THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY'S FLAT EARTH SOCIETY

By John P. Tolman, BLET Vice President/National Legislative Representative

Association of American Railroads (AAR) President Ed Hamberger has done it again. At the May 22nd rail safety reauthorization hearing conducted by the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security of the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee, Hamberger was asked by Subcommittee Chairman Lautenberg (D NJ) what needed to be done to address operating crew fatigue.

This is not the first time this question has been asked by a Member of Congress this year. In fact, the question probably has been asked more times this year than in the past ten years combined. So the industry should have seen it coming, and they should have known how everyone else has answered this question when it has been asked of them:

· The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the United Transportation Union (UTU) have pointed to the need for (1) the elimination of "limbo time," (2) undisturbed rest between duty tours, (3) a calling time that permits an operating employee a reasonable opportunity to get rest before having to report for duty, (4) the abolition of so-called "availability" policies, and (5) science-based fatigue countermeasures.

· The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has called for the authority to regulate all aspects of hours of service so that science-based adjustments can be made to current statutory provisions and science-based fatigue countermeasures can be introduced.

· The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has requested that FRA be given regulatory authority to introduce science-based fatigue countermeasures.

· What was the industry's answer to the question? Mr. Hamberger told the Subcommittee to put a cap on the number of hours an operating employee can work every month. This answer reflects a proposal circulated by some Republican members of the House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, which would cap duty hours at 276 per month. This proposal would count "limbo time" toward the total, even though there would be no limit on the amount of "limbo time" to which a crew might be exposed.

Now, I don't fault Mr. Hamberger for his answer, because he isn't doing anything more than towing the industry line on this issue. But it is important to consider the significance of what wasn't included in the answer:

· There was no mention of "limbo time," because the operational convenience of abandoning hundreds of crews a day for hours at a clip provides the industry a great benefit at little cost.

· There was no mention of undisturbed rest, reasonable line-ups or calling times, or availability policies, because, after all, we should be there whenever they need us, for whatever reason they need us.

· Most importantly, there was no mention whatsoever of anything based in sound science.

Consider the crew of a local freight or traveling switcher that works six days per week, from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. A science-based study of such an assignment would inform you that there is little, if any, potential for fatigue, because those work hours do not conflict with the body's circadian rhythm, and sleep is obtained during the time of day when it will be most recuperative and most restorative. However, this crew would be in the bull's-eye of the cap being pushed by AAR and House Republicans.

After more than a decade of denying that there is a problem - and rather than sitting down and discussing how to address fatigue now that its hand has been called - the industry is, instead, striking out against its workers in retaliation for our request for long-overdue Congressional intervention on fatigue. But the carriers' argument is so weak that it is forced to resort to proposing a solution that is anti-scientific and would do nothing to address the real problem.

We can expect more of the same if all of the Hours of Service issues are rolled together and assigned to the FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee process, as the Bush administration has requested. These tactics underscore the need for the relevant Congressional committees to address fatigue decisively in legislation, along the lines proposed in H.R. 2095. We need to continue to fight to keep the railroads from watering down this piece of landmark rail safety legislation.