That is coming from a railroad officer.
Cecil Brasher
June 1, 2007, 2:39pm (report abuse)Pass this bill. Pass it yesterday! I don't know about the rest of you, but Union Pacific seems to be extending the term "emergency situation" to encompass any situation in which their relentlessly fumbling, "pass the buck" style of train management brings movement to a screeching halt.
I am currently working every day 14-18 hrs with no overtime until after 15.6hrs on duty. I am out on my rest at both ends, so I don't see any validity in the warning that we may have to work more and have less time at home. I'm already there. Even if they are as incompentent after this bill as they are now, at least I won't be sitting on a unit in the middle of nowhere wondering if I will get to bed anytime soon.
J.W. Schaeffer
June 7, 2007, 7:38am (report abuse)I have high hopes this bill will pass as it should. With a bill like this of course there will be negative effects...but the positives way outweigh the negatives. Yes some people will make less money, so what! Many guys on the railroad would sell their souls for money if they could. They are just money hungry, just what the railroads want. If our unions would grow some ----- they would seek and get higher pay for engineers and conductors, higher pay that we deserve. And to be honest I think it is inevitable, one day they will have their one man crews with or without this bill.
Anonymous Engineer (#1)
June 7, 2007, 4:46pm (report abuse)Last trip I sat in a siding for seven hours until 'management' finally got a van to us (but forgot the dogcatch crew). We had a 14 hour trip, but went dead enroute 100+ miles from home, which, under the current laws is just fine and dandy. Naturally, a 14 hour day was unnecessary, but the railroads don't have any incentive to get us to our tie-up locations in 12 hours. As for going back to short pools...that means I'd get to sleep in my own bed every night. Bring it on!
Kansas city trainman
June 7, 2007, 9:45pm (report abuse)Mr. Citizen,
You have worked your 8 to 12 hr. day. You have to wait on a ride to your car in the parking lot. It may be anywhere from 1 to 4 hours more before your ride gets there. Sorry no more pay the waiting (limbo) time it doesn't count. Oh it makes for a very long day,sorry, you've still gotta be back at work after 10 hrs. Live an hour away from work, sorry, you can sleep after you've done what needs to be done at home and spent an hour or so with your kids. Railroads answer: You don't need 8 hours sleep. You probably won't kill anyone this trip.
Gandy
June 11, 2007, 9:30am (report abuse)Representative Shuster (R-Pa.) is expected to try to eliminate the limbo time provision to protect inept railroad managers from ordering transportation. To RFE...it is indeed pathetic to go 100 miles in 10 hours but as you are well aware the average speed for trains is not very high. There is NO excuse for 12 to 20 hour days and the judge that said that we do not get any more fatigued after 12 hours is either an idiot or quite well paid off.
California Conductor.
June 15, 2007, 2:00pm (report abuse)This bill is long overdue. It is ridiculous that the men and women responsible for transporting the bulk of the nations freight and hazardous materials are subjected to these kind of hours. Please contact your representatives and senators and ask them to support this legislation.
Anonymous Engineer (#1)
June 17, 2007, 6:07am (report abuse)Well, they just GUTTED limbo time reform from the bill. First, they give exceptions to everything under the sun...and then give more exceptions for "stuff we didn't think of when you departed your initial terminal". Then they allow a full 40 hour work week PER EMPLOYEE PER MONTH of limbo time, and gradually squeeze it down to 10 hours of limbo time per employee per month after two years. In the real world, I'd have to work over ten 13 hour trips in a row in a month to cross the threshhold. That's down from ten 16 hour trips per month for the first year it takes effect.
On top of that, I'd have to spend more time away from home. (mandatory 10 hours undisturbed rest, plus call time)
Yay! Divorces for everybody!
PLACIDO
June 18, 2007, 5:10pm (report abuse)*sigh* You can't use logic with the railroad usually. But after reading this article it might bring a better picture in mind why some 05 date TY&Es could barely hold in recent months. Cut pools due to unfavorable bills?
http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=36089
I should have went with Amtrak. &^#* it.
Anonymous Engineer (#1)
June 20, 2007, 9:29pm (report abuse)I hope they ticked off Brown and Oberstar. As Congressmen (and women) they hold the purse and make the rules. I'd suggest they not cow down to railroad execs, but instead insist upon limbo time reform BEFORE giving any taxpayer money to the railroads to spend on infrastructure improvements.
Placido, do you think anything illegal was done?
Toher
June 23, 2007, 12:28am (report abuse)Everyone seems to like this bill & I don't understand why.
You are forced to take set days off. They didn't force the truck drivers to take days off when they changed their hours of service laws.
You are also going to get 10 hours undisturbed at your away from home terminal. Who wants that?
The elimination of the limbo time has been hacked up.
This bill was originally about rail safty, and fatigue i don't think it addresses either.
It just means less money for my family.
30 year employee
July 8, 2007, 1:30am (report abuse)This country has the best government that money will buy.
Paul McGuffin
July 10, 2007, 9:40pm (report abuse)Well, I have been in favor of enforcing the monthly mileage agreement for years. I was over the miles every month while working most pools for the Union Pacific. Don't forget to convert overtime and other hours into the miles.
Tired engineer
August 1, 2007, 10:47am (report abuse)THIS BILL NEEDS TO BE PASSED ASAP!!! As an engineer for a Class I railroad, sometimes I am called and forced to go to work when I'm so tired I can barely think straight! The railroads claim to preach safety, but how safe is that when I have my life and safety, as well as the life and safety of my coworkers and the public in general in my hands? This bill should not only be supported by railroaders, but by the general public also. The current hours of service rules are archaic!!! We are 100 years behind on workers' (and the public's) safety when it comes to this issue of railroad employee rest. Wake up Congress, and PASS THIS BILL!!! The only other thing I can add is that if this doesn't pass, and another 'Graniteville' type accident occurs because someone wasn't allowed adequate rest time, it's on the heads of Congress and the FRA, as well as the carriers.
Casey Jones IV
August 7, 2007, 5:10am (report abuse)This bill is about the carriers goal to reduce crews to ONE and eventually ZERO. Positive train control allows them to do this and this bill gives the carriers grants to help them design and use it under the guise of safety. The largest part of this bill involves the establishment of another layer of government bureacracy which costs the taxpayer (thats all of us) more money and will certainly add to the responsibilties of our jobs without adding to our compensation.Finally, if the unions would spend the majority of their (our) money, effort and time on contract negotiations instead of using it to support politicians and their legislation due to their inability to effectively bargain with the carriers, a lot of these problems would already be solved.
KCS engineer
August 19, 2007, 9:16am (report abuse)I strongly support this bill and have contacted every senator that has cosigned. I don't know about the rest of you but I've set in a hot louisiana siding for 10 yes 10 hours on a non airconditioned engine, and thats the tip of the iceburg. Limbo time has got to stop if every congressmen spent one day with us they would overwhelmimngly pass this bill. maybe thats an option some of them need to explore.
Alemayehu Bera
August 19, 2007, 9:38am (report abuse)I Support 2003 Pass
Temrat Wendemu
August 19, 2007, 9:42am (report abuse)I am supporting The bill 2003
Zeberga
August 19, 2007, 9:44am (report abuse)I support H.R.2003
Liyunesh
August 19, 2007, 9:46am (report abuse)I am Support H.R. 2003
Train Guy
August 19, 2007, 9:48am (report abuse)WHy are you people talking about H.R. 2003 here? This is a bill about railroad safety. You want to talk about H.R. 2003 - go to the page for HR 2003!!!
me
August 22, 2007, 4:47pm (report abuse)I think a railroad officer should keep his mouth shut. You don't run our jobs anyway.
Class 1 Engineer
August 28, 2007, 10:59am (report abuse)If you don't like your job quit! We need less government not more. Be careful what you wish for, if this bill passes, think about how much money you will lose and how much more you will work. Why do railroaders get paid well, because of the inconvenience of the job. Once we have great schedules and perfect working conditions watch what happens to our wages. You can't have it both ways! The less efficient the railroad is the more we make.
James Swidergal
September 5, 2007, 12:38pm (report abuse)Let the change take place,pass this bill already, but let's take a look at everything railroad. It's probably time to revamp the entire G-Cor. As far as the carriers' building unmanned operation I can't see it happening, considering that the carriers' can't operate safely or efficiently with manned crews. If anything we probably should be looking at crosstraining the conductors and operators(engineers),so that the operator can safely snooze just as the conductor does now.
No Class RR
September 20, 2007, 11:13am (report abuse)I don't want to type my name because the BNSF might be monitoring this. How can a truck driver be dangerous and not allowed to drive after 50 hours but an engineer can be be over 100 hours in the same week? e.g.- Working in passenger service doing 70mph by himself in the cab with 1300 people wanting to get home safely. ***HR2095***
Management
September 24, 2007, 1:18pm (report abuse)Anonymous Engineer (#1)
I think that the companies have an incentive. When a crew is DOL they no longer move Freight. However they are still getting paid. I try to get my crews if not tied up at least on a van by 12 hours. Why would I want to pay crews to sit on train. That is more management.
M
September 24, 2007, 1:58pm (report abuse)How would crews feel if they had visability of when they were going to get off their train. Where is my van and when will it get here.
Proud Tucson UTU Member
October 8, 2007, 10:41am (report abuse)I have to correct a misconception I am reading from some of my brothers and sisters concerning employees being paid once they have died under the HOS. Many employees are not paid after their 12 hours of on duty time. Every new trainman hired by UPRR will not be paid after 12 hours under the contract currently in place. You could and many have sat on a train or van 16 plus hours waiting to get to your final destination and only be paid for 12 hours of service. H.R.2095 will not address the issue of pay but will start to address the issue of limbo time in favor of the employee.
James Swidergal
October 8, 2007, 12:55pm (report abuse)It should be added that additional inspectors across all the disciplines of railroad safety be increased that's Operating Practices,Track and right of way,Haz Mat,Signal and Communications,Car and equipment Inspectors. And, the authority be granted to randomly police and enforce the rules and regulations not only of the Carriers' but of all agreement and non agreement employees of all railroads, and those shippers,patrons,and all others. We need such legislation to re-enforce the safety of all who participate in railroading activity.
James Swidergal
October 8, 2007, 1:03pm (report abuse)And the reason new hired UPRR conductors don't get paid tow in time is because the UTU itself is at fault. Its the only union where the general local chairpersons get to dictate who they will defend and who they won't . It's the only union that defeats itself when it comes to working for the trainmen,instead of their own gain,and their own needs being fulfilled by sleeping with the Carriers'.
CSX SUX
October 8, 2007, 11:00pm (report abuse)If the same RR butt-kissing folks at FRA get hired at a new "FRSA", what will change? NOTHING! The FRA is basically a massive Cheerleading / butt-kissing section for the RR industry. Safety? What's that? Investigate RR crossing crashes? HELL NO! RR Workers getting killed or injured? Why should they? Since they are totally IN BED with the RR owners, you can bet your last wooden nickel that the crossing crashes / MOW deaths and injuries / crew deaths and injuries, will be ignored and, HEY, if the RR's don't report the crashes / fatals / injuries, SO WHAT? The FRA could care less. What needs to happen is a TOTAL Clean Sweep---ALL CURRENT FRA EMPLOYEES FORCED TO RETIRE (or just GO TO HELL and I MEAN YOU---A****** GRADY!!!!) YOU SOLD YOU SOUL AND YOUR ASS TO THE DEVIL RR LONG AGO!!!!
Robert Pines
October 8, 2007, 11:38pm (report abuse)The question would be why these phoney railroad thieves and their government handmaidens aren't in a very nasty jail for a very long time for crossing thefts and the killings caused by the thefts.
Former railroader
October 11, 2007, 6:22pm (report abuse)This comment is for CSX SUX. I know some inspecors that work countless hours (sometimes more than they get paid for) to ensure regulatory compliance. The face of the FRA is changing due to new and younger inspectors that are willing to work nights and weekends. Hopefully, we can get more guys out there that are willing to do the same. I guess it's a little different in your area but when I see a young inspector climb up on the locomotive at 3:00 a.m. Sunday morning, it makes me take notice. I think the FRA could use MORE inspectors that are willing to write violations and not just take defects. It's a numbers game for the railroads and they know that in the past the FRA in a 9 to 5, Monday through Friday program that typically won't have inspectors out at 2 a.m. in the morning wading through knee deep snow looking at railroad operations. I guess more government is not needed, just make the government that is already there accountable.
Anonymous Engineer (#1)
October 12, 2007, 12:41am (report abuse)response to Management;
On my railroad, we don't make an extra dime until we run our miles off. So no extra money until over ~14 hours on duty. My railroad, the BNSF, doesn't care if I'm shorted a few extra hours at home or a few extra hours of heldaway ($) at my away from home terminal.
Your comment "at least on a van by 12 hours" makes me want to puke. That is a failure mindset. That's why we call you MISmanagement. FAIL, FAIL, FAIL...over and over again. Should I be "at least in my car in my driveway" instead of at the yard office when going ON duty?
The rest of you should read the original H.R. 2095, then read the marked-up (gutted) H.R. 2095, then read the Bush Administration's recent comments on H.R. 2095. They want to gut it even more.
BNSF Hogger
October 13, 2007, 6:25am (report abuse)ATTN: Managment.
Before there was Limbo time when a train crew was about to expire under the 12hrs of service, a train had to be clear of the main line and secured with handbrakes before the crew expired! What does that mean? Alot! 1. Having a DOL crew sitting on a "fully secured" train still making money was a waste of company money! Having a fresh crew wasting time un-securing a train and preping it for movement again was a waste of company money! That was the company incetive to get trains in on time! When the carriers got Limbo Time they were all screaming for joy! No more wasted time with securing and un-securing trains. All us crews instantly became babysitters! Screw you BNSF! I hope this Bill passes and all you Managment choke on it!!!!!!!!!
Howell
October 16, 2007, 7:14pm (report abuse)Legislation providing additional safety for our rail workers has been long overdue. It also provides for additional jobs for Federal Inspectors and provides for whistleblower protections.
R.E. Starr
October 16, 2007, 9:18pm (report abuse)Expect to see a lot more of this anti worker crap as long as you have Republicans in the White House and in other importan places in Washington . Let there be no mistake they are truly the corportist party, Bush is all ready againest it and ready to stick it to all those train men that voted for him , shame on you that gave us this problem in the white house.
Colorado UP Conductor
October 17, 2007, 11:38am (report abuse)Believe me I share all your concerns and the opinion that something needs to be done to protect us and the protect the public from the dangers of unrested crews. But believe me when I say that This bill in its current form really does us more harm than good. It seems that all to often we take the age old idea that the grass is greener on the other side, when in reality we would just be loosing half our yard of grass. As far as the comment of new hires not getting paid tow in, all of the new hires where I am at on the UP get paid towin. Lets not shoot ourselves in the foot here and really consider what we are supporting. Are we really supporting a good thing, or just trying to stick it to the companys anyway we can without truly considering the consequences for settling.
Howell
October 17, 2007, 6:27pm (report abuse)It passed the house.With the amendments..Now is the time for all good railroaders to come to the aid of their country..Time to get busy..
Howell
October 17, 2007, 6:31pm (report abuse)To the Colorado UP Conductor: What union are you supporting? The BLET and the UTU are both supporting this bill for passage. Proud to be union? Then support yours!
Dave
October 17, 2007, 10:43pm (report abuse)We won now it is on to the Senate. With Chaney having sat on the board of UPRR don't be surprise if Bush veto's the bill.
Wy UP CON/ENG
October 18, 2007, 2:47pm (report abuse)If the Senate passes 2095 by 2/3’s can it be vetoed?
Phil Walker
October 19, 2007, 9:18am (report abuse)I'm new at the railroad. Does H.R. 2095 mean, if passed, that limbo time will be counted as hours of service, and carriers will have to get you to your home terminal in 12 hours?
get real
October 19, 2007, 9:43am (report abuse)wow, when will some of these railroaders learn? never? to all of you who hate your job and your management, quit, go find something better. I suppose all railroaders supporting the bill in its current form are either really, really close to retirement or have comfy secure jobs on the main line. If you are not close to retirement then think about your pension (if you have one) when the profits of your company plummet and investors pull ot. For those working in dark territory, you're basically short lining yourself, you'd rather make $12/hr.? The issue is with the union, face it. UTU or BLET, they're playing both sides of the fence, the company is laughing all the way to the bank and the union you support is stabbing you in the back whether you admit it or not.
Anonymous Engineer (#1)
October 19, 2007, 11:49am (report abuse)Quit my job and find another one? Why? All I want is for a few words to be changed in a law. Just make all time on duty...time on duty. See how logical that is compared to "neither on duty, nor off duty"?
Your point that changing those few words will the sky to fall sound funny...well, funny for a scare tactic.
I just got done with a 15+ hour trip, where we went dead 145 miles from home. The weather was clear and cool. Traffic was light. No Acts of God or anything. I just work for idiots. Please give me a good law to beat them over the heads with. Please!!! I'll I'm asking for is a few words.
to Phil Walker
October 19, 2007, 11:55am (report abuse)Yes and no. (sounds like limbo time, right?)
It would be counted at hours of service UNLESS the carrier decides to count it as limbo time. Then the carriers are limited to giving you 40 hours (!) of limbo time per month. After a few years it shrinks down to 10 hours of limbo time for Phil Walker per month. That's still a crapload of limbo time.
The bill also allows exceptions in case of floods, blizzards, derailments, or anything the carrier thinks is a good reason for an exception, basically.
38 years
October 20, 2007, 6:27am (report abuse)The limbo time provisions of this bill are a JOKE. 40hrs or 10hrs is to much and the exceptions give the RR carte blanche.
wife of...
October 21, 2007, 2:05pm (report abuse)I have actually thought thatthe RR has a desire to employ only single or divorced men. My husband has spent one night in our bed out of five. We've actually contemplated moving to the other end where we could actually raise a family together. The RR is concerned with only one thing ... their bottom line, diffentately not their employees.
Limbo time
October 25, 2007, 10:25pm (report abuse)This bill allows limited monthly limbo time, 40 for the first year, 30 the second, and finally 10 the thrid and thereafter.
The exceptions referred to in "to Phil Walker" is misleading. These exceptions... floods, blizzards, etc. count toward the limbo time limit.
They MUST claim one of these exceptions as the reason for your limbo time... not just because they forgot to call a ride, or are short on vans.
THEY DO NOT GIVE THE COMPANY AUTHORITY TO EXCEED THE LIMITS. For example, if you accrue your limit of limbo time under the law, the company cannot claim that an emergency situation is cause to exceed the limit... IT HAS ALREADY BEEN REACHED!
Now, 40 hours sucks, I agree. But right now it is unlimited! Also, it will eventually decrease to 10hrs/mo MAXIMUM! How is this bad? Yes, I too would like none at all, but the government is prepared to hand us a New York Steak here... let's not complain because we really wanted a T-Bone.
spokane conductor
October 29, 2007, 12:09am (report abuse)Read the bill, not much will change for a 190 mile pool. 270 hours per month is aprox 70 on duty hours per week, no scheduled day off, 24 hours off per week unscheduled is a joke. This bill is a start, but is weak at best. Limbo time is money time on our pool. How about better rest agreements at home and overtime after 8 hours. UP will get us off our trains if it costs them. Hostlers never get overtime!
BNSF Trainmaster (Anonymous for my protection against and violence fro
November 4, 2007, 12:10pm (report abuse)I have done safety tests on Railroad Crew, tests which are mandated by the FRA and I can tell you from personal experience more restful crews would not make the railroad safer, better crews would. The crews I have seen don’t care about safety, they hardly care about themselves with the stunts they pull so they can get home faster. Including violating the “EIGHT DEADLY DECISIONS”. If Congress wants railroads to be safer than make the FRA test railroad crews and fire those who are unsafe. As a railroad officer I can’t fire then, or even punish them due to the Union Agreements enforced by Congress due to the Railroad Labor Act. An Act lobbied for by the railroad crews. Put some fear into the hearts and minds of railroad workers to perform their job safely and the job will be safe. As for reducing their hours of service to 10 hours, I work 12 to 13 hours a day and even have to go safety testing on my days off to make them safe. They just want more money for less work.
to BNSF Trainmaster
November 5, 2007, 2:46pm (report abuse)Spoken like a true idiot official. Imagine the horor of sitting on your butt all day playing email tag, surfing the internet, and occasionally driving out to a stranded crew to fulfill your failure quota for 12-13hrs on a bad day. Imagine having to come in on your SCHEDULED DAYS OFF (what are those??). Mr official, please let me know how bad your day is when after your 12-13hour day, you have to call a dispatcher for a ride to get home... but wait, it's shift change and the roads are bad so the vans aren't running. Too bad. If only you were a "better" employee everything would be easier.
BNSF Trainmaster Reply Part 1
November 7, 2007, 5:43pm (report abuse)Why is it, if the Union has a problem, the first thing they do is go after the frontline supervisor? A person who has no authority (by act of congress) over changing the way things are done? Look, you work or don’t work, the trains move or they don’t, I still have to be there. You get done early means nothing to me since I have to still be there, I am neutral on that fact. Now read this carefully, if you want to change thing for the better, (and I believe you do) you need the frontline supervisors on your side and attacking them because of they way things are presently run is not the way. We can’t change things but you can, remember you are a UNION. You need to force corporate suits (many who have never seen a train) how to run a railroad, and remember to point out, not the railroad of 20 years ago, the present railroad.
BNSF Trainmaster Reply Part 2
November 7, 2007, 5:44pm (report abuse)I know you can do it, but your attitudes and behavior makes them not trust you, and I can’t blame them. And it all starts with SAFETY
It is interesting, my main position was on safety not on hours. The argument I made was less work hours would not make the railroad safer. Something you didn't want to take up. Either because you don't care about safety (which is doubtful if you are a family man) or because you know the argument is not sufficient to hold up. So what do you do?? You have to complain about your job hoping someone (i.e Congress) will feel sorry for you and change the hours of service. You will never win that argument, and remember if you really run the railroad it won’t matter, you’ll get home even faster. I agree sitting around
BNSF Trainmaster Reply Part 3 END
November 7, 2007, 5:45pm (report abuse)waiting 3 hours in a siding for a Z train is the dumbest thing on the planet. And Z trains with a CEO in a business car on the end shutting down the whole division is out right insane!!
So how about this, if you want to get home faster have the entire Union do their jobs and get rid of the unsafe, slow, unproductive workers so everyone can get home faster. Remember there is not better example of a supply chain than a railroad and if there is a slow link in the chain everyone suffers. Instead of taking up the argument that less hours would make the railroad safer, change your method of attack. Prove that making the railroad more efficient would solve all our problems, safety and hours which no one would argue with if you are more productive. Also, get the Union involved with safety, and back up the frontline supervisors and demand unsafe workers are terminated. Do that and you’d have a lot more time on your hands instead looking at a RED BLOCKS.
K.Maloney
November 8, 2007, 1:20pm (report abuse)go to ten hour law....period
Consumer
November 8, 2007, 5:36pm (report abuse)Remote Train Management System will solve all our problems
conductor A
November 8, 2007, 6:38pm (report abuse)this is a bad bill. I am a conductor and the way I see it this is just more stupid crap that makes people getting fired and crews being forced to take rest days the company has no reason to leave someone in a siding for 7 hours. last i heard it was the dispatchers job to arrange for a van of dog catch crew. we make more money than most blue collar jobs because of long hours away for home. If you got a problem with that then find a new job!!
I hope this bill gets shot down
UPRR Conductor
November 13, 2007, 8:55am (report abuse)To BNSF Trainmaster, I partly agree with your argument, but do you think you are being realistic? Why would we as trainmen want you on our side? All frontline managers do is work overtime to try and intimidate and fire the crews, period.
PART II to follow
UPRR Conductor
November 13, 2007, 8:57am (report abuse)PART II
I am an Army vetran (10 years service) and I know all about leadership and how to do it CORRECTLY. Rule #1, build CONFIDENCE in your subordinates, not FEAR. The second you loose trust in your troops, you loose the battle, partner. And that is exactly what you guys and gals have done. It is hightly doubtful, with the archaic ways things are ran on class I RR's that trust in management will ever be a factor.
Part III to follow
UPRR Conductor
November 13, 2007, 8:58am (report abuse)Prt III
What we have instead is managers with heart-on's that just want to brag to their buddies about how they just s***canned a crew. You say you want the work done fast so YOU dont get dinged for late cars on the work order, but as soon as you see a crew taking a short cut, you fire them. How counter-productive is that? So, I challenge you, Mr. Trainmaster, change your management style and win US over, not the other way around and you may see some positive changes. I am fortunate enough to work for a trainmaster that truely does care about his crews and we do everything we can not to let him down, both with getting the job done and with safety. He is a good leader and a good man, VERY VERY rare out here. If the railroad would get smart and recruit BETTER management, better crews would be the end result without a question.
to BNSF Trainmaster
November 13, 2007, 9:29am (report abuse)Playing insult tag gets no one anywhere. Luckily, in the end, our voices will be louder than management on this issue, regardless of what you think, and Congress will WILL "feel sorry" for us and impose regulations to make it harder to abuse crews for profit.
I hope management takes it as a challenge. I hope they find a way to be productive without slave labor. It would be a great side effect of this bill if our railroads were given incentive to purge the ineffective managers in favor of those that can solve problems without a scape goat to point a finger at.
to BNSF Trainmaster II
November 13, 2007, 9:33am (report abuse)On a personal note, I find it immensely gratifying to see management in such a huff over this issue. I think it appeals to one of the basic instincts of man... to see the bad guy lose.
Unfortunately for you, however misled you may be, you are the bad guy here. At least you have lots of company.
CN Engineer
November 13, 2007, 6:34pm (report abuse)We have an hrly contract on the US side overtime after 10 hrs. Right now $360 base day $468.78 for 12 So if I work a switch engine, pool or local my pay is the same. We get a doller an hr raise every august. 6 days on and 1 day off one week 5 on & 2 off the next week. I can book 8 for 10 or 10 for 12 rest every trip no penalty. This is ok with the extra board guarantee 1600 a week. Down side is no penalty claims when I am pulled off a pool train to finish switching the yard. Or dogcatcing from a local and so forth I am glad this bill is going through limbo time isn't good. I hope that your contract reflect this hrly wage. If The CN can pay 36 an hr the UP, BN, CSX, NS can pay more. As far as the rest of the bill we need it. 100 years is along time with too few changes.
Dopey in NJ
November 19, 2007, 12:56pm (report abuse)They need to address the limbo time for FREIGHT! There needs to be a seperation between passenger and freight because you're cutting my pay... Seems like they rushed into this bill.
BNSF Trainmaster Reply Part I
November 26, 2007, 6:16pm (report abuse)First, how many of you have in fact taken a frontline supervisor position? My guess, not many. And why…well that one is easy, the job sucks. The important question is what will eventually happen if you don't address the root problem? (i.e. the real problem between managements and unions, and unions and safety). You will have frontline supervisors who are in fact ill trained and ill prepared to properly run a railroad. And who suffers? Me? I’m not the one stuck on a train in the middle of no where. You are creating a system where the people who know more about the railroad (i.e you) are not listened to by your supervisors because they think you are just saying it because you want early quits or because they think you are just whining. As for finding better leaders, with the industry in the present state, finding leaders are hard because of the nature of the job, remember not many guys are willing to cross the union lines into management.
BNSF Trainmaster Reply Part II
November 26, 2007, 6:17pm (report abuse)And with the economy doing well, it is hard for railroad companies to compete to get them on the open market. On a personal note, I would not recommend to anyone to become a trainmaster. The crews make more money than the supervisors and the stress does not make it worth it.
Please don’t think that I am some bad guy who doesn’t care about you. I am just saying it as I see it. Remember what you are asking for is only the short term solution. What I am says is look at the bigger picture to the larger problem down the track. Just look at the US automobile industry, the Unions made demands years ago that in long run the industry is no longer able to support because of the saturation of the market place and the opening of global competitors. Honestly I don’t feel sorry for them; they wanted their inheritances up front and spent all the money. History has proven Hayek right and Keynes wrong.
BNSF Trainmaster Reply Part III
November 26, 2007, 6:19pm (report abuse)It’s harsh, and for that I am sorry, but that is capitalism. Their bosses and American consumers made the decisions because of the way the industry was run. Happens everyday in the United States but stop and think for a minute. Do you think that the frontline superiors at US auto plants who lost their jobs had trouble finding a new job? Remember they were supervisors, and can put that on their resume. What did the frontline worker who put in 25 years on the assembly line doing the same thing everyday put on his resume? Your lives are directly linked with the ability of the railroad to operate. I have seen guys who had to mortgage their houses because the first quarter was slow and they are not getting called for duty. It will affect you more than me. For those of you who are thinking that I am just another mean supervisors remember I am salary, trains roll or get rusted to the rail, I get paid the same amount regardless if you do or not. Yet I am still telling you this.
BNSF Trainmaster Reply Part IV
November 26, 2007, 6:20pm (report abuse)The more problems/challenges you create with this industry (regulations), the more costs you add to it, which cuts down the advantage it has over the trucking industry. Customers will stop shipping with the railroad if its advantages are no longer there. It happened in the 1960’s and can happen again. Every year companies all over the world become leaner and are able to lower costs left and right and yes there is controversy and employees who become disgruntled over what is decided. So, you make the changes and the improvements, other wise you will open yourself up to competition and management making decisions they should not be making. Remember you run the railroad.
BNSF Trainmaster Reply Part V
November 26, 2007, 6:21pm (report abuse)As for 10 hour days, I will admit it sounds nice, but remember that means more crews, more HR pay, more benefits, more retirements, more 401K, more medical, and a larger crew pool, which means less for you. If you want a 10 hour day than create it, become more efficient, work with management not against it. I know it sounds ridiculous but remember online retailers are now competing head to head against the brick and mortar retailers and no one saw that one coming. Why, they created a “Killer Application”. One only has to create another to put the railroad out of business.
BNSF Trainmaster Reply Part VI
November 26, 2007, 6:23pm (report abuse)And to the UPRR conductor who says he works hard and does not let his trainmaster down. That is great! But remember you only need to break one link in the chain to make all your hard work meaningless and that is where the circle of problems comes back again. If the crews at the next station down the line do not have the same work ethic as you do, your hard work is sadly pointless. But if everyone worked as hard as you did, thing how much a difference that would make; how different I don’t know but just think about it. Optimistic I know, but next time you are in a siding for a couple of hours think about it instead of cursing out your trainmaster over the phone because a switch crew, who don’t share your work ethic and are not pulling their weight around, are forcing me to hold you out of town.
BNSF Trainmaster Reply Part VII END
November 26, 2007, 6:24pm (report abuse)__
tucker
November 30, 2007, 9:59pm (report abuse)Every one is talking about Limbo time. This is only 1 of 2 major causes of Fatigue! IF you read DR. P sherry & DR.Hursh testimony's limbo is a factor but the lack of SCHEDULES is also. I don't care who you are if you worked 16 or 6 hours, when you go to bed at 2300 wake up at 0900 3rd out 1700 your 1st out take a nap wake up at 1830 still 1st eat dinner family goes to bed 2230 you go look at computer to see when your getting out wondering what the hell is going on. Then you try to go back asleep 0100 lay there until 0230 phone rings called 0430 then work just 12hrs final off 1630.. look back over the past 31hrs an 30mins you've had 1hr 30mins sleep. This is where we get FATIGUED!!!