Western Railroad Discussion > Is this true, re: Union Pacific and perhaps other Class Ones

Here is a direct quote from a post on another board by a well-known and serious railfan, but not a railroader or insider.  I do not know whether it is true or not.

Hello.  Apparently, for applicants for its engineer training program who come from the ranks of its own conductors, Union Pacific terminates the employment of anyone who fails the program, even if the person had been a perfectly good and competent conductor.  In other words, if you're a UP conductor and go into its engineer-training program and don't pass it, you lose your job, not even able to go back to being a conductor.

This strikes me as harsh, because it sheds people who were qualified and competent as conductors, and I have heard that other railroad companies have similar practices.

Why do they do this?  I can imagine that it has something to do with discouraging unserious applicants, since the threat of losing your employment with the railroad would ensure that only seriously-interested persons would apply, meaning that the scarce training resources are well used, but it still strikes me as excessive since it could mean losing perfectly good employees (both current competent conductors and potential engineers) and since there are other ways to discourage unserious applicants, like the (I think) fact that conductors who enter the program take a big pay cut for the duration of the training or any other potential measure that you can imagine.

Also, can someone who fails such a program get a job on another railroad?
 

I can only figure a company with an attitude of this sort has total disdain for itself and employees

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a direct quote from a post on another
> board by a well-known and serious railfan, but not
> a railroader or insider.  I do not know whether
> it is true or not.
>
> Hello.  Apparently, for applicants for its
> engineer training program who come from the ranks
> of its own conductors, Union Pacific terminates
> the employment of anyone who fails the program,
> even if the person had been a perfectly good and
> competent conductor.  In other words, if you're a
> UP conductor and go into its engineer-training
> program and don't pass it, you lose your job, not
> even able to go back to being a conductor.
>
> This strikes me as harsh, because it sheds people
> who were qualified and competent as conductors,
> and I have heard that other railroad companies
> have similar practices.
>
> Why do they do this?  I can imagine that it has
> something to do with discouraging unserious
> applicants, since the threat of losing your
> employment with the railroad would ensure that
> only seriously-interested persons would apply,
> meaning that the scarce training resources are
> well used, but it still strikes me as excessive
> since it could mean losing perfectly good
> employees (both current competent conductors and
> potential engineers) and since there are other
> ways to discourage unserious applicants, like the
> (I think) fact that conductors who enter the
> program take a big pay cut for the duration of the
> training or any other potential measure that you
> can imagine.
>
> Also, can someone who fails such a program get a
> job on another railroad?
>  

It applied long ago when there were firemen. Some union contracts provided for a period of time after whichj a fireman must pass the engineer's exam or be terminated. I'm not surprised that the practice continues.

The practice never existed that I know of from switchman to road brakeman, brakeman to conductor, or operator to dispatcher.

TAW

That was also the terms for promotion to engineer as of a certain date from the trainman ranks on csx for a while back when I was there.  I am unsure if that is still in place but some people would refuse to go the first time they  stood for it to avoid this.  Another part of the agreement allowed  trainman to refuse to go as long as junior men were available to go in their shoes but if they were ecer forced, they would lose out on some seniority, essentially being jimped by those junior men that went instead of them. Some figured they could dodge the engineer promotion for ever due to their seniority to avoid all this.

Railroad human resources management never fails to amaze me.

I can't imagine the conductors' union is happy with this.  Knowing that all your members are "just passing through" doesn't built a lot of solidarity.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Railroad human resources management never fails to
> amaze me.
>
> I can't imagine the conductors' union is happy
> with this.  Knowing that all your members are
> "just passing through" doesn't built a lot of
> solidarity.

I think that it has been part of collective bargaining agreements for years.

I

ts1457 Wrote:

> I think that it has been part of collective
> bargaining agreements for years.
>

Exactly.  Whether this situation is true or not, the reality does lie within the CBA.

union agreement 

It's true. If you don't want to be an engineer, don't sign up.

~ Mr. MRL

This same practice occurs on BNSF.  Before I entered engine service I was told that the company pushed this agreement because supposedly students signed up for a "vacation" of sorts to gain time away from working on call.  Toward the end of training they would withdraw from the program.  The carrier claimed they were losing the investment incurred in the training process with nothing to show for it.  Students are allowed to re-take any final test in which they fail.  Second failure results in termination.  It does happen.  

It's true on the BNsF too. If you go for the promotion you better pass the test. It also keeps guys from failing on purpose if they get forced into the engine program. I feel bad for those that get forced in and fail anyways but that's pretty rare. Hell I only know of a few guys that have failed and been fired since I started. In fact it's almost impossible to fail as they have dumbed down the tests and practicaly spoon feed guys answers. When I did the tests it was a 150 question Air Brake, 150 GCOR, two pass or fail sim runs and a mechanical test. All but Mech were closed book. Now it's like a 100 question test and at least half are open book.   

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't imagine the conductors' union is happy
> with this.  Knowing that all your members are
> "just passing through" doesn't built a lot of
> solidarity.

The conductors union signed off on it as part of the Halloween 1985 national agreement...

Milw_E70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The conductors union signed off on it as part of
> the Halloween 1985 national agreement...

And as such, those going into engine service today enter a probationary period during their training, just like they had when previously a new hire trainmen/switchman. Had one in my engine service class wash out before being promoted. One of those "know it all" types. That was the end of his career on the railroad.

TractiveEffort Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457 Wrote:
>
> > I think that it has been part of collective
> > bargaining agreements for years.
> >
>
> Exactly.  Whether this situation is true or not,
> the reality does lie within the CBA.

Forced promotion to locomotive engineer (for post 10/31/85 hires) has been in the trainmen's national agreement since 1985.

Since then, the order that the employee is forced (or accepted, as the case may be) by seniority may have changed from one property to the next.

"Pre-85" people were still allowed to go into engine service if they chose. If they failed, they kept their train service seniority. But failure (you get two shots to pass) for "post-85" people has resulted in termination.

I believed this to be one of (if not the) worst things agreed to contractually in all my time out there. That said, new people know it's there going in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/23 19:27 by RetiredHogger.

Why I'm glad I was never engaged in Union/Employer bickering.Holy Crap! What Bull Shit! The root cause of why I dodged working for the railroads, no matter now much I wanted to. As miserable as downsizing, lay-offs, right-sizing and other crap I've dealt with I believe the less stress from the Union/Employer Bull Shit has been worth it. God Bless you individuals who dealt with it for decades to retire.Probably why I'm not anxious to retire. I like what I do and no one is dumping on me.
Go

Yes this practice is correct, however, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody flop out…whether the guy can run a train or not…he passes. Lots of guys who have no business pulling the throttle running trains out there today, I only feel sorry for the ones who were forced.

Thanks for the background.

If all your members with less than 1985 seniority can be forced into engine service and union, why didn't conductors just merge the unions in 1985?

Posted from Android

If an SP fireman couldn't pass the test for promotion they went back to one year seniority.
They retained their original date when it came to layoffs.

Texican65 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes this practice is correct, however, I don’t
> think I’ve ever seen anybody flop out…whether
> the guy can run a train or not…he passes. Lots
> of guys who have no business pulling the throttle
> running trains out there today, I only feel sorry
> for the ones who were forced.


... like one many years ago who took a train from Wenatchee to Scenic and stopped there because he was afraid to take it down to Sky. Had to send a Road foreman to help him get down.

TAW

I wonder what my Dad would think of today's "railroading"?  He hired out firing on the Frisco in 1916, was an engineer in regular passenger service in 1/64 when he died in an auto accident.
He was also Local Chairman of the BofLE local division 428 in St. Louis.
Totally different universe then.