Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF attendance policy hits new low

If the war on labor hasn't been obvious before, this should bring it all into focus.

BNSF has suddenly and without warning or input from labor imposed a new version of their already ridiculous "Hi-Viz" attendance policy on its TY&E employees. It was announced yesterday and takes effect today. This is in response to the rest cycles that the company has been forced to honor for certain working boards across the system. Unfortunately this one-size-fits-all policy has also been imposed on workers on boards with NO scheduled rest days now making it nearly impossible to take any time off without racking up serious point defecits. Exhaust your points and it's discipline or termination.

Among the highlights, it now takes 18 days of being marked up and available for work (previously 14) to get 4 points back. The cap is still at 30. All layoffs except "high impact days" now cost 7 points for each 24 hour period. Previously it was 2 points for a Mon/Tue/Wed/Thur layoff, 4 for Fri/Sat, and 3 for Sun. Now it's just 7 across the board and 10 for HIDs.

So picture this, you are on a pool turn with no scheduled rest days. You work 18 straight days and receive 4 points, then take 2 days off because you're exhausted. That costs 14 points so your net deficit is 10 points just for taking a couple days off. Nobody can sustain this. It's impossible.

Even better, they now demand that we submit requests 6 months in advance to use earned Personal Leave Days or floating Vacation Days. These are paid days off the we earned and they're making it almost impossible to redeem them. BTW, whether we are granted them in 6 months time is still at their discretion.

It's clear that they want to drive people away to further their single-person crew agenda. As usual, thanks to the RLA and court system, the unions are powerless to retaliate. Personally, I'm ready to walk off the job to protest this. I don't care how much money it costs me. I won't be able to continue my career under these conditions anyway so nothing to lose at this point.
 

Diabolical would be the word for it. I can only imagine these inhuman executives sitting around a board table plotting this.

Is it infeasible to hire out to a different railroad?

 

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

You could hire out but you start at the bottom senority wise, so after 25 years with engine certs you're now
on a remote job somewhere. Other thing is, as a buddy found out, you've got 18-20 years and find out that
it's not all that easy to jump to another Class 1, they have interesting means to judge such a potential hire.

Out 

I didn't think you could work 18 straight days.  I thought that after six consecutive days of crew starts you had to receive 48 hours continuous rest at your home terminal.  Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm certainly not defending the new BNSF policy.

mike woodruff
north platte ne

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it infeasible to hire out to a different railroad?

For me? Yes. This is my third carrier and I'm 60 years old. Besides, if BNSF ends up getting away with this you can be sure all the other Class 1s will adopt it, or something similar.

swaool Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't think you could work 18 straight days. 
> I thought that after six consecutive days of crew
> starts you had to receive 48 hours continuous rest
> at your home terminal.  

The operative word is 'starts'. The company has many ways to reset your starts to keep you working, such as a deadhead, or 24+ hours in the AFHT hotel. And believe me, they watch this and do everything they can to prevent you from getting RSIA time off.

Are potential new hires made aware of such a policy, prior to being hired?

So what is behind this? There has to be a clear goal. Is it to force the acceptance of 1 man crews due to crew shortages (even if self imposed)? Most companies are leaning to less stringent attendance policies and more PTO. This is the exact opposite and seems diabolical.

Posted from Android

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it to force the acceptance of 1 man
> crews due to crew shortages (even if self
> imposed)?

That's my personal hypothesis.

I thought the UP was the most evil railroad company, but I guess not.

I thought the FRA said no to one man crews. Did they not get the memo?

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought the FRA said no to one man crews. Did
> they not get the memo?

It's a rule, not a regulation. The carriers are challenging it in court before it becomes regulation. Of course.

https://apnews.com/article/two-man-train-crew-railroad-rule-lawsuit-119dd28129843d3c4b12a1d76f015c9a



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/24 13:07 by trainjunkie.

Decision made at a board meeting, catered, done before five, then heading off to their weekend getaways. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Timing is everything and did I ever retire at the right time! It was ONCE a great occupation. I feel for you having to endure this.
JB

Airline pilots are covered by the Railway Labor Act, too. No way they and their unions would stand for this nonsense.

Posted from Android

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thought the FRA said no to one man crews. Did
> > they not get the memo?
>
> It's a rule, not a regulation. The carriers are
> challenging it in court before it becomes
> regulation. Of course.
>
> https://apnews.com/article/two-man-train-crew-rail
> road-rule-lawsuit-119dd28129843d3c4b12a1d76f015c9a

And the railroads have plenty of bribery money in their war chests for their "friends" in Washington.

Wait till they start hiring millenials.  They literally will not show up to work if they want the day off.   One new nurse I work with told me she was scheduled for both Christmas and New Years.  She flat out told me she was going out of state for New Years and wouldn't be at work all weekend.  And she didn't come to work.  BNSF will come to find out they need to provide a work life balance because the next generation of railroaders won't put up with their bullshit.

Dave 

NWRail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> trainjunkie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > PHall Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I thought the FRA said no to one man crews.
> Did
> > > they not get the memo?
> >
> > It's a rule, not a regulation. The carriers are
> > challenging it in court before it becomes
> > regulation. Of course.
> >
> >
> https://apnews.com/article/two-man-train-crew-rail
>
> >
> road-rule-lawsuit-119dd28129843d3c4b12a1d76f015c9a
>
>
> And the railroads have plenty of bribery money in
> their war chests for their "friends" in
> Washington.

That is such a tired argument.  As pointed out, the ALPA would not let the airlines get away with such things.   Are you suggesting the airlines don't have "bribery money"?

RSD5 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wait till they start hiring millenials.  


What are you talking about?  The millenial generation is said to be for anyone born from 1981 to 1996.  The oldest would be 43, the youngest 27.   There are plenty of them on the railroad, and some have 25 years of seniority.  

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
 

What a bunch of garbage.

Posted from Android

Typhoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NWRail Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > trainjunkie Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > PHall Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I thought the FRA said no to one man crews.
> > Did
> > > > they not get the memo?
> > >
> > > It's a rule, not a regulation. The carriers
> are
> > > challenging it in court before it becomes
> > > regulation. Of course.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://apnews.com/article/two-man-train-crew-rail
>
> >
> > >
> >
> road-rule-lawsuit-119dd28129843d3c4b12a1d76f015c9a
>
> >
> >
> > And the railroads have plenty of bribery money
> in
> > their war chests for their "friends" in
> > Washington.
>
> That is such a tired argument.  As pointed out,
> the ALPA would not let the airlines get away with
> such things.   Are you suggesting the airlines
> don't have "bribery money"?


It wouldn't be ALPA that would call them on it, it would be the FAA . The time limits pilots can be on duty is a Federal Air Regulation not a contract clause.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's my personal hypothesis.

I have a different hypothesis. It's about the rumored potential loss of UPS lane between Chicago and Los Angeles. This is sign of desperation.

I have gone through management "desperation" in my days, but that was in the tech industry. In exchange for working late, all night, and other hardships, we got rewarded with stock options, bonuses, catered dinners, and so forth.

If BNSF is only using the stick without the carrot, then they deserve to fail. How stupid of them to double-down on Hi-Viz, when the first implementation of Hi-Viz caused many to quit to cause employee shortages to begin with.

Here's a quote from Charlie Munger, the recently-departed sidekick to Warren Buffett:

"Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome."

Seems there's a sociopathic manager inside Berkshire Hathaway who needs to be shown the door ASAP.