Rule G

Behavior? Breath?

I always had the impression that a natural fear of being dismembered, suffering spontaneous amputation(s), being seriously burned, or getting crushed to death likely exercised an effective degree of self-control. At least, that was my impression in and around the steel mills of the Pittsburgh area, back in the 50's, in which trains were super-abundant.

But you ask a good question. You have me wondering, now, what was, in fact, the case.

FrankM

Chuck and Irene's bar on Kennedy in Hammond, Indiana is a local watering hole immediately to the south of a switch yard and freight terminal.  In the 1950s and 60s after a freight train rolled in, it was not unusual for members of the crew to stop in for a sandwich at the bar.  Some would purchase a pint or half pint and take a second or third floor room for the night. Before going to work the next day, they would have something to eat and buy another pint or half pint.  I wonder what they did with that bottle as drinking wasn't allowed on the job.     John in Lansing, Ill.

Put the fluid into an empty bottle like soda.  Water canteen?

In the back of TRAINS each month there seems to be a personal reflection of a rail employee or fan.  Seems there are a lot of these stories with some sort of Rule G violation.

The problems involving railroads today are more drug related than alcohol.

TRAINS MAG; Oct.1977
"Four for Eastbound", by Lloyd Arkinstall

WWII-era story of PRR train crew dealing with "Rule G slashers".

Plus there is a situation with diabetes which a person acts as if he or she has one too many, but in fact the person's blood sugar is outside normal limits.  This is time for a 9-1-1 call, and a run to the ER to stabilize the person.

In reference to Rule G, in the seventies it seemed that the companies that I worked for looked the other way, unless it was blatant like running through a switch or derailing equipment.  I was no saint when it came to this subject, but I didn't go overboard either.  We had more people on the roster back then and people covered for each other if some one was "incapacitated".  This all came to a screeching halt in 1983 after a serious accident on the NEC.  After that it was by the book as it should have been. We used to say that we could write a book about what happens on the railroad, but we would have to publish it as a novel because no one would believe it was real!  

I know of an old conductor from the N&W who ran a train from Bellevue to Fort Wayne because the engineer was too drunk and passed out. This was in the '70s though..

In the ‘40’s thru the ‘60’s, it would be my guess that if the occasional over imbiber was too drunk to function reasonably safely, someone would step up and fill in for his shift while the tipsy railroader waited out the effects of the alcohol. Remember, we’re talking about a fellow union member. The strength is not in the wolf, but in the pack.

TM Terry posted:

In the ‘40’s thru the ‘60’s, it would be my guess that if the occasional over imbiber was too drunk to function reasonably safely, someone would step up and fill in for his shift while the tipsy railroader waited out the effects of the alcohol.

Maybe a fellow crew member, but not someone else. Remember that back in those days there was an Engineer, a Fireman, a Head Brakeman, a Conductor, and a Rear Brakeman. Lots of ways for someone to "fill-in" without going outside the crew.

Remember, we’re talking about a fellow union member. The strength is not in the wolf, but in the pack.

Up until the Conrail/Amtrak wreck that brought about mandatory drug and alcohol testing -- both random and for cause -- there was a fair amount of drinking (both on the job and while subject to call).  Most employees who used alcohol were not intoxicated while on the job.  However, there were the small number that could not moderate their drinking.  Other employees usually covered for them.  There was also frequent marijuana use by a minority of the younger employees.  This was the much lower THC marijuana of the 1960's and 1970's.  Most of those employees were also functional while on the job.

Mandatory drug and alcohol testing, as well as retirements of older employees from generations who drank regularly, greatly reduced the violation of Rule G.  Most employees who might fail a random breathalyzer test will lay off sick (usually when called).  That's a different problem, but it avoids permanent dismissal for violation of Rule G.  There is no tolerance for alcohol.  The breathalyzer is not considered to be sufficiently reliable at .02% or lower, but a test result of .03% or higher will require immediate removal from safety sensitive service, pending a formal investigation, and this applies to officials who supervise Engineers and Trainmen too.

On my first road trip as a Fireman, the Engineer pulled out a pint bottle from his grip, and offered me a swig.  I told him that I was not much of a drinker, but he urged me to have a swig.  The Brakeman was also paying attention to this, and I could see what was in play.  They did not know me and wanted to know whether I was a "snitch" (which I was not), so I wet my whistle from his bottle, passed the test, and was never again pressed to take a drink on the engine.

I was a fairly new employee in 1970, working the afternoon Outside Hostler position at Redondo Junction.  One regular duty was to take the passenger engine for the Super Chief-El Capitan down to the main line to Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal, couple it onto the train and cut in the steam generators.  The railroad had begun hiring and there was competition from the aerospace industry.  Some days they took any applicant who could fog a mirror. One afternoon I had a brand new hippie-looking Hostler Helper who was obviously a bit high on Marijuana.  As we were backing into the depot, I asked him the color of a signal on his side.  "It's orange, man," was his reply.  Since we did not have an orange aspect, I stopped and crossed over to his side to see that the signal did indeed display yellow.  At the depot, he just sat in the Fireman seat until I had cut in the steam.  I told him we need to get off the engine and go to eat.  He walked front-first out the cab door of the F7 and fell flat, onto he concrete station platform.  He just shook his head and got up without so much as a scratch.  But he did not last long.

After I was promoted to Engineer but was cut back to Fireman, I worked a "turn", spotting iced reefers at citrus packing houses all the way from San Bernardino to Santa Ana.  The Engineer, a 1950 man, told me he was not feeling well and asked me to run the engine.  He was looking worse as we progressed.  Finally, after we spotted the packing house at Olive, he was shaking and sweating.  He said, "Tom, I hate to ask you, but would you go across the street to the liquor store and get me a bottle of potato juice?"  I got him his pint of vodka, and, by the time we reached Santa Ana he looked fine.  He was a good Engineer.  Some, like him, were better with whisky in them.  He died at age 50, before the onset of drug and alcohol testing.  Drinking did it.  He would binge drink and lay off for several days at a time, but never appeared drunk on the job.  That day, he had taken a short call for duty and had forgotten that the bottle in his grip was empty.

So, then, the question was: before testing was initiated, how did an employee become discovered in violation of Rule G?  Officials were given training in signs and symptoms of substance abuse.  If an official said he detected the odor of alcohol on an employee's breath, or erratic behavior, it was not challenged, and the Railway Labor Board would uphold it.  At the investigation, the employee would usually say he had one beer while mowing the lawn the afternoon before going to work, or that he had felt a cold coming on and had used Ny-Quil or cough syrup.  That would not stop the Company from firing the man, but would leave open a window for possible later reinstatement.  I never knew of any official who framed an employee.  Personally, I sent a few good railroaders home "sick" and later let them know I could not do it a second time.  There was never a second time with them.  On another occasion, a Conductor I had worked with came to my office and told me that his Engineer, another man I had worked with and whose wife had died the previous month, was sick (wink) but didn't want to lay off.  So I had that crew deadheaded home and the Conductor handled it.  Really, most drinking on the railroad where I worked was not a big problem, and a little discretion occasionally by managers made the good employees even more willing to handle any problems themselves.  The ones who were unable to control it, we had to dismiss.  Same went for new employees during the probation period.  Most of the old heads had acquired their drinking habits during long days away from home.  Those who hired out already drinking had to go during their 90 day probation.

As information . . . one of the signs and symptoms was overpowering odor of mouthwash on an employee's breath.    (Oh, yeah, that'll fool 'em, won't it?)

Tom: THANK YOU for a realistic and informative back-in-the-day account of substance abuse! Honest, with elements of compassion and comraderie! Life is very often many shades of gray than simply black or white!

Was/is there still a thing called OPERATION REDBLOCK?  I read somewhere a railroader could enter this program, get clean, and receive no discipline?

You're correct, Dominic, there was such a program.  I am not sure if it was an internal BNSF program, or whether it was an industry-wide or Federal program.  As far as I know, it still is in place.  

[See next post by Borden Tunnel for current status and sponsorship.  The Unions work with the Employee Assistance Department.]

Using that program, an employee could self-refer himself to the railroad's Employee Assistance Department, and they would put the employee on medical leave.  Once on medical leave treatment at a rehabilitation facility would be provided at railroad expense.  The employee's wages would stop, but medical insurance for him and his family would remain intact.  The length of rehabilitation would vary according to the employee's particular addiction and its severity.  After being released by the treatment facility, the employee would have to undergo re-employment counseling by professional counselors in the Employee Assistance Department.  If the employee was deemed to be sufficiently rehabilitated, his medical leave would be cancelled and he would return to work.  This all took weeks, sometimes months.

The Department where the employee worked would not be advised of any of the particulars.  They would just be advised that the employee was on medical leave.  It was not hard to figure out what was happening.  Sometimes, though, it was a big surprise to management, as some employees were very adept at hiding their drug and alcohol problems, even from their co-workers.

It was a one-time offer to the employee, and one of the conditions for returning to work was his signature on a notice that any further drug or alcohol violations would result in permanent dismissal with no possibility of reinstatement.

Our experience on this Division was that it was a success most of the time.  

Operation RedBlock is still in place on CSX, at least 25 years since they did some locomotives/cabooses with an enhanced paint scheme promoting the program.

According to www.csx.com, it is administered by the unions.

I do not know if if is still there.  But there was something interesting when one left Sosan Yard in San Antonio TX.  Across the intersection, but facing the outbound traffic from the yard, was a MP type linear tri-light signal.  On each side of the lights were the words "Operation" "Redblock".

On the SP, I think there were simular rules for people with emotional or anger issues, run under the same deparment as OR.

On the NS, it is called the DARS Program.