These constant posts encouraging a strike or to quit, the ones that lack depth and seem repetitive. I think its a manager(s) who are pushing for single man crews. Its the old find a way to turn a loss into a win, business strategy. Inflation, recession, supply chain issues, etc. If carriers dont have sufficient manpower for 2 man crews and are forced (sorry general public those greedy unions twisted our arms) but to keep the freight moving they were FORCED to resort to single man crews. [note: no mention of a compromise. no mention of going to single man crews AND establishing set shifts, set days offs, etc. Just train all conductors as engineers and fatten up the boards]
5 replies (most recent on top)
The one man crews has a lot to do with people not coming back. The CSX CEO used that very reason for wanting a one man crew. The cost of eliminating one person would be greater than the savings of not having available engineers to run those trains. The CEO are still trying to hold onto PSR likes it's a good thing. The two subcommittee hearings and the 2 STB hearings have proved every time that it's not so great. Ask yourself why no class 1 RR's are pushing the term PSR or some other stupid catch phrase. PSR is not great at all, and they damn well know it. Every RR that ran PSR or a version of it has been failing since. Go check out the hearings, so you can get a better understanding of how it will unfold if the railroads get there way.
The railroads have been waiting for one man crews for years. It has nothing to do with furloughed employees not coming back. The cost savings would be enormous for the carriers if this is approved some day. The lower level managers aren’t pushing for this; it’s everything they can do just to make it day to day. Why would they care? The people who stand to gain are the majority shareholders and board of directors. Everyone else has nothing to gain, but a lot to lose.
Another possibility that many low/mid level management may not be considering with regards to OMC implementaion.
It does not bode well for the current field level management to have a thousands of unemployed, hungry, and EXPERIENCED folks willing to undercut current management wages just to get that last 5-10 years of RRB banked...
They also say OMC would result in better quality of life for conductors and interestingly enough they don't mention it resulting in any better quality of life measures for engineers...
One could argue that the problems the RR's are having could be part of a bigger plan that was in fact planned. The amount of employees that furloughed and the issues they're having wouldn't support that idea though. Why push for a one man crew, if you have thousands of folks out on furlough ready to come back? Why not just eliminate those employees entirely, instead of keeping them on standby? The one man crew idea became more attractive for the RR's, when they realized the furloughs weren't coming back. I'm 100% percent sure the RR's didn't expect the government to get involved at some point. The executives I would bet probably thought that they could do what they wanted within the company without anyone taking notice or intervening. OOPS! They screwed that up! The supply chain start failing due to lack of manpower, and they just made it worse by laying off more people. The people that were fortunate or unfortunate enough to still be employed by the UP dumpster fire were given very little recognition for their efforts through the pandemic. Don't forget that the executives and various levels of management were forcing them to work through it while they had the luxury of working from home. All the problems the UP has right now could've all been planned, but why? If the management got their way and were awarded with one man crews, then what? What are they going to do with that train when that one person fails a stop test or goes on the ground? They don't have enough people now to move trains, so why reduce even more? You do make a good point in your post, but there has to be more to it than just wanting a one man crew.