4 ms·

> 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, genera

> 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
    - vGPU 4y ago
      But who’s got the time and money to deal with it? I’ve tried to file an osh complaint before. They told me they hadn’t even gotten to the ones from this decade yet.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        The OSHA stop-work criteria (noted in my below post) explicit state you needn't wait for a complaint to stop-work for imminent dangers too soon for inspection. Note: this is not individualized advice and I am not a lawyer.
- ruined 4y ago
  the legislation last year forcing an end to the labor dispute meant that rail workers stopping work had no legal protection. the railway labor act makes it illegal to stop work before exhausting a lengthy dispute process
- aqme28 4y ago
  > If you drive a vehicle knowing it is unsafe shouldn't you refuse? So a strike then? You’re literally describing what they tried to do.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    In a way but legally they aren't identical. Conditions: - Where possible, you have asked the employer to eliminate the danger, and the employer failed to do so; and - You refused to work in "good faith." This means that you must genuinely believe that an imminent danger exists; and - A reasonable person would agree that there is a real danger of death or serious injury; and - There isn't enough time, due to the urgency of the hazard, to get it corrected through regular enforcement channels, such as requesting an OSHA inspection. Note the MOA I cited above shows the railroad enforcement has an interlocking agreement with OSHA to this effect that explains this. [0] You're also instructed to remain on the work site which is a key difference from a "strike." You may not be protected if you say ask for more pay or sick days, so if they weren't showing up to work or asked for that it would really muddy the waters. It's my understanding the "strike" was planned days in advance so it wasn't an immediate response to imminent danger (if it was, should have just been done immediately instead it looks premeditated) and the "strike" asked for stuff like better pay or days off which then made it non-protected. If you truly follow all of the bullets above then it's protected and the anti-strike order isn't really valid as it's considered protected stop-work activity rather than a strike. Note: not legal advice [0] https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/mou/2012-07-16 https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/mou/2012-07-16
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

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
  - vGPU 4y ago
    But who’s got the time and money to deal with it? I’ve tried to file an osh complaint before. They told me they hadn’t even gotten to the ones from this decade yet.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      The OSHA stop-work criteria (noted in my below post) explicit state you needn't wait for a complaint to stop-work for imminent dangers too soon for inspection. Note: this is not individualized advice and I am not a lawyer.
ruined 4y ago
the legislation last year forcing an end to the labor dispute meant that rail workers stopping work had no legal protection. the railway labor act makes it illegal to stop work before exhausting a lengthy dispute process
aqme28 4y ago
> If you drive a vehicle knowing it is unsafe shouldn't you refuse? So a strike then? You’re literally describing what they tried to do.
- notch898a 4y ago
  In a way but legally they aren't identical. Conditions: - Where possible, you have asked the employer to eliminate the danger, and the employer failed to do so; and - You refused to work in "good faith." This means that you must genuinely believe that an imminent danger exists; and - A reasonable person would agree that there is a real danger of death or serious injury; and - There isn't enough time, due to the urgency of the hazard, to get it corrected through regular enforcement channels, such as requesting an OSHA inspection. Note the MOA I cited above shows the railroad enforcement has an interlocking agreement with OSHA to this effect that explains this. [0] You're also instructed to remain on the work site which is a key difference from a "strike." You may not be protected if you say ask for more pay or sick days, so if they weren't showing up to work or asked for that it would really muddy the waters. It's my understanding the "strike" was planned days in advance so it wasn't an immediate response to imminent danger (if it was, should have just been done immediately instead it looks premeditated) and the "strike" asked for stuff like better pay or days off which then made it non-protected. If you truly follow all of the bullets above then it's protected and the anti-strike order isn't really valid as it's considered protected stop-work activity rather than a strike. Note: not legal advice [0] https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/mou/2012-07-16 https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/mou/2012-07-16
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]