Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AllGarbage t1_itwy3q4 wrote

My neighbor is a conductor for Union Pacific. In talking to him, he says the pay really isn't the top issue for him and his peers (though they haven't got a pay raise in 4 years during this inflationary time and it's definitely not a non-issue).

He says he gets no sick time and their health care benefits are about to get worse, but for him the big elephant in the room is that the unionized workers have less say about how to do their jobs, they're being encouraged to do things like mount/dismount from moving rail cars to save time (rather than bringing them to a complete stop), and the job has gotten a lot more dangerous than it was 20 years ago.

373

submittedanonymously t1_itxirce wrote

This is what happens when companies successfully lobby to loosen regulations and restrictions. Now… not ALL regulation is good, I get that (though I might vehemently disagree). But anything concerning the safety and well-being of ANY job should be protected, no matter the expense to the company. Especially staffing and sick pay/leave/benefits.

The RR companies have decided they have enough congressmen in their pockets that they feel no need to even pretend to care anymore - including Buffett’s own BNSF.

102

koolaideprived t1_ity14gq wrote

This is pretty much spot on from the trainmen side of things. On bnsf we have gone to a points based system for time off. To earn 4 points, you have to stay marked up (available and on call 24/7) for 14 days straight. I took a day yesterday and it cost me 8 points, meaning I had to be available 28 days straight before I earned the right to take a day off to go to the doctor without penalty. I hit 160 hours for the month on the 21st, while taking all the rest I am allowed. I know other people that were over 200 3 days ago on the 22nd.

Nobody talks about the raise because it is essentially a cola increase, tied to inflation.

87

Konukaame t1_ityprut wrote

>To earn 4 points, you have to stay marked up (available and on call 24/7) for 14 days straight. I took a day yesterday and it cost me 8 points, meaning I had to be available 28 days straight before I earned the right to take a day off to go to the doctor without penalty.

That's fucking disgusting.

55

koolaideprived t1_itz992m wrote

Yeah, it's frustrating because this used to be a great job, and the changes that have led to this were all pushed through by the companies in the pursuit of the highest possible margins.

In the past we had a choice between a few jobs, boards that were known to work a lot, but you made a lot accordingly, or you could give up some of that to work a more predictable job. If you took a day off from that predictable job there was a large disincentive because you were effectively cutting your paycheck for that period by 1/4. Now that everyone works all the time as soon as they are available, that disincentive went away and people took more time for their mental and personal health, so the companies pushed these policies through to severely limit our ability to manage our time.

They can't keep new employees, a huge portion are lost during training, and the few that make it through usually don't last a year, when it used to be a career position.

If they reverted policies to those that were in place 5 or 6 years ago, all of this strike shit would go away.

21

Lukeno94 t1_iu08f9n wrote

It's also utterly idiotic, because it's precisely that sort of "work em until they drop" culture that led to fatal crashes like Hinton.

12

koolaideprived t1_iu09ln3 wrote

I know from personal experience that fatigue is just something we are expected to work through now. I had a call this week while I was in the hotel where when I got in I was showing to work on my rest. Got some good sleep, ready to go, check the boards, it fell back 3 hours. Ok, that's fine. Check the board 3 hours later, it fell back 5 hours. Hmm, better get a nap. Woke up from my nap and it had fallen back 9 more. I was all slept out so I stayed up and would try to get another nap later before I was called. 6 hours later right as I closed my eyes, the phone rang. But I got more than 10 hours off, so I was "rested."

6

litefoot t1_iu3rqrk wrote

To me this is insane. To worry about pinching pennies when you already have the most efficient means of transporting freight. If I was in charge, I’d just sit back and enjoy the paycheck.

1

AlmostOrdinaryGuy t1_iu4wuwt wrote

Why would they change anything if people are complacent? They are making fat stacks ,who cares about the workers, people in general certainly don't care enough(yet or maybe never will) to fight it.

1

litefoot t1_iu4x9bx wrote

My point is why are they trying to squeeze more out of their workers(at the cost of safety) when they’re already collecting a fat check?

1

AlmostOrdinaryGuy t1_iu4y21g wrote

Because they don't function like normal people, would be my guess. Profit must go up.

2

laxkid7 t1_itzn8b9 wrote

Where i work for my local county we get 4hr every 2 weeks. Makes me wonder how often yall get called in while being on call? Is it very frequent? And what r the hours? Ive been debating getting into the railroad industry but this is the 1 thing keeping me from pulling the trigger and applying.

5

koolaideprived t1_iu064ir wrote

There are no hours, it's 24/7, no scheduled days off. You are on call to go out of town for a minimum of 36 hours. You are guaranteed 10 hours of uninterrupted rest at your home after a shift, but you are fair game after that, and for the past few years it is not uncommon to work on your rest.

Paycheck is great, rest of the job can be good, but has had most of the good parts worn away over the years.

7

Zakluor t1_itxr49k wrote

My wife hated unions, saying, "They're always striking for money." As a unionized employee when we met, I had to keep reminding her that strikes are almost never about money alone. Money is always a factor because employers never want to keep up with inflation, but it's almost always about something more than money: working conditions of one form or another are almost always the bigger factor.

59

Badtrainwreck t1_itybcqs wrote

Even if it was just about money who cares? If companies are making profits that means there’s an opportunity to raise wages. People seem to think unions are the problem because employees want more wages, but the fact is that employees want more wages and companies want more profits and because a company will never decrease profits any time workers win it’s seen as a loss for the consumer, which is insane the only people who always look good are the investors who are putting in zero effort towards the company

37

Mythosaurus t1_itzdq3t wrote

That’s some Gilded Age BS, and requires Pullman Strike levels of union fury.

6