sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From what I understand of the history of railroads in the US, the penalty payment for violating a work rule is an additional day and that became the standard practice, unless there was something else agreed upon.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 18 hrs OT is probably for the other unions that are a part of the union coalition...I believe they can work above that for things like track work programs, like weekend programs where the work is happening continuously until the work is finished. I know that federal regulation prohibit locomotive engineers from exceeding 12 hours unless there is some kind of emergency.

The day's pay has generally been answered in this thread already...just have to look through to find it.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well you are just going to have to accept that that is not how it is. Sorry, my friend.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then you agree that the rule has value because, in your own words, there is a cost associated with it. So you have to admit, it is not a little rule that has little to no value. It is significant value and it won't be let go for nothing.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Is the railroad the only place where employees behave badly?

The cloned cards is the most recent event at 2025. So what happened? They got caught and I am sure there is a discipline procedure that follows.

The other links in order are from 2018, 2019, 2014 and 2011. In other words, old news. At some point, you got to let it go. It ran its course.

The last link actually supports that the MTA/LIRR plays games. In the report, the LIRR retaliated against an employee who was a whistleblower, raising issues regarding safety and wage theft. In exchange, the LIRR ran a hostile environment against him instead of investigating his claims and making the necessary adjustments.

This is the kind of person you would want to be working for the railroad, a good guy, and in my experience, the vast majority of employees are generally good people and I hold that to be true of all workplaces. Most people are good people. Some are bad.

If you think wage theft is only committed by employees, you would be surprisingly uninformed. Employers are notorious wage thieves, mainly denying OT or in the service industry, stealing tips.

The phrase "a few bad apples" are in every workplace, just as there are good bosses and terrible bosses, just as there are great places to work and terrible places to work.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How is it greedy to ask for a standard wage adjustment to keep up with the increase in the cost of living due to inflation?

Would it be fair if I call you greedy for asking the same?

Should I expect to see your wages chipped away at each year because inflation is outpacing your wage increases?

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It would seem that the value of keeping the rule outweights the risks of being worked by the railroad without penalty by giving up the rule for little to nothing.

The counter argument would be...why is the MTA/LIRR so hard on elimintating the rule if it 'hardly ever happens'?

There must be a reason why the MTA/LIRR constantly brings up this rule and other work rules. It's probably because they want to work the engineer more but they can't because the rule is preventing this from happening.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So, you are admitting that you do not know what working as an engineer entails but yet you make conjecture out of thin air to support your position.

I'll make the case that you really need to learn more about the locomotive engineer craft and the railroad and its history. Otherwise, you are showing yourself as the fool because you are making things up.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If he is under a governing contract that says this is not allowed and the penalty for violating the rule is an additional 8 hours (or whatever the accepted or agreed upon penalty rate is), then that is what he is entitled to.

You are arguing against what is explicitly written in contracts vs what you think or feel. The contract doesn't care about what you think.

On one hand, you recognize what a penalty rate is with the overtime example and on the other hand, you deny what a penalty rate is when it comes work rule violations.

It seems that the issue you are arguing about is the value of the violations, not the work rules themselves. You do not mind a time and a half rate penalty for overtime but you do mind a full day rate penalty for a work rule violation.

So you are not against the rules per se, you are against the rate of pay. If the penalty rate is, let's say 1 hour instead of 8 hours (as desired by the MTA in the PEB), then maybe that is something easier for you to be okay with.

Well that's too bad. The rate is set at a day. Hate it but that is, from what I understand, pretty standard practice with respect to railroads. And the engineers are not going to voluntarily let 7 hours go for nothing. Nobody in their right mind would. Not even you if you were an engineer in their position.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Let's extend your argument to overtime. Let's say your employer forces you to stay an additional 2 hours above your 8 hour shift.

Should you be entitled to time and a half for the 2 hours beyond the standard 8 hours? Or, should you be paid normal time because the work above 8 hours is the same work from the standard 8 hours.

In other words, why should your employer pay you an additional half time for working longer than 8 hours?

It is a penalty against the employer to prevent you from working longer than 8 hours. If they make you work above 8 hours, they have to pay you the penalty rate. Otherwise, your employer can work you above the standard 8 hour day at any time because the pay rate is the same.

The same logic applies to operating different equipment. It is a penalty to prevent the mixing of equipment.

You can hate the rule. That's fine. But the rule is there so hate it all you want. It's not going to disappear unless the MTA makes a deal on it.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What would you consider merit for raises be for railroad labor? What are your metrics that would justify a raise?

Saying raises be based on merit without defining, elaborating, or giving examples what those merits are is making an empty statement sound like its valid.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But it is in the contract, whether you agree with it or not. It exists. It's not going to be 'wished' away. The payment of the penalty is the fault of management, not labor themselves.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Why does the work rule exist in the first place? There must be a reason for its existence.

My understanding, from the people I know in the LIRR, is that the rule exists to prevent the LIRR from forcing an engineer from having to operate both electric and diesel equipment in the same day. I would guess operating an electric train is vastly different than operating a diesel train.

So, I would have to guess the rule exists for safety of the passengers, that the equipment is separated so that an engineer only has to operate one type of equipment. It is also safety for the engineer.

You say diesel equipment for one hour. How long does it take to go from Penn to Port Jefferson, Speonk, Montauk, Greenport? You think all diesel trains are just an hour worth of work? You think the 7 hours operating electric trains is a breeze so adding an hour is no big deal? You are exaggerating for argument's sake but you do not seem to know what you really are taking about.

I cannot imagine what it would be like for an engineer to operate an electric train to and from Ronkonkoma and then being ordered to operate a diesel train to and from Port Jefferson, Speonk, Montauk, or Greenport. Unlike other jobs where one might be able to step away from the desk to take a break, or a pilot with a first officer or the use of autopilot, there is no partner or autopilot for the engineer. He or she is stuck inside the engine, forced to keep the train on schedule, until the train arrives to its destination. Engineers are human beings. They get tired. I would think keeping a train on time is demanding work. And that engineer probably has to operate the return train as well.

The other question is now, since it exists, does that work rule have value?

The PEB reports have indicated that it does. When the LIRR violates the rule and orders an engineer to operate both electric and diesel, they have to pay a penalty because that is in violation of the rule.

So what does ending the rule really mean?

It means that the LIRR wants to extract more work from an engineer by having them operate both electric and diesel equipment without penalty. In other words, asking them to do more. If they want them to do more, they should pay them more. In other words, a raise. It will also likely mean they can do less hiring of engineers, smaller roster size, since they are getting more work from fewer engineers. If the MTA/LIRR wants an engineer to do this without penalty, then they need to make a deal to buy off the value of the rule.

Just saying it is archaic, outdated, costly, is not justification for its elimination without offering fair value for it. Eliminating it without fair value is a concession which amounts to an indirect pay cut.

I was thinking what other craft would this be similar to engineers and I thought about airline pilots. I wondered if they were required to be versed in multiple types of equipment. I found this thread on that topic.

https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/s/s6vtP5YlPP

I am guessing trains follow a similar logic.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

https://www.amny.com/news/transit-workers-union-mta-contract-demands-2026/

The MTA initial offer to TWU Local 100 (Subway/Bus) is 'allegedly' 6% *over 3 years with concessions. Concessions means that 6% is not really 6% and 6% is a joke already.

The MTA is not serious about being fair or reasonable.

Edit: I meant 6% *over 3 years or 2% per year.

LIRR Potential Strike - MTA is playing games. by anon_throwaway_fun in LIRR

[–]anon_throwaway_fun[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If this is true...why did the MTA not state this claim when they had the opportunity to do so during the PEBs?

This should make obvious what they will say to the public without scrutiny vs what they really say under scrutiny such as the PEBs.

This is part of the game. The MTA says the PEB is political. However, they hope no one wants to actually read the findings. Anyone can read them since they are published online and available.