• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2024 Rail Strike (or not?)

I don't disagree with the premise of your argument. And the solution is to hire more staff so individuals aren't put into these positions. The trade off though would be that you need to pay everyone less, reduce overtime, etc. so that the overall cost of doing business doesn't go up.

The problem becomes that this argument never works with any union, whether it be teachers, nurses, police officers or any other "critical" group of employees that serve the public. If a union is offered the choice between more pay for current members, or no raises but hiring more people to reduce burn out, overtime costs, increase safety, etc. what does everyone think the union will always choose on behalf of their membership?
I respectfully reject that premise. Both of these corporations have record profits from Precision Scheduled Railroading, a system invented by bean counters that are cutting safety and maintenance to the bone. If they can have record profits, they can pay their guys better.
 
What is unsustainable about the demands being made by the union now? Tell me how it's a good idea to cut rest periods to 12 hours like the employer is advocating for. Do you want trains being run by crews in your town under those circumstances? Or are you being ideological needlessly?
I don’t get the sense that was the precise issue.

It is my sense that the Fed’s crew rest rules don’t work for anyone. It makes scheduling just about impossible for the companies and it inconveniences the employees. I was told (and I stand to be corrected) that an employee could not even deadhead home on a train as a passenger during their 10hr crew rest period- they had to spend it all in a bunkhouse/hotel, whether they wanted to or not.
 
I don’t get the sense that was the precise issue.

It is my sense that the Fed’s crew rest rules don’t work for anyone. It makes scheduling just about impossible for the companies and it inconveniences the employees. I was told (and I stand to be corrected) that an employee could not even deadhead home on a train as a passenger during their 10hr crew rest period- they had to spend it all in a bunkhouse/hotel, whether they wanted to or not.
That is correct from what I know, in order to comply with federal regulation. Talking to some buddies at the railroad the biggest issue is less the deadhead and more the home rest. Also the fact that the railroad is trying to get them hourly like the Americans, not by the mile, it'd be a big pay cut to real wages for running trades.
 
No wonder hardly anybody wants to get into politics. You slagged for not doing something and slagged for doing something.
On the glass-is-half-full side, though, there's always going to be those who will forgive even your worst transgressions - black face, serial adultery, firing & demoting strong female colleagues, multiple failed businesses - and see you as doing no wrong, too. Two sides, same coin ;)
 
That is correct from what I know, in order to comply with federal regulation. Talking to some buddies at the railroad the biggest issue is less the deadhead and more the home rest. Also the fact that the railroad is trying to get them hourly like the Americans, not by the mile, it'd be a big pay cut to real wages for running trades.
Why would the companies want to pay by the hour? It seems to me that paying by the mile is better for the company. Genuine question.
 
Why would the companies want to pay by the hour? It seems to me that paying by the mile is better for the company. Genuine question.
Say a guy gets his work done in 8 hours and the mileage pay is 400 bucks. Now he goes home because his job is done for the day. If the railroad converts to hourly they'll set the hourly rate to 40 an hour so it'll take the same guys 10 hours to make the same amount of money. Therein lies the issue, the railroad is trying to essentially sneak in a pay cut to the collective while undoing a lot of the previous bargaining work done over the past 100 years. Wall St and American execs are just doing what they do to every Canadian (and American) company they get their hands on, squeeze out all the juice, wait for a bailout and move to the next industry to fuck over.
 
Say a guy gets his work done in 8 hours and the mileage pay is 400 bucks. Now he goes home because his job is done for the day. If the railroad converts to hourly they'll set the hourly rate to 40 an hour so it'll take the same guys 10 hours to make the same amount of money. Therein lies the issue, the railroad is trying to essentially sneak in a pay cut to the collective while undoing a lot of the previous bargaining work done over the past 100 years. Wall St and American execs are just doing what they do to every Canadian (and American) company they get their hands on, squeeze out all the juice, wait for a bailout and move to the next industry to fuck over.
But he won’t be home: he will be in a bunkhouse 400 miles from home. Getting paid hourly, because he is away from home.

Or do I have it wrong?
 
But he won’t be home: he will be in a bunkhouse 400 miles from home. Getting paid hourly, because he is away from home.

Or do I have it wrong?
You are incorrect. A lot of time they're at home waiting for a call. You are not paid being on call. That said, they could be waiting in a hotel for a call to head back home.
 
Are pilots walking miles cranking handbrakes on 300 railcars in -25°C? Comparing the two jobs is disingenuous
Clearly more people’s lives depend critically on rail workers than pilots.

I defer to your experience in employment that has the highest criticality of performance in modern society.
IMG_4849.gif
 
Clearly more people’s lives depend critically on rail workers than pilots.

I defer to your experience in employment that has the highest criticality of performance in modern society.
View attachment 87509
Nice strawman lol. Also, rail workers do seem to be more critical to the economy than pilots, as evidenced by the government basically denying them their right to strike twice in the past 15 years haha. Airline employees were not denied the same right.
 
Nice strawman lol. Also, rail workers do seem to be more critical to the economy than pilots, as evidenced by the government basically denying them their right to strike twice in the past 15 years haha. Airline employees were not denied the same right.

No strawman. I provided a link to the Canadian Aeronautical Regulations that address the issue of personnel/crew rest that notes legislation that establishes the same standards that you say is insufficient for rail workers. You are the one subjectively dismissing the validity of well-established transportation-related crew rest legislation as not being anywhere near applicable to another (inter)national transportation service. Would be great to hear your thoughts and substantiation as to what CN and CPKC management should have granted their wage-earning workers?
 
No strawman. I provided a link to the Canadian Aeronautical Regulations that address the issue of personnel/crew rest that notes legislation that establishes the same standards that you say is insufficient for rail workers. You are the one subjectively dismissing the validity of well-established transportation-related crew rest legislation as not being anywhere near applicable to another (inter)national transportation service. Would be great to hear your thoughts and substantiation as to what CN and CPKC management should have granted their wage-earning workers?
Status quo. That's what the union and workers want. Status quo.

As an aside, I'm curious to see how this plays out. The SCC ruled striking is a constitutional right in Canada in 2019. The Federal Court isn't too fond of the government ignoring SCC rulings.
 
Status quo. That's what the union and workers want. Status quo.

As an aside, I'm curious to see how this plays out. The SCC ruled striking is a constitutional right in Canada in 2019. The Federal Court isn't too fond of the government ignoring SCC rulings.

Bear in mind that the court decision that collective bargaining (and the right to strike) as a manifestation of our Section 2 Charter right to freedom of association remains subject to the Section 1 reasonable limitations clause. A law that impugns on another right can be saved under S.1 if it’s necessary for the achievement of a valid objective, if it’s proportionate and precise, minimally impairing, and reasonable in the balance of all applicable factors. The economic havoc of a both-lines rail strike is likely to amount to defensible grounds to invoke federal labour law to refer a matter for suggested arbitration and avoid the service shutdown resultant from a strike.
 
Bear in mind that the court decision that collective bargaining (and the right to strike) as a manifestation of our Section 2 Charter right to freedom of association remains subject to the Section 1 reasonable limitations clause. A law that impugns on another right can be saved under S.1 if it’s necessary for the achievement of a valid objective, if it’s proportionate and precise, minimally impairing, and reasonable in the balance of all applicable factors. The economic havoc of a both-lines rail strike is likely to amount to defensible grounds to invoke federal labour law to refer a matter for suggested arbitration and avoid the service shutdown resultant from a strike.
Fair enough, well put.
 
Status quo. That's what the union and workers want. Status quo.

As an aside, I'm curious to see how this plays out. The SCC ruled striking is a constitutional right in Canada in 2019. The Federal Court isn't too fond of the government ignoring SCC rulings.
Do you think the SCC is going to strike down existing Canadian Federal Law? Nope.

Are you familiar with Section 58 of the Canadian Labour Code?
Decisions not to be reviewed by court

  • 58 (1) Every order or decision of an arbitrator or arbitration board is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court.
  • Marginal note:No review by certiorari, etc.

    (2) No order shall be made, process entered or proceeding taken in any court, whether by way of injunction, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto or otherwise, to question, review, prohibit or restrain an arbitrator or arbitration board in any of their proceedings under this Part.
  • Marginal note:Status

    (3) For the purposes of the Federal Courts Act, an arbitrator appointed pursuant to a collective agreement or an arbitration board is not a federal board, commission or other tribunal within the meaning of that Act.
  • R.S., 1985, c. L-2, s. 58
  • 1999, c. 31, s. 153(E)
  • 2002, c. 8, s. 182
 
Are pilots walking miles cranking handbrakes on 300 railcars in -25°C? Comparing the two jobs is disingenuous
I spent a fair amount of time - measured in periods of weeks over three decades - operating out of field locations in a variety of not-always-nice weather conditions including such temperatures, living in floorless accommodations with walls that flapped around, often packing up and moving once or twice daily in weather warm or cold, wet or dry.
 
Meanwhile, in real life, the federal labour minister is ordering the matter to binding arbitration, and the interim extension of the current collective agreements in order to swiftly resume operations.


Greatcoats on, greatcoats off.

Teamsters union serves CN Rail with 72-hour strike notice as CPKC stoppage ongoing​

Developments follow federal labour minister's referral of dispute to Canada Industrial Relations Board

The Teamsters union has served Canadian National Railway (CN) with a 72-hour strike notice, hours after saying it was taking down picket lines and workers were returning to the job.

"Please find this letter as official notice to the company of our intention to withdraw the services of our combined membership of approximately 6,500 members," reads the notice sent to CN on Friday morning by the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference.

The notice says that the union does not believe any of the ongoing issues between the railway and the Teamsters to be "insurmountable" and that it remains open to negotiating with the company in order to prevent any "further work stoppage."

Speaking in Calgary, François Laporte, the president of Teamsters Canada, said the company's demands would have broken the union's collective agreement and that its priority is to ensure union members have "decent and reasonable working conditions."

"We believe in fair and honest bargaining and that's what we want, we want a fair and honest bargaining with the company," he said.

The work stoppage at Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) also continues pending an order from the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB).
 
My understanding is the minister has ordered it referred to the IRB along with recommendations, but the IRB will decide and act independently. Up til now it was the employers locking the employees out; there was no strike. Likely this is the union serving notice of strike to preserve some of its rights as the matter goes forward through the board and potentially faces some fast subsequent court action. Likely the board will order them back, and the unions will seek judicial review of the decision. In order to avail themselves of Charter protections for collective bargaining, they need the administrative decision to actually step on that. An employer lockout being ended doesn’t give the union an administrative decision they can seek review on under Charter protection grounds. If they serve notice to strike and the board orders something that forces them back to work in that light, they have a charter argument on judicial review and appeal.

I’m speculating, but I’d be willing to bet a couple beers on my reasoning being fairly well aligned.
 
My understanding is the minister has ordered it referred to the IRB along with recommendations, but the IRB will decide and act independently. Up til now it was the employers locking the employees out; there was no strike. Likely this is the union serving notice of strike to preserve some of its rights as the matter goes forward through the board and potentially faces some fast subsequent court action. Likely the board will order them back, and the unions will seek judicial review of the decision. In order to avail themselves of Charter protections for collective bargaining, they need the administrative decision to actually step on that. An employer lockout being ended doesn’t give the union an administrative decision they can seek review on under Charter protection grounds. If they serve notice to strike and the board orders something that forces them back to work in that light, they have a charter argument on judicial review and appeal.

I’m speculating, but I’d be willing to bet a couple beers on my reasoning being fairly well aligned.
Dropping the loaded gun on the table.in front of the employer and the government, "I wish you would".
 
Back
Top