Railroad Forums 

Discussion related to commuter rail and transit operators in California past and present including Los Angeles Metrolink and Metro Subway and Light Rail, San Diego Coaster, Sprinter and MTS Trolley, Altamont Commuter Express (Stockton), Caltrain and MUNI (San Francisco), Sacramento RTD Light Rail, and others...

Moderator: lensovet

 #790602  by Bart78
 
Not sure if this should be here or AMTRAK or Employment but mods can move if needed:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 8660.story

By Rich Connell

April 1, 2010

Engineers and conductors on Southern California's commuter rail service are threatening an en masse boycott of new personality-profiling tests required as a result of the 2008 Chatsworth disaster.

The dispute sets up a potentially major labor-management clash just as the five-county Metrolink system is shifting to a new contractor to provide crews for trains that have nearly 1 million boardings a month.

The screening tests, frequently used by corporate managers to gauge the suitability of job applicants, are already required by Amtrak, the incoming operating contractor, when it hires engineers and conductors.

But two powerful railroad unions are strongly objecting to a Metrolink-Amtrak agreement finalized last week. It requires experienced crew members on the regional rail service to take and pass the tests to continue working on the system. Some have worked on Metrolink trains for years.

"We are not going to be taking these tests," said Tim Smith, California legislative chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. "That's it. We'll see where it ends."

"We're all going to stand together," said Ray Garcia of the United Transportation Union, which represents the conductors.

Union leaders say that, unless the dispute is resolved, Amtrak may not be able to field qualified train crews when it takes over operations this summer. Amtrak is set to assume operation of the 500-mile Metrolink system July 1. Connex Railroad, the current operator, opted not to pursue a contract extension when its relationship with Metrolink soured after the Chatsworth crash, which killed 25 and injured 135.

Metrolink board members say safety must come first, but they are likely to revisit the testing issue to ensure it is fair to the approximately 130 engineers and conductors now working on their trains.

The push for psychological screening was prompted by findings that a Metrolink engineer who repeatedly violated safety rules caused the Chatsworth catastrophe. Engineer Robert M. Sanchez, who died in the crash, had sent and received hundreds of text messages while operating trains, including seconds before he ran a red light and hit a freight train head-on, federal investigators concluded. In addition, evidence showed that Sanchez sneaked young rail fans onto locomotives and apparently let at least one sit at the controls. Such conduct was wildly irresponsible, Metrolink officials say, and occurred even though the veteran engineer had received good evaluations.

"You don't want someone out there who's having whatever psychological issues they are having that could jeopardize passengers," said Metrolink board Chairman Keith Millhouse. But he added, "We are going to have to look at this and see if some kind of proper balance can be struck."

Union leaders say the tests are not valid or relevant measures of a trained and experienced employee's ability to safely operate trains. They say they don't object to testing of potential hires who aren't union members. But forcing existing train crews to pass the tests could arbitrarily cost good workers their jobs, they say.

"I think it's strictly a witch hunt," said Smith of the engineers union.

Also, longtime Amtrak employees who've never taken the personality tests would be allowed to transfer to Metrolink under the new contract, said conductors' representative Garcia. "This is something that's never, ever been required" of seasoned workers moving between operating contractors on railroads like Metrolink, he said.

At issue are tests Amtrak has used for several years to screen job applicants. A "personality inventory" for engineers is designed to reveal an applicant's "work tendencies, habits and personality traits," according to an Amtrak statement. It specifically seeks out "focused introverts" who are good at repetitive tasks and don't allow themselves to become distracted by such things as cellphones while operating a train, according to descriptions provided by the rail company. The assessment was developed with union assistance and consultants and has been used since 2002, according to Amtrak.

Conductor candidates take two such tests: One is designed to gauge an applicant's ability to interact with customers and deal with conflicts and emergencies. The other seeks to measure a person's ethics and attitudes toward theft, drug use and other workplace concerns.

Amtrak declined to provide failure rates for the tests, but Garcia said about 20% of conductor applicants fail the ethics and attitudes test.

The written tests are part of an ongoing effort to overhaul Metrolink's safety culture, agency officials say. Another initiative, last year's installation of video surveillance cameras in train control cabs, has already sparked a legal battle with the engineers' union.

Like the cameras, personality testing of train crews -- and particularly locomotive engineers -- is prudent because employees are responsible for hundreds of lives, said agency board member Richard Katz. "This is one more tool to help evaluate how an engineer might operate under stress."

USC professor Robert Gore, a personality testing expert, said such screening can be valuable but might not flag an employee like engineer Sanchez. "These tests are far from perfect," he said, adding that they should be used with great care and caution in screening existing workers who have not demonstrated problems.

Katz said he thinks the test results should be part of assessing existing workers but not necessarily a disqualifying factor. But he acknowledged that under the current contract language, Metrolink crew members "run the risk of not being employed" if they don't agree to take the tests.

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

Looking forward to your thoughts, especially from someone with an inside view to this controversy.
 #790787  by lensovet
 
do they themselves see how weak their argument is?
Union leaders say the tests are not valid or relevant measures of a trained and experienced employee's ability to safely operate trains. They say they don't object to testing of potential hires who aren't union members. But forcing existing train crews to pass the tests could arbitrarily cost good workers their jobs, they say.
right, because being a union member, or having worked the system for x years, somehow makes you psychologically stable?? what?
how long had sanchez worked on trains before the crash?
 #791099  by goodnightjohnwayne
 
The unions fought drug testing after the Chase, Maryland disaster. They went to court, went through appeals, took it to the highest court....and lost. When it comes down to fighting the bad fight, some union leaders are always willing to take the wrong side of every issue.

In the wake of Chatsworth, Metrolink apparently has the worst safety record of any commuter rail authority. Given that human error was the cause of the disaster, and that the deceased engineer had passed all evaluations, it's clear that new criteria have to be applied to existing employees as well as new hires. The same goes for cameras in the cab - another issue that the union is fighting, going against all public opinion.
 #791356  by DutchRailnut
 
Unions arer not there for public, the public does not pay their dues.
Unions are there to fight for the dues paying members.
and yes sometimes the two sides do not agree.
privacy and rights of workers can not be trusted to company or public entities.
 #791751  by goodnightjohnwayne
 
DutchRailnut wrote:Unions arer not there for public, the public does not pay their dues.
Actually, in the case of Metrolink, the public is paying the wages from which those union dues are deducted. So yes, there needs to a level of public accountability.
DutchRailnut wrote: Unions are there to fight for the dues paying members.
I've seen instances when "dues paying members" have literally been left on their own when a company made some fairly outrageous and implausible accusations. All too often, the union will go out of its way to defend a really contemptible member who is very obviously guilty of a criminal offense, while a member who is very obviously an innocent victim of management is gladly thrown to the wolves. This is a general observation about the railroad industry and not applicable to a single company, transit authority or union.
DutchRailnut wrote:privacy and rights of workers can not be trusted to company or public entities.
Privacy? If a locomotive engineer wants privacy they are in the wrong line of work. Cab cameras will potentially clear innocent and conscientious engineers, and we all know that in the vast majority of crossing accidents, the engineer was not at fault. Cab cameras are actually a positive development for the membership and something that the unions should embrace. If union leaders had any sense of public opinion, they would actively advocate the universal use of cab cameras instead of fighting it!

As far as personality testing, it is far less invasive that the physicals and drug testing that the union members now undergo. It really doesn't represent a substantial break with current accepted practices. Of course, when regular physical examinations were demanded by the railroads, probably in the early 20th century or before, I'm sure the unions fought that as well. Well all know the unions fought drug testing to the bitter end as well.
 #791763  by DutchRailnut
 
Again its upto union to protect its members from any negative work enviroment.
We already got drug testing, alcohol testing, event recorders, outward facing camera's.
Company wants inward facing camera's, voice recorders etc. is this for safety or nitpicking.
With single occupancy of todays cabs, what will a voice recorder reveal in a crash or accident other than engineer saying " ohhh shit"', after all the radio is already recorded at just about all radio bases and a lot more CP points.
whats next rectal probes to see if we got flatulence ????

If rail companies are so concerned about safety and quality of people, how come they keep on lowering bar and hiring conductors and engineers, which have zero railroad experience of the street, and letting these unproven rookies run trains one year after hiring.
What happend to proven yourself in another craft, to make sure they get quality of people they need in most safety sensitive positions ??????
 #792008  by goodnightjohnwayne
 
DutchRailnut wrote:Again its upto union to protect its members from any negative work enviroment.
We already got drug testing, alcohol testing, event recorders, outward facing camera's.
Company wants inward facing camera's, voice recorders etc. is this for safety or nitpicking.
With single occupancy of todays cabs, what will a voice recorder reveal in a crash or accident other than engineer saying " ohhh *"', after all the radio is already recorded at just about all radio bases and a lot more CP points.
Well, with all of the means of observing crew behavior, surely cab camera and personality testing are merely a minor extension of current practices?

The bottom line is that SOMETHING has to be done after Chatsworth. Cab cameras will only work if there is someone to review the footage and if management has the ability to terminate any employees who are engaged in dangerous behavior. Personality testing does apparently have a scientific basis, and since the engineer at Chatsworth had been well regarded before the disaster, it's pretty obvious that it's neccessary to find new ways of detecting engineers who might place the traveling public at risk.

DutchRailnut wrote:If rail companies are so concerned about safety and quality of people, how come they keep on lowering bar and hiring conductors and engineers, which have zero railroad experience of the street, and letting these unproven rookies run trains one year after hiring.
What happend to proven yourself in another craft, to make sure they get quality of people they need in most safety sensitive positions ??????
I hate to break it to you, but we live in an era of two man freight train crews. There are no longer any Firemen to promote to Engineers and Brakemen to promote to Conductors.

There is also a disconnect between the freight railroads and the commuter agencies. In the days when the commuter and passenger service were integral with freight operations, the personnel with the most seniority typically had the passenger jobs, which the easiest and most desirable. Today, the the private freight carriers and subsidized transit agencies are entirely separate. I'm not about to argue that the separation doesn't have a number of downsides, but it's here to stay.

In any case, these jobs involve more responsibility than outright skill.
 #792024  by DutchRailnut
 
You make a great Company official, anti-union and safety is of most importance, as long as it does not hinder company way of life,and in its lies about OT performance .
The spin on inward facing camera's is not that they are a valid accident tool but a substitute for supervision.
A fact the NTSB as severly criticized Metrolink for, how else you explain that enough managers got fired to have operator loose face.
These personality testing sessions are nothing more than a witch hunt.

and for info were dealing with passenger trains here, not freight.
its known fact that operating crews are now hired as crew, after succesfully completing McDonalds french fry course.
 #793741  by goodnightjohnwayne
 
Passenger wrote:This isn't just a labor/management issue.

Personality testing? You might as well use a Ouija Board.
There appears to be some scientific basis to that form of testing. Basically, it's meant to reveal employees, or prospective employees, who possess a disregard for rules in general. Keeping in mind that the deceased engineer at Chatsworth had passed all existing reviews with flying colors, it follows that Metrolink needs to update its practices.
 #793743  by DutchRailnut
 
It was managment that failled all test, they knew about mr.Sanches behaviour from complaints from co workers, yet they did nothing.
thats why the operating company and most of its managers got fired.
Lack of proper supervision, a fault at most railroads.
 #793744  by goodnightjohnwayne
 
DutchRailnut wrote:You make a great Company official, anti-union and safety is of most importance, as long as it does not hinder company way of life,and in its lies about OT performance .
The spin on inward facing camera's is not that they are a valid accident tool but a substitute for supervision.
A fact the NTSB as severly criticized Metrolink for, how else you explain that enough managers got fired to have operator loose face.
These personality testing sessions are nothing more than a witch hunt.

and for info were dealing with passenger trains here, not freight.
its known fact that operating crews are now hired as crew, after succesfully completing McDonalds french fry course.
I know we're not talking about the private sector, hence the use of the word "company" is entirely redundant. We're talking about a safety issue impacting the riding public and the management of a public authority.

It's also time to forget about promoting engineers from firemen, since that trade hasn't existed in decades. With the separation between public authorities and private freight carriers, the transit authorities simply hire off the street and train their own employees, although there are exceptions.

In any case, the Chatsworth engineer was hardly a new hire, which indicates there is a need to continually review the conduct of current employees at Metrolink.
 #793762  by DutchRailnut
 
nobody suggested hiring from firemen, read again, but not right from street either.
as for Mr Sanches again biggest failure is Management did not do their job.
who will test them ??????

I got 26 years in rail industry , and you ???
 #793775  by umtrr-author
 
Personality tests are not new in the rest of corporate America. It's interesting that the union is not OK with existing members taking tests but is OK with potential new hires taking them. Seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me.

Meanwhile, the book "How to Beat Personality Tests" by Charles Alex is not new... perhaps it will become "required reading."

Here's a link to some online advice-- no endorsement implied :-)

http://www.ehow.com/how_4446746_pass-pr ... -test.html
 #793784  by DutchRailnut
 
Pre-employment testing is OK with me, but using pre employment test , just because management changes is a slippery slope.
it would become a possibility for a new company to get rid of existing employees , without cause or work related causes.