Engineer Uniforms

dmclement wrote:In todays environment of heightened terrorist threats it must be inherently safer for everyone if engineers wear a uniform which identifies them as having the authority to enter a locomotive of cab car than to have staff who look just like every other regular joe?

Terminal Proceed wrote:Which is why the engineers and conductors are required to wear their company issued pass/id card around their neck. The average Joe wouln't be wearing that.

One time I just missed a train at GCT and already knew where the next one was departing from. I got there before conductor or engineer, since the train was still locked up, it hadn't been posted on the message board next to the platform entrance either. Beacuse of where I get off and where the stairs are on the plaform I always walked up to the front 2 cars. No one else was on the platform but one of the trainmen. He must have thought I was the engineer beacuse he mumbled something about brakes and the door in the front being open, I wasn't really paying attention beacuse I wasn't expecting him to say anything. Anyway, I was just wearing a polo shirt with blue jeans and a holding a back-pack but he thought I was part of the crew.

Still, what's the point of having a engineer wear a uniform as identification? They have the ID tags, which serve exactly that purpose. Most people can recongize employees, except maybe occassional riders or those who just aren't that alert. I work with the public and can recognize a MN employee just by the nametag from a mile away, I usually start talking to them without asking if they work for MN, they usually pick up how I knew who they were.

As a Metro-North customer I have no problem with engineers not wearing a uniform. Every regular rider knows they can identify employees or engineers for that matter by the ID nametags. Uniforms should be worn when the position requires interaction with customers, since that isn't a requirement of the engineers position why should they wear a uniform? 95% of the time I never even see the engineer, answering questions is the Conductors job.

Before you know it somebody's gonna say Customer Service Reps have to wear uniforms too to make them more "professional" even though the call center is buried deep in a secret basement below GCT and you can easily go an entire shift without laying eyes on a MN train.

By the way does it even matter what the TA does? Last time I checked the subway is not a railroad.

Besides there are advantages to not wearing a uniform, I remember the first job I ever had, it was in a retail department store. It was a family owned type thing, the only one of its kind. The only person who wore a "uniform" was the store owner who wore a red vest, everyone else wore whatever they wanted ( within reason of course ). Anyway there wasn't any way for a shoplifter to readily distinguish a store employee from a customer, so that made catching shoplifters particularly fun. You'd spot'em stuffing thier pockets, let the owner or one of the managers know and the cops and or the owner would be waiting by the door (there was only one customer exit from the store).

While MN may not be a store there are some advantages to some railroad employees not being easily(we should always be readily recognizable by having our badges on our person) recognizable. Not knowing who may be watching is as a good a or better deterrent then having some dork in a uniform on patrol.

MNRR_Rep wrote:By the way does it even matter what the TA does? Last time I checked the subway is not a railroad.

When it's the same parent agency and the job title (Train Operator) has many of the same duties (as a locomotive engineer) yet they do wear a uniform, it is applicable fodder for discussion.

While MN may not be a store there are some advantages to some railroad employees not being easily(we should always be readily recognizable by having our badges on our person) recognizable.

When a cop or security guard is looking at a person on camera climbing on or off equipment and their back is to the camera (or any other instance where their badge isn't visible) the person not in a uniform is at an extreme disadvantage. This says nothing for non-security instances where the visibility would be helpful (like in dark yards or tunnels).

Before you know it somebody's gonna say Customer Service Reps have to wear uniforms too to make them more "professional" even though the call center is buried deep in a secret basement below GCT and you can easily go an entire shift without laying eyes on a MN train.

Aren't the reps in the Green uniforms part of Customer Service?

My 2 cents here. Even though the control center is buried and out of public view, we do have dress code. We are required to wear slacks and colllared shirts with a minum of 3 buttons. No sneakers are allowed as we have to wear safety shoes with a defined heel. When I worked for Amtrak, we wore whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted. It is a good thing that I asked before I started my first day what the dress code was or else I would of gotten off the wrong foot with my boss. It all depends the craft you work and what union contracts govern.

Nester just because we all work under same tent, were not part of same circus, the TA is not a railroad and A locomotive Engineer is not a train operator, My certification says so, and so does my pay and job discription.

LIRR and MNCR are both railroads funded but not run by MTA.
MTA does fund and runs the TA and Sirtoa, and Bridge and tunnel authority.

Well actually, to go a little off-topic here...MTA actually runs NOTHING. They are a funding organization that claims to make policy and integrate the region's mass transportation system, to give users a seamless ride. It's all BS, of course; they waste money like it's water in Seattle, and there isn't a single "systemwide" policy that's actually respected by NYCT - they do what they want, and the MTA seems to be powerless to stop them.

And a small nit to pick: the TBTA (aka "MTA Bridges and Tunnels") funds the MTA, not the other way around. They are a profit center, and the toll revenue pays a hefty portion of the railroads' & NYCT's salaries.

Required on-topic content: I think Dutch would look great in the cab with a blue uniform & tie on. Give 'im a hat to wear, too - with a "Treinbestuurder" badge, of course. ;-)

Jim

Add $200 per week in payroll for me and I wear anything the bosses come up with.
unless they pay they can not make me .

I'll pay $200 just to see Dutch in a uniform. Heck, let's take up a collection...

DutchRailnut wrote:Nester just because we all work under same tent, were not part of same circus, the TA is not a railroad and A locomotive Engineer is not a train operator, My certification says so, and so does my pay and job discription.

If you read my first post where I mention the TA I clearly state that it isn't a railroad. If you read my later posts I say that they are similar, not the same (train operator vs. locomotive engineer). Since they are similar (in job duties) and have the same parent agency, it's fair to COMPARE them, nothing more.

Despite what you may think, you are part of the same circus.

DutchRailnut wrote:LIRR and MNCR are both railroads funded but not run by MTA.
MTA does fund and runs the TA and Sirtoa, and Bridge and tunnel authority.

Nothing in that quote is factually correct.

All of the agencies in the quote (and two that you left out) are funded by the MTA. They collect the B&T and tax money used to subsidize the operations that run at a deficit.

Each MTA agency has their own management structure that is independent of the MTA Board. The MTA Board has committees for each agency that set policy, and the management team is responsible for its implementation.

To add on to E-L's post, the Bridges and Tunnels run at a profit of 800 million + each year. When you figure that the TA, LIRR, and MN run at a loss of about 600 million each year (combined), you can see how the money dries up quickly.

DutchRailnut wrote:Add $200 per week in payroll for me and I wear anything the bosses come up with

A ~$10k bump for a uniform? That's outrageous. If the union lets them stick a uniform in the contract, I don't think you'll see anywhere near that amount.

Betya, its been suggested before, and MNCR said no thanks.
You won't see uniforms on Engineers unless they make it worth our while.
It is a contract issue and other than bantering back and forth I suggest this subject to be locked.

And why do they need to "make it worth your while"? Guess what, my boss tells me to wear a suit and thats it. He doesn't have to pay me or do anything.

He's the boss, just like MNRR bosses and they set the rules. There is no entitlement. People have jobs, the bosses set the rules and it you don't like it your are free not to work there anymore.

I'm sorry if that comes off a little harsh, but I have a HUGE issue with practices like that. Thats socialistic labor union normalcy. BTW, I am a definite Union supporter, so don't label me otherwise.

I don't support the implementation of uniforms and I appreciate the cost saving aspects, but management sets the rules not labor.

When you're in a unionized job it doesn't work that way. A contract is established between management and the union formally establishing the conditions under which the work will be performed.

What Dutch is (poorly) asserting is that management would likely have to "give up" something (usually cash, perks, or a work rule change) in order for the union to agree to uniforms for engineers.

Since there are usually so many other larger, more important things to resolve in a contract negotiation (usually salary, pension/healthcare contributions, and work rules) uniforms would likely rate low on the totem pole of priorities.

If they (MN Management) really wanted engineers to wear uniforms, they would negotiate for it to be included in the next contract. Since most unions simply don't acquiesce to management demands, they would likely want something in return. I think Dutch is nuts for wanting an extra 10k, but all negotiations have to start somewhere

The job i work for at the Power Company I have to Wear a Company Provided Uniform (Service they pick up and clean the clothes) it is FR (fire Retardent/Flash over) cause Pulling meters can Flash at you some times.

the only Requirment i could see as a Saftey Aspect is haveing the Enginer Wear some kind of FR in case of a Flash/Arc over when there is that now and then Line Side Issue

As for a Refined heal. Out Dept at work just told us if we dont Climb or go n the Bucket no need for one

kitn1mcc wrote:(excerpt) ... the only Requirment i could see as a Saftey Aspect is haveing the Enginer Wear some kind of FR in case of a Flash/Arc over when there is that now and then Line Side Issue

Good point! It has been recommended that employees wear natural materials such as cotton or wool, instead of polyester. In case of a flash or burn, poly fabrics tends to melt & stick to the skin, increasing the damage.

kitn1mcc wrote:As for a Refined heal. Out Dept at work just told us if we dont Climb or go n the Bucket no need for one

A Cultivated Mend?

_________________
Codger

I would shudder if I got onto a commercial jet and saw the pilot wearing jeans and a t-shirt. My life is in his hands and I like to see that he takes his job seriously. What's wrong with presenting a respectable image to one's customers?

Why should it be any different for commuter train engineers?

As i see it, a MN engineer's job is essentially equivalent to a European or Japanese or a TA 'train driver'. Pay classes, titles, union definitions aside, all these people are driving trains. The days of climbing under locomotives, coupling cars, etc. are decades back in history.

It is not out of disrespect that I wish MN engineers would wear some degree of uniform...quite the opposite: it is because their job is one of respectability and customer confidence that I think they should dress the part.