Well stated, Garl.  Are you certain that it is illegal to text while on the job as of today?  As I read the DOT news release, the ban is imposed by an executive order, complete with fine for violation.  I don't think it can be "illegal" until Congress passes a law to make it so.  Administratively, the practice can be banned, and a fine imposed.  As for cameras, this looks a bit like Big Brother, don't you think?  Outward facing cameras won't do a whole lot of good and probably no harm, either.  Inward facing cameras ay show a napping engineer, a texting engineer, or some stupid practice.  But how many train crews violate rules so blatantly?  This seems to be a bit like blasting a fly with a howitzer; overkill.  With some 20,000 locomotives in the U.S. rail fleet, what's the benefit-cost ratio of mandating cameras focused on the engineer's stand?  We already know that Congress mandated PTC when it passed the RSIA only a couple of weeks after Chatfield in a knee-jerk reaction (is there anything other than knee-jerk reaction from Congress ever?) and now the railroads are facing a $6 - $10 billion (yes, that's a "b") in unfunded mandate for something that even FRA says won't have a positive pay-out.  It should be interesting to see the reaction of the chemical company shippers when the cost of PTC, or a large portion of it, is tacked onto rates.  After all, they're the ones producing and shipping TIH.  As for BLET, it has an obligation to protect its members and its contracts.

I was particularly drawn back by the NTSB report that the engineer was offering to let one of his cyber friends get in the cab and operate that evening.  YIKES!

I don't think that "Big Brother" really applies here.

"Big Brother" monitored people when they were engaged in their personal activities. Winston Smith had to stand in front of the camera and frisk himself when in his own home; that's "Big Brother."

It's the right of any employer to monitor its employees' activities and make sure that they are doing their job properly when on the clock.  Since a Road Foreman of Engines can't be in every locomotive cab, that's what the inward-facing cameras would do.

Of course the BLET will fight the cameras.  The T&E employees have a right to expect the union to do so; that's what they pay for in their dues.  I hope that they lose, though.

You've got it just right, DaveB.  Just as unions negotiated for "lonesome pay" back when the carriers were after smaller crew agreements, I would expect BLET - and UTU on some properties - to negotiate the conditions under which inward-facing cameras will be utilized.  This would include conditions and definitions of when discipline can be administered, and perhaps a pay sweetener for those who must operate with a camera trained on them.  Like you, I would hope this doesn't become another arbitrary.  There should not be a need for a camera, not as long as there are two in the cab (freight railroads).  It used to said that airline pilots didn't need any special monitoring because they were the first ones at the scene of an accident. The same goes for engineers.

One thing worth considering: some monitoring systems are sealed, write-over recorders that track the last so many hours of operation, and then re-use the media. That means they can only see you picking your nose the day before, not all the way back to day one.  Part of the reason why flight crew accept recorders so readily is if anybody else sees them, you either have much bigger worries, or your survivors do.  What scares people is generic nosing, or being in a giant, perpetual time and motion study; re-writing systems kill both birds with one stone.

Right, Anmccaff.  The best system, though, is a culture of safe operations.  Accidents and casualties involve more than just the occupants of the locomotive.  Consider the two track workers killed on Washington's Metro just yesterday when a backing hi-rail (the Washington Post, which once had one of the best transportation journalists, called it a "high rail vehicle," not understanding the highway/rail nature of the beast) ran them down.  Washington apparently has not done a good job of maintenance on equipment as the train that crashed, killing 9 including the operator and injuring many had run right through an automatic train-stop system.  We can't have monitors for every worker, but some of the Class 1s could teach commuter operators a thing or two about a safety culture.

Nice little writeup DaveB

No matter what the accident/crash all the fault should lie with the engineer (and splitting hairs) the engineer is license where the conductor is not, and so what if the conductor is under the influence he's not licensed he's not in control of the operation of the train, the engineer is.

And the unfortunate part is that the only reporting being done is by the NTSB, whose accident reporting  leaves much to be desired, (they have their own deficencies) Just as the Fra and it's leadership, but not in LaHood but in Szabo.

On my perfect railroad the carrier needs to count on it TE&y employees with cameras looking into the cab, but because the Carriers' pick their own fight then it's every union employees effort to rebuke such actions.

And as far as whether or not the conductors should be tested the same way engineers' are for alcohol and drug use the answer should be no, until conductors are license and have a stake in the physical operation of the train conductors should be under "red block" protection, and not randomized or otherwise tested the way a licensed operator ( you notice I didn't say professional locomotive engineer because that's a misnomer when the vast majority of loco eng are simply trained apes that manipulate controls) is tested.

It's the last job in the world where with less than a high school diploma you can earn six figures annually for unskilled labor.

RuleGmeister: You wouldn't happen to be a member of UTU would you?  Certification is primarily a vehicle for justifying higher pay for those who are certified.  I thought you were doing just fine when arguing that the engineer should be held accountable because he/she is in charge of the train.  It was when you got off into a rant calling for conductor certification that you revealed your prejudices.

If he was a conductor would he really get on a train with a inebriated engineer?  Or would he get the RFE involved or some other rail official.  And hopefully it wouldn't be because "I'm UTU and he's BLE" but because it's the right/safe thing to do.

I think it takes some skill to successfully navigate a train without it breaking in two (or 3 or more), going in a ditch, running people over or generally being a threat to the general public.

How about 6000 ton intermodal train snaking up and down and around curves through mountain territory?  Or the 18000 ton coal trains through WY and NE?  Someone's gotta be at the throttle in control of these things or we're all in trouble.  Nevermind the education either.

How many structure or bridge folks really have any education about structures or bridges yet they are welding, hanging drywall, doing electrical work and railroad buildings aren't caving in, falling apart, or catching fire.

I'm sure an engineer could make a statement about the education and skill level of a person that calls signals, or has to occasionally get out and change a knuckle when the "high school dropout" breaks the train in two.  

:)

What employers do not require drug testing ?

According to RuleGmiester, it's okay to work with drugged up workers, I sure hope & pray this is not the case.

And yes , it takes skill & training to operate a locomotive leading a train. As a former MOW employee (now supplier service) a would hope BOTH persons in the cab are aware of their responsibilities, (not only to their families) but to fellow workers & the general public as a whole.

His remarks seem to be from a bitter employee, who needs help.

In fairness to RuleGmeister, I don't think he was saying it's safe to work with a drunk or drugged engineer.  I took that as sarcasm on his part.  As for who doesn't require drug tests, the answer is many employers; it depends on the industry.  For railroads, it is required on a random basis and after an accident.  As I commented yeterday, it sure seems that RuleGmeister is a UTU member advocating conducter certification so they can demand more money, the way the engineers have.

I hope LarryKaufmann's comment is correct, where-in  rulegmiester does not advocate an intoxicated employee    in ANY department,or their service providers,to allow such behavior.

As for the UTU advocating conducter certification, I do not feel qualified to comment.

I don't know what technical aspects the conductor brings to the table versus the engineer.  Not being sarcastic but calling signals, filling out paperwork, understanding the freight that's loaded on your train and making sure it's placed properly, occasional knuckle change out on the main, and being "in charge" of the train itself.  Engineer has to memorize every inch of his railroad for grades, curves, grade crossings public and private, train handling and then all of that goes into decisions on braking and accelerating a rolling heavy chunk of steel.  

Just seems like more would be on the mind of the driver than the passenger.  My kids don't have to be certified to ride in the car with me.

Bttf you are right, your kids don't have to be certified to ride in the car with you, but they don't get tested while u are dui.

And I kinda' agree w/ RuleG guy. I think it's more of if I as a conductor am not licensed, and we (the hogger) and I as a conductor are involved in a violation of the rules, and/or crash,and/or derail...etc. And add the fact that the conductor is not licensed then that leaves the entire burden of the mishap on the Locomotive Engineer (sarcastic or not) and the conductor should not be held responcible for anything ather than riding along, the conductor does not have physical control of the train.

Larry, I don't think anything was mentioned about pay raises or more money  or union involment, so I think we could rule that out.

And maybe RuleG is a bit disgruntled, but hardly a basket case, it seems to me it was more of an observation with a possible remedy as opposed to an out and out attack on anyone or anything.

By the way (sarcasism implied) what does the conductor carry in his lantern?

The locomotive engineers' brain...ha..ha!

James:  I don't recall calling anyone a "basket case."  In fact, I'm quite certain I didn't.  As opinionated as I admit to being, I do try to keep my comments on issues and not on people or personalities, with the exception of Dynamiter, who practically demands insulting replies.   As for engineers and conductors, being neither, I don't have a vote in this one, although I do have opinions.  RuleGmeister never got off into a detailed discussion of plusses and minuses of conductor certification.  I do have some friends in the union, however, and am quite certain that conducter certification will be followed immediately by a Section 6 calling for higher pay for those who are certified.  A case even can be made for it.  More knowledge, etc.  The union always is involved.  If it weren't, why have a union?  As for the conducter simply riding along, I don't think you really believe that. If there is a derailment or other incident, both members of the crew get tested, and in my experience with a few Class 1s, both members get disciplined.  It may be overturned on union-represented appeal, but the carrier most often will start by administering discipline to both.  Sort of a labor relations version of the lawyer's preference for suing the parties with the deepest pockets.

Quite right ol' chum,

I know this guy ..RuleGguy.. he doesn't want to post too much because of the flack it might draw on the job..you see he's still on the job, where I as many might know haven't been asked to return to duty, and at 56 I kinda threw in the towel on ever getting back to railroading(250 attempts and interviewed right to the last face to face, and then get the we changed our minds line).

But even though I am not gainfully employed in the "industry" I could report on sites like this for those guys still on the job.

It seems that those hired prior to say 2005, are in favor of licensing and be cross licensed as conductor/engineer, whereas those who were hired after 2005 are looking to keep it the way it is, (toc..to perhaps catch up on their beauty sleep while the engineer runs alone) It also seems that the older heads are willing to accept more of the technical changes coming down the pike and making the conductors position as equal if not more professional than what stands out there today.

And, at face value it's not about money (as in pay raises..although it would be nice) as much as it is about saving jobs. (ie..one man cab control,etc.)

And, it seems that this new generation (for lack of a better description) of rails aren't as keen as adopting this job as a lifestyle as opposed to just a job, (and maybe that is because they have been jilted seeing that most if not all since 2005 have been furloughed, or out and out dismissed already do to the economic....should I say it...depression that struck us in 2007 to now.

So in closing it's six of one, half dozen of the other. Personnally, I'd like to see everyone make more income, increase their own knowledge base, where railroading is concerned, let's keep the comraderie of engineers and conductors alive, because we only have each other to count on out there, and when all else fails we all join together and invoke the Holy Spirit for guidance, for both labor and management.

With that said I close respectfully yours in railroads and in Christ.

JamesSwidergal

I wish they wouldn't refer to it as discipline, call it what it is ..punishment or penalty.

Isn't a discipline earned like in the different fields of medicine or edducation?

Just a thought!

An interesting pair of posts, James.  I think you've identified a significant issue, although I'm not entirely sure you understand that you did.  Where you make a distinction between employees based on when they were hired on or how much seniority they hold, I think you reflect the changed values of people based on generation.  I have talked with HR executives of Class 1s who whine about not being able to find the kind of workers they need.  That simply means they are trying to force new hires into old molds.  Young people today are not willing to put up with what workers used to consider standard - and that applies to any line of work, not just railroads.  Being on call 24/7, Rule G, bad lineups, etc., are not turn-ons for young people today.  It is up to the railroads to redesign the work so they can attract the people they need.  Some will be smarter than others and will get the best available while others try to figure out how to catch up.  SP, among others, found that people coming out of the military made excellent front-line supervisors.  They were used to a 24/7 environment and crawling around on their bellies and be shouted at by their supervisors.

Well LK,

That's a great idea!

I'd like to re-allign myself (even at age 56) and am quite capable of crawling around in the dirt, 24/7 has been the norm for most of my adult life, and evryone shouts at me supervisor or not.

And, maybe just maybe the Carriers' really don't have to change too much of what's been standard.(if it's not broken than why fix it.)

I'm gonna stand on (whether they're military, or not) that those who wish to pursue this railroad lifestyle need do just that.....pursue the lifestyle....it's great once you get the swing of it...(and with your past experiences LK I'll bet even you agree)

Another option left to the carriers' is why not hire us older more regimented workers, our work ethics are right in line and most are empty nesters,and/or single,whether due to divorce, never been marrieds, or widowed. Most of which don't have the responsibility of reporting to some other significant other, which leaves more availability to respond to over the road, and away from home terminal assignments.

 Also, the older worker needs less rest (down time) than younger workers, is more apt to be level headed in making on the fly decisions, due to more life experiences, therefore reducing the stress element therefore reducing the screaming supervisor syndrome, because the job is being accomplish more sucessfully, by a more mature employee.

 It's nice that the RR Carriers' want to hire the Military vets,but it should be fair across the board,(military service should not have precedence over non military prospective employees) there are other than military that do seek employment on the railroad, since my demise from the UPRR, I've been active in the scouting movement where we are still helping young men find their way forward and I have been advocating for them to follow a railroading career. As well as within my Knights of Columbus council where we help with helping other younger men find new employment(due to the economic/employment scenerio that we've all been thrust into.

 With all that maybe...just maybe it's not the Carriers' that need to change but those in the HR depts. of these carriers, because of their inability to look out of the box, they are missing a  whole mess of possibilities in who just might be the right candidate for inclusion in perhaps the most gratifying employment lifestyle in the whole world of emploment....Go Railroads...HooRah!