Trust and sound judgement in hiring worked well for years…I still use it as I have no practical way of supervising all employee 24/7. …After awhile one develops a sixth sense…and one gets pretty good at sizing up character even without reference and background checks. The trick is to get the candidate to talk…if they’re lying their story will soon reveal inconsistencies…and once the candidate has been pegged a liar we can assume lack of integrity in other areas as well…and bingo…the candidate is rejected. Background checks are of limited value anyway as they only catch the bad liars and those who have been caught in some questionable activity. The smart ones are the dangerous ones because they don’t get caught…thus these checks are of limited usefulness anyway.
Well, if the engineer steps out of the cab when the train is moving, for whatever reason, that’s probably something management would like to know. If he steps out of the cab to use a phone when the train is stopped, that’s probably not something that’s very important to monitor.
I’ve read some of these notes saying that the solution is to be more careful in hiring and to provide better training, etc. I consider that a little unrealistic. It’s impossible to accurately predict the behavior of every employee a business might hire at the time the hiring decision is made. Further, people can change over time. A person who appeared great at his hiring may become a hazard to eveyone around him 10 years into the future. Further, in a unionized industry like railroads, it’s very difficult to get rid of employees who seem to be going bad, unless you can catch them actually violating something. Management can’t just let an engineer go because they don’t trust him anymore.
My own view is that cameras and audio recording won’t do anything to change the behavior of the vast majority of railroad employees, who do their jobs professionally and conscientiously. But it will have at least some positive effect on to the minority of employees who don’t do their jobs in this manner, either by deterring them or by giving management grounds for showing them the door. If internal camers and audio had been used on Metrolink, do you really think that
Please enlighten me as to how a camera in the cab would help with something such as a crash? Placing blame on a deceased crew member?
1- Not all incidents are crashes.
2- Not all accidents are fatal to anyone.
3- Not all fatal accidents are fatal to the train crew.
4- Knowing what caused or contributed to the incident is how management knows what changes need to be made to prevent it from happening again.
5- A person operating a vehicle or craft as a hired employee has no reasonable expectation of privacy during the conduct of his employer’s business. The camera is no different from a training or safety person or a supervisor riding along in the cab with him. How long do you think you would remain employed if you refused to let your supervisor accompany you on a trip?
Well then when a wreck does happen whos liable?I can see XYZ railroad saying " Look the employee was in the wrong sue him!" Whatever bring on the cams. That way the weed weasals can stay home and maybe rig up a pay by month program so you guys can watch us eat lunch,pick our noses,gripe about the stupidity of others etc etc.
As for the horns being picked up on the recording. On BNSF units the microphone is under the sill on the engineers side.The cam doesnt record sound jsut visual.The microphone was put outside to keep the eavesdropping complaints at a minimum. I always walked by them and said something snarky or off the wall. Somewhere there is a RFE wondering " WTH?"after listening to that tape.
I have noticed that no one has posted a more or less “major” rules change for commercial motor vehicle operators that was passed along today and carried all day by the media; “commercial bus and trucking operators have been precluded by a new Federal work rule that says (paraphrased) " texting while operating said vehicles, is now disallowed and subjet to a fine of up to $2500. to $3000.00 for violation.” the anouncement was attrributed to Secy of Transportation Ray LaHood.
I would suspect that it will be shortly anounced, and also applied to locomotive engineers and their regular operational function, as well. Although that was not mentioned in the press releases that were commented on in the news media. The new rule was attributed to the several crashes in the recent past where engineerrs were using texting.
Secretary LaHood had mentioned that their were an annual death rate due to driver inattention by texting of 65,000 individuals each year. ( Sounds high, but no research resource was quoted as the source for that figure, which gross number may be open to interpretation. (Last statement is just my opinion.)
True. But once this recession is over with we will once again be reading about labor shortages in various transportation sectors and in other areas…I personally would not work for anyone who feels the need to train a camera on me…just ain’t gonna happen…and I’m sure I’m not alone. It’s a quality of life thing that some of us have the luxury of indulging in… I’m a supervisor/manager myself, and from my viewpoint we don’t hold all the cards…the capable employee has options and can quit just as quickly as a super can fire someone. Only the drones will stick around and put up with ever more…maybe chaining the worker to his work station is next…hey…he IS supposed be there after all…
I had thought the big push was for cameras looking forward. It becomes very useful evidence for the railroad for proving fault in grade crossing collisions. Event recorders are already monitoring the operating controls, speed, air pressure and the like. Generally radio conversations with the dispatcher are recorded too. Who is “they”, or which railroad(s) is installing additional cameras to watch the inside of the cab too?
John
That can go both ways.
While such a recording can certainly document that the crew did not respond appropriately to a situation, it can also show that they did respond appropriately, and, as mentioned, can help show that the incident occurred despite their best efforts to avoid it (ie, the motorist ran the gates and got schmucked).
A similar discussion has arisen regarding “helmet cams” being used by firefighters. In that case, however, it’s usually an individual who chooses to equip their own helmet with a personally acquired camera system. The videos often end up on the web. The problem is that such cams have been known to show behavior that don’t reflect well on the wearer or their agency.
If this does come to pass, I can see it abused by nitpicking the crews on what they are doing in the cab. You spent too much time talking to the conductor, or you looked out the window too long, or stuff like that.
To reflect on a bunch of issues, first, most locomotives have cameras on them that look ahead, out through the windshield, and there’s a microsphone on the OUTSIDE. This is plenty to catch all events likely to be of any interest in accidents, as all major factors (like whether the horn was sounded, whether the lights were flashing, whether the guy who got hit clearly tried to beat the train or not, etc.) are all adequately recorded as it. In fact, with dispatch channels recorded, along with records being kept for all kinds of stuff in addition to video and audio evidence, there should already be quite a bit of data about what happened anytime an incident occurs.
The proposal is for cameras (and I’m pretty sure microphones) to be placed inside the cab, watching the crew the whole time. I am worried about the abuse of this for the reasons many have mentioned. Even though you don’t think you’re doing anything wrong at any time, management could, and, (as evidenced from the already huge reports of abuse by management), would review all this stuff on a regular basis for nitpicking reasons and employee bullying (“WHAT did that guy just say about me!?”). I understand the cameras in retail pointing at the registers and in certain places where theft is expected to be more likely (just like putting cams on the front of trains to catch crashes ahead of them), but as some people referenced, this would be an unnecessary invasion of privacy that could be done “in the name of safety”, because the crews shouldn’t be doing anything wrong (just like the comment of chaining employees to their desks, because that’s where they should be).
You should also remember, if somebody really wants to break the rules, they’re going to. If you point a camera at a texting crewmen, he holds the phone out of view under the desk and does it anyhow. Add a microphone? Well, he could have already dialed a number and be talking toward the
There’s just no getting around it…trust is at the very core of our society…When you’re on a freeway in heavy traffic you TRUST that the driver of that dump truck behind you is capable and in a good frame of mind…in fact you trust the system (with your life) to ensure everyone around is properly trained and licensed. So trusting (without surveillance) the employee isn’t such a stretch…In fact if you give your staff the impression that you don’t trust them you may make things worse instead of better as professional people will choose to work elsewhere.
On the other hand, people who need to work and who want to work, especially at a company that finds effective ways to curb costs associated with suits and damage to both infrastructure and equipment, won’t mind this otherwise intrusive method of dealing with such costs.
Sure there are abuses. That’s what they are, and why we label them as such. And why we censure those who wilfully conduct themselves that way without regard and good will to the people whose lives depend on their professionalism. Look at the way the airline industry dealt with the ‘oops’ pilots who oveflew their destination because they were engaged in that heavy ‘texting’ exercise on their laptops.
If I were a paying passenger on a conveyance, and the question were put to me, “Which would you rather the human most in control of this conveyance attend to, Facebook on his laptop or the signals and potential hazards of the road?” what would my answer be? Should we assume other passengers would place me in the minority if they were asked? Or, if we ignore the passengers, would you want an engineer who at least considers the safety of his own crewmates?
It isn’t just about dollars…it’s about ethics and morality. Professions are bound by both in the good consciences of their constituent members, and that means those in the profession are expected to conduct themselves accordingly. In fact, a code of ethics is a universal and essential feature in order for a group of practitioners to call themselves professionals. Therefore, to act outside of the principles espoused in that code/those codes of ethics is unprofessional.
And who would want to hire, train, employ, and defend to the public the retention of, such people?
-Crandell
TRUST, or lack there of, seems to be the cause of all of the cameras. After reading many of the posts here, it comes across as if there is no trust between the operations and management and vice versa. I wonder, with the workforce available to draw from today, if this will only get worse. Too often is heard, “It’s not hurting anyone,” or, “It’s a stupid rule,” or, the worst, “It’s only cheating a little.” As to the last sentence, I think professional people will, in the years to come, have less and less “elsewheres” to choose from with regards to surveillance.
Are the people who watch the cameras going to be watched by cameras…who are going to be watched by cameras…who are going to be watched by cameras…etc…?
This could get quite interesting…if a crew member does something that is clearly a violaton…an accident occurs…all caught on camera…do the people who are supposed to be monitoring the cameras take some of the blame?.. For example…lets say the engineer is openingly taking swigs of Johnny Walker…and an hour later the train misses a signal and rear-ends another…who else gets the blame?
That depends on how they write the rules for the camera watchers. The main point will be the presence of cameras will force crews to be on their best behavior just because they know they can be easily watched. Maybe they will just install fake cameras and nobody will actually be watching.
When you are on the clock operating another person’s train, vehicle, vessel, or craft you do not have a right to privacy from that employer during the performance of your duty, nor do you have any reasonable expectation of privacy.
If you are worried that the boss will hear you call him something derogatory then perhaps you should wait until you are off duty to insult people who you don’t believe to be present.
You don’t seriously believe that some management person will be monitoring all those cameras 24/7/365 do you? Does anyone monitor the exterior cameras all the time? My bet is that they will be used to investigate and accident, an incident, or an individual employee who is suspected of dereliction of duty.
If you are busy figuring out ways to talk or text surreptitiously in spite of the cameras then you are the very person that they need to monitor.
“If a person still decides to do so anyhow (wander the train while it is underway) for no apparent reason, it’s still not anything that management needs to know.”
I would love to be a fly on the wall when you present that piece of logic at your hearing or court proceeding.
Your analogy to passenger car operators is invalid. When you are operating your OWN car in apparent compliance with the law, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy for any activity that cannot be observed by a person outside the vehicle. The test of whether or not a warrant is required has always been the “reasonable expectation of privacy”. Well, at least it was until the USAPatriot Act was passed.
Phoebe Vet: Who are you quoting in the post above? [%-)]
Never mind.
Management did trust the hired operators to use common sense and not do things that would distract them from their duties. The argument that they should be monitored only after an employee proves they can’t be trusted also is poorly applied here. How many were maimed or killed because an operator was “trusted” to operate his train safely and not be distracted by texting on his phone? How many have to die to prove an operator is one that can’t be trusted?
This isn’t a matter of management trusting or not trusting their employees, it’s one of a few untrustworth