MN/LIRR merger rumors

Courtesy of the UTU. Apologies if previously posted.

www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?articleid=32398

Ok, if the merger does take place, does anyone know what changes might be made to either railroad to compromise and make them one? Will the employees be responsible for working on the entire "MTA Railroad" property? That would suck working the extra list, getting off a shift in Speonk on a thursday night, and then after the minimum amount of rest, having to report to say, Croton Harmon or Danbury or something. lol.

While there is probably some cost benefits and ops benefits from this proposed merger, I would like to see the whole picture before I cast judgement.

the one thing is I would hate to see the name Long Island Rail Road disappear and become a fallen flag, as it is probably the only commuter rr that is operating today under the same name as it did in years past, making it the oldest operating commuter rr.

Just remember Kalikow is lame duck chairmasn to be replaced in a few days by Elioth Sander.
The Merger chance is slim to non as the labor agreements are to difficult to merge.
Equipment is not compatible and both railroads operate under different rules, both are still railroads under federal rules and MTA is only looking to undermine the agreements between BLE/UTU/ACRE and all other unions involved

I tend to agree with "Dutch" although I don't think a combination of the
two is impossible.
The two big losers in this could be top management people on both
railroads and the union leaders of ACRE which would represent the
smaller number of employees of the two railroads.
There would likely be one rule book and separate timetables, one rules
department (probably a combination of the two books), merged
departments at all levels. One potential benefit to the employees would
be bidding rights all over both systems and one pass for everybody good
on both lines.
Like "Dutch", I am not convinced that this will happen anytime soon but if
it does, I think a lot of heads will roll.
Noel Weaver

The rank and file working force (forget the bosses) will never go for it. There are not too many stike issues, but this would be one.

Too many disparities with wages, work rules and unions. Not to mention all the other things mentioned by previous posters.

Most Metro-North Railroad Engineers and Conductors would not be able to "qualify" on the Long Island Rail Road's Book of Rules and Physical Characteristics Exams. It's much easier to "qualify" at Metro-North.

In the event of a merger, ACRE members will placed at the bottom of the LIRR's BLE and UTU seniority rosters.
_______________________
If Conductors are in charge, why do they get promoted to Engineer?

At the LIRR Conductors and Engineers have parity, so there is no need to get "promoted".

As the news article said, this idea has been kicked around for years. It probably could happen quickly as far as manangement is concerned, but as far as employees are concerned, I agree with BMC, there are just too many contractual issues to be worked out. There are even different unions representing some of the crafts on Metro-north, then are representing the same crafts on the LIRR.
Other major stumbling blocks would be how to handle senority issues, if people were allowed to work the entire system, and as also said before, there are completely different work rules in effect on both railroads.
If a merger happens, it will probably be on an upper management level, and not much more then that.
The metro north M-7's are allready being brought to arch street for service, I went by there yesterday on the way to NY, and saw two strings of Metro North M-7's being serviced there.
According to a transportation manager I know, back around 1990 or so, new decals were delivered for the shops in morris park that said
"Metro South Commuter Railroad" Instead of "Long Island Railroad".
They were promptly sent back. I dont know if this is an urban legend, or if it actually happened. According to that manager, it did happen.

A Side note about Conductors and engineers on the LIRR...
On the LIRR, Conductors are not promoted to Engineer if the Engineer does not show up. Union work rules on the LIRR forbid this practice which is common on other railroads.
However, if the Conductor does not show up, and no one else on the train crew is qualified, the Engineer is given the responsibility of being in charge of the train, and is given an extra days pay. This does not happen very much anymore, since in most cases, a brakeman or collector would be a qualifiied Conductor, and they are promoted to Conductor.

Is that why we aren't promoted to Engineer when they don't show up? I didn't know it was union rules. I thought you had to be qualified as an engineer to be an engineer. Is this common on MN? Maybe the UTU should consider allowing us to run the trains as part of our contract.

According to a transportation manager I know, back around 1990 or so, new decals were delivered for the shops in morris park that said
"Metro South Commuter Railroad" Instead of "Long Island Railroad".
They were promptly sent back. I dont know if this is an urban legend, or if it actually happened. According to that manager, it did happen.

Shouldn't that be Metro East ? If it was Metro South, it would be in the Atlantic Ocean !

From what I read, the proposed merger will be for internal departments. Finance, engineering,etc as a cost saving move. Nothing was mentioned about droppping the LIRR name..

Everyone: I wondered myself if the idea was ever kicked around myself back in the later 80s to rename the LIRR but I was thinking LONG ISLAND COMMUTER RAILROAD not METRO-SOUTH OR EAST but I would love to see those prototype lettering and logo-would it have been the MNCR-style large "meatball" M? I like those letter fonts and graphics used by MNCR in the 1983-1994 time period before the name change-I think Long Island Rail Road with that letter style along with the large circle M would have looked good-instead we got the dreaded MTA pac-man logo-which I disliked from day one. I remember being told that the reason for the mid 90s name changes was to de-emphasize the word AUTHORITY being used-NYCT was a prime example. BUT-the MTA put those letters in every name and division - emphasizing the MTA authority even more - but the thought of a "MTA Rail Road" name just reeks with the sound of a bureaucracy to me! Just my thoughts...MACTRAXX

I need a history and an organization lesson here. First, Nelson Rockefeller had NY state purchase the LIRR back in the 50s. So when the MTA was formed was the LIRR transferred away from the state to the MTA or was the MTA just contracted for operation. And isn't MNRR actually owned by the MTA outright? What parts of the two--MN and LI--were proposed for the merger: management, operations, maintenance, everything or just selected portions of the orgizational structures? I would assume there are some interesting and good pro's and con's to this issue.

It has been talked about for many years (and may actually happen) for the LIRR and MNRR to form an alliance to combine purchases and supplies. Everything from track to toilet paper.

Outside of the very top level brass, it does not make sense to merge too many bosses either. Because of the previously mentioned different work rules, wages and unions on each line. So if a MN boss orders a crew to do something that is NOT a penalty claim for his MN crew, but is a time slip for a LIRR crew, why woud you do that? There's enough mile posts for each RR To supervise their own.

This purchasing and procurement merger makes sense and is no different than what some smart hospitals and school districts do. I don't think you'll ever have to worry about the actual operational systems ever having to work out a merger.

But it does make you wonder from a financial viewpoint how much money the New York State taxpayer would have saved over the years had the MTA made even just the equipment uniform from the start.

Is it true that in such a merger, union contracts essentially are immediately terminated since the original entites are no longer exisiting? There may be a provision in either or both railroads' contracts for this, but I thought I remember seeing something like this happen before, though perhaps not on a railroad.

Where school districts merge their finances, perhaps it streamlines things...but when two districts merge becoming a whole new district, staff cuts are inevitable.

One last thing...if there are no staff cuts, if its just the "financial" angle, are the savings really there to justify such a move?

Dave Becker