5 ms·

My understanding of the FIRST big problem with PSR is that it creates trains longer than the system is designed to handle, thus all the sidings that used to all

My understanding of the FIRST big problem with PSR is that it creates trains longer than the system is designed to handle, thus all the sidings that used to allow trains to pass in single tracked areas are unavailable, which increases fragility of the system in general. This makes precision scheduling impossible... what this really is, is let's make all the workers wait (for free!) while we figure out how we can finally get the freight in monstrously long trains moving through a system that wasn't designed for it. The SECOND problem is that slashing the labor pool, and thus reducing the labor cost at the expense of reliability and system performance, appears to be the actual goal of PSR. I stand with the workers, no essential worker should be forced to work "on-call". Especially not people so important to safety and National Security.

bombcar 4y ago
I don't really have a problem with "on-call" workers (after all, everyone on a ship is perpetually "on-call" during the tour) but it needs to be compensated and handled correctly.
- coffeebeqn 4y ago
  On-call is fine if you get paid for the on-call hours and you have agreed to them in your contract. Just making people work for 24h a day for free is unacceptable. Oh it’s not work you’re just waiting to get pages at a minutes notice - yeah that’s work
ab123456789 4y ago
The reason why labor received more rights in Europe after WWII is that the rulers were worried about labor following the example of the Soviets. Carrot pre-empting geopolitical problems. As soon as the Soviet Union went away, the negotiating power of labor started to weaken. The statements above are not to be taken as an endorsement of the various kinds of genocide and horrors Communism created in the places where it ruled. It is just an observation that power, or the implicit threat of applying it, is what rules in the end. Lots of words are used to cover that raw reality.
- theironhammer 4y ago
  [dead]
lazide 4y ago
What I don’t get is why folks don’t just quit and go to an industry with less abusive labor practices - hell even construction laborers get days off.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  Switching jobs is hard for a ton of reasons. We also do need people to operate the rail system. "Everybody just leaves and becomes a software engineer" isn't good for society.
  - haswell 4y ago
    I think working in the tech bubble has really created some misunderstandings about the average worker’s ability to just up and leave when things get bad. With that said, I don’t think this is about everyone leaving as much as it is about forcing the rail industry to capitulate. But for the aforementioned reasons, this is unlikely to happen, and rail companies know that. It’s a really sad state of affairs, and I’m not sure what fixes it aside from drastic political shifts during elections, but even that seems highly questionable.
    - lazide 4y ago
      This has been going on for decades. The changes to the industry were in 94.
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    We'll never have full self-driving trains with that attitude. I think I know someone that could start working on it.
  - lazide 4y ago
    One thing I learned a long time ago in ops is that if it doesn’t break (because someone sacrifices they’re well-being), then it won’t get fixed. The managers and leaders keep pushing things because they can.
    - 4y ago
bcrosby95 4y ago
I was talking with one of these on call workers working for BNSF, and calling it on call doesn't do the terribleness justice. They are 8 hours on, and 8 hours off. The on call call is also 90 minutes ahead of time. So more like 6.5 hours off. Many end up sleeping in the parking lot. There's an alarm that rings every minute on the train - a dead man's switch. Oftentimes this is the only thing keeping them awake. To top it off, no sick leave. And these people are overseeing fucking trains. Congress backing these companies in any way is absolutely disgusting.
- vannevar 4y ago
  >Congress backing these companies in any way is absolutely disgusting. Just to be clear, Congress is not backing them, the Republican Party is.
  - raydev 4y ago
    Then why did the bill, without paid sick leave, pass both the House and Senate with bipartisan support?
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      > Then why did the bill, without paid sick leave, pass both the House and Senate with bipartisan support? As I understand it, all but one Democrats (Manchin) voted for the 7 days paid sick leave amendment giving it 52-43 but it needed 60 votes.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
        Do the math on the raw numbers, 5 Democrats simply did not vote on these measures, Manchin voted against, 6 Republicans voted for it. The question is why did Team Pelosi not first try a bill with both measures, that's how you get something "hard" passed, bundling it with something "essential."
semiquaver 4y ago
> The SECOND problem is that slashing the labor pool, and thus reducing the labor cost Just to clarify, did you mean slashing a given company’s jobs? The labor pool is the group of people in the job market available to perform a function. Slashing _that_ would drive salaries and thus labor costs up, not down.
- mikewarot 4y ago
  >Just to clarify, did you mean slashing a given company’s jobs? I meant the labor pool in existence at the company at that moment in time... the current employees and those that could be contracted in, pulled down from management, etc. The supply of labor physically available to run the trains in that instance, not market wide.
- Avshalom 4y ago
  No, slashing the labor pool is supposed to increase the leverage labor has allowing labor to demand higher salaries. It doesn't just make salaries go up on their own. But as long as you can ignore the demands of that labor pool it doesn't necessarily do anything. That said they slash jobs, but because it's specifically-skilled labor slashing jobs also slashes the labor pool, when there's no jobs people either never develop the skills/experience or they leave the field --and don't come back-- when they get laid off.
  - semiquaver 4y ago
    > No, slashing the labor pool is supposed to increase the leverage labor has allowing labor to demand higher salaries. It doesn't just make salaries go up on their own. This is an odd straw man. Who would claim that any economic mechanism happens “on its own”? > as long as you can ignore the demands of that labor pool it doesn't necessarily do anything. _Specifically with regard to salaries_ this article very clearly says that the opposite is occurring: > the companies agreed to a 24 percent pay increase by 2024, annual $1,000 bonuses, and a freeze on health-care costs. > […] > The freight carriers can afford to make concessions on pay. It isn’t that painful to increase wages by a sizable amount when you’ve recently slashed your head count by 30 percent It seems weird to argue in the hypothetical about what the railroads’ actions might do to constrain salaries when there is ample evidence that’s not true.

bombcar 4y ago

I don't really have a problem with "on-call" workers (after all, everyone on a ship is perpetually "on-call" during the tour) but it needs to be compensated and handled correctly.

coffeebeqn 4y ago
On-call is fine if you get paid for the on-call hours and you have agreed to them in your contract. Just making people work for 24h a day for free is unacceptable. Oh it’s not work you’re just waiting to get pages at a minutes notice - yeah that’s work

ab123456789 4y ago

The reason why labor received more rights in Europe after WWII is that the rulers were worried about labor following the example of the Soviets. Carrot pre-empting geopolitical problems. As soon as the Soviet Union went away, the negotiating power of labor started to weaken. The statements above are not to be taken as an endorsement of the various kinds of genocide and horrors Communism created in the places where it ruled. It is just an observation that power, or the implicit threat of applying it, is what rules in the end. Lots of words are used to cover that raw reality.

theironhammer 4y ago
[dead]

lazide 4y ago

What I don’t get is why folks don’t just quit and go to an industry with less abusive labor practices - hell even construction laborers get days off.

UncleMeat 4y ago
Switching jobs is hard for a ton of reasons. We also do need people to operate the rail system. "Everybody just leaves and becomes a software engineer" isn't good for society.
- haswell 4y ago
  I think working in the tech bubble has really created some misunderstandings about the average worker’s ability to just up and leave when things get bad. With that said, I don’t think this is about everyone leaving as much as it is about forcing the rail industry to capitulate. But for the aforementioned reasons, this is unlikely to happen, and rail companies know that. It’s a really sad state of affairs, and I’m not sure what fixes it aside from drastic political shifts during elections, but even that seems highly questionable.
  - lazide 4y ago
    This has been going on for decades. The changes to the industry were in 94.
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  We'll never have full self-driving trains with that attitude. I think I know someone that could start working on it.
- lazide 4y ago
  One thing I learned a long time ago in ops is that if it doesn’t break (because someone sacrifices they’re well-being), then it won’t get fixed. The managers and leaders keep pushing things because they can.
  - 4y ago

bcrosby95 4y ago

I was talking with one of these on call workers working for BNSF, and calling it on call doesn't do the terribleness justice. They are 8 hours on, and 8 hours off. The on call call is also 90 minutes ahead of time. So more like 6.5 hours off. Many end up sleeping in the parking lot. There's an alarm that rings every minute on the train - a dead man's switch. Oftentimes this is the only thing keeping them awake. To top it off, no sick leave. And these people are overseeing fucking trains. Congress backing these companies in any way is absolutely disgusting.

vannevar 4y ago
>Congress backing these companies in any way is absolutely disgusting. Just to be clear, Congress is not backing them, the Republican Party is.
- raydev 4y ago
  Then why did the bill, without paid sick leave, pass both the House and Senate with bipartisan support?
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > Then why did the bill, without paid sick leave, pass both the House and Senate with bipartisan support? As I understand it, all but one Democrats (Manchin) voted for the 7 days paid sick leave amendment giving it 52-43 but it needed 60 votes.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
      Do the math on the raw numbers, 5 Democrats simply did not vote on these measures, Manchin voted against, 6 Republicans voted for it. The question is why did Team Pelosi not first try a bill with both measures, that's how you get something "hard" passed, bundling it with something "essential."

semiquaver 4y ago

> The SECOND problem is that slashing the labor pool, and thus reducing the labor cost Just to clarify, did you mean slashing a given company’s jobs? The labor pool is the group of people in the job market available to perform a function. Slashing _that_ would drive salaries and thus labor costs up, not down.

mikewarot 4y ago
>Just to clarify, did you mean slashing a given company’s jobs? I meant the labor pool in existence at the company at that moment in time... the current employees and those that could be contracted in, pulled down from management, etc. The supply of labor physically available to run the trains in that instance, not market wide.
Avshalom 4y ago
No, slashing the labor pool is supposed to increase the leverage labor has allowing labor to demand higher salaries. It doesn't just make salaries go up on their own. But as long as you can ignore the demands of that labor pool it doesn't necessarily do anything. That said they slash jobs, but because it's specifically-skilled labor slashing jobs also slashes the labor pool, when there's no jobs people either never develop the skills/experience or they leave the field --and don't come back-- when they get laid off.
- semiquaver 4y ago
  > No, slashing the labor pool is supposed to increase the leverage labor has allowing labor to demand higher salaries. It doesn't just make salaries go up on their own. This is an odd straw man. Who would claim that any economic mechanism happens “on its own”? > as long as you can ignore the demands of that labor pool it doesn't necessarily do anything. _Specifically with regard to salaries_ this article very clearly says that the opposite is occurring: > the companies agreed to a 24 percent pay increase by 2024, annual $1,000 bonuses, and a freeze on health-care costs. > […] > The freight carriers can afford to make concessions on pay. It isn’t that painful to increase wages by a sizable amount when you’ve recently slashed your head count by 30 percent It seems weird to argue in the hypothetical about what the railroads’ actions might do to constrain salaries when there is ample evidence that’s not true.