Railroad Forums 

  • BNSF does it again!!

  • General discussion about working in the railroad industry. Industry employers are welcome to post openings here.
General discussion about working in the railroad industry. Industry employers are welcome to post openings here.

Moderator: thebigc

 #395067  by e.sillery
 
What is up with BNSF cancelling classes this year? I went on my interview back in Dec. and two months later they send me for my medical testing, telling me my class start date is May 21st. I got an email from them Monday welcoming me to class and to make sure I call the UTU trainer this week. I got a call from them today saying they have cancelled my class and do not expect to hold any classes in my area the rest of the year.

They said business was not what they had expected it to be. That I kind of understand, what I have a problem with is, did they not know this 4 days ago when they sent me the welcoming email? I went to work Tues. and turned in my notice. Now I get to go back Mon. and tell them, oops, I am not leaving afterall.

Is kind of leaving a bad taste in my mouth already.

 #395228  by Xponder
 
Unfortunately, this is a prime example of how much BNSF cares about its personnel. It's all about the money, as I was told and your just a victim caught up in the corporate profit scheme. Primary objective, make CEO Matt Rose even more rich!

BNSF has a terrible reputation for disregarding standing union agreements, not paying claims, and taking advantage of it employees. Ridiculous and contradictory operating rules, with which, they attempt to hang you at every opportunity on a daily basis.

If you think this is a bad thing that BNSF has done, wait until you are actually working for them!

.
 #398111  by zakjak221
 
It is really amazing how a company as large as BNSF doesn't know or doesn't communicate what the hell is going on!
Things have slowed from 4th quarter 2006 to present for BNSF.
I believe that they need to hire people to replace retirees that are not retiring due to money/health care costs etc.
I don't see the big picture and wonder if there even is one???
They truely burn dollars to save nickels.
As far as the rules go-if you follow them you will not get AH or fired.
I know many of the rules are overkill & take more time to do-but its their game--so they make the rules.
 #420352  by MuddyAxles
 
zakjak221 wrote:It is really amazing how a company as large as BNSF doesn't know or doesn't communicate what the hell is going on!
Things have slowed from 4th quarter 2006 to present for BNSF.
I believe that they need to hire people to replace retirees that are not retiring due to money/health care costs etc.
I don't see the big picture and wonder if there even is one???
They truely burn dollars to save nickels.
As far as the rules go-if you follow them you will not get AH or fired.
I know many of the rules are overkill & take more time to do-but its their game--so they make the rules.
Good God! I thought BNSF was the standard to be looked up to!

From what I read here it is no different than CSX.....sounds EXACTLY like what the Jacksonville Jesters pull off on a daily basis. Oh, except OUR company is buying back its own stock at a record pace and posts unheard-of profits while having to be told to fix the track or be shut down (well I think they were threatened that way cuz they never woulda spent this much money fixing stuff up of their own accord, it had to be a backroom government order!).

Anyhow, I had already quit my job and was at Johnson County Community College when Rob Krebs came and told us (in a "town meeting" at JCCC) that NONE of the students would be hired. Didn't they know that the preceding Friday before I drove 1100 miles? Guess it's no different here or there. 8 years now...love the job, hate the company.
 #420439  by cifn2
 
zakjak221 wrote:It is really amazing how a company as large as BNSF doesn't know or doesn't communicate what the hell is going on!
Things have slowed from 4th quarter 2006 to present for BNSF.
I believe that they need to hire people to replace retirees that are not retiring due to money/health care costs etc.
I don't see the big picture and wonder if there even is one???
They truely burn dollars to save nickels.
As far as the rules go-if you follow them you will not get AH or fired.
I know many of the rules are overkill & take more time to do-but its their game--so they make the rules.
Its happening in all the rail services... the big guys are hiring, the managers say, we have guys and don't have places for them, and we can't get the old guys to retire, because their wives are not old enough to draw retirement, or they cannot afford insurance, etc.

 #420455  by Xponder
 
Hopefully a bill in Congress, H.R. 2095, Railroad Safety Improvement Act, will address some of the workforce concerns regarding rest periods. Many rail critics are predicting passage of this bill because the railroads don't have as many friends in congress anymore. One provision, 10 hour maximum on duty per day, 10 hours undisturbed rest, and at least one 24hr period undisturbed rest within seven days. The railroads can't save themselves by putting you in a taxi, no limbo time! The worker must be at his terminal to tieup within the ten hour duty period. Should this one provision become law it will, by itself, revolutionize railroading. At the current rate of traffic on the rails right now there will be an explosion of hiring by all the major railroads, and opening of new terminals. But, the downside will be reduction in miles per trip by as much as half and, I'm sure, other unforeseen problems.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h110-2095
 #420700  by COEN77
 
cifn2 wrote:
Its happening in all the rail services... the big guys are hiring, the managers say, we have guys and don't have places for them, and we can't get the old guys to retire, because their wives are not old enough to draw retirement, or they cannot afford insurance, etc.
WE can't get the old guys to retire? I resent that statement seeing I'm an old guy but not yet retirement age. As for those with wives not yet 60 yrs old I can understand not retiring the wife gets a retirement check from RRB that's pretty close to 50% of the employees retirement pay. The health insurance mabey you should look at the individual and not the group if health coverage is a necessity due to a loved one or the employees needs then they have no choice. Other than the few exceptions most people I work with will retire when the time comes. Mabey the railroads jumped the gun on the hiring faze baby boomers officially will not start retiring till 2008 and when it happens it will leave the railroads and other industries shorthanded. This isn't unusual the railroads have always hired more than they needed hoping 1 out of 10 will stay through the hardships of being a new hire like surviving furloughs ect...most of us went through it. Why should you think your special?
 #420767  by MuddyAxles
 
COEN77 wrote:
cifn2 wrote:
Its happening in all the rail services... the big guys are hiring, the managers say, we have guys and don't have places for them, and we can't get the old guys to retire, because their wives are not old enough to draw retirement, or they cannot afford insurance, etc.
WE can't get the old guys to retire? I resent that statement seeing I'm an old guy but not yet retirement age. As for those with wives not yet 60 yrs old I can understand not retiring the wife gets a retirement check from RRB that's pretty close to 50% of the employees retirement pay. The health insurance mabey you should look at the individual and not the group if health coverage is a necessity due to a loved one or the employees needs then they have no choice. Other than the few exceptions most people I work with will retire when the time comes. Mabey the railroads jumped the gun on the hiring faze baby boomers officially will not start retiring till 2008 and when it happens it will leave the railroads and other industries shorthanded. This isn't unusual the railroads have always hired more than they needed hoping 1 out of 10 will stay through the hardships of being a new hire like surviving furloughs ect...most of us went through it. Why should you think your special?
Here's what I don't understand:

Say you retire now and draw your retirement, but your wife is 3 years younger and can't retire for three more years. Would she not then be able to draw her 50% or whatever it is? Seems like some would be money ahead for the Mrs. to continue working and draw hers when eligible rather than take a cut to go on the retirement 50%.

AND, you and I both know some of these guys are working for pennies an hour if you take their present pay minus what retirement would pay minus the costs to work (car, insurance, maintenance, clothes, outside meals, travel expenses) with the result divided by the hours consumed by commuting, work, and extra rest required.

AND you and I both know some of these guys either cannot stand thinking of some younger guy "working their job (& taking their pay)" or they just simply have not cultivated any outside interests and fear having nothing to do and no friends to do it with.

 #420856  by COEN77
 
Not really, Most people I've known since I've worked out here retired when they had age and time. There will always be those exceptions that will stay longer it's a very small percentage. I can still remember the date I became considered an oldhead it was Jan 3, 1986. In early fall of 1985 we were hit by a hurricane which flooded the James River and wiped out 200 miles of track. We routed trains over the Peidmont and North Mountian Subs and rebuilt the tracks between Clifton Forge and Richmond those who were retiring stayed around to help and after it was complete about 17 engineers retired on Jan 3, 1986. Up to that point working on the railroad 9 years I endured everything happening today with furloughs, having to travel distances in my seniority district to work, permanently transferring to other locations to work, living in bunkhouses on property when forced to outlining locations ect...some of these you'll never go through. It all boils down to just paying your dues nothing should be just handed to anyone.
 #420980  by thebigc
 
COEN77 wrote:
cifn2 wrote:
Its happening in all the rail services... the big guys are hiring, the managers say, we have guys and don't have places for them, and we can't get the old guys to retire, because their wives are not old enough to draw retirement, or they cannot afford insurance, etc.
WE can't get the old guys to retire? I resent that statement seeing I'm an old guy but not yet retirement age. As for those with wives not yet 60 yrs old I can understand not retiring the wife gets a retirement check from RRB that's pretty close to 50% of the employees retirement pay. The health insurance mabey you should look at the individual and not the group if health coverage is a necessity due to a loved one or the employees needs then they have no choice. Other than the few exceptions most people I work with will retire when the time comes. Mabey the railroads jumped the gun on the hiring faze baby boomers officially will not start retiring till 2008 and when it happens it will leave the railroads and other industries shorthanded. This isn't unusual the railroads have always hired more than they needed hoping 1 out of 10 will stay through the hardships of being a new hire like surviving furloughs ect...most of us went through it. Why should you think your special?
Read the whole quote. cifn2 was merely stating that some of the old guys can't or won't retire due to the reasons you both stated; and those are legitimate reasons, not that anyone needs my permission to work past 60. I'm sure those people have their reasons. Some guys hired later in life and have to go past 60 to get their 360 months and some may have been off on disability and came back.

I only condemn the guys who used to condemn other people for working past 62 many years back.

 #421403  by COEN77
 
Seems they'll be a lot of new hires that will have to stick around till mid to late '60s. In my area at least 25% of new hires over the past 3-5 years hired on in their mid 40's and early '50s. Surprisingly I thought they must of been retire military, but that isn't the case most just did it for a carreer change.

I probably read the post wrong and with that I apologize. But, there does seem to be a misconception of what it takes to get to work year round on the railroad. In that it takes paying your dues and waiting till retirement happen. Something most railroaders who stick it out have to endure.

 #421512  by MuddyAxles
 
COEN77 wrote:Not really, Most people I've known since I've worked out here retired when they had age and time. There will always be those exceptions that will stay longer it's a very small percentage. I can still remember the date I became considered an oldhead it was Jan 3, 1986. In early fall of 1985 we were hit by a hurricane which flooded the James River and wiped out 200 miles of track. We routed trains over the Peidmont and North Mountian Subs and rebuilt the tracks between Clifton Forge and Richmond those who were retiring stayed around to help and after it was complete about 17 engineers retired on Jan 3, 1986. Up to that point working on the railroad 9 years I endured everything happening today with furloughs, having to travel distances in my seniority district to work, permanently transferring to other locations to work, living in bunkhouses on property when forced to outlining locations ect...some of these you'll never go through. It all boils down to just paying your dues nothing should be just handed to anyone.
We have several who could have retired years ago working well into their seventies.

While I understand the trials of what many had to endure to continue working, I have to tell folks that the work history of many railroaders who came up through all that is not so different from what many of us on the outside endured..at least in the shrinking Northeast.

The benefit to those who did stick it out and the resulting wisdom of it is the continuing seniority and retirement at the end of the line.

Many of us who may have wanted to work alongside you years ago but were unable to find the way in, have lost jobs to other states, countries, and continents several times. We had to use any pension money accrued to get by until the next job (before 401k days). In 1977 I finally left NY after being laid off for the 3rd time (should never have come back).

Some companies downsized, others out-shopped, others closed completely. In an area where a man or woman could once find a job paying reasonably well within 15-30 miles, now sends its folks on a 50-60-70 mile commute one way. The better factory jobs are fewer and fewer each year. Many, many people have thrown in the towel and volunteered to become paid prisoners for 8 hours a day (corrections officers) or work for some other government entity, but you know that kind of work isn't for everyone (at least not for me!).

I even left home and lived in the sleeper of an 18-wheeler for a couple of years (thinking of the rr bunkhouses). That's about like being a turtle with your house on your back!

We all have come through alot. Those who started with a RR and ended with a RR were tenacious, lucky, smart, wise, and a whole lot of other stuff. Anybody who is NOT an educated professional (people like us) who has come through the last 30 years and kept his bills mostly paid, etc. has done a pretty fair job, all things considered.

We gotta remember we're all more alike than we are different.

 #421839  by conrail_engineer
 
Xponder wrote:Hopefully a bill in Congress, H.R. 2095, Railroad Safety Improvement Act, will address some of the workforce concerns regarding rest periods. Many rail critics are predicting passage of this bill because the railroads don't have as many friends in congress anymore. One provision, 10 hour maximum on duty per day, 10 hours undisturbed rest, and at least one 24hr period undisturbed rest within seven days. The railroads can't save themselves by putting you in a taxi, no limbo time! The worker must be at his terminal to tieup within the ten hour duty period. Should this one provision become law it will, by itself, revolutionize railroading. At the current rate of traffic on the rails right now there will be an explosion of hiring by all the major railroads, and opening of new terminals. But, the downside will be reduction in miles per trip by as much as half and, I'm sure, other unforeseen problems.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h110-2095
When you start depending on government ministers to solve your problems...you're in deep doo-doo.

Already problems are shaping up, if what I read on the bulletin board is true. And that's to be expected...NObody can be an expert on everything; and Federal bureaucrats can't be expected to fully understand the lifestyle out here. No more than we could understand the political games of Washington without living amidst and among.

So...these bureaucrats are going to seek out people who "know." Who are they going to listen to, loud union leaders with proven histories of bashing the industry and government, or "reasonable" people with degrees and credentials?

That's right - railroad management. Fox-in-the-henhouse time.

So management, which never hesitates to put the screws to the T&E crews, is apparently going to press for a proposal which would cap the number of per-month hours. This does nothing to address the problem, but it slaps down the guys who're making above-average incomes.

The trouble is management - credentials and degrees aside, they themselves don't know their business or, in the main, have the common sense to understand the problem. They cannot grasp that a human being, even one of the lower orders that has to do their bidding, is not a machine - that a human needs periodic rest and some semblance of structure.