Railroad strike update: SMART-TD rejects Biden Admin deal. What are rail unions asking for?

“Rethink your position.”

What’s to think about? I worked in a job a majority of my employable career that was a 24/365 on call status. I watched families destroyed by this in jobs a lot like them with police, firefighters and other companies.

One in four workers do not believe it is possible to have a good family life and get ahead in their current job, according to a new MORI poll.

The ability to balance work with their personal life is the key factor in determining their commitment to their employer by the vast majority of employees, with one in five now saying that they would accept a cut in pay to have more free time. Those under the age of 35 were most concerned about this and men were marginally more worried than women about having enough time for their families.

“We are experiencing twin revolutions in our society and they are affecting all areas of our lives,” said Liz Bargh, chief executive of WFD, a consultancy specialising in work/life issues which commissioned the poll. “Changes in business have led to greater job insecurity and as a result employees feel a loosened sense of identity with their employers. Add to this more women in the workplace an ageing population, increasing numbers of lone parents and the loss of the extended family support network and you can see why work/life balance is emerging as a key issue for the employee and employer alike.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/demands-of-the-job-destroying-family-life-1250623.html

According to the poll and the information on this web site, it has even been noticed that people would take a cut in pay to have more family time. I faced this attached to the US military for over 35 years and had to fight tooth and nail to keep the family together. My point is that on call emploees have a problem with family retention.

In the United States, the age-25-to-54 civilian workforce is 102 million people, and there are 52 million working parents, according to the Department of Labor. It’s therefore possible — probable, even — that 50% or more of your specialty role employees being recruiting is proving impossible to fill. And one of the main problems is the employees trying to be committed professionals while also raising their kids in a present and loving way.

So, if the company is having serious trouble finding the talent they need, it’s probably time to start paying attention to ways the company can attract this huge pool of working mothers and fathers, retain them, and ensure they deliver at work. And numbers in other countries are also eye-opening. (In England alone, there are a million more working mothers now than 20 years ago.) In today’s war for talent, working parenthood isn’t a skirmish — it’s a major, central battle.

Without a good approach to working parenthood that the company is willing to showcase and some visible examples of moms and dads succeeding and thriving in the organization are recognized, you’ll have a hard time developing a reputation or persuading people that your company is “a great place to work.” Your turnover will be difficult to handle. And many companies that have been stablished for years will go Tango uniform either from lack of talent or lack of employees.

wy69

Unions could not exist as they do presently without hard handed government regulation against businesses. They actually cannot survive as they once did...unions are dying because everyone...you included...avoids monopolistic power against you.

Unions wouldn’t exist at all if companies didn’t treat employees like crap.

Most of that is caused by over regulation and increased liability. A company would not last for very long if it mistreated it’s employees. The government/union adversity environment they created has taken the path to good relationships out for the most part. Lot’s of union guys view the employer as the adversary and the union as the real employer. Employers are frustrated by overbearing regulation, particularly where unions are involved and have to be very careful in their relations because of liability concerns. It is a bad situation for both employers and the rank and file union people. The people who benefit most from unions are the union bosses and the democrat party.

I am sorry, but you were not trapped in that job YOU CHOSE freely. I worked in an industry with heavy travel and danger. The divorce rate was high. When my wife said she did not feel like we were married cause I was gone most of the time I found other employment. That is how life works for free people who are ambitious. I would suggest that the culture is the problem more than employment. Those who are unhappy with their present employment should quit whining and/or risking their marriages and find other career. That is life friend. Giving monopolistic power to corrupt union bosses in collaboration with democrat party bosses is undermining our workplace...although, the union part has shrunk dramatically over the years as employers wisely find other solutions like moving overseas.

No. Most of that is caused by not giving a crap. Companies last plenty long treating employees badly. All you’ve got to do is look at the crap going on with the railroads. None of that is regulations or liability. It’s all the railroads being cheap and deciding they don’t care if they have high turnover.

“Giving monopolistic power to corrupt union bosses in collaboration with democrat party bosses is undermining our workplace...although, the union part has shrunk dramatically over the years as employers wisely find other solutions like moving overseas.”

I have been a member of unions before and disliked the intents of the unions I was in. There are some that are the check and balance to employers taking advantage. If you can figure out how running “on call” status highly paid with high responsibilities rather than hiring the amount of professionals they should to fill out a work schedule with contingency plans other than planning to call someone back into an unplanned shift then you have just alleviated “on call” status and have awarded your employees an opportunity to live a far more stable family life.

Using the theory of on call employment adds to the determination that the employee takes a job and it is the central point of their lives. And there are people out there that choose that type of life. But if you want a stable family life without the struggles of living it, you’re right, you are in the wrong profession and you made a bad choice of career.

But the determination of choice of schedule is with the railroads here. Not the government. Nor was it decided by the employees and it doesn’t have to be that way. And finding a way to make your employee want to work for you is the success formula for any business. Happy employees try to do better work. You want an engineer running your passenger train you are on already pissed?

And there are other things that on call creates:

A limit on how far away can they go while they’re on call

Limits on their activities, such as not allowing them to drink during the on-call time

Frequent calls. If you call them in often, they can argue the time between calls is not their own.

A brief required response time. If they must call back within an hour, they have a lot of freedom. If you expect them in the workplace immediately, they can argue the waiting time is not off-duty time.

After you call workers in, there’s no ambiguity. They’re on the clock and entitled to pay, just like any other shift. The law in some states requires that however little they work, you must pay them for at least four hours.

And some jobs have restrictions on work amounts by time. That can mean calling more on call employees in for one task if the state has restrictions on time working. Such jobs as long haul truckers, air traffic controllers, and driving busses, trains or flying aircraft all have limitations. Having the right amount of employees to cover the shifts would be much better than creating on call employees. But it would cost the employer more on HR.

wy69