FRA proposes to regulate hours of service

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

Federal Government Will Regulate Railroad Hours of Service and Increase Focus on Safety Risk Reduction, Under the Administration’s Proposed Rail Safety Legislation

For the first time ever the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will have authority to regulate railroad worker hours of service and will provide greater focus on risk reduction to improve safety in the railroad industry under a rail safety reauthorization bill submitted to the Congress today, announced FRA Administrator Joseph H. Boardman.

“We must embrace new methods and strategies to further reduce the number of accidents in the rail industry,” Boardman said. “Railroads must be more accountable for the safety of their operations and rail employees need work schedules that reduce fatigue and promote safety,” he added, noting that the bill will reauthorize the federal rail safety program through 2011.

Boardman said the FRA proposal will replace railroad hours of service laws, first enacted in 1907, with comprehensive, scientifically based regulations to address the serious issue of worker fatigue. The laws, which set the maximum on-duty or minimum off-duty hours for train crews, dispatchers, and signal maintainers would now be set by the FRA, much like hours of services standards are set for airline pilots and truck drivers. Under the proposal, the FRA Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, made up of railroad management, labor representatives and other key stakeholders, will review the issue and develop recommendations on new hours of service limits based on current, sound science before any changes are made.

To achieve additional safety improvements, the proposal also will supplement traditional safety efforts with the establishment of risk reduction programs, Boardman explained. FRA will place increased emphasis on developing methods to systematically evaluate safety risks in order to hold railroads more accountable for

2

Railroad Official Seeks Worker Oversight

But any change could pose problems for the railroad industry, which might end up having to hire more workers at a time when it is already struggling to maintain adequate staffing levels. Unions are also uneasy about possible changes to rules that they say have protected workers for decades.

On Wednesday Joseph Boardman, head of the Federal Railroad Administration, asked Congress to repeal a 100-year-old law that regulates workers’ schedules, saying it is hazardous to public safety. Boardman wants to replace the antiquated rules with new ones set by his department that could call for more rest between shifts or shorter work days.

The existing “hours of service” laws, Boardman said in a conference call Wednesday, don’t allow regulators “to apply the scientifically based knowledge that’s out there today” about the impact of a lack of sleep on workers. Boardman said any reforms would be developed jointly by his agency, railroad companies and labor unions.

“Railroads are amenable to a careful examination” of the issue, said Tom White, spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, a trade group that represents CSX Corp., Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. and others.

Full story here

3

AAR News

Railroads give additional rest time for railroad crews; Offer more time off for train operators

WASHINGTON, February 13, 2007 — The nation’s freight railroads regularly provide train crews with more rest time than required by federal law, and are willing to require employees to take even more time off when necessary to get enough rest.

“Railroads want properly rested crews,” said Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO of the Association of American Railroads. “Employers need to provide an environment that allows the employee to obtain necessary rest while off-duty, and employees must set aside time when off duty to obtain the rest they need.”

The number of hours a rail employee can work is set by Congress under the Hours of Service Act (HSA). Under current HSA rules, train crews cannot work more than 12 consecutive hours and then must have at least 10 consecutive hours off duty. If train crews go off duty after less than 12 consecutive hours, they must have at least 8 consecutive hours off.

While hours of service are set by Congress, train crews are typically paid by the mile, with a basic day being 130 miles. Distances crews travel vary depending on such factors as geography or type of train. Some crews can travel more than 300 miles in less than 12 hours, and receive more than two and half days of pay for a day of work.

“The overwhelming majority of railroad train, engine and yard employees are on duty each month for times that are comparable to most other U.S. workers,” said Hamberger. “Some 83 percent of rail workers are on duty less than 200 hours per month and more than 95 percent less than 250 hours per month.”

Rest of story here

4

Many things that can be commented on, but this quote stuck out for me:

I’m sure that I’ve heard some engineers/conductors on this forum mention (I’m being nice) that the railroads ran employees into the ground, and a big safety issue was that employees were being overworked. How does that square with the unions statement that the current rules are “just fine, thank you very much”?

5

Of course the Feds have had 3 tries to rewrite the HOS for the trucking industry and still have refused to look at the main issue that is causing the fatiuge there. The fact that a driver could be forced to sit at the shipper or recivers for 10+ hours at a time then either load or unload the trailer then be expected to drive his next shift. At least in the RR industry the crews do not load the trains on their own.

6

There’s no conflict at all. The rules change has significant potential to cut pay and restrict seniority as secondary effects. Who wouldn’t want a safer workplace, fewer hours, protected seniority, and the same or more pay? I would, and in practice that’s exactly what I negotiate for with my employer every year. If I deliver more productivity and profits I usually get some of what I ask for, too. Railroad rank-and-file bargains collectively whereas I bargain individually, but we both have the same goal.

S. Hadid

7

Sometimes what you have, although not perfect, might be better than what you might get.

That, and the possible loss of pay from working less.

Jeff

8

Oh, I understand that any new rules might have negative consequences. I wasn’t comparing the new with the old in my comment. I was trying to align the unions statement that the current laws protect workers while I have heard many comments saying that the rules are a safety problem. Or have I been misunderstanding what people have been saying?

9

Consider it a negotiating strategy. Perhaps you’re reading these statements way too much on their face value.

10

That’s why I ask questions! [4:-)]

11

I have sometimes wondered if the new locomotives are too comfortable, making it much easier for crew members to nod off when tired.

Consider this: in the late 60’s the hours of service law allowed an employee to work 16 hours per day. And most crews would tie-up showing only 15:59 on duty, so they could return to work in 8 hours. Granted, those were the days of 5-man crews, but they were also the days of very little no radio communication, AB brakes, journal boxes, no cell phones, no pagers, etc. Additionally, the locomotives of those days were not too warm, not too quiet, not to smooth-riding.

I can recall many days where I was so tired that I fell asleep behind the throttle while cruising down the tracks (and every engineer that is honest will admit to the same behavior). And that was in the old equipment (SD40, GP30, etc). I retired before the new locomotives appeared on the scene, so I cannot say for certain, but my guess is that in a nice, quiet, smooth-riding locomotive, falling asleep would be that much easier.

12

“Rest” is a somewhat misleading term as used here…it is used to describe the time off, from the moment of tie up to the moment you are required to be back on duty.

Don’t confuse the term rest with the idea of actually getting sleep.

What was not mentioned in the article is the 90 minute call time lead…so your 10 hours of rest is really 8 ½ hours, and the 8 hours rest after less than 12 hours on duty is really 61/2 hours.

Neither one included the time to drive home or get to the motel, eat, shower, shave, any of that, so in reality…

Lets say it take you an hour and a half to get there, get clean, eat, take care of any personal business you need to, and then get to bed.

Add in the hour and a half on the lead time call, and 10 hours of “rest” just became 7 hours, and 8 hours of rest just became 5.

Part of what the unions are worried abut is that, if the FRA can “adjust” this part of the work rules, they can adjust other parts also.

Keep in mind that the guys who hold the 300 mile a day job often put in 20 to 30 years to get that seniority, working the crud jobs, extra boards, and all that, so they have enough whiskers to hold a money job.

Under these “new” rules, they may not be able to earn as much now, and from their point of view, all the toil and crap they put up with to get to this point would become a waste.

Consider your post on the Dinger Dynasty.

43 years in the cab, working his way up to the point he can hold a job that lets him go home every day.

How well do you think he would react if the new rules put him back in a pool service run, to protect him and the other guys in the pool service, forcing them all to get a specific amount of “rest”?

Lastly, railroaders, more than most other work forces, resist change.

They have built their lives around the hours of service, to the point that most of them have one, often two failed marraiges…their

13

First and formost is that the FRA is not your friend. Yeah, they may say they are just out to get the company…but YOU as an employee can also be held personally at fault and they can fine YOU as an individual.

Second, the unions tend to regard the FRA as a tool of the Company. More concerned with promoting the industry (and protecting the Company), then making substantive improvements. It takes something massive (like CSX’s rash of fatal and explosive mishaps) to get the FRA to assess meaningful actions.

Third, deep down in their greedy hearts, the unions know that any adjustment in work rules to limit time on duty, will almost certainly mean a loss of pay. OR give the Company the toehold they need to demand one man crews. “Sure Mr. FRA we’ll can comply with your new HOS regulations, but we don’t have the people. How about approving one-man crews too?”

That last bit could be a little paranoid…but look how the railroads leaped throught the RCO loophole.

Nick

14

If you were a legislator (or had a legislator’s ear), what changes would you recommend to the FRA’s proposal? Or would you just try to get the proposal squashed and maintain the status quo?

15

We’re the government and we’re here to help.

Scares me. When the government gets involved, it usually turns out entirely differently than what they had in mind.

16

Right on the mark. Often times government officials start off with very noble intentions but down the line wind up creating a bueracratic nightmare.

17

I don’t think that anyone would disagree about the ability of government to screw things up when they get involved. Most things have rather unintended consequences. The government seems particularly adept at not thinking about the consequences of the legislation that they pass.

Nevertheless, the government will continue to get involved in our lives. It is a fact of life.

And my question still remains. What changes would you like to see to the FRA’s proposal, or should the proposal just be squashed?

18

If the RR and unions had stood up and gotten something done in this regard other than a few meager carded jobs here and there, maybe the FRA wouldn’t have had to get involved. Lack of imagination and trust mixed with a dose of greed all around.

19

Anything that might lead to consistant work hours would be helpful, methinks. In fact, cutting HOS from 16 to 12 was, in some ways, detrimental. A RR worker who consistantly worked up against HOS at 16 hours, followed by 8 hours “rest” could be on a 24 hour cycle on a somewhat regular basis. Despite the long workday, the regularity of the shift would contribute to better quality rest.

The 12 hour law, with an 8 hour ‘rest,’ means that the worker is on a 20 hour cycle if he or she consistantly goes up against the ‘law’. You won’t find many industries that would subject their employees to such a schedule. It would seem to be a recipe for disaster. Take a moment with a calendar and plot out just a week of that kind of thing.

Doesn’t mean that the proposed changes are a good thing. Stuff that comes out of ivory towers isn’t usually the best for the real world.

20

Proposes??? They have since 1918! What’s this bit about “going to”?