From what I read on the Favorite Clas I thread, and a link to a blog, should not Don Philips or Fred Frailey investigate this situation? What is the truth?
Note that the railfan posting the comments and the link to a critical report indicates he feels he was mistreated as a railfan. It might be interesting to see just what CSX’s taka on the situation is, and I hope both sides of the argument can be presented in a fair and thorough fashion.
No institution is perfect. Possibly some CSX employees may wish to comment on this or the “Best Class One” thread. I feel confident there are some CSX people happy with their jobs!
I think the lack of response is more than telling.
Whatever the thread is (disgruntled employees or disgruntled railfan), you expect the squeaky wheels to show up with reports like this. If, as in this case, chapter and verse are cited, there may be some merit to it. But what kind of questions would one expect Messrs. Frailey and Phillips to ask: “Are you doing anything about managers who intimidate employees who submit safety issues?” That won’t get any meaningful answer, and they’ll also tell you that this employee was dismissed for something else he did. Never mind that he had officers scrutinizing everything down to how long he took in the bathroom, ever since he blew that whistle.
I know that employees are monitored if they’re unsafe–they had a “Pal” list for people like that. A “Pal” has to make sure that yardmasters, etc., know that he’s on duty, reports have to be filled out by his supervisors, he’s talked to every time he works, and so forth. But let me tell you…other employees’ opinions of these “Pals” tends to bear out the fact that they usually have it coming.
I was a safety captain at work for a few years. Our meetings consisted of going over the records of previous incidents, and lots of hand-wringing and wondering what needed to be done to prevent this from happening again. But it usually boiled down to a safety rule being violated (quite often by a person who already had a reputation for doing stuff like that). I can say that nothing was covered up, because the reports in the employee papers matched what we were shown, statistically. There used to be a safety hotline that could be used to report defects (you were supposed to give your name, but reports still would come in as “anonymous”);
Carl, I appreciate your very balance approach to this issue. If Fred or Don were to just read the critical report accessed on the link, and then simpl ask Mr. Ward the postive question:
“What has CSX done to implement the recommendations of the report and what further work needs to be done?” some positive results could be expected both for CSX and their employees.
And they could also use the opportunity to suggest that CSX adopt the same railfan relationship as additional security watchmen with CSX-fan identity cards that BNSF and now Amtrak have.
I’ve been out for a bit but I obviously missed something… what is this report you speak of?
I’ve also been trying to figure out what the subject of this discussion really is; and I’m not sure that I’ve succeeded. I thought, from its title, that it was based on some firsthand experience with CSXT; however it appears to be simply the most recent in a series of Internet posting by people whose opinions about CSXT are more obvious than the nature of their connections with CSXT.
The situation seems to be something like this. . .
Last December, someone whom I believe is a terminated CSXT employee recommended, on his Web site, that CSX’s board of directors terminate Michael Ward’s employment as the CEO of CSX. That recommendation was preceded by references to various FRA documents. At first, I thought that one of those documents was being referred to as the “report”; however I think that term is now being used in reference to the Web site discussion of the documents.
Yesterday, a participant in the discussion titled “the best class I” on this forum provided a link to the December discussion on the other Web site as a basis for his own low opinion of Michael Ward and indicated that, based on “everything” that he had “ever seen, read, or heard”, CSX “is the worst in terms of morale, management, safety, and equipment”.
About an hour and a half after that posting, this separate discussion began. Its original purpose was apparently to induce one of Trains columnists to investigate the criticisms that the former employee had expressed in support of his recommendation that Michael Ward’s employment be terminated. I believe that purpose has since been expanded to include the recommendation that the columnist do what he can to improve the relationship between CSXT and railfans.
I have no opinion about what subjects should be investigated by Trains columnists.
After 30 years with the B&O/Chessie/CSX, it has been my observation that everyone I have seen fired has had multiple chances to “get it together” before being terminated. The exception being cases of gross misconduct / safety violations that the employee was well aware they were violating, but still decided to do it anyway. I am in no way commenting on every single incident that occurs within CSX, but only on what I have seen myself.
Here’s one for you NS Fans to comment on:
Two former Norfolk Southern workers sue company
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_744941.html
For the past decade CSX has been following the NS model on operating department employee relations with former NS officials occupying the top operating job.
If a CSX official wants a quick end to his career, all he has to do is mishandle a injury to a employee in his area of responsibility.
What I wanted was to read or hear Mr. Ward or CSX’s general reply to the situation. But I think Carl’s comment on this thread gives a pretty balanced picture.
Successful safe railroads generally use the military as a guide for operational discipline. They have to, because lives are at stake in every railroad operation. Elsewhere, civilian life is a bit looser, and not everyone is cut out for railroading, just like not everyone is cut out to be in the Armed Services as a career.