Eastern Railroad Discussion > just in case you are considering hourly rate...

I have read recently that the idea of hourly rate has been floated at CSX. I found this posted by TCRClocal 320 about how such an agreement can bite you in the a$$. Its a long read, but an interesting one.

TCRC Div 320;
April 11 2014
Recently, in a Company publication and at a Town Hall Meeting held by the employer, it was
revealed that the company would like to see an hourly rate implemented for all employees.
Although no specifics have been provided on the structure of such an agreement, and no
negotiations have taken place between the Company and your Union on any such agreement,
we felt it prudent to inform you that this is not, nor has it ever been a Union initiative or demand.
It is also important to note that in 2007, CN attempted to negotiate an hourly rate with our
Brothers and Sisters working there, and failed to come to an agreement.
Below is an excerpt from an email sent by one of our Brothers working on the CN who had the
good fortune to talk with several railroaders working in the US under an hourly rate contract. The
information he was able to glean from them was invaluable. Please take the time to read before
deciding for yourself whether or not an hourly rate would be good for us:
Brothers & Sisters,
Just some information to any Local Chairpersons that think that
meeting with (the employer) over the hourly rate could prove
beneficial for our membership. Here in Winnipeg we work south to
Rainier, Minnesota and share accommodations with the former D.W.P.
crews at the Days Inn in International Falls, Minnesota (when living
with someone you learn about their experiences and what goes on in
their life). They have been on an hourly rate for the last 3 or 4
years now. Believe me when I say if you think there are things that
bother you about how we do things now at CN, you would not believe
how much worse an hourly rate would make it.
Our D.W.P. Brothers had a meeting with (the employer) prior to them
accepting an hourly rate agreement. Actually it wasn't a meeting
where you exchange views with each other, it was a meeting where
(the employer) threatened to close their terminal in Duluth/Superior
Hourly Agreement
All Division 320 Members:
and redirect all the trains going thru their terminal thru other
terminals on the CN system. We in Winnipeg told them that he wouldn't
be able to do that, considering the volume of traffic that runs over
their track (Duluth/Superior is a direct link to Chicago and points
south). But they were a small group about 300+ employees (the UTU
represents both the conductors and the engineers) and they were
intimidated by (the employer's) threats of terminal closure. There
were supposed to be a few perks with the agreement, cash buyouts and
schedules that would have them work 5 days with 2 days off, some would
even work 4 days with 3 days off, also extra money for the junior
employees as they had 4 different rates of pay (A,B,C and D), lastly
if you want to call a perk overtime after 10 hours on duty.
They felt compelled to accept an agreement that required them to give
up their work rules and work for an hourly rate. Well shortly after
accepting their new contract, the buyouts
evaporated (nobody could afford to take one) and the schedule changed
for all employees to work 6 days with 1 day off. I remember asking one
of the crews what are these work rules you gave up, I was shocked to
learn that it was basically their collective agreement. Again I asked
how could you give up your collective agreement, their answer was;
"what choice did we have he was going to close our terminal."
Winnipeg crews soon started to notice changes in the D.W.P. crew's
mode of operation, what used to be a 6 hour delay from when the crew
was ordered in Superior to when they arrived in Rainier, became 12 to
18 hours. All the crews we were trading off with were either on duty
almost 12 hours or had been changed off with another crew because they
had been on duty 12 hours
(12 hours is the U.S. hours of service law). The new crew was expected
to jump on another train after trading with us and work till they had
their 12 hours in. Train crews are expected to do work that was
traditionally yard work at either the home terminal or the away from
home terminal upon arrival at destination to complete their 12 hour
day, this work would include climbing on different units and
performing any switching required (i.e. flat switching trains, tying
up tracks, spotting cars at industrial sites, transferring cars from
one yard to another, just to name a few examples). This is required
because the hourly rate eliminated the distinction between yard or
road service and all crews perform multiple tasks with hourly rate
agreement.
After a few months we also started to notice physical changes in the
crews as well (they seemed to be chronically fatigued and they
appeared to be aging rapidly), some might find that hard to believe
but try working 12 hour shifts day in and day out or as we know night
in and night out for months on end, then look in a mirror and see how
you look. Now imagine doing that for the rest of your railroad career
(can you imagine a feeling of more despair, I know I can't). The
D.W.P. crews never had rest provisions in their collective agreement
before because the way they worked prior to the hourly rate they never
had to worry about it before, (the road employees would get time off
when they got their miles in or the yard employees had regular days
off). Now with the hourly rate, the U.S. hours of service law was
their only method of taking rest, that by the way allows them either
10 or 8 hours of rest including call time depending on how long they
have been on duty prior to going off duty. This rest applies at either
the home terminal or the away from home terminal The U.S. law only
forbids them from operating a train over 12 hours, quite often crews
are either left sitting on a train or in a taxi well in excess12
hours. One D.W.P. crew member told me "When I leave for work to start
my 5 day work cycle I tell my wife I will see you in 6 days", actually
they are forced to go to work right up to the last minute before
starting their day off, so sometimes their day off is spent coming
home from the away from home terminal, that off day will not be made
up to them. We were told, crew members that live out of town are
forced to sleep in their vehicles in the parking lot at work because
they do not have time to make it home-get some rest-and get back to
work, with only 8 hours off till their next shift.
The D.W.P. brothers had a 2 year out in their agreement but with the
promise of more buyouts, 5 day work cycles and of course the money.
They accepted a new deal with no out clause, the crews that we talk to
can not explain why they would accept this deal, other than the cash
or the buyouts. One thing the D.W.P. crews tell us is they would much
rather be working under the protection of our collective agreement,
than the hourly rate agreement they have now.
Is it not obvious to everyone the similarities of the present company
contract proposals
to us, to what our D.W.P. brothers are forced to work under. In the
letter dated December 13, 2006 from (the employer) to our National
Negotiating Committee (Negotiation update # 6). (The employer) states
on page 2, in item 1: "We schedule our employees with a 5 day work
week with two guaranteed days off. (We also are willing to discuss
with you a 4 day on /3 day off schedule, depending on what you want to
negotiate in terms of work week/wages)". Does anybody notice the
similarity to what the D.W.P. were first offered?
In items 2 and 3 (the employer) tries to justify how we don't require
rest provisions in our agreement which (the employer) states in item
4: "With this type of scheduling, the hours of service provisions
ensure rest. Therefore, we don't need to build in redundant rest
provisions." Again this sounds like our D.W.P. brothers agreement.
With the loss of rest provisions, personal leave days and the extended
rest option (48 hours), what would we have?
Another note Canada's hours of service rest provisions are not as
protective as the U.S. hours of service law.
In item 5: (The employer) tries to justify having no mileage caps
because of having a 5 day work week, "We all know that mileage caps are
there to make sure everyone can earn a fair wage. The 5-day work week
does that and more."
Actually (the employer) has told the shareholders that with an hourly
rate they could get the equivalent of 7500 miles from an employee rather
the 4300 miles they are capped at presently. That sure sounds like more
quality time at home to me, again the similarities to our D.W.P.
brothers.
In item 6: (The employer) tries to justify the abolishment of the
distinctions between Yard and Road service, "While we will always have
jobs that are primarily terminal or road assignments, all of our
employees in your craft have skills to do both. If they are working on a
job for, say, ten hours a day, and are asked to help out another crew
during the same period, we are not adding to the work day. Rather, we
are asking a UTU- represented employee to help another UTU-represented
employee during their shift." Want to bet it won't end after "say" ten
hours, it doesn't for our D.W.P. brothers who "help" out other UTU
employees all the time.
In closing I would like to emphasize that it goes without saying we here
in (...) are against any hourly rate provisions and decimation to our
collective agreement that would accompany it. We the Local Chairpersons
might not all be able to agree on everything, that is our democratic
right.
But I urge you all to agree on this and support our National Negotiating
Committee, SAY NO TO AN HOURLY RATE AGREEMENT, SAY NO TO THE DECIMATION
OF OUR COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, VOTE TO SUPPORT A STRONG STRIKE MANDATE!
As you can see the ideas presented by CN in 2007 are similar to the ideas
being presented to us today. Already, in the most recent material change issued
concerning the consolidation of Roberts Bank and Coquitlam, and Extended
Service Runs, the Company has presented many of the ideas mentioned in the
above email: abolishment of monthly mileage caps, abolishment of personal/
EDOs, flexible scheduling, better work/life balance

As an outsider, that's a load of POO that EHH is proposing. Hopefully the unions will be wise enough to realize and truely understand what is going on on the DWP, and say no.

Thanks for posting it.

Thanks for sharing this with us---it is very important information for railroad employees!

Work 'em 'til they drop or quit, and then hire new bodies. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

This is a very good summary.

I'd suggest a few flow chart examples could make the changes very clear. Here's what happens now, here's what happens under the proposals.

Posted from Android

As a former CSX Intermodal clerk that was covered by the Transportation Communications Union (TCU) agreement, while not RR operating crew, I and my co-workers went through a complete contract replacement when the 'North' (former Conrail territory) and 'South' (former CSX) contracts became a single agreement, the 'South' version.

I have no familiarity with UTU and BLE agreements, but what we TCU covered workers discovered may be of some benefit to operating crew during negotiation.

Perhaps the biggest problem I and everyone else had with the 'Southern' contract is that it was/is a mish-mash of a number of individual contracts cut-and-pasted together, with new portions that supersede portions of one or more of the 'pasted' contracts. Never mind the hourly rate changes each contract, that was easy to figure out. The problem was that, for example, what started out as an ACL/SCL/SBD 'merged' contract was then merged with the Chessie System contract that was B&O, C&O and WM 'merged'. In short, I think it would take a team of lawyers with lots of time on their hands to 'figure out' exactly what the 'net' contract stated. Take a 15 page ACL agreement, attach an 18 page SAL agreement, remove a number of paragraphs from each, combine them, then add more paragraphs (particularly wages & benefits), add 5 or more 'amendment letters', and start there. Then, over the next 10-15 years, add more paragraphs (mostly wages), delete others, and add more amendment letters that supersede one or more paragraphs or portions of each. While well intended, it was completely impossible to ascertain everything about a specific issue – rest periods, for example – in one place. What started as perhaps 3-4 sentences was 'overlaid' by a numbered article with multiple sub-sections, which was later partially amended in a 'new' contract added at the back 5 years later, and, of course, one or more amendment letters throughout the entire 40 page contract. Note that the 'overlays' weren't always physical cut and paste efforts, but simply a later added portion of the ever-growing contract. So what started out in 1970 as 'X' was supplanted 10 pages later to add 'Y” and then 10 years after that was partially replaced and amended resulted in part of X plus part of Y and new Z.

I, for one, would have been delighted if TCU put lawyers and union locals in one room for 3-6 months and come up with a single starting-point, simple contract with X number of articles, perhaps 10 pages in total, that said exactly reflected the CURRENT contract 'hodge podge' of 40-50 pages. Now repeat the process for the Northern contract (Conrail/PRR/NYC/NH/RDG,etc that was similarly contract merged and confused), using the SAME article numbers for each major portion. NOW, present those two contracts to the union members to decide on whether or not to accept the Northern or Southern contracts as the single 'new' contract. Unless one was adept at navigating the CSX employee website, it was quite challenging to locate, much less figure out what was the current contract for each. And trying to sit down, read, comprehend, and compare the two contracts was clearly an impossible task. At best, we could only figure out the 'high points' of each. We were also at a disadvantage locally as all the 'old heads' had retired and all us 'new guys' (all less than 10 yrs senority) pretty much knew about was the current CSX-ized version of the former Conrail contract.

Fortunately, in 'my' small shop of 7 people, two of my co-workers and I (together, we were 1-2-3 in seniority) each read the 'new' contract as well as our existing Northern contract and discussed what we figured out were the changes. Of course, the primary source of 'information' we had was a summary letter indicating the new wage scale, insurance, and bonus money from TCU. The problem is that we really needed 2-3 months to fully figure out the differences but only had a couple of weeks.

One of the biggest surprises that we failed to notice was the minimum rest periods were missing from the Southern contract. The minimum 8 hours rest between shifts was gone. While on the extra board, there were a couple of times I had only 6 hours rest between shifts which got me 2 hrs OT pay in addition to the 2 hrs straight pay to fill out my guaranteed 40 hours straight pay/week (also in the contract). While some interpreted the 40 hour guarantee as stay home and wait for a call on the extra board, what it was at CSX Intemodal is you wll be working at least 40 hours, becoming 'an extra worker' on a shift if nobody was on vacation or out sick. I'm not sure if the 40 hour guarantee clause disappeared or not...it's been 6 years or so and my memory is slipping. In short, we never thought to 'look for' what is MISSING in the new contract and it cost us! Also of note since the contract was signed is that new CSX Intermodal positions are now listed as ISW rather than ISR – Intermodal Service Workers rather than Intermodal Service Representatives (clerks), thus opening the door for us to be clerks one day and yard jockeys the next.

Something else to think about...Our base rates in the Northern contract were higher than that of the Southern contract (the cost of living in Chicago, for example, is more than in Savannah GA). The new contract gave us yankees an extra 30-40 cents/hr <or whatever it was> 'adjustment' until we retired. Unfortunately, it didn't increase over time, AND, all new employees from that day forward would be paid at the lower Southern rate, not the adjusted rate. I'm reasonably sure those covered by the Southern contract were never made aware of the wage difference. Also, the Southern contract had a 'new hire' rate of 95% of full rate for 1 year, vs an 85%, 90%, 95% rate the first 3 years for the Northern contract.

Lastly, don't fall for the 'signing bonus' on a new contract. Yes, both the company and the union agreed to put that in to make it attractive to both sides. From the union standpoint, the extra $1000 or so signing bonus (based on previous 12 months total hours worked times some rate) is a fantastic 'carrot' to vote for the new contract. But from the company side, it was a way to keep hourly increases to a minimum. In the long run, the workers got screwed. I would much rather have, say, an extra $0.25/hr in my check for 3 years than $1000 up front. Do the math: 2000 hrs/yr x $0.25/hr x 3 years = $1500. And the next 3 years, and on and on until you retire...vs a one time $1000 today.

In the end, it didn't matter how we northerners voted on the contract. I later learned there only only about 60 employees covered in the northern contract vs 300-400 (I was told by mgmt) covered in the south. We got the shaft and an exercise in futility and could only smile and take it.

Management plays the long game, BRAtkinson offers a good example of how that works.

Pulling pieces of this and that contract into one is just bait for a Yes vote. But the savings go to the share owners and management for decades. That's why management gets boatloads of options. Based on buybacks, labor savings and trends.

Posted from Android

Engineers on the former L&N and guess the rest of CSX took it in the shorts with the trip rate which was forced on us "because" the UTU took it.. Now this???
Hope the Engineers stand their ground.

Steve Panzik
Former S-T Pensacola Div 275 BofLE
Chiloquin, Or