Passenger Trains > Passenger engineers and DWI

Local NY television station WABC has run an investigative special on an NJ Transit engineer who lost his motor vehicle license due to DWI. However, he's allowed to operate a passenger train, and has done so without problems for many years.

As a result of the original "expose" Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has asked federal officials how he's able to keep his license.

New Jersey Transit says their hands are tied in this case because of weak federal railroad laws dealing with DWI. A spokesperson adding, "Anything that could be done to strengthen those federal rules...would be welcome."

But a check of those rules clearly shows it's a minimum standard and does not restrict a railroad from adopting and enforcing additional or more stringent requirements.

"God forbid something happens, New Jersey transit will have blood on their hands frankly," said Andrew Maloney, a rail safety attorney.


Alarming?

Anyone can access the Code of Federal Regulations.  ecfr.gov is the URL.  You want part 49 Transportation and for engineer licensing refer to part 240.  You can clearly see what the law requires related to part 219, control of alcohol and drugs.

I'd need my cowboy boots to deal with NJT on this issue. Here in California Amtrak Conductors and Engineers must first prove they have no past DWIs to get a Federal license, then are required to report any DWI within 24 hours, and can be removed from train service pending trial. So any claim that "our hands are tied" is just so much cow stuff that gets on your boots!

Barry Draper

>I'd need my cowboy boots to deal with NJT on this issue. Here in California Amtrak Conductors and Engineers must first prove they have no past DWIs to get a Federal license, then are required to report any DWI within 24 hours, and can be removed from train service pending trial. So any claim that "our hands are tied" is just so much cow stuff that gets on your boots!

Wasnt' aware that conductor licensing was put in effect. It's been a few years, but ISTR that what you say about the engineer's getting a license and reporting DUIs within 24 hrs applies to all railroads, not just Atk.

Self-reporting is within 48 hours of a conviction.  Innocent until proven guilty, the railroad can take no action until you're actually convicted of DWI/DUI.  If you properly self-report the incident to the proper authority (Usually an EAP representative) your manager need never even know about it.  You may, however, have to take time off to attend abuse counciling, and willmost likely be subjected to increased random testing for a minimum of two years after the conviction.

If you fail to properly report the matter to the railroad in the proper amount of time, or if you blow dirty on a breathalyzer, say hello to job insurance.

The Code of Federal Regulations is very clear:  No one can work on the railroad with an "active" substance abuse problem.  Off-duty behavior (such as driving impaired) may or may not indicate an active substance abuse problem.  A medical doctor makes the medical decision - not the railroad and not the public.  Yes, you may not 'self-report' properly but you will be caught when a mandatory check is made every 36 months.  It is almost certain that you will be medically disqualified if you've hidden a substance problem as well as contreve a policy.  Job insurance does NOT pay.  Thank goodness politicians and political railroad managers "hands are tied" so that they follow the law plus the "railroad safety" attorney quoted must be willing to misguide and misrepresent.

​It was interesting to note "passenger" engineer in the title as if that's different from any other covered transportation employee...and if a passenger engineer is held to a higher standard then I'm certain that NJT would compensate and care more for someone with this status....not just use it against that individual.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/16 09:15 by XWPgandy.

The original WABC article used passenger engineer in its broadast and print titles, so I applied it as well.

Just to be VERY clear:  Job insurance NEVER pays for INSUBORDINATION, SPEEDING, FIGHTING, or ANY FORM OF RULE G, (alcohol or drugs.)
A certified employee out of service for a licensure violation can't collect any job insurance!
G

ExSPCondr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to be VERY clear:  Job insurance NEVER pays
> for INSUBORDINATION, SPEEDING, FIGHTING, or ANY
> FORM OF RULE G, (alcohol or drugs.)
> A certified employee out of service for a
> licensure violation can't collect any job
> insurance!
> G

No, that's not exactly true...at least with BRCF.

Posted from Android

Setandcentered Wrote:

> No, that's not exactly true...at least with BRCF.

BRCF does not cover Rule G violations. Saw their International President with the past few days, and he specifically mentioned Rule G and Personal Electronic Device violations as not being covered.

bioyans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Setandcentered Wrote:
>
> > No, that's not exactly true...at least with
> BRCF.
>
> BRCF does not cover Rule G violations. Saw their
> International President with the past few days,
> and he specifically mentioned Rule G and Personal
> Electronic Device violations as not being covered.

You're absolutely right. The original post I was referring to would have been 100% correct had he not mentioned "speeding", that's all.