4 ms·

> The reason people are so upset isn't necessarily because of the environmental impact, it's because the people who work on these trains have been warning thing

> The reason people are so upset isn't necessarily because of the environmental impact, it's because the people who work on these trains have been warning things like this could happen for years, and when they tried to strike over it, the federal government stepped in and crushed them into submission. I've seen a few people say this. I'm sympathetic to the rail workers but, what's the evidence that this derailment had anything to do with the attempted rail workers strike? AFAIK, the primary issue there was sick leave--and, generally, a more humane work schedule. While I'm very much in favor of these things, I don't see what it has to do with this accident, other than that it presents a superficial opportunity to score some points. Perhaps some mistake was made that would have been more likely if the workers were better rested? But if that's the extent of the connection, without any evidence of a real causal relationship, the argument seems irresponsibly speculative.

Bonooru 4y ago
If there is any chance that human error contributed to this disaster (either via the people there or maintenance deferred or done less than perfectly), then "a more humane work schedule" would have made that less likely due to everyone involved being well rested.
- colpabar 4y ago
  It's funny yet sad at how differently HN reacts to a company making its employees go into the office than this. Maybe that's how we should frame it - "railroads force employees back into office, even when sick" might garner some more sympathy.
slantedview 4y ago
> what's the evidence that this derailment had anything to do with the attempted rail workers strike? AFAIK, the primary issue there was sick leave--and, generally, a more humane work schedule. The workers had many other complaints, including companies forcing workers to drive dangerously long trains with a single person staffing it. That seems absolutely relevant when you have a train car burning and nobody notices.
- notch898a 4y ago
  If you drive a vehicle knowing it is unsafe shouldn't you refuse? Any other vehicle and we would hold the worker accountable for not refusing such a negligent order. The news articles about the rail workers complaining it was unsafe seems to show they are complicit as they continued operating in unsafe conditions anyway.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    I wonder if anything disempowering happened in that industry recently that might have discouraged rail workers from speaking out
    - pixl97 4y ago
      This is exactly what is happening. Any worker that continually bring up problems is removed one way or another and you effectively get the normalization of deviance via the dead sea effect. Things that should be called out are suddenly "That's what we always have to do because we don't have enough time", and 99.999% of the time it works out fine. Then the ten thousandth time you explode a gaping hole of poison in the earth.
  - c1ccccc1 4y ago
    > Any other vehicle and we would hold the worker accountable for not refusing such a negligent order. Say the worker refuses that order and their boss says "okay, you're fired". Would we also give that worker legal protection? Would we also hold accountable the higher ups who gave that order and set the policies for how trains are to be run? If not, then you now understand why the accident happened.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      >Would we also give that worker legal protection? Yes I believe that's exactly what is to happen. See this explicitly spelled out https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/mou/2012-07-16 https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/mou/2012-07-16 . I've worked in goods transport in interstate navigable waterways and we had the same thing, literally anyone can "stop work" for unaddressed imminent dangerous conditions and are protected against retaliation. Even if the protection fails it is better my own family starve to death than to poison an entire city; just following orders isn't an excuse (and in any case, such a company of such character company would fire you after the wreck). note: not legal advice
colpabar 4y ago
Stealing someone else's comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34784255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34784255 The sick day thing is the only thing that gets talked about so that people come to the same conclusion you have. That was a big part of what they wanted, sure, but they also had plenty of demands on better safety precautions.
dendrite9 4y ago
As I understand one of the things the rail companies want to do is have just one person running a train instead of the current two. In this case the single engineer likely would not have been able to decouple the other 10 hazardous containers and pull away. Also that this failure happened due to a seized axle or bearing is indicative of the refusal to invest in the rail equipment and safety systems. There are a number of different ways to detects failing bearings that have been at least deployed for decades. I thought I heard this might have been a broken rail but that seems to have just been a guess on the day of the accident. "The crew was able to uncouple the locomotives and move them to safety, preventing an even bigger tragedy. This would not have been possible under the various management schemes now being proposed to operate such trains with single person crews. Further, because Train 32N carried the standard crew of two or more workers, they were able to immediately take the necessary emergency measures to ensure a safe and effective response." From a RWU email: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Press-Release--Fiery-Ohio-Train-Wreck-the-Result-of--PSR-.html?soid=1116509035139&aid=RspHKqRlJkg&mibextid=Zxz2cZ&fbclid=IwAR3_-mgZPBZskyZmlgfD4Tko5mKawjZKonOKaj8rnamV9vQXk3q5ulbpqls https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Press-Release--Fiery-Ohi...

Bonooru 4y ago

If there is any chance that human error contributed to this disaster (either via the people there or maintenance deferred or done less than perfectly), then "a more humane work schedule" would have made that less likely due to everyone involved being well rested.

colpabar 4y ago
It's funny yet sad at how differently HN reacts to a company making its employees go into the office than this. Maybe that's how we should frame it - "railroads force employees back into office, even when sick" might garner some more sympathy.

slantedview 4y ago

> what's the evidence that this derailment had anything to do with the attempted rail workers strike? AFAIK, the primary issue there was sick leave--and, generally, a more humane work schedule. The workers had many other complaints, including companies forcing workers to drive dangerously long trains with a single person staffing it. That seems absolutely relevant when you have a train car burning and nobody notices.

notch898a 4y ago
If you drive a vehicle knowing it is unsafe shouldn't you refuse? Any other vehicle and we would hold the worker accountable for not refusing such a negligent order. The news articles about the rail workers complaining it was unsafe seems to show they are complicit as they continued operating in unsafe conditions anyway.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  I wonder if anything disempowering happened in that industry recently that might have discouraged rail workers from speaking out
  - pixl97 4y ago
    This is exactly what is happening. Any worker that continually bring up problems is removed one way or another and you effectively get the normalization of deviance via the dead sea effect. Things that should be called out are suddenly "That's what we always have to do because we don't have enough time", and 99.999% of the time it works out fine. Then the ten thousandth time you explode a gaping hole of poison in the earth.
- c1ccccc1 4y ago
  > Any other vehicle and we would hold the worker accountable for not refusing such a negligent order. Say the worker refuses that order and their boss says "okay, you're fired". Would we also give that worker legal protection? Would we also hold accountable the higher ups who gave that order and set the policies for how trains are to be run? If not, then you now understand why the accident happened.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    >Would we also give that worker legal protection? Yes I believe that's exactly what is to happen. See this explicitly spelled out https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/mou/2012-07-16 https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/mou/2012-07-16 . I've worked in goods transport in interstate navigable waterways and we had the same thing, literally anyone can "stop work" for unaddressed imminent dangerous conditions and are protected against retaliation. Even if the protection fails it is better my own family starve to death than to poison an entire city; just following orders isn't an excuse (and in any case, such a company of such character company would fire you after the wreck). note: not legal advice

colpabar 4y ago

Stealing someone else's comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34784255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34784255 The sick day thing is the only thing that gets talked about so that people come to the same conclusion you have. That was a big part of what they wanted, sure, but they also had plenty of demands on better safety precautions.

dendrite9 4y ago

As I understand one of the things the rail companies want to do is have just one person running a train instead of the current two. In this case the single engineer likely would not have been able to decouple the other 10 hazardous containers and pull away. Also that this failure happened due to a seized axle or bearing is indicative of the refusal to invest in the rail equipment and safety systems. There are a number of different ways to detects failing bearings that have been at least deployed for decades. I thought I heard this might have been a broken rail but that seems to have just been a guess on the day of the accident. "The crew was able to uncouple the locomotives and move them to safety, preventing an even bigger tragedy. This would not have been possible under the various management schemes now being proposed to operate such trains with single person crews. Further, because Train 32N carried the standard crew of two or more workers, they were able to immediately take the necessary emergency measures to ensure a safe and effective response." From a RWU email: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Press-Release--Fiery-Ohio-Train-Wreck-the-Result-of--PSR-.html?soid=1116509035139&aid=RspHKqRlJkg&mibextid=Zxz2cZ&fbclid=IwAR3_-mgZPBZskyZmlgfD4Tko5mKawjZKonOKaj8rnamV9vQXk3q5ulbpqls https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Press-Release--Fiery-Ohi...