FORT WORTH, Texas — Eight major freight railroads filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court last week arguing that one of the nation’s largest labor unions is refusing to negotiate on the continuous issue of train crew size.
On Oct. 3, attorneys representing eight freight carriers — BNSF Railway, Kansas City Southern, CSX Transportation, Grand Trunk Western, Illinois Central, Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific and the Belt Railway Company of Chicago — filed a suit in the Northern District of Texas against the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers – Transportation Division, also known as SMART-TD.
In the suit, the railroads claim that SMART-TD has refused to negotiate on crew size at the national level. The union argues that crew size should be dealt with at the local level with individual union branches. According to the lawsuit, the union also states that it is barred from negotiating crew size because of “moratorium” provisions in existing agreements. The railroads disagree with that interpretation.
The suit comes just weeks before negotiations are set to begin between the nation’s railroads and their unions over wages, benefits and work rules. The National Carriers’ Conference Committee — representing all Class I roads and a number of smaller ones — are set to sit down with the leaders of 12 different unions representing 140,000 railroaders beginning Nov. 1. The national bargaining occurs every five years. The last round of negotiations began in January 2015 and ended three years later. Labor agreements do not expire so there is no deadline for negotiations. However, the next round of talks could be particularly contentious as the issue of crew size is likely to come up.
“Crew consist is one of the most contentious issues that has ever arisen in collective bargaining between the railroads and the unions,” the lawsuit reads.
Earlier this year, the Federal Railroad Administration withdrew a proposed rulemaking that would have required two people aboard every freight train. [See “FRA withdraws proposed minimum crew size rule,” Trains News Wire, May 24, 2019.] In the report announcing its decision the, federal agency wrote, “each railroad is free to make train crew staffing decisions as part of their operational management decisions, which would include consideration of technological advancements and any applicable collective bargaining agreements.”
In the suit, attorneys for the Class Is leave little doubt that their clients want smaller crew sizes.
“Every day that the railroads are unable to obtain new agreements is another day that they are unable to realize the benefits of more efficient and productive operations,” the lawsuit reads.
Hours after the suit was filed, union officials attending a conference signed a resolution vowing to work in solidarity to fight the “Carriers’ attempts to undermine bargaining and divide us.”
“As we progress forward into this negotiating period and beyond, solidarity among our membership at all levels everywhere will drive us as we overcome the challenges ahead,” says Transportation Division President Jeremy Ferguson. “This unanimous resolution shows at the outset that we stand together and will speak with one loud, clear voice.”
Dam right it is my mindset!
And on the CSX at least, until the last prior right man is gone, the crew consist contract cannot be opened. That’s they way it is, that’s the way it WAS, and that’s the way even the company regarded it. Until todays screw the employee mindset came along CSX allowed the prior right rule to stand. (Prior right is basically anyone hired before 1982 IIRC)
And gee, a CONTRACT…you know, something some of you may realize has some meaning. Or perhaps it is something you honor as long as you like it then to hell with it? That appears to be the norm these days UNTIL it doesn’t fit. I wonder where THAT mindset came from?
@Curt Warfel, I definitely agree on the highway capacity issue. I do see it as one of those things everybody forgets about the platooning trucks idea. While autonomous vehicles would increase highway capacity somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-50% by virtue of having faster reaction times and thus following more closely, more efficient merging, etc, the highway system will not be able to fully keep up with the capacity demands from economic growth. The economy has historically doubled in size every 10-20 years, and the freeways can’t keep up.
It’s part of my reasoning, too, as to why I don’t see autonomous trucks as a huge threat to railroads, so long as railroads also benefit from improvements in technology, and move towards autonomous operation as well.
So for needing to take a “bio” break, eventually I see trains running themselves with engineers mostly in a “babysitter” role anyway. Several London Tube lines are already running this way. They open the doors, make announcements, etc and only run the train in an emergency. Similarly I would anticipate engineers watch to make sure the computer is functioning properly, sound the whistle as needed for stuff that’s not supposed to be there, etc. But even then, that’s getting awful close to just running them like the USAF operates Predator Drone from halfway around the world from a computer console.
One man crews are coming and all trains don’t need to have two crew members.. Any technological progress across all industries involves slimming down the labor pool and will continue to do so.. We shouldn’t be complaining about events that prove this time and time again. The problem is most don’t look past the present to determine how to prepare today for tomorrow.. Alot of folks are going to wish they were farmers in the future…
The Union had their time and their time is up. To Mr. Gless it’s your mindset that has allowed this country to become trailing status. The union’s were and are still here due to that giant sucking sound Mr. Perot spoke of years ago…
Present train length and tonnage is already ridiculous. A two-person crew replaces 100-200 truck drivers! What is next, platoon trains?
Grand Trunk Western? Gone but not forgotten.
What could possibly go wrong with one person “crews”?
This is motivated by the greed of Wall Street and railroad Executives that could care less about employee and public safety. They do the math and figure that paying claims for the failure of a 1 person crew causing devastation to a community (think Lac Megantic, PQ) is cheaper than the boost in share price.
Shame!
Railroads will push hard to get just a one person crew on all trains in order to “improve investor equity”. Then not if another disaster on the scale of Lac Magnantic happens the railroads will quickly blame the lone operator for the incident.
The companies are idiots. Drive away and anger customers because (PSR) is NOT the answer. Ultimately they cannot continue to gouge existing customers with higher freight tariffs so their only other option is to attack labor costs. Why not expand your business, improve customer service and INCREASE revenue? Too many idiots have listened to Harrison and drunk his Kool-Aid. Smarten up, instead of driving your industry into the ground, save it.
This issue has been discussed several times over the years. I don’t recall ever seeing what the dollar figures could would or should amount to. I really don’t have a clue as to what it could possibly be. Does anybody have information they could post?
I don’t know that I would use the single man operation of the trucking industry as evidence the same would work for railroads.
First; under current hours of service, a truck driver may spend only 11 hours behind the wheel and that 11 hours cannot be straight through. A driver must take at least a 30 minute break after 8 hours. A truck driver also has the option of pulling off the road and grabbing a bite to eat or taking a “bio break” so; we’re not really talking about being completely alone for the 11 hours of driving time.
If a truck driver gets sleepy; he can also pull off the road and grab a few hours sleep.
A single individual in the cab of a locomotive would be completely alone for up to 12 hours at a time. There would be no opportunity to “pull over” and take a break, grab a meal and possibly chat with someone else. I would also wonder if a lone engineer would have to “hold it” or if he could leave the train in Trip Optimizer while he ran to the head for a bio break. Too; an engineer operating alone would not have the freedom to simply stop the train for a bit and catch a nap if he or she feels the need.
No disrespect intended to professional truck drivers but; I would submit an engineers job is far more complex even with PTC and Trip Optimizer. My overriding concern – even with these “tools” – is task overload. Conductors don’t just hang out in the cab, they also have responsibilities and those would devolve to the engineer alone under one person operation.
In terms of utilizing a “master conductor” who would be assigned a set territory and travel by highway to reach a train in trouble; what do we do when roads are closed due to bad weather? Or how would it be handled if the train goes into emergency in a remote location without any road access?
And can anyone seriously contend with a straight face that the railroads won’t attempt to utilize fewer and fewer master conductors – assigning those left larger and larger territories under the guise of “reducing labor costs”?
I am not convinced that autonomous trucks are the threat to railroads some try to make them. Anyone who has traveled on I-81 in Virginia; across I-40 in Tennessee; or I-80 in Pennsylvania and Ohio knows that the right lane of these interstates are at times “Chinese Walls” of eighteen wheelers. Now; imagine taking even a third of the thousands of containers and trailers that currently move by rail and shifting them to the already congested interstates. Autonomous trucking or not; it simply won’t work. In my mind the only way autonomous trucks will work is to have dedicated rights of way on which they will travel. And we’ve already got that – it’s called the railroad.
One man crews will be nothing more than a continuation of the wealth transfer that’s been taking place in this country for the last 20 years – give or take. We eliminate skilled jobs to save money so the rich can become richer. I hope the Brotherhoods draw a line in the sand over this issue.
I hope the railroads and unions are both pragmatic on this issue. It would be a very bad idea for railroads to axe two-man crews on most trains too soon, and also very bad for the unions to clutch the second man for two long.
History tells us a clear story: that technology raises worker production and routinely allows for reduced staffing. The railroads and unions went through a very painful period from 1960-1990 in eliminating 3+ man crews. Ultimately, economics and technology will determine that, at some point, the second man is no longer needed on most trains. And at some point, the number may even be zero. But that’s in the distant future. But what is clear, is that conductors ARE going to be eliminated on road trains, probably beginning within the next decade. The easier that the two sides can make this happen, the better.
It can really go one of two ways: either they negotiate a means of tapering off the C&E pools down to mostly just engineers, or the unions can clutch to the second man forever, until economics or somebody creative dunks the whole system and everybody is cut at once. This would hurt untold numbers of trainmen in an unnecessary fashion, but would be essentially required economically at some point, especially when the trucking industry goes driverless.
Probably the best solution is for railroads to protect the status of crews already working, and those it hires until they begin to downsize, and move to single-man territory by territory as technology allows. There will be some furloughs in there most likely, perhaps some moving around. Perhaps offer competitive buyouts for if/when they want to trim faster. A structured, known method is something that should be setup in advance, and it is in both the interests of labor and the railroads, both large and small.
As an aside, technology wise, what we’re likely talking about is PTC becoming either via rule changes or upgrades a “vital” system, that is considered much safer and near fail-safe. That eliminates on most territories the “but the second man is a second set of eyes and judgement” argument, at least for the most part. I can already see the comments above who will wholeheartedly and vehemently disagree with this statement, and we’re just going to have to leave it there, as it is a deep ideological and political divide similar to the current split between today’s two major political parties. Let’s keep it civil and on the facts/arguments, if we go there, please!
I’ll support my assertion with the fact that PTC and/or Trip Optimizer have gotten trains to near-automatic and much less likely to suffer from human error, and it won’t be a big leap to go to true automatic in many areas. The trucking industry does show that single-man operation of transportation can work safely. There are problems to work through with trains going single-man, principally breakdowns, for which the railroads will likely institute a “master conductor” or some similar idea to be a mobile form of aid. Likely, there would be yardmen assigned to help with assembling trains. It may even work best for dedicated yard hostler multi-man crews to build trains, then hand off the ready-to-pull train to the single engineer.
One thing often lost in the conversation over train crew sizing is train length and tonnage. The main reason to run long trains is that it significantly lowers crew costs. With only one operator per train, this will reduce the mathematics with regards to running longer trains, perhaps shifting the balance back to the shorter ranges at least a bit, in an effort to alleviate some issues in yards and running more frequent service in some corridors. Looking further forward to the eventuality of autonomous trains, when crew costs on the road are zero (theoretically yards are a long, long way off from being automatic, there needs to be wholesale changes in equipment for that) there would be no real reason, other than fuel efficiency, to run long trains at all, especially on double-tracked routes. Computers could fairly easily run train after train in the 2000-4000 foot region, one right after the other, without signalling under the PTC-style calculations of stopping distance. That would pretty much eliminate the need to double over trains in yards when arriving/departing, cut coupler forces down a ton, so less failures there, and the operating computer would be more accurate with less variation due to there being much less train to factor in.
It is always a good idea to plan for the future. The unions have a great opportunity to be a integral part of moving towards more computerized operation of trains, at least on the PTC-equipped mainlines for now. They could help write operating procedures, set consist requirements, and work out wages/benefits/rights for displaced workers. Or, they could clutch two-man crews until they’re all kicked out in the street. Ask many brakemen from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Technology ALWAYS wins.*
*Except against nature. Nature really does always win. She plays on a whole different level!
Interesting that Soo Line is not part of this lawsuit.
Separately what exactly do the railroads want? One person crews or less trains with a third crewman. We can’t tell.
I am with the unions on the point that a two man are safer then a one man crew for through freight (chain-gang). Chain-gang life a very difficult. The NP and BN crews started at Northtown (Minneapolis) and ended their run at Staples, MN. The run-through agreement began in 1988 to create a Northtown to Dilworth, MN interdivisional crew run. Roughly half of the crews are Northtown people and the other half are Dilworth people. You spend 1/3 of your life at home, 1/3 of your life on the road, and the other 1/3 of your life at the away from home terminal. Chain-gang crews can be called at any hour of the day or night, but now they have a better idea when they will be called. I called crews for the NP at Northtown for a year or so woke up many people at 3AM to come to work at 5AM. Each crew person needs to be alert and be aware of slow orders and whistling to road crossings.
Ed Burns
Retired Class 1 from Northtown, MN
There is nothing to negotiate here. The carriers are crying wolf because they are not getting their way on this. I am a ground service class 1 carrier w/21 yrs service. My wages help me take care of my family and provide health cvge for my wife. I don’t dig my job, but what I have in return motivates me to follow the rules and show up to work. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when comments are made, like Gerald McFarlane, then that becomes personal to say my job doesn’t matter. Most people don’t have a clue on what goes behind the scenes aboard a train and the thought “just plug it in” does not work in the real world.
I’ll say this, unit trains that run from point to point without any switching or changing of consists don’t need 2 crew members, they’re almost like an airline flight…you load it up, put it on auto-pilot until destination and then you unload it, rinse and repeat.
Whether you agree with their position or not; the Brotherhoods would not be doing their jobs if they failed to oppose railroad management on the crew size issue.
The reason manufacturing LEFT THE US is because they want drones who work for 4 dollars a day while still charging the same prices for their products. That’s why we have unions in this country. So the average Joe can make a living, raise a family, have a better life for their offspring then they had…you know, the American Way, or at least it was. Thanks to people such as your kind that’s been trashed. Rail unions are one of the few walls left against low wages and poverty.
Good grief, we gave them a rear brakey, the head brakey, the fireman, the caboose, all in the name of “we’ll be better, we’ll be the low cost carrier, we’ll get business back from the highways”….yeah, right, never happened did it?
Glad to be retired.
Unions drive out efficiency and increase labor cost beyond the skill level of a workforce. There’s a reason why manufacturing left the US..
Why should the unions negotiate? They are having the politicos do the work for them by passing state legislation on their behalf. That is why the Indiana RR is suing the State of Illinois. The unions *own* those politicians.
Power will be exerted where power exists.
Right now, the unions are exerting it through the transportation laws.