Cowford wrote:Noel - you're convinced that management doesn't care about labor... aren't you being a bit melodramatic? Gosh, I just said that there are considerations and resistance from BOTH management and labor perspectives. And don't think for a minute that management has no concerns about this... just not true.
One-man crews will most likely bring about Positive Train Control, which will, WITHOUT QUESTION, improve train safety. Other concerns: "utility" crews could be used to when an extra man is needed... they're already used when two man crews need help to break trains at road crossings, etc. Now, about crew rest. Hotels price their rooms for railroads based in part on how often they can flip the rooms. Longer layovers means slower room turnover. Slower room turnover means eventual higher rooms costs. And as for crew pay... longer layovers may mean fewer hours for crews. So, are crews going to be accepting of that? Dispute this? What if the mandatory rest went up to 24hrs. Would crew on-duty hours be affected? Of course they would.
By your statements on this forum, you are indicating that management
does not particularly care about its troops.
You fail to address the consequences if one of your "one person trains"
has a mishap enroute, maybe a serious derailment where one person
could perhaps save the life of the other person, one person got seriously
sick and the other person arranged for help or a major problem that
requires two people to correct.
Cowford, I rather doubt from your posts that you have ever worked a
long mileage through freight train over the road. It is not always peaches
and cream and the second person does not always sit on his rear end
doing nothing.
The requirements of the hours of service law are set by the federal
government while the number of people on trains is negiotated between
the railroads and the unions. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AND ONE DOES
NOT NECESSARILY DICTATE THE OTHER.
Noel Weaver