This is just my opinion, but I think Trains, the magazine, needs to start covering labor’s views on the rail industry. Over the years, Trains has taken mostly a management bias in its reporting.
First the magazine needs to develop contacts with rail labor spokespersons to balance articles with credible counter opinions to management’s press releases.
Second, Trains needs an opinion column written every month by a different member of labor about a current issue.
Next, Trains needs to start to document the rift between the UTU and the BLE as played by railroad management. This is a big, ongoing story, which is being played out by management to gain one person operated trains.
If that is what you need in the magazine, I can respect that. But, I am not sure I see bias in Trains, and it sounds like what you really want is a bully pulpit to rip into management.
Don’t get me wrong, best of luck to you in getting your desired benefits, etc. But, I think the quickest way to get me to stop reading Trains is for it to cease being my break from the stresses of the world and to become a battleground between the Proletariat and the bourgeois. If I want to read about that, I will go to work or turn on the news.
I hope Trains tells me how strikes and labor issues affect the industry and its services; but, I would rather not see it degraded to an editorial for either side to voice their grievances.
Gabe
P.S. I seem to remember the last major strike covered by Trains was entitlted “A Pox on both of your Houses.” That doesn’t strike me as biased.
Having a labor pulpit means you need a management pulpit as well. Thanks but no thanks. In case you haven’t noticed we have far too many labor/management fights here already. We don’t need to polarize this group any further, nor do we need that in the magazine. If that happens I’ll certainly be first in line to cancel my subscription. In addition, there are plenty of articles and comments posted here that come directly from labor sites and have a significant labor slant (I know, I post quite a few) so your thesis that labor is underrepresented here is incorrect.
I remember Trains first coverage of Remote Control, absolutely panned any safety issues and bowed to the new technology.
As a matter of fact, I can never remember any quote in Trains from Labor about any issue! This magazine has absolutely forgotten labor! And it is labor that makes it work. When all the new technology breaks, its labor that brings home the bacon.
Let’s see, we got wall streets answer on cabooses, then we got wall streets answer on RMC. Never did labor have a chance to respond to the Train’s anti labor theme within those articles.
Then you have a very ego filled Don Phillips in a column talking about open access, and all of railroads problems would be solved with sleeper cab locomotives.
Trains never let, invited, or allowed labor to respond to Dons totally absurd ideas, yet he has credibility! The Potomac Pundit is the most anti union fellow I ever read…
Then there is this really over weight Ed King, he didn’t get fat by working. When he was entertaining us fans with his stories about how dumb us working people are, just how true were these stories. Did labor have a chance at fair play, NO, it didn’t
At no time did Trains magazine give labor a fair shake, they saw us as the problem, well management has had its way for better than 15 years. Union Pacific still can’t run its railroad!
Every word in every article in Trains is managements pulpit, when is the last time Trains stood on labor’s pulpit, NEVER is the answer. LC, if its in Trains its biased against labor.
I would like to hear other points of view before passing judgement. Not that I necessarily believe what management says is true but it would be nice to make sure I am getting ALL the facts before advocating for or against management.
So what valuable forum member are you looking to chase of the forum this week SP9033? Two down a few more hundred to go, and you will be stuck with insulting yourself.
Insult knowledgeable people like Don Phillips and Ed King all you want; but, I draw the line at Junctionfan!
Gabe
P.S. Wall Street didn’t kill the caboose; rail’s inability to compete with other more efficient forms of transportation did. I suppose that operating in the red isn’t a big concern of yours though.
Hate to break the news but the mainstream press has never been nice to labor. This is despite the fact that many newspaper reporters are part of the NWU and National Writers Guild. Strikers are reported as being greedy or lazy or both.
It fairly simple, write an article and submit it to Trains for publication.
I did it. It was a long time ago, but I did it.
Write something about the BLE/UTU split and send it in. If you want to make a case against remote control locomotives, make it. If you want to make a case to bring back the caboose, make it. I don’t think you can possibly make rational arguments against remote control or for the caboose, but I’ll read what you write.
I differintiate the workers from the unions. I think the unions act in their own best interest, which is not the same as the workers’ best interest. The sooner someone learns that in this Eathly Life, “You’re on Your Own”, the better off that someone will be.
Trains isn’t a management toady. Fred Frailey has certainly been critical of UP management in its pages. And Mr. Snow of CSX was basically labeled as an incompitant railroad boss.
If you’ld have written this 30 years ago, I would’ve readily agreed with you. In recent years, I would have to say Trains is quite a bit less bias towards management’s view. When’s the last time you heard “featherbedding” in Trains.
I have never really thought of Mr. Phillips or Mr. King as being anti-labor. While they may have done items that may not have been kind to labor, they also have done items that weren’t kind to management. If you want a columnist who seemed to be consistantly anti-labor (organized or not) re-read John G. Kneiling’s column from the 1970s.
In recent years, IMHO, Trains has become a lot less biased. Of course, there still at times may be a little leaning towards management. This is understandable. If an editor/columnist needs some information from a railroad, they’ll get the information management wants them to have. I also seem to recall many letters over the years from Labor (leaders and rank and file) that were printed in answer to something in Trains.
If you really want pro-management bias, read Railway Age (I do) or the other trade magazines.
Jeff
Firmly in LC’s camp here … and we have been known to disagree on occasion. And then we get into the journalistic integrity thing which Kalmbach manages better than most.
Irregardless of one’s perspectives and leanings on management-labor conflicts, everything is irrelevant and misses a greater universal national concern. Until TRAINS boldly identifies and exposes the ultimate problem, everyone will just grope in warring confusion. Whatever TRAINS’ real editorial outlook is, everyone must understand that TRAINS is in itself a helpless victim of the “greater universal national concern.” Thus, it is not surprising that this forum topic has arisen.
Viewing everything through the colored glass of labor/management relations is a mistake. I see TRAINS as a magazine about railroads in general. As has been amply pointed out, the companies provide most of the information published. Most labor folks have little interest in providing information concerning the railroad itself. If there was really an interest guys like Frank Wilner who now works for the UTU would undoubtedly have been submitting pieces to TRAINS. Most employees don’t want to submit much to TRAINS or other publications as they fear their submissions would be used against them by the company at some future time.
If you feel strongly about it perhaps you should submit articles to TRAINS on issues of moment to labor. I think you will have much to write about this year if my sources are correct.
I consider myself to be very pro union however; I don’t see a any general management bias in Trains Mag. I like it the way it is. It is informative. It covers technical, historical, pros and cons about railroads and equipment. When I worked for the railroad, I was loyal to the company’s interest as it was also in my best interest. That included management since they are part of the company also. There are differences in employee and management interests also and that is covered by union and management’s own publications. If you want these slanted stories printed, start your own magazine or just print them here. However; be prepared for others opinions too. It makes life interesting if everyone doesn’t agree with me all the time. Also, you may take the advice that is spouted in here quite frequently in heated debate, “If you don’t like it, don’t read it.” [2c]
Trains is not an industry or trade magazine, it is a hobby magazine. The majority of the subscribers are not employed in the railroad industry. I subscribe because I like and have a hobby interest in trains and railroads, not management and labor conflict.
Maybe I am mistaken but I don’t recall Trains mag celebrating the end of private passenger train service, the loss of the caboose, the abandonment of various lines around the country, the introduction of remote control etc as I would suspect they would if they were truly pro-managment. I think they recognize that change is necessary for the industry to stay competitive in the modern world but at the same time lament the losses from a nostalgic viewpoint similar to many railfans. Fundamentally, I don’t think the unions viewpoint is going to be well represented because the focus of Trains mag is on trains and rail operations just like most fans while the unions are focused on labor issues such as wages and benefits that have little to do with actual train operations.