Recently, I had a lively discussion with a cousin of mine, who held the opinion that unions have outlived their usefulness, and that today, unions are merely slowing progress with hudderite attitudes and by protecting lazy, shiftless members. (well, I said it was a lively discussion)
The discussion left me with the sense that there must be
a great number of people who share this overly simplistic view
, just as there are those who refuse to see any use to, for example,
abstract scientific research , space travel, formal education,
Latin , and so on.
The need for labor to organize is not as clear as the need for
a glass of water ,but in some extremes, men have organized just
to get a glass of water!
Unrestrained selfishness will be right back in vogue just as soon
as, if not before, the last labor organization is defunct.
One may argue, that in one's own experience, wonderful employers
exist, and there is no need for the friction of employee representation.
I think , that when organized labor shuts down, there will be
no need and no room for wonderful employers in a competitive environment.
More importantly to all of us though, is the less obvious
but the most far reaching effect that a union has on the standards
of every ones' life.
For example, the type of work that a member does is defined by
his collective agreement, and therefore the Standards of his Craft
are affected. Let me explain using a hypothetical senario.
During lean times a carrier has decided that to cut costs, he
will ask a less qualified employee, (perhaps even a previously
qualified engineer in need of refreshing his skills) to operate
a train loaded with dangerous commodities through a city of 2
million people, rather than pay a 'Pilot' Locomotive Engineer.
In the absence of established work agreements, the decision may
be made by one manager without any consultation or previous discussion,
and have disasterous effects.
Example 2; The derailment that occurred due to "human error"
in the first example has resulted in a large number of injuries
to the public. The hospitals have undergone effective cost cutting
measures, nursing staff have been cut, and despite employee objections,
the administration has decided to get cleaning staff and administrators
to start Intravenous Medication when RN's are very busy. Scared
yet?........
Carrier #2 and Hospital Administration #2, make even further
cuts to keep up competition! Does this sound bizarre? Would this
happen? Bet Your bottom dollar!
Without the nurses unions, your health care takes it on the chin
in favor of capital.
When a new technology arrives, and material changes are pending, the craft union first explores the change with sceptisicm. This is not merely for the sake of being contrary. In fact, this is the first real challenge to the validity of the technology in such terms that have lower priority to the purely business end. That technologies' workplace safety, public safety, ethical behavior, are addressed in detail by our unions. When such change is found by negotiation to be either acceptable or inevitable or a combination of both, then the unions' next priority is the negotiation of a fair employee policy, and a good re-training program, where necessary, for the unionized members affected .
When our division president, Richard, approached me about the new "Division Educator" role, I was not entirely, nor typically, enthusiastic about unions myself, but I could not argue that they are not necessary, or that any one of us, is shiftless or lazy. Until some day when science locates the gene responsible for greed, and until the anti-dote is spread throughout the worlds' drinking water system, I personally support the responsible actions, benefiting both the public at large, and the members of our craft by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. Wherever our union is lacking, (and there are some areas to explore), it is your and my responsibility to make it better.
My first priority has been to get a website going so that
we could communicate faster and to more of us. And to do it without
incurring any cost. So far we are on schedule.
Second, is , to encourage members to use this medium in whatever
way you see fit, and to be ready for high use of electronic communication.
Next, I need your opinions on whether to set up a listserver for
mail discussion group, or a password protected bulletin board?
Either way, they are not going to cost .
Finally, if I have convinced just a few people anywhere that our
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Division 295 Toronto has
legitimate purpose, Cheers!
|
|
I began researching the following discussions
after a notice to employees appeared on or about Sept 23 2000,
regards changes to laws for medical requirements for persons in
'Safety Critical Positions'. In that notice, "However,
concurrent
with these new rules, Transport Canada approved a set of new Railway
Medical Rules for Positions Critical to Safe Railway Operations.
These medical rules are expected to become effective on or about
April 1, 2001. Prior to that date we will be issuing bulletins
and
broadcast additional information on what this means to our employees."
some mysterious pending rules exist, but
are for some reason, presently undisclosed. I cannot find them
at Transport Canada either. The lack of such information, leaves
my analyses with huge gaps, and the withholding of the information
may lead to a more sceptical approach than I would otherwise make.
( It may well be that the notice itself was primarily to notify
employees of the immediate changes, and the pending changes are
simply left out to avoid confusions in timelines ). In any case,
I appologise in advance, for any bias resulting from such a deficit
in information, but do not withhold my opinions and speculations
because I am not soley responsible for that deficit.
On more than one occasion, with more than just a handful
of our members, I have had discussions about the fairness of the
way in which our employer directs the process of periodical medical
examinations, and has acted upon the results of its own medical
questionaire. I haven't had one person tell me that their family
physician agrees with the relevance of much of the information
that they are required to submit by means of that questionaire.
The reason for concern about the disclosure of information on
the medical forms provided by the employer, is a number of real
cases where employees have suffered undue loss as a result of
incorrect interpretation (by the employer) of the information
provided. In finding ways to prevent similar damage to employees
in future, three important questions need to be addressed.
There are several points of law to be discussed in answering
these questions from several Acts of Legislation. Here are the
links to those Acts and Regulations ;
The Canada Human Rights Act , Railway Safety
Act, Canada
Labour Code , and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic
Documents Act.
In Sept 2000, Bill C-58, the Railway Safety Act came into force,
requiring employees in a 'Safety Critical Position' to inform
all physicians examining or treating them at any time, to make
that physician aware of his employment situation and of the physicians
obligation under Bill C-58, to inform such patients employer of
a condition likely to pose a threat to safe railway operations.
The purpose of the act, as explained to me is twofold. First,
to specify the safety critical positions, and exclude positions
that may be construed as 'safety critical' just by association
with 'railway employment'. Second, to clarify one aspect of the
Human Rights Act, whereas the exception to protracted discrimination,
ie; "bonafide occupational requirement" includes the
provisions in the Railway Safety Act. This is fair, if the Railway
Safety Act is interpreted as it is written. Very clearly, ONLY
a physician or optometrist may make the assesment, or 'opinion'.
Obviously he/she examining the patient, is the only one with the
qualification in medicine and with the first hand knowledge of
the patient.
Why then the questionaire?
Most of the questions on the company form including the requirement
for consent to disclose ALL medical records, and questions like
- "Do either of your parents have aa history of diabetes or
mental illness" or - "have you EVER had a problem with
alcoholism or drug abuse"go to an individuals' predisposition
to a condition or disability based on statistics, and not to a
present condition as evaluated by a physician.
I point out that predispositions to conditions are not included
in the Railway Safety Act, nor can they be included as a "bonafide
occupational requirement" as an exception to The Human Rights
Act. In fact any action taken based on medical predisposition
as determined by a statistic is discriminatory, and a violation
of the Human Rights Act. Furthermore, if the information collected,
is used for statistical purposes or is analyzed using statistical
method, then the provisions of the Personal Information and Electronic
Documents act, Bill C-6 (coming into force on Jan. 01 2001) must
be adhered to as well. This means that 4.2.5
"Persons collecting personal information should be able to
explain to individuals the purposes for which the information
is being collected." ( Your doctor is collecting the information
) and - 4.4 Principle 4 - Limiting Collection
"The collection of personal information shall be limited
to that which is necessary for the purposes identified by the
organization. Information shall be collected by fair and lawful
means."
If the questions are part of your periodic medical examination,
they must be limited to your present medical condition, which
is why they are periodic, and NOT related to a hypothetical 'predisposition'.
Any real personal health information will not be included
as personal information in Bill C-6, untill enforcement on Jan
01 2002.
Lets look at some of the questions on our medical forms, and determine
their relevance to the various applicable legislations.
"Do either of your parents have a history of diabetes
or mental illness"
I composed the following scenario at an earlier time, and
separate from this editorial, so please excuse any duplication
of points made. This scenario deals with the question of proscribed
descrimination of family status.;
"Lets say engineer Casey Jones is raised in an orphanage
and works his way from engine wiper to locomotive engineer over
a number of years. At some time he must get a peroidic medical
exam, and answer some questions if he wants to continue his employment.
One of the questions regards medical conditions of his parents,
whom he never knew. He cannot answer the question, and is subject
to a number of possible fates;
a) Because of the unanswered question, his medical is incomplete
and cannot continue his employment. Are there grounds for discrimination
due to family status? Clearly no orphans may work at that company
if ALL questions on the medical must be answered.
b) The employer may decide that orphans need not fill out that
portion of the medical, and our Casey, and all orphans now have
an exceptional advantage over all other employees who answer that
question. There need only be one employee fail that question,
and he is being discriminated against because he knew his parents.
c) Lets say the employer has decided that the question was not
significant enough to warrant a review of either persons employment
status. Then the question has no merit, no merit whatsoever in
regards the "interests of safe railway operations".Remember
those Human Rights or that Railway safety act that promises that
the examination in whatever form will only be to satisfy their
bonafide occupational requirement and only for safety?
So what exactly was the purpose of the question? Indeed, if Casey
came down with a medical problem and attempted to show that the
problem was a result of some working condition, the employer might
benefit by having evidence that the very affliction was inherited.
Subsection 35(6) says that Information provided pursuant to subsection
2 is privileged and b. is not admissable in any such proceedings
except (ii) where the patient consents. Well if he puts it on
the form, and signs the waiver for medical records, he consented!
This leads to the question of whether or not he was coherced.
Does he have to answer all the questions and sign the waiver as
a condition of employment or not? If he throws out the form, goes
to his doctor, gets the doctors opinion that he does not have
"a condition that is likely to pose a threat to safe railway
operations" {35(2)}, has he or hasn't he satisfied the requirements
of the railway safety act? Don't doctors know how to formulate
opinions without interferrence?
Seriously, I question the expertise of the employer to determine
which items in an individual medical file or history, are important
for safe operation of a railway. Is the medical exam more about
railway operation, or more about diagnosis? If the answer is railway
operation, then the employer should be AN expert in determining
the quality of their employee, but only as that quality relates
to railway safety, and only in a general way, because, the employer
has no expertise in the diagnosis, or the assesment of each individual.
Proving their ineptitude, employers have prescribed the entire
assesment on a form, as if to BE the doctor, and the doctor is
left to follow the instructions on the package. The opinion, then,
of the Doctor, is not relevant, as it is supposed to be in subsectns
35(2) Railway Safety Act.
As I have said before, the Railway Safety Act is fine as it is,
the forms our employers provide and their handling of any further
'enhancements' to the act should be the focus of scrutiny and
be modified.
"Have you EVER had a problem with alcoholism or drug abuse?"
Before exploring the legitimacy of the question, I should
clarify why alcoholism and drug abuse are considered to
be disabilities under the Human Rights Act.
Our first reaction to alcoholism or drug addiction recieving status
as a disability is;
'hogwash, they drink or take drugs by choice'. This is not a correct
assumption. By definition, the disability is the addiction
and not the individuals actions leading up to the addiction. In
other words, alcoholism or drug addiction, were not the choices
the inflicted person made. The persons lack of awareness to the
dangers of substances, or poor choice in recreational use, or
even the company they keep may have contributed to the resulting
and undesired disability of addiction.
Any type of disability may also be the result of a lack
of judgement, care in diet, colesterol, high amounts of sweets,
smoking or an action that in hindsight, was dangerous enough to
result in a disability, diabetes, circulatory or respiratory conditions,
even failing to maintain a safe distance from vehicles while driving
can all be considered actions of choice that may or may not result
in a disability. There is no determination in liability or in
the pending result in most of the cases. So in fairness, we do
not consider a persons reasons behind their disability to exclude
them, we only consider the fact that a disability exists.
It is interesting to note that the Human Rights Act requires an
employer to reasonably accomodate a person with a disability,
(not just minimally), and in fact hiring practices include the
requirement to be hired first and then given the medical, and
if the person has a drug or alcohol addiction, the employer must
not release that person on the grounds of their disability until
the employer has provided a means of treatment that has failed
consecutively. You don't 'screen them out' with a medical, you
determine their fitness to their position and provide accomodation
to the disability except in the case of bonafide occupational
requirement.
Now back to the question. Once again your present medical
fitness is not the centre of investigation. Your past history
with alcohol or drugs, can only give a statistical guess as to
your predisposition to related diseases or a wild guess as to
your predisposition to becoming disabled. NONE of which are related
to a present condition likely to pose a threat to railway operations.
"How much alcohol do you consume in a week?'
This question, if it has any relevance to the Railway Safety
Act, or to the 'bonafide occupational requirement' clause in the
HRA, makes a broad based assumption to the performance of an individual
in the workplace or, again be information that assumes predisposition
to a disability.
While I'm thinking about it, 'Broad based assumptions as to
the performance or of the predispositions of an individual',
is how prejudice is defined is it not?
Comb through these questions with your doctor and determine
their relevance to your present medical condition as you go. If
the doctor agrees that the questions do not go to the requirements
of the railway safety act, and in fact if they lend themselves
to collection of personal information as to 'a hypothetical predisposition
to a medical illness' , I suggest you reconsider answering them
or signing the release at the bottom.
My suggestion is only an opinion based on the knowledge that those
who have not filled out all the blanks have not been bothered,
and that some who HAVE filled out every question, have been put
through the mill for no good reason, sent for re-assesments, some
have even lost time, only to have been returned to work, without
restrictions.
At any rate, I don't want to create victims by bad advise, make
your desicion yours, and don't forget your physician is the one
who ultimately decides the relevance of information regards your
ability to perfom in a 'Safety Critical Position'.
I am continuing to research this subject and would like your opinions
or your Doctors opinions, any experience you would like to share
regards periodic medicals, (anonymously), or any other help you
feel you can provide in finding a solution to the problem.
Stay Healthy and Happy Railroading
Paul Bellis
|
|
|
The following quote from an Employer Notice;
"Industry guidelines on various medical conditions
are being prepared
by the Railway Association of Canada and will be published for
distribution through the Canadian Medical Association (CMA)."
And the following humourous response from an e-mail I received;
"Does this mean that a collection of half witted
railroad managers and clerks and company medical staff who studied
occupational health at the University of Coles Notes are about
to attempt using the CMA to teach their own brand of doctorin'.
ha ha ha.
Fetch grannies medsin' yungins... dont wannabe sick wilst they's
around."
It is disturbing when the railways presume that the
medical profession cannot see beyond their tongue depressors,
that patients have specific lives whose fitness relates to their
safety and the safety of others. Of course doctors never think
of that, all they do is take your pulse and play golf.
I am personally embarassed that my employer would imply such crap,
and will have my, or any medical doctor know, that the employees
don't swallow that pill.
 |
There are over 100 contributors. What would the Railway Association of Canada add? That trains have no steering wheels? |
The Railway Association of Canada is not a medical
research facility, is not an organization for the promotion of
safe practices, and is not a benevolent society. Any dabblings
in those areas go to the business of running a railway. No Chief
Medical Officer was ever hired to go around unrestrained taking
care of your sick and your elderly. Doing anything more that to
cover up the chinese 'navies' carcasses with road ballast will
cost more money but self initiative might keep government and
action groups at bay. Start by getting the numbers of casualties
down, get those numbers down by weeding out any of the ones who
might have a predisposition to collapsing after 12 hours in the
hot sun. Remember that word- predisposition? Remember the
word accomodation? Those damned leftist human rights activists
are costing money.
But by narrowing down the number of disabilities that must be
accomodated as per the HRAct, you can save alot of cost. ENTER;
The Railway Safety Act, the term 'Safety Critical Position', ENTER
the promises by the railways to FURTHER enhance the laws by the
industries' own special rules;
From the above mentioned Notice to employees;
"At this time the only change is the above
reporting requirement.
All other medical related matters remain the same. However, concurrent
with these new rules, Transport Canada approved a set of new Railway
Medical Rules for Positions Critical to Safe Railway Operations.
These medical rules are expected to become effective on or about
April 1, 2001. Prior to that date we will be issuing bulletins
and
broadcast additional information on what this means to our employees.
CPR is currently working to identify other "Safety Sensitive
Positions" who may also have medical fitness requirements
which will
be covered by company policy. CPR's medical policies will be revised
accordingly."
This would be In the name of Safety and Health at the benevolence of railways everywhere!
Just can't wait for April Fools Day, can we?
Paul Bellis
(2) If a physician or an optometrist believes, on reasonable
grounds,
that a patient is a person described in subsection (1), the
physician or optometrist shall, if in their opinion the patient
has a condition that is likely to pose a threat to safe railway
operations,
(a) by notice sent without delay to a physician or optometrist
specified by the railway company, inform the specified
physician or optometrist of that opinion and the reasons for
it, after the physician or optometrist has taken reasonable
steps to first inform the patient, and
(b) without delay send a copy of that notice to the patient,
and
the patient is deemed to have consented to the disclosure
required by paragraph (a).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note that this states the condition likely to pose a threat
to safe railway operations is to be the opinion of your attending
physician and it does not state that any opinion other than
a physician who examines you, has a higher authority in making
a medical assesment.
Bill C-58 also states;
1) A person who holds a position that is declared by regulations
made under paragraph 18(1)(b) or by any rule in force under
section 19 or 20 to be a position critical to safe railway
operations, referred to in this section as a "designated
position", shall undergo a medical examination organized
by the
railway company concerned, including audio-metric and optometric
examination, at intervals determined by the regulations made
under paragraph 18(1)(c)(iii) or by any rule in force under
section 19 or 20.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Bill is very clear that audio-metric and optimetric
examination be included. Our legislators intended that specific
areas of medical assesment be addressed, and if there were other
specific areas, they also would have been named - the precedent
of naming them being set-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HRA;
"disability" means any previous or existing mental or
physical disability and includes disfigurement and previous or
existing dependence on alcohol or a drug.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exceptions
15. (1) It is not a discriminatory practice if
(a) any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation,
specification or preference in relation to any employment is established
by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Accommodation of needs
(2) For any practice mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) to be
considered to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement
and for any practice mentioned in paragraph (1)(g) to be considered
to have a bona fide justification, it must be established that
accommodation of the needs of an individual or a class of individuals
affected would impose undue hardship on the person who would have
to accommodate those needs, considering health, safety and cost.
The strike vote results were 180 for, 13 against. We don't
want more, we are just hoping to keep what we have. At issue are
seniority rules,and benefits.The company wants to increase the
deductable for dental to $100,and in 2005 have us pay 20% of the
premiums that they pay now for all benefits.They have targeted
our Union because we have the smallest membership and they are
trying to divide and conquer with a change in seniority rules
that would allow junior employees to possibly have better shifts
than senior employees.(There are more younger RTCs than older)
If we do not succeed in holding our ground and if we capitulate
to their demands, then when it is your time to settle they can
say (with a straight face) that they cannot possibly give you
more than what someone else settled for.
The wage offer for 3 years is 2%,3% and 2% which is probably okay.But
once they start eating away at benefits where will it stop? 20
% in 2005 and 100% down the line, and we are right back where
our fathers were.
As of now, the earliest we can go is around June 28, so if you
are dealing with new initials on June 29 do your jobs as professionally
as you always do, and maintain the CPR mantra of "safety
first and always". There are more issues at stake, but the
benefit issue is one that will impact all of us, whether you have
a young family that will be using the benefits that we are accustomed
to, to remain healthy, or if you are nearing retirement or pensioned
and need the benefits to keep you and your spouse above the poverty
line.
This is a personal observation and does not necessarily reflect
the opinions of the the negotiating committee.
RTC
APC
| -About us-|-Archives-|-Benefits-|-Crew Center-|-Collective Agreement-| |
| -C.R.O.R.-|-Diesel Dr.-|-Divisions-|-Editorials-|-Federal Legislation-| |
|
|
| -Local Agreements-|-Members-|-Photosection-|-Quiz-|-Timetable- |
| -Web Directory-|-Welcome-|-What's New-|-Your Voice-|-Store- |