Here we go, NS taking preemptive action

[draskouasshat]

The President hasn’t failed you. Your own unions failed you. It should never have taken this long. I support the railroad workers in their fight with management but put blame where it belongs. Those piss- ant unions have a right to chose and made a decision for themselves

Tom

First, are you a railroader?  Second, if you are, you clearly haven't paid much attention to the national agreements in the last 17 years that I've been railroading. Every one of them has lasted YEARS past our contracts expiration. This isn't my first rodeo.
It aint just the unions either pal. The companies are using the RLA and the government to finalize agreements instead of bringing anything worth looking at to the table. Theyre using congress to enforce a ***** PEB recommendation.  It's pretty simple to see if you're directly involved. If you don't have skin in the game, you really don't know much on the subject minus what the media is feeding you.
Drasko
BRS member as well maintainer

[draskouasshat]

No. They don’t without the kind of nationalization that is in no one’s interest.

There’s a strike coming. The only real question is whether Congress forces people back to work and then everyone just quits.

Actually, you're wrong. Through the RLA, congress will actually convene and force us to an agreement that theyve dreamed up whether it be the PEB recommendation, a better deal for the craft employees, or contract where we get paid in skittles. We the are forced back to work with what they decide if we do go on strike after unions vote no on ratification.

Drasko

[Philip H]

Actually, you're wrong. Through the RLA, congress will actually convene and force us to an agreement that theyve dreamed up whether it be the PEB recommendation, a better deal for the craft employees, or contract where we get paid in skittles. We the are forced back to work with what they decide if we do go on strike after unions vote no on ratification.

Drasko

Reread the comment I was responding to. It asks about the President or Congress forcing the companies - not the unions or labor - to do something. The RLA applies to you and your fellow
Workers not the companies. It is true that the companies can’t be forced
To do anything without nationalization.

[Philip H]

This is where we are:

At this point, the RLA has run its course. If no agreement has been reached, either side becomes free to act in its own economic interests -- a work stoppage (or strike) by labor, a lockout by management, or unilateral implementation of management proposals (that generally would force a work stoppage).

However, Congress frequently imposes its own settlement. Such congressional action is not part of the RLA. The constitutional authority for Congress to impose its own settlements is found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution's commerce clause.

http://www.pennfedbmwe.org/Docs/reference/RLA_Simplified.html

Congress may well intervene and keep you all working in the current genius conditions. But it’s not because of the RLA.

[draskouasshat]

This is where we are:

http://www.pennfedbmwe.org/Docs/reference/RLA_Simplified.html

Congress may well intervene and keep you all working in the current genius conditions. But it’s not because of the RLA.

 

My point is that's its all part of the same process every single time. Technically, yes, it's not a written part of the RLA but its all part of the process, a process all brought on by congress that prevents us from exercising our right to strike. .
Good job splitting hairs.

Drasko

[Philip H]

I get the anger - you all have been screwed by your employers for years. Congress isn’t likely to help. The PEB completely sidestepped the scheduling issues.

What I don’t get is the anger at us who are in your corner and doing our best to sort all this out with the resources we have.

[draskouasshat]

I get the anger - you all have been screwed by your employers for years. Congress isn’t likely to help. The PEB completely sidestepped the scheduling issues.

What I don’t get is the anger at us who are in your corner and doing our best to sort all this out with the resources we have.

It's not anger towards you. That's my smart-assery.

The biggest thing is, because we can't really strike, we get ******** yet everyones just worried about their ups packages arriving. Then you have the explaining because the media has run with the sky is falling headlines and we get to explain things 8000 times over. You also have the people that act like they know what's going on and honestly, if you haven't been a part of any of this before, things get strewn about that aren't exactly correct. It's just a bunch of ***** lol.

I'm just ready to strike and watch this place flounder for a little while.

[John]

I'm just ready to strike and watch this place flounder for a little while.

We frequently flounder around here -- .. best wishes to you guys - I hope you get a fair and workable contract ..

The thing I've picked up on is the time off and hours of duty issues .. those suck .. almost reminds me of my years at sea .. 18 hour days for most of 6+ months straight with a few days off in port .  I can do without my UPS and Amazon crap for a while ... hell - I might save some money

[signalmaintainer]

I'm just ready to strike and watch this place flounder for a little while.

Me too. Even a 24-hour work stoppage will screw things up magnificently and cost the carriers millions over weeks getting things unsnarled. And it will reveal the lie in carriers' stupid statement to the PEB that "labor doesn't contribute to profits."

[Hawghead]

I'm just ready to strike and watch this place flounder for a little while.

See this is the part I don't get.  People who just want to strike to create chaos, when in the long run it has the probability to be much worse for us in the long run than it will be for the companies in the short run.  Everyone is so wrapped around the axle about the paid sick leave when it has never been a part of negotiations in the previous contracts.  Only after the unions made their pie in the sky initial proposal did it become a big issue for the rank and file, before that no one was talking about paid sick days.  The unions knew that in the current political climate, this was their best chance to get a significantly better contract then they had any hope for in previous years.  They went in with a huge ask knowing they weren't going to get all they wanted.  Asking for a 38% pay increase and walking away with a 24% is a win, the carriers wanted 4% increase.  The three days of time off without penalty isn't what we wanted, but it's a foot in the door, something to build on in the future.  I find it amazing that everyone seems to overlook the fact that this tentative agreement prevents the carriers from getting rid of conductors on through freights for the foreseeable future.  I've been here just over 18 years and I know for a fact that this tentative agreement is much better than anything the unions have negotiated since I hired on.  Are there things in this agreement that I'm not crazy about?  Sure, but overall I think this is the best deal we've ever had before.

I do have to admit I'd love to watch managers try to put a 14,000' Z train together and get it over the road in one piece 

Scott 

[Jbub]

See this is the part I don't get.  People who just want to strike to create chaos, when in the long run it has the probability to be much worse for us in the long run than it will be for the companies in the short run. 

I do have to admit I'd love to watch managers try to put a 14,000' Z train together and get it over the road in one piece 

Scott

I think you answered your own question. It's the sentiment that your work doesn't matter in regards to making profit for the company. You know without your expertise in how to correctly apply throttle and brake actions to keep a 14k foot train from causing a s***storm of a mess is what keeps the railroad making a profit. @signalmaintainer and @draskouasshat both keep your trains from hitting each other which keeps the lines open and making money. With out any of you, there is no railroad.

[signalmaintainer]

It's the sentiment that your work doesn't matter in regards to making profit for the company... With out any of you, there is no railroad.

Exactly, and thank you for saying that.

"Labor doesn't contribute to profits" is one of the stupidest, most tone-deaf, arrogant statements ever made in public by the carriers. Whatever faintly glowing embers remained of employee morale before that came to light is extinguished now. We want to make a point, and the only way to do that is by striking.

[TLOC]

First, are you a railroader?  Second, if you are, you clearly haven't paid much attention to the national agreements in the last 17 years that I've been railroading. Every one of them has lasted YEARS past our contracts expiration. This isn't my first rodeo.
It aint just the unions either pal. The companies are using the RLA and the government to finalize agreements instead of bringing anything worth looking at to the table. Theyre using congress to enforce a ***** PEB recommendation.  It's pretty simple to see if you're directly involved. If you don't have skin in the game, you really don't know much on the subject minus what the media is feeding you.
Drasko
BRS member as well maintainer

Didn’t realize I had to be a railroader to respond. Sorry, not! No, I am not or was never. I was in senior management of a business for 21 years in a non union environment that each employee negotiated his/her own wage package. Start with a base commission and go from there. That was brutal on both ends of negotiation.

I know all about how Congress has had to intervene to give railroaders a decent living wage but have always fallen below what the unions requested for life, like time off, sick and vacation days. I know Corporate could care less about it’s heart beat, it’s workers. Do you have to be a RR worker to see it. Even with bias media, it is very obvious Corporate feels it’s workforce is disposable. Tell me how a 10,000’ train can be handled safely by one crew member? Hell, why is there a train 10,000’? With less of a workforce there are greater profits. That what media talks about.

Don’t sign the contracts Congress, not the President, will impose. Strike for as many days it takes the President to get involved before saying “national security” and end a strike. Remember, this man in office now is the most friendly towards Unions as we have had in the 2000’s. Do you really want to see a former NYC businessman or a Florida governor helping your Union cause. That will never happen, think hard on that choice.

You want a strike do it. But will your BSR support it? When the President intervenes ignore it. Are they going to arrest every railroad worker or call out the National Guards to run trains or maintain the signals? We know management doesn’t have as many former railroad workers so they won’t be of much use.

Listen, I know you are screwed no matter what happens. Is resistance futile? Maybe but your Unions should try to break this stupid cycle of having Congress handle usually management sided contracts. I can’t image living basically on call for a job while the Corporate money grabbers think you and your brothers and sisters don’t  contribute to profit.

You don’t have to agree to any of what I wrote. That doesn’t and won’t bother me or actually if most are honest here on the Railwire anybody else here. You and other RR workers are on the proverbial island with no way safely off.

My last words on this, do what you feel is right for your family and you. You have my support and best wishes if you do that.

Tom

[signalmaintainer]

I know all about how Congress has had to intervene to give railroaders a decent living wage but have always fallen below what the unions requested for life, like time off, sick and vacation days.

No, you don't all about it. You know nothing about it, based on your statement above. The last time Congress had to intervene to end a work stoppage was in 1991, and Congress screwed the unions.

Don’t sign the contracts Congress, not the President, will impose. Strike for as many days it takes the President to get involved before saying “national security” and end a strike.

We don't "sign" anything; union leadership does. We only vote to ratify or not ratify. If we strike and Congress intervenes, it passes a law setting our wages and benefits (if it goes that far) and that's that. Strike over. Be stubborn and you're out of job.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

You want a strike do it. But will your BSR support it? When the President intervenes ignore it. Are they going to arrest every railroad worker or call out the National Guards to run trains or maintain the signals?

We cannot legally strike unless our union calls for a strike, and then only under the bounds of the Railway Labor Act. Otherwise it's just being AWOL from work, for which you can be terminated. And, yes, the president might just call out troops to enforce Congressional action if there is widespread resistance.

Maybe but your Unions should try to break this stupid cycle of having Congress handle usually management sided contracts.

What cycle? There is no cycle. You again have no idea what you're talking about. This is the first contract in 31 years that might -- might -- take Congressional action to resolve.

You don’t have to agree to any of what I wrote.

I don't, because it is blather based on an abject lack of knowledge.

[Hawghead]

We want to make a point, and the only way to do that is by striking.

 

This, in my opinion, is a perfect example of "cutting off your nose to spite your face".  Do you really think, that in a year from now, when all this is over that anyone will remember or care about a strike that lasted for a couple of days?  How long do you think we would have the support of the American people if a strike lasted long enough to seriously effect the economy?  The average American doesn't like unions to begin with, they think that because they don't belong to a union that they don't enjoy the fruits of the work of unions fought so long and so hard to obtain.  They don't understand that unions are what gave them vacations, cost of living increases, health care and sick leave.  As soon as people's lives started to be affected by our strike, they would turn on us like a pack of hungry wolves.  And we seem to forget that a "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".  We did not get everything we wanted in this proposed contract and we never will, that's how negotiations work.  You take a little and you give a little.  But we did get a decent raise, saved the jobs of a lot of our brothers and laid the ground work for better living and working conditions for the next generation of railroaders.  We didn't screw them like the pre-85 guys did to us.

As to the "labor doesn't contribute to profits" quote, I'm pretty sure that was taken out of context.  I believe the speaker was trying to make the point that more of the railroads profits come from investors than from actually moving freight and that while we/labor know we are going to make money when we go to work, investors are taking a risk that could cost them money.  I haven't gone back listened to the whole testimony but frankly I'm not going to get wrapped around the axle over one ill-advised, not well thought out quote from management.   But it is a good analogy for the current situation.  We could go on strike but we would be taking a huge risk that we would wind up with an even worse proposal than what is on the table now.  So I would ask my brothers to think long and hard... is this the hill you want to die on, or to keep with with the railroading theme, is this the hill you want to stall out on?

Thank you for your time,
Scott