4 ms·

Workers “know the truth” about the derailment, why are they being ignored?

44 points by Ambolia 4y ago

sokoloff 4y ago
> And he does believe that the lack of a labor perspective in the reporting out of these kinds of industrial accidents leaves the public in the dark about just how dangerous and stressful railroading has become While the acute response and understanding/limiting of risk is happening, the only perspective I need from the train workers is an accurate accounting of who and what was on the train that needs rescuing/safing. After that, when we do the root cause analysis, that’s when we need the perspective and opinion of the workers and their union. It is genuinely important; it’s not that important right this second. Whatever was wrong in labor policies will still be wrong next month when we dig into that.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > It is genuinely important; it’s not that important right this second. Whatever was wrong in labor policies will still be wrong next month when we dig into that. Every hazmat train that moves around while there are massive issues is an as massive risk for everyone along its route as the East Palestine disaster is.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Then why delay any response by invoking the reporter->public->politics loop? Take your safety concerns to the NTSB (someone with an NTSB jacket will no doubt be on scene). If they didn't listen to you when you warned them previously of this outcome, it's fine to invoke an "I told you so". If you get an inadequate response there, escalate to the Secretary of Transportation.
- zztop44 4y ago
  People are a lot more likely to pay attention to you talking about rail safety and labor policies when there’s a giant cloud of toxic black smoke belching out of a derailed train. Next month, probably not so much.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    "Never let a crisis go to waste", eh? Personally I'd prefer to learn the facts about what happened rather than hear from people promoting their own agendas. In that light, I hoped this article might have some first-hand testimony from the workers. If the author thinks the workers are being ignored, why didn't they talk to the workers?
    - orwin 4y ago
      While it should work like this, do you think people will care enough in two weeks to push the regulator to change anything to US railroad incentives? => Why didn't the authors talk to the workers? Because, as they explain in the article, the workers don't say anything as they fear retaliation.
  - pydry 4y ago
    After every shooting Fox News says that "it's not the right time to discuss gun control". At which point it would be echoed by thousands of followers. It's a tactic worn so well even Martin Luther King moaned about it. It's not just the "not the right time" narrative though, they're pulling out all the stops on this catastrophe including UFOs.
- ranting-moth 4y ago
  No, this is important right now. The house is on fire and the group of people responsible for storing 20000 gallons of petrol in the basement are standing outside the house. You can argue all you want about what exactly started the fire and do a root cause analysis. Of course that should be done. But whatever comes out of that root cause is not a defense for that group of people outside the house. But if you wait long enough, it'll definitely be used to derail the conversation into a sophisticated version of "the front fell off".
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  It might also be worth asking "where else might this happen in the next day/week/month" etc. That might be an urgent question...
vaidhy 4y ago
I read through the article and it has no information. While I am in complete solidarity with the workers and think the workers should come before the shareholders, this article is just leveraging the disaster to reiterate the old talking points. Overworked workers might be the root cause, but they are not the proximate cause for this event.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pera 4y ago
The answer is quite simple: unions cannot be right even if they are, empirically. The solution to this dissonance is to ignore them.
- q1w2 4y ago
  Union reps are negotiators. They negotiate with the company management, primarily to increase worker pay. When a union rep brings up safety concerns, it's usually in the same conversation as employee pay, and the rep and company negotiate in that context to provide a solution for both issues. The most safety concerns the union rep can cite - the greater leverage they have in salary negotiations. This is why when a union says they've been bringing up safety concerns, you have to take it with a grain of salt. ...this issue is also why the government has moved most safety inspection responsibilities away from unions and towards government agencies, like OSHA.
  - dariusj18 4y ago
    I think this is what many people don't understand about unions. They are not supposed to be the "good guys". They are the counter balance to corporations, and if there is anything we have (re)learned over the last few decades, it's that you don't find the center by starting your negotiations from it. The system is off balance because competing interests are supposed to create an equitable center.
localplume 4y ago
[dead]
throwaway91blah 4y ago
I understand it is not that simple, but it is workers duty to stop working if it is dangerous. Specially given that they seem to be organized in a union. If it is an important railroad, stopping work could be used as a lever to hire more workers or fix machines, etc. I do not know, may be it depends on country and law and may be US is not one of such countries where workers can't be fired for stopping work if it is dangerous. But still, workers should demand, they know what no one else knows. Givernment regulations make govt big and I'm not sure it is better than allowing workers more management and decission making. But again, the workers should want to participate. May be this railroad employ immigrants who do not have all the rights and afraid of loosing the job and so.. not sure how then this can be solved. May be then local population where the road is located should somehow be more curious what is going on there and talk more to workers, but without relying on some politicians for this because it is easy to buy one person.
- zztop44 4y ago
  Actually in December last year the US government voted to block a widespread union-planned strike of railroad workers. Railroad workers and unions have been vocal about these and many other issues for a long time now. But no-one has really been listening.
  - yarg 4y ago
    They've been listening, and wondering how to shut them up.
  - q1w2 4y ago
    Their key demands were regarding PAY. For example, they never demanded a reinstatement to the Braking Safety Rules that Trump rolled-back. People need to stop looking to unions for safety regulation. That isn't there job. They are there to increase the PAY of workers. OSHA and other government institutions are there to ensure safety.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

44 points by Ambolia 4y ago

> And he does believe that the lack of a labor perspective in the reporting out of these kinds of industrial accidents leaves the public in the dark about just how dangerous and stressful railroading has become While the acute response and understanding/limiting of risk is happening, the only perspective I need from the train workers is an accurate accounting of who and what was on the train that needs rescuing/safing. After that, when we do the root cause analysis, that’s when we need the perspective and opinion of the workers and their union. It is genuinely important; it’s not that important right this second. Whatever was wrong in labor policies will still be wrong next month when we dig into that.

mschuster91 4y ago
> It is genuinely important; it’s not that important right this second. Whatever was wrong in labor policies will still be wrong next month when we dig into that. Every hazmat train that moves around while there are massive issues is an as massive risk for everyone along its route as the East Palestine disaster is.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Then why delay any response by invoking the reporter->public->politics loop? Take your safety concerns to the NTSB (someone with an NTSB jacket will no doubt be on scene). If they didn't listen to you when you warned them previously of this outcome, it's fine to invoke an "I told you so". If you get an inadequate response there, escalate to the Secretary of Transportation.
zztop44 4y ago
People are a lot more likely to pay attention to you talking about rail safety and labor policies when there’s a giant cloud of toxic black smoke belching out of a derailed train. Next month, probably not so much.
- leereeves 4y ago
  "Never let a crisis go to waste", eh? Personally I'd prefer to learn the facts about what happened rather than hear from people promoting their own agendas. In that light, I hoped this article might have some first-hand testimony from the workers. If the author thinks the workers are being ignored, why didn't they talk to the workers?
  - orwin 4y ago
    While it should work like this, do you think people will care enough in two weeks to push the regulator to change anything to US railroad incentives? => Why didn't the authors talk to the workers? Because, as they explain in the article, the workers don't say anything as they fear retaliation.
- pydry 4y ago
  After every shooting Fox News says that "it's not the right time to discuss gun control". At which point it would be echoed by thousands of followers. It's a tactic worn so well even Martin Luther King moaned about it. It's not just the "not the right time" narrative though, they're pulling out all the stops on this catastrophe including UFOs.
ranting-moth 4y ago
No, this is important right now. The house is on fire and the group of people responsible for storing 20000 gallons of petrol in the basement are standing outside the house. You can argue all you want about what exactly started the fire and do a root cause analysis. Of course that should be done. But whatever comes out of that root cause is not a defense for that group of people outside the house. But if you wait long enough, it'll definitely be used to derail the conversation into a sophisticated version of "the front fell off".
LatteLazy 4y ago
It might also be worth asking "where else might this happen in the next day/week/month" etc. That might be an urgent question...

vaidhy 4y ago

I read through the article and it has no information. While I am in complete solidarity with the workers and think the workers should come before the shareholders, this article is just leveraging the disaster to reiterate the old talking points. Overworked workers might be the root cause, but they are not the proximate cause for this event.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pera 4y ago

The answer is quite simple: unions cannot be right even if they are, empirically. The solution to this dissonance is to ignore them.

q1w2 4y ago
Union reps are negotiators. They negotiate with the company management, primarily to increase worker pay. When a union rep brings up safety concerns, it's usually in the same conversation as employee pay, and the rep and company negotiate in that context to provide a solution for both issues. The most safety concerns the union rep can cite - the greater leverage they have in salary negotiations. This is why when a union says they've been bringing up safety concerns, you have to take it with a grain of salt. ...this issue is also why the government has moved most safety inspection responsibilities away from unions and towards government agencies, like OSHA.
- dariusj18 4y ago
  I think this is what many people don't understand about unions. They are not supposed to be the "good guys". They are the counter balance to corporations, and if there is anything we have (re)learned over the last few decades, it's that you don't find the center by starting your negotiations from it. The system is off balance because competing interests are supposed to create an equitable center.

localplume 4y ago

[dead]

throwaway91blah 4y ago

I understand it is not that simple, but it is workers duty to stop working if it is dangerous. Specially given that they seem to be organized in a union. If it is an important railroad, stopping work could be used as a lever to hire more workers or fix machines, etc. I do not know, may be it depends on country and law and may be US is not one of such countries where workers can't be fired for stopping work if it is dangerous. But still, workers should demand, they know what no one else knows. Givernment regulations make govt big and I'm not sure it is better than allowing workers more management and decission making. But again, the workers should want to participate. May be this railroad employ immigrants who do not have all the rights and afraid of loosing the job and so.. not sure how then this can be solved. May be then local population where the road is located should somehow be more curious what is going on there and talk more to workers, but without relying on some politicians for this because it is easy to buy one person.

zztop44 4y ago
Actually in December last year the US government voted to block a widespread union-planned strike of railroad workers. Railroad workers and unions have been vocal about these and many other issues for a long time now. But no-one has really been listening.
- yarg 4y ago
  They've been listening, and wondering how to shut them up.
- q1w2 4y ago
  Their key demands were regarding PAY. For example, they never demanded a reinstatement to the Braking Safety Rules that Trump rolled-back. People need to stop looking to unions for safety regulation. That isn't there job. They are there to increase the PAY of workers. OSHA and other government institutions are there to ensure safety.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]