CSX and labor agreements

I think the thread regarding rumors of the sale of CSX was locked inappropriately. Another good thread falling victim to the overmoderation that goes on here.

Both Crazy Nip and Noel Weaver both made very valid points in their arguments as each had their stand on their respective sides of the proverbial fence that separates union from management.

I didn't see any evidence of a flame war. A spirited debate? Yes - but with lots of good information regarding railroad from a historical and business prospective. Unfortunately when you add railfans into the mix, that often have little to add to the arguement other than background noise that takes the focus away from the real issues because they could care less about how the business works - they just want to see shiny locomotives rumbling by no matter what the cost.

Obviously the union has their agenda and management has theirs in order to protect their respective interests. Unions are about protecting jobs, management is about increasing profit and reducing costs. Ask any labor relations person and they'll tell you it's extremely difficult to get both sides to agree - and more often than not, the agreement is an uneasy alliance at best.

Nessman,

I agree with 99% of what you said. I'm just an armchair rail fan and I learned a tremendous amount from that thread. I've been in a union and I've been in management. As Nessman stated, I saw good arguments for both and I also see many areas where change must be made on both sides to compete in the new 21st century economy. Them and us isn't management vs. labor anymore, it's U.S. jobs vs. China, India, etc.
The 1% I don't agree with you on is that there was a good bit of flaming going on. I would like to see that discussion reopened without the name calling going on, but with such an volatile subject, I don't know if that's possible.

Brad Smith wrote:change must be made on both sides to compete in the new 21st century economy. Them and us isn't management vs. labor anymore, it's U.S. jobs vs. China, India, etc.

You hit the nail right on the head.

The 1% I don't agree with you on is that there was a good bit of flaming going on. I would like to see that discussion reopened without the name calling going on, but with such an volatile subject, I don't know if that's possible.

I didn't see it as flaming... but then again I'm thick-skinned so a little bit of name calling doesn't faze me. If you think that's bad - try working in a blue-collar environment... it goes on all the time. Boys will be boys you see. Both stuck their ground and didn't cross the line with personal insults or anything of that matter (IMHO). You're gonna get a few people exchanging barbs no matter what - it's not a reason to close a thread. Just let it flow and it'll eventually get back on track.

I am going to have to disagree the Moderator I believe made the right choice to lock the thread. It ran it course so it is time to move on and have Mr. Nip make an apolgiy.

crazy_nip wrote:Yes, in the past they have gone though some changes, from 4-5 man crews down to two, but they cant own up to the fact that those extra 3 men were completely bogus positions, just warm bodies earning a big paycheck.

Maybe I'm just missing something here. Why is it so important to you for these "they" you speak of to accept your perspective on this as their own? OK, there was a period of time when unions were able to keep more people on trains than were absolutely necessary. Yeah, there were some cushy, overpaid jobs. So stipulated. And now they're gone. That's current reality. Things change. They will continue to change.

So, seriously, what's your point? You resent firemen on diesels -- I get that. Remember, the agreements that allowed for all of those crewmembers were accepted by the railroad managers as well as unions representing the crafts. It's called collective bargaining -- a cornerstone of what has enabled the middle class to come to exist in this country.

And yes, the company really benefitted from having a ready source of qualified engineers to tap into on holidays and weekends. You resent that. I get that. The railroads didn't like that arrangement either -- so they negotiated it away. Another turn of the page.

Do you think the CEO of a railroad today gives a whit about the 1972 manning agreement? So why do you?

Fact: before portable radios were widely used, a crew that was required to do switching along the line of road needed those extra bodies to pass signals to the engineer. They had to get up on top of the equipment and wave a fusee or a lantern around or nothing would get done. This was going on as late as the late '60s. And often there had to be someone on the other side of the cab, too, just to see the brakemen passing signals.

Portable radios changed everything. So did roller bearings -- eliminating the need for someone to walk the train and inspect for hotboxes every time it stopped. Automatic block signals precluded a flagman from having to hoof it back from the train whenever it stopped, too (as required by law, by the way). Technology changes, operating practices change to adapt. Union agreements (legal contracts) are often the slowest part to change in that equation. It's a fact of life. You'll save yourself a lot of stress if you just accept it.

Whenever someone doesn't agree with the way you see things are they ignorant of real life (as perceived by you)? That seems pretty shallow (and self-absorbed) to me!

LCJ - you made an excellent point. Technology does continue to evolve that improves safety and operating efficiency. And you are right that union agreements "are the slowest part to change in that equation." So you're saying that the unions are the biggest impediment to positive change within the industry, at least from the perspective of using technology to create a safer and more effective national rail network?

History certainly backs up your position: diesels/firemen, EOT devices/cabooses and 4-5 man crews, remote control/ 2-man yard crews, and (coming soon) PTC and the advent of 1 man crews.

What if the unions recognized technological improvement for what it can offer and actually embraced change as a positive/opportunity for its membership?

Cowford wrote:What if the unions recognized technological improvement for what it can offer and actually embraced change as a positive/opportunity for its membership?

That would be fine, if in fact the carriers were actually looking to institute changes as a way of delivering positive opportunities for union members. You're in a dream world if you believe that. I don't think for a minute you really do. CSX management is out to gain advantage no matter what the results are for union members, and the unions know that from experience. Non-agreement employees are subject to that as well, but you have no recourse (other than quitting!).

Yeah, collective bargaining slows down (moderates) change somewhat. If you want to call that an impediment, I guess you can. In a perfect world, both parties would be seeking a true win/win arrangement. It takes high levels of trust on both sides for that to occur. It's not there now.

Management wants to be able to short circuit that process and make it happen without trust being built. Building trust means no more finger pointing and blaming. Are you ready to accept that? Your posts say otherwise..

AmtrakFan wrote:Acutally I have a job. I am 15 Mr. NIP.

Call us when you're in your 30's, working 50+ hours a week at a job that you have fight traffic every morning and afternoon, with a family to feed, mortgage to pay and home to maintain.

Oh, and Children shall be seen and not heard.

Everyone's entitled to believe whatever they wish.

Please don't make assumptions about my point of view. I don't have a dog in this "fight." I left the ranks of railroad unions about 20 years ago, and I don't support either management or labor on these issues. I've moved on to engage in the world of business that is generally outside of the railroad industry.

To be honest, I'm really tired of getting the same old arguments from either side of the issues.

Cowford picks up on only what supports his view and disregards the rest. That's not constructive at all. I sincerely hope he's not in Labor Relations.

Blaming (like I said, finger pointing) one party or the other for the state of things today is foolish and unproductive. So is bemoaning the length of time it has taken for unions to accept changes that would benefit the corporations at the expense of union membership. It's a reality of life. To get different results, we have to do things differently. On both sides.

I'll say it once more -- nothing will change in this arena until more trust is built. Until all parties accept this fact and change the way they come at the union/labor relationship, we will continue to have slow progress of accepting technological changes. Count on it.

I'll sign off on this one now. I have nothing else to contribute.

It sems lately that another negative aspect of most of upper management is that it seems as though they didn't come from railroad service (i.e. Train & Engine service). and therefore don't know how to keep things moving.

CSX Conductor wrote:It sems lately that another negative aspect of most of upper management is that it seems as though they didn't come from railroad service (i.e. Train & Engine service). and therefore don't know how to keep things moving.

And even if they did they would still be held in the same regard by people working in lower positions

Having read everyones thoughts about railroad upper management in general, I'm curious to know if anyone has specific thoughts about Carl Taylor, who became CSXT's Executive Vice President for Operations in early 1998.

efin98 wrote:

CSX Conductor wrote:It sems lately that another negative aspect of most of upper management is that it seems as though they didn't come from railroad service (i.e. Train & Engine service). and therefore don't know how to keep things moving.

And even if they did they would still be held in the same regard by people working in lower positions

I do not agree with this one at all. During my years, we had some really
good supervisors who worked in the ranks. They knew for the most part
what it was like working in the field, they worked a lot of the same jobs
themselves.
There were a lot of trainmasters, road foremen and supervisors at this
level who we all knew well, and they knew us well too. If one of them
came to the conductor or the engineer with a problem, we would work
with them to fix the problem if it was possible.
We knew these people had a job to do and that they were on the other
side of the fence but we were still on first name basis with them and they
with us.
One of the best top managers with Conrail came out of engine service, he
was Ron Conway who was at one time an engineer, I believe, on the B. &
A. He also had a brother who was also a B. & A. engineer. I think he was
a General Manager at the time of the CSX takeover and eventually, they
appointed him to a top job in Jacksonville. I think he was actually president of CSX for a while.
He actually set up a program to fix up the tracks on important lines but
the COB (I think it was John Snow) did not want to spend money on track
work, the feeling was to let the tracks go downhill and they did just that.
Ron Conway got the ax after that and the work never got done.
All road foremen today come from the ranks of engineers so they know
what it is like to run a train. Generally, they are reasonable people, I can
only remember a very small number of them whom I did not like during
my entire career and I knew a lot of them over my time. For example,
we had one off the PRR who came to NHRR territory after the Penn Central
takeover and he thought all NHRR people should have been garbage
collectors. It took quite a few years but eventually, he got canned.
I will grant it that there were a few people, both conductors and engineers
who always had a chip on their shoulder but they were in a minority for
sure. Everybody knew who they were, too.
Noel Weaver

AmtrakFan wrote:
Oh, and Children shall be seen and not heard.

I am alllowed to say what's apporiate. Oh Yes this sale could happen within this year.

Jay Potter wrote:Having read everyones thoughts about railroad upper management in general, I'm curious to know if anyone has specific thoughts about Carl Taylor, who became CSXT's Executive Vice President for Operations in early 1998.

Ran into him before that. The people who worked for him seemed to fear him but didn't respect him. Heard that some who disagreed with him were moved to undesireable locations.