Western Railroad Discussion > Crew Transport Safety Bill dies in WA State

http://kuow.org/post/train-crew-transport-safety-bill-dies-washington-senate     

Third time wasnt the charm after all.
Roger Beckett
 

Cheaper is always better in a free market economy.

If the insurance is too expensive for a company to continue operations then perhaps the safety of the operations needs to be improved to reduce the costs of the insurance.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

Maybe Senator King needs to have these guys transport him to work and back home everyday for a month.

Why exactly can't this  matter than  be collectively bargained and improved?

Leaving crews out in the middle of nowhere waiting for a sometimes dangerous driver sounds like a flawed idea in a lot of ways. Get them picked up quickly, go on rest quickly, and be ready for next call quickly, if that's what the company wants.

Letting two highly paid professionals wait and wait for a minimum wage driver's convenience sounds like an idea that wasn't thought out very far.
 

Disapointing.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why exactly can't this  matter than  be
> collectively bargained and improved?
>
> Leaving crews out in the middle of nowhere waiting
> for a sometimes dangerous driver sounds like a
> flawed idea in a lot of ways. Get them picked up
> quickly, go on rest quickly, and be ready for next
> call quickly, if that's what the company wants.
>
> Letting two highly paid professionals wait and
> wait for a minimum wage driver's convenience
> sounds like an idea that wasn't thought out very
> far.
>  

You know, I really don't know why it can't be negotiated.  I would be guessing to say it may have been on the front burner at some point placed there by the union and management refused to open the talks up, or maybe the company wanted the union to accept some sort of trade off the unions didn't want to give up?  I don't know, but it sure seems "Safety First" is just a slogan and not taken seriously by anyone except the individual whose safety is at risk.

RS11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why exactly can't this  matter than  be
> > collectively bargained and improved?
> >
> > Leaving crews out in the middle of nowhere
> waiting
> > for a sometimes dangerous driver sounds like a
> > flawed idea in a lot of ways. Get them picked
> up
> > quickly, go on rest quickly, and be ready for
> next
> > call quickly, if that's what the company wants.
> >
> > Letting two highly paid professionals wait and
> > wait for a minimum wage driver's convenience
> > sounds like an idea that wasn't thought out
> very
> > far.
> >  
>
> You know, I really don't know why it can't be
> negotiated.  I would be guessing to say it may
> have been on the front burner at some point placed
> there by the union and management refused to open
> the talks up, or maybe the company wanted the
> union to accept some sort of trade off the unions
> didn't want to give up?  I don't know, but it
> sure seems "Safety First" is just a slogan and not
> taken seriously by anyone except the individual
> whose safety is at risk.


It could be negotiated but it won't be. The carriers have no incentative to address this issue as part of a Section 6 notice so long as they have friends in the state legislatures the likes of Curtis King.

Chico43 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>(snip)
>
>
> It could be negotiated but it won't be. The
> carriers have no incentative to address this issue
> as part of a Section 6 notice so long as they have
> friends in the state legislatures the likes of
> Curtis King.

Can a carrier just say "we're not interested in negotiating this or that issue" and then go on to the next issue?  Why have a contract if it just covers things the carrier feels like negotiating?  There's no way to put something on the table, and say "we need to talk about this, and change the way we're doing it"?

There are lots of things I don't know about labor rules and human resources policies as they're administered on the railroads.
 

I don't know if this answers your question or not since I wasn't heavily involved with the TE&Y unions on the railroad I worked for (CSX).  I came to CSX excited to share what knowledge I had from prior experience as a rep for the IBEW while working for Central Maine Power Company up in Maine for many years.  I didn't fit into the clique that was going on at the time I was there even though I attended all the union meetings I could and voiced a few concerns, when asked and sometimes when not asked, about possible like matters that worked in the IBEW.  I wasn't bullish in doing so after a period of time.Anyway, there's this thing called a major or minor dispute.  I'm not sure where the transportation of crews would fall in either of those categories.  Minor disputes appeared to me to be those issues that the company and union do not agree on and it goes to an arbitrator or some such thing.  I'm thinking a minor dispute cannot lead to a legal strike.  A major dispute can lead to a strike after all avenues to remedy a situation are exhausted.  A strike vote is taken and it goes from there.  It would seem to me that in all the time I have heard railroaders complaining about contracted transportation that at some point it was deemed a minor dispute.  Someone can correct me if I am wrong.  Don't know if I am way off base here or not, but that is my understanding.For example...the attendance policies.  From what I understand, and again I may be wrong here, that the issue has been brought up repeatedly and somewhere down the line it has been deemed a minor dispute which effectively ties the unions hands from doing much of anything.  If one looks at "judgements" from arbitrators, or whatever they are called now, the attendance rules are policies and not contracts and they have been ruled in the railroads favor, which brings us full circle to "why can't the unions negotiate the issue."  Clear as mud? 


ETA:  Don't know why that came out as one rambling paragraph.  I did proper indentation.  *shrugs*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/15 15:12 by RS11.

Thanks for that explanation.  Which raises the related question of why "minor transportation issues" (we want a clean, comfortable van with working heat or a/c) don't go to an arbitrator if the company and the union differ on whether to consider the question.

It seems to me that being picked up in the middle of nowhere and driven at 90 mph in a jalopy sometimes by a person of dubious skill is not one of the finer aspects of the railroading career.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for that explanation.  Which raises the
> related question of why "minor transportation
> issues" (we want a clean, comfortable van with
> working heat or a/c) don't go to an arbitrator if
> the company and the union differ on whether to
> consider the question.
>
> It seems to me that being picked up in the middle
> of nowhere and driven at 90 mph in a jalopy
> sometimes by a person of dubious skill is not one
> of the finer aspects of the railroading career.

Your exactly correct and its why I have almost zero involvment or comitment or love for my union. They are powerless and basically take $100 dollars a month out of my paycheck to schedule my vaction bid (mostly screw that up) and have a greiver for unpaid, denied, valid claims that get tossed out at the next negotiation. As seen by a couple high profile union bosses last year about the only theing they care about for the membership is the fastest race to the bottom for the tiniest piece of cheese! I'm going to take hell for saying this but I dont care really. I'm so over the rah rah union BS its not funny! Be useful to the membership or go away! 

 The union is only as useful as you make it.  Don't lke how the Union treats you? Switch locals or unions!  Don't like the guys in office? There are elections every three years.  I am sorry you feel that way about your Union.  Let me know in a pm if you want to talk/ ask about making changes for the better.

Now, the attendance policy thing at Csx where I work is just that...a POLICY.  Policies aren't dictated in collective bargaining agreements.  Imagine how's silly it would be to have to negotiate the policy for which fuel vendor or Internet service provider csx would put out to use in a policy.  So until the Union can add th attendance issues through the collective bargaining agreement, we are stuck with it.  The biggest issue with the unions is in contract negotiations.  We have a small group of railroaders who took up the contracts legal writings and tried to improve it as best they could.... The carriers all have multi-million dollar law firms on retainer writing this stuff...
The van issues are a little different.  At Csx we negotiated.  We have insurance provided by Csx that covers us through the collective bargaining agreement while in service to the company.   I don't see why It can't be used here.  Just something they have to bring up at the table, and likely give some arbitrary up to get.  Each side can bring anything to the table and then both sides start hammering away at each other until you get an agreement nobody is totally happy with, but nobody is totally UNHAPPY with either.  
Edits because iPads can't read my fat fingers.  



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/15 17:01 by DrLoco.

The answer to your question in a roundabout way is yes. As to negotiating this issue you, as a rail labor organization, would be asking the carriers for the right to approve of the contractors that they hire which I seriously doubt that they would want any part of. They've spent far too long at the federal judicial level devising means of getting rid of union help and bringing in non-union contractors to backpedal on that one. The question then becomes what is the price that you are willing to pay the carriers for that right in the form of more concessions on compensation and work rules. At this point in time they would dearly love to discuss further offsets in healthcare costs with you for starters and you are trying to stay as far away from that one as possible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/15 19:55 by Chico43.

Unfortunately, negotiations seem to come down to a few small pay raises in exchange for giving up some medical benifits. I'd love for the UTU to negotiate cab conditions, work/rest cycles, stock options, and 401k matching instead of, or along with a few measly pay raises for at least one contract.