SMART Union
OLYMPIA, Wash. – Washington’s Republican-controlled Senate could set a national precedent with a bill passed Monday night (March 9) that would require up to two railroad workers in the rear of trains carrying crude oil and other hazardous cargo.
Currently, BNSF Railway, the largest freight hauler in Washington, is not required to carry rear brakeman in any of the 28 states where it operates, according to Gus Melonas, a BNSF spokesman.
Read the complete story at The Seattle Times.
Two Minnesota lawmakers have introduced legislation in the state’s legislature that would require two persons on all Class I and II carrier freight trains operating in the state.
State Rep. Frank Hornstein (DFL-Dist. 61A) and State Sen. Ann H. Rest (DFL-Dist. 45) introduced H.F. 1166 and S.F. 918 introduced last month in the Minnesota House of Representatives and Senate, respectively.
Both bills state that, if passed, “No person operating or controlling a Class I or Class II railroad may allow the operation of a railroad train or locomotive in this state, used in connection with the movement of freight, without a crew composed of a minimum of two individuals, except as otherwise provided by Code of Federal Regulations, title 49, part 218, subpart B. A person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and liable for a penalty of not less than $250 nor more than $1,000 for a first offense, not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000 for a second offense, and not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 for a third or subsequent offense.”
S.F. 918 will be heard before the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee on Monday, March 16, at 2 p.m. at the state capitol, Transportation Division State Legislative Director Phillip Qualy said. The Senate Judiciary plans to hear S.F. 918 the following day, March 17.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has yet to schedule a hearing for the companion legislation, H.F. 1166.
“Our state legislation is not federally pre-empted and does not contain language that can be construed as a collective-bargaining area,” Qualy said “Unfortunately, the railroads are misleading the legislature with inaccurate and erroneous information. The carriers’ practice to remove more and more persons from the right-of-ways of American railroads endangers the general public”.
Minnesota has the eighth largest rail network in the United States. The SMART Transportation Division in Minnesota continues to advise the legislature on oil transportation, grade-crossing safety and supports the Minnesota AFL-CIO’s Working Family agenda.
The Minnesota Legislature is scheduled to adjourn May 20, 2015.
Members of the SMART Transportation Division’s Washington State Legislative Board have been quite busy in recent weeks.
Working with the board members and state emergency management officials, state senators and representatives of the Washington State Legislature Jan. 29 introduced six bills that could have a direct impact on Transportation Division-represented railroad employees and the safety of the communities in which their trains operate.
House Bill 1809 and Senate Bill 5697 re-establish state-mandated minimum railroad crew-staffing levels on all trains operating in the state.
Also introduced were a yardmaster hours of service bill in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and a rail crew transportation safety bill.
Under the proposed crew-staffing legislation, all trains and yard-switching assignments will be staffed with no less than two qualified employees. Trains designated as hazardous material trains of 50 cars or less, will be staffed with no less than three qualified employees, with the thirdemployee assigned to work on the rear of the train in a position to be able to safely observe and monitor the train.
Trains designated as hazardous material trains of 51 cars or more will be staffed with no less than four qualified employees, with two employees assigned to work on the rear of the train in a position to be able to safely observe and monitor the train.
Hazardous material trains are defined utilizing the current national standards adopted by Department of Transportation and all Class I carriers. The State Utility and Transportation Commission can direct carriers to exceed the minimum requirements if specific conditions affecting safety or security necessitate additional crewmembers.
Hearings on both bills have been tentatively scheduled for Feb. 9 in the House Labor Committee and the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, Transportation Division Washington State Legislative Director Herb Krohn said.
“Our workers know how to run these trains safely, but the railroad refuses to provide adequate staffing, exposing the public and railworkers to death and injury. These bills simply restore Washington State’s commonsense safety standards,” Krohn said.
“We looked at what went wrong in each of the catastrophic explosions and the close calls, and it’s clear that one or two people simply can’t monitor and safely operate these dangerous cargos. Adding even one more person to a train, particularly at the back of the train, will save lives.”
H.B. 1809 was introduced by State Rep. Larry Haler (R-Richland) and currently has a total of 33 additional co-sponsors.
House Transportation Committee Chairman Judy Clibborn (D-Mercer Island) said, “This bill just requires a minimum level of staffing because an adequately staffed train is a safe train.”
S.B. 5697 was introduced by State Sen. Linda Evans Parlette (R-Wenatchee), Chairman of the Senate Majority Caucus. It currently has 23 additional co-sponsors.
“Safely moving goods through Washington State is in everyone’s interest. The public is counting on us to ensure that trains, no matter what they are transporting, are safely operated,” Evans Parlette said.
“I’ve worked as a conductor for 10 years with a perfect safety record and this bill will make trains safer,” said Local 324 Chairperson and Legislative Rep. Paul McGill of Seattle.
The text of the bills read, in part, “Any person, corporation, company, or officer of the court operating any railroad, or part of any railroad or railway within the state of Washington, and engaged as a common carrier, in the transportation of freight or passengers, who violates any of the provisions of section 3 of this act are guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one thousand dollars and not more than one hundred thousand dollars for each offense.”
Krohn said the bills are in response to concerns raised by emergency management officials who have become aware that the crewmembers on the head end of trains, in most cases, cannot see their train beyond a limited sight distance. Recognizing that the train crews are the first responders, they believe that trains that pose a significant risk to the public need crewmembers on the rear of the train, in a position to be able to see the train and take appropriate action if something goes wrong.
Krohn said he attended a freight mobility roundtable discussion last year featuring a presentation on oil-train safety from emergency responders. “Not aware of who I was, Director of the Seattle Office of Emergency Management Barb Graff mentioned the BNSF Railway one-person crew contract proposed to the members of General Committee of Adjustment GO 001 last year. She said she was glad that it was voted down and said two-person crews were not enough on hazmat trains.”
That led to Krohn and members of the state legislative board working with emergency management officials to get the ball rolling on the two bills.
“As an emergency manager, I plan for disaster and work for safety. Human eyes are key to safety and proper staffing is important, which is why I support this bill,” said Dominic Marzano, emergency manager for Kent, Wash., and division chief of the Kent Fire Department – Regional FireAuthority.
Noting that railroad yardmasters are required to work excessively long hours by railroad carriers, H.B. 1284 and S.B. 5696 will prohibit a yardmaster to “remain or go on duty for a period in excess of twelve consecutive hours…An employee may not remain or go on duty unless that employee has had at least ten consecutive hours off duty during the prior twenty-four hours.”
If the state’s Utilities and Transportation Commission finds that a Class I carrier violates the provisions of these bills, if passed, “the commission may assess a civil penalty of not less than ten thousand dollars and not more than fifty thousand dollars.”
Krohn said that yardmaster and BNSF GO 341 General Chairperson Jeffrey Sellman was the impetus behind these bills and worked tirelessly to advance them in the legislature.
Finally, H.B. 1808 and S.B.5797 will, if passed, “regulate charter party carriers providing railroad crew transportation and every contract crew hauling vehicle with respect to the safety of equipment, driver qualifications, insurance levels, and safety of operations. The commission must adopt rules and require reports as necessary to carry out this chapter regarding contract crew hauling vehicles and establish federal motor vehicle safety standards for contract crew hauling vehicles, regardless of seating capacity, as the minimum safety standards.”
“I am really excited about how we’ve advanced these bills in the legislature,” Krohn said. “They are reasonable bil
ls that won’t break the bank of the railroads. They are a reasonable precaution to protect the public and our members.”
Krohn encourages Transportation Division members and all concerned railroad employees to contact their lawmakers and seek their support of these legislative proposals.
The Associated Press article on railroads’ collective push to reduce freight train crews from two persons to one is informative yet fails to address the very real danger of equipment, mechanical or infrastructure failure.
As a matter of record I am a 40-year railroad conductor and chaired my union’s state safety board for 16 years.
Read the complete letter at Herald-Review.com.
The preceding “letter to the editor” written by retired member Lloyd R. Holman was published by the Herald Review on Jan. 22, 2015. Holman is a member of the UTU Alumni Association and is the former local secretary & treasurer and legislative representative of SMART Transportation Division Local 453 at Clinton, Ill. He also served as chairperson of the union’s Illinois State Legislative Board.
With profit seemingly driving all business decisions, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the country’s major railroad companies are continuing their quest to reduce freight trains crews … to one person. Not surprising, but scary.
The railroad bosses are united in their desire for this change, citing technological advances. Labor groups, those living on rail lines and people interested in common sense are opposed. Rail “crews” are already down to two — an engineer who drives the train and a conductor who oversees the long line of cars, communicates with dispatchers and provides a second set of monitoring eyes.
The preceding editorial was published Dec. 29 by The Herald of Everett, Wash. Read the complete editorial here.
The Illinois AFL-CIO has unanimously approved a resolution supporting SMART Transportation Division’s call for federal legislation mandating at least two crew members on all freight trains.
The endorsement came at the organization’s 41st annual Constitutional Convention in Rosemont, Ill.
Citing issues ranging from chronic crew-member fatigue to inadequate crew training to accident prevention and response, the state labor council’s 15-point, two-page document called on the Illinois congressional delegation to vote in favor of House Resolution 3040, the Safe Freight Act, which would require all freight trains in the U.S. to have at least two certified crew members aboard.
The AFL-CIO resolution, submitted by SMART-TD Illinois State Legislative Director Robert W. Guy, charged that community safety is endangered by single-person train operation because the lone employee on board can become overwhelmed with multiple tasks and deadlines while trying to control a heavy train that cannot respond easily to braking commands.
“Railroad operating requirements, and in many cases operating rules themselves, require train crews to perform numerous tasks while concurrently operating moving trains, which the National Transportation Safety Board has labeled ‘task saturation,’” the resolution said.
The AFL-CIO document said overwhelmed crew members could overlook “specific requirements related to the safe operation of a train” and require a second crew member so that a “check-and-balance” system is in place to make sure nobody misses a signal, an instruction or a routine safety practice.
The resolution noted an elusive fact often missing from media accounts of the train-crew issue: the carriers’ current crew-recruitment and training practices often end up rushing freshly trained crew members into very challenging operating environments without the “seasoning” provided by older veterans who have “seen it all” and developed the responses to master even the most sudden and unexpected challenges.
“The general public and the media do not understand how ‘raw’ a new employee can be when challenged with an unexpected situation while trying to control a moving train,” Guy said.
“Currently, new employees operate in the same cab with an older employee who has an appropriate, experienced response to virtually any emergency,” Guy said. “A new employee operating alone in the cab would not have access to that unique resource.”
Guy said there’s really no substitute for the “old heads.”
“Who else is going to know which grade crossings have a bad record?” he asked. “Who else is going to know which stretches of the territory become dangerous when a sudden fog develops, or which signals are easy to misinterpret and which curves can obscure a stopped train just ahead?
“These veteran railroaders are walking encyclopedias of danger and walking manuals of safe practices, and there’s no training program that effectively passes on all of their intricate, intimate, milepost-by-milepost experience to new recruits,” Guy said.
Guy said if the veterans are not in the cab, there’s no way to access their experience in an emergency.
“Company training programs, for the most part, do a very good job of making sure new employees grasp the general principles of operating trains, but only a veteran employee can transmit the specifics associated with each operating territory and come up with the right response when an emergency develops,” he said.
The resolution noted that the need for a second crew member persists because railroads continue to delay addressing the problem of long workdays, irregular assignments and working hours, lost sleep, chronic fatigue and the anxiety associated with maintaining an orderly family and personal life while always “on call.”
The document also cited the railroads “…intentional manipulation of manpower…to maximize profits at the expense of public and employee safety, often times requiring crew members to return to work immediately after the federally mandated minimum rest period has expired.”
“It’s a wonderful feeling to know that the entire Illinois labor movement is behind SMART-TD in its effort to protect railroaders and the public from the dangerous effects of a one-person crew regime,” Guy said.
“All of us are grateful to our brothers and sisters in labor for standing with our members and their families, and the communities in which they live, on what literally could be a life-or-death issue.”
Pictured, from left, are Sheet Metal Local 73 Business Agent Frank Ivonelli, SMART Transportation Division Illinois Legislative Board Chairperson John O’Brien, Sheet Metal Local 73 Business Agent Mike May, SMART General Vice President Rocco Terranova, SMART Transportation Division Alternate Illinois Legislative Director Carl Draper, Guy, Transportation Division Local 265 Secretary & Treasurer Chuck Ruegge, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, Sheet Metal Local 265 Business Manager John Boske, SMART Transportation Division Assistant Illinois Legislative Director Joe Ciemny, Sheet Metal Local 1 Business Rep. Larry Louis, Sheet Metal Local 73 Recording Secretary Mike Vittorio, Sheet Metal Local 73 Business Agent Brian Mulheran and Sheet Metal Local 73 Business Agent Dan Ahern.
Of 3,679 ballots returned, 3,056 were in opposition to the crew consist agreement. Nearly the same number of ballots cast were in opposition to a wage and rule settlement offered by the carrier.
Under the proposal, engineers would have received a pay boost, and conductors would have been given the opportunity to become engineers. It also called for the creation of a “master conductor,” who would be responsible for supervising multiple trains from a fixed or mobile location.
The railroad was seeking to operate most of its trains with a single engineer on trains equipped with positive train control, a collision-avoidance system mandated by Congress in 2008.
It maintained that trains carrying hazardous materials, including those with large volumes of crude oil or ethanol, would still have operated with two people on board.
Prior to releasing the complete vote count Sept. 29, GO 001 General Chairperson Randy Knutson had acknowledged earlier in September that the proposal had failed.
“Please be advised that we have completed the tabulation of ratification ballots for the tentative crew consist agreement and wage and rule settlement, and neither agreement was ratified. A more complete summary of the vote will be forthcoming in the next several weeks, but we felt it was important to provide our members with immediate notification that these agreements were not ratified,” Knutson said.
“Moving forward, this office will notify BNSF Labor Relations that we remain open to informal conversation regarding these matters, but will oppose any formal attempt by BNSF to serve notice to change our existing crew consist agreements prior to the attrition of all protected employees.”
The proposed agreement generated a lot of discussion from Transportation Division members around the country.
In a statement posted on the SMART Transportation Division’s website prior to the voting deadline, Transportation Division President John Previsich noted that, “Our constitution grants the general committees jurisdiction in this area and this organization has successfully defended that right over the years through litigation and arbitration. There are no grounds for any entity to interfere with that right and there will be no attack on that authority by this office or any subordinate body of this organization.
“Nonetheless, it should surprise no one that the proposed agreement is generating a great deal of discussion due to its potential impact beyond its own territory. This office will not interfere with the rights of all of our members to engage in that discussion.”
WASHINGTON — How many people does it take to safely operate a freight train?
Two, say railroad labor unions, the Federal Railroad Administration and some members of Congress, arguing that having just one person in the cab of a locomotive was unsafe. They cite a series of deadly accidents involving trains with a solo engineer, including last year’s disaster in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, where 47 people were killed after an oil train jumped the tracks.
One, argues the railroad industry, which counters that there’s no data to prove multiple-person crews are safer.
Read the complete story at The Fresno Bee.
A tentative agreement to reduce train crew size on one of the nation’s largest rail carriers has failed, according to the labor union whose members voted on it this week.
The pact would have eliminated on-board conductors on 60 percent of BNSF Railway, which spans the western two-thirds of the country.
Read the complete story at McClatchy D.C. News Service.
SMART Transportation Division President John Previsich has responded to an inquiry from Florida State Legislative Director Andres Trujillo requesting an interpretation related to the role of the SMART Transportation Division Legislative Department in connection with the collective bargaining jurisdiction of SMART’s general committees.
The inquiry relates to a proposed collective bargaining agreement between SMART Transportation Division GO-001 and BNSF Railway and is in regard to crew consist for its affected members.
The text of the letter follows.
“Mr. Andres Trujillo, Chairman
National Association of State Directors
“Dear Sir and Brother:
“This is in response to your letter of August 5, 2014, wherein you request an interpretation related to the role of the legislative department in connection with the collective bargaining jurisdiction of our General Committees. Your inquiry stems from questions in connection with a collective bargaining agreement proposed by GO-001 regarding crew consist for its affected members. A number of issues have been raised in connection with that agreement and this response to your inquiry will include clarification of those issues so that all concerned will be fully informed on this matter.
“To begin, the issue of a General Committee’s right to negotiate crew consist for its members is a matter long settled. Our constitution grants the General Committees jurisdiction in this area and this organization has successfully defended that right over the years through litigation and arbitration (see, e.g., United Transp. Union v. Alton & S. Ry. Co., Case No.: 05-190-GPM, 2006 WL 664181 (S.D. Ill. March 10, 2006)). There are no grounds for any entity to interfere with that right and there will be no attack on that authority by this office or any subordinate body of this organization. Nonetheless, it should surprise no one that the proposed agreement is generating a great deal of discussion due to its potential impact beyond its own territory. This office will not interfere with the rights of all of our members to engage in that discussion.
“Next, a question has been raised with respect to the knowledge of the Transportation Division regarding the proposed agreement. Earlier this year, the officers of GO-001 requested a meeting to discuss “a matter of great importance to the committee and its members.” At the meeting this office was informed that GO-001 was negotiating an agreement that may include a provision for engineer-only operation under certain conditions. Included in that meeting was a discussion of general committee autonomy and authority to make crew consist agreements. An actual quote by one of the officers is “I have a file cabinet full of precedent that crew consist is a General Committee issue.” There was a great deal of discussion over the wisdom of making such an agreement and the affect that it would have nationally on other properties and on our legislative effort to require two certified people on every train.
“Some number of months later another meeting was requested, this time to inform this office of the content of the proposed agreement. Again, the wisdom and difficulties of such a proposal were discussed and it was stated by the undersigned that “if a committee is forced to submit to single person operations this outcome isn’t too bad.” In addition, some small errors were noted for correction. The key component of the statement above is “If a committee is forced to submit to single person operations.” Any assertion that such a statement constitutes an endorsement of the agreement is, at best, deliberately misleading and, in fact, the officers in the meeting were told in no uncertain terms that the agreement was in conflict with our national agenda and would not be endorsed by this office.
“Although the proposed agreement is clearly within the authority of the officers of GO-001 to negotiate, there is no doubt that passage of such an agreement would alter our dialogue in the legislative arena. As you are aware, efforts to preserve jobs and safety currently in progress are far reaching and not confined to H.R. 3040. The role of the legislative department is unchanged – we are working in every regulatory and legislative arena to protect our members and the public from the danger of single person operations and those efforts will continue.
“It is worth noting here that all General Committees with crew consist agreements will face expiring moratoriums at some point in the future. It is also important to note that an expired moratorium is where negotiations begin – once expired, notices must be served by the parties to enter into negotiations in accordance with the Railway Labor Act (this is intended to clarify any misinformation that would suggest to the listener that conductors are automatically removed from the train when a moratorium expires).
“Some will say that it is better to act earlier and get something at the cost of current jobs and others will argue it is better to wait while preserving current jobs for some time into the future, allowing legislative, regulatory and safety considerations to play out in the intervening time. Regarding the current proposal, it is up to the members of GO-001 to decide if now is the time for their committee to address single person operations.”