Autonomous Trains

Recently, there has been public hearings regarding autonomous trains. Several railroads are attempting to get the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to approve the movement of trains without crews on board. The railroads feel that with recent implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) and Trip Optimizer (TO) trains can be run safely with only a single person in the locomotive cab, with the desire to eventually have none.

If you ever have to chance to ask the following questions of those suggesting and possibly approving these actions, here are some suggestions.

1. Ask them if there will be "eyes on board". By this I mean is there someone or something that will be looking outside the cab. And not just forward. Currently, most locomotives have cameras that point forward. Those cameras are used during incident investigations. But they are black and white imagery. Trains run 24 hours a day. Grainy black and white just won't do it on a dark and stormy night.

Seattle Sick Leave To Pass on Monday

A few months back I posted a story about how the city of Seattle was considering mandating that employers who have operations within the city limits must provide a certain number of paid sick days. At the time it was only a proposal, and it wasn’t even certain there were enough votes to see it through.

The proposal was to force Seattle-area businesses to provide 5, 7 and up to 9 days of paid sick days. The sliding scale was to be based on the size of the business, with the larger the number of employees, the more paid sick days that would be required for the business to provide to the employees.

It now looks like the City Council has enough votes to make this a reality as six council members have stated they will support passage of the ordinance.

The Seattle City Council will vote at 2 p.m. Monday on a bill to require paid sick leave at all businesses with at least five full-time employees. Businesses with the equivalent of:

5 to 49 full-time employees would have to provide at least five days of paid sick per year. Sick leave would accrue at a rate of one hour for every 40 hours worked.

50 to 249 employees would have to provide at east seven days paid sick leave per year. Sick leave would accrue at a rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked.

250 or more employees would have to provide at least nine days sick leave per year. Sick leave would accrue at a rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked

Businesses less than 2 years old would be exempt. There would be a six-month waiting period before workers could start using their accrued paid time off (Source: The Seattle Times)

I still have an issue with a City Council dictating how a business is to be run and the benefits offered by those businesses. In a sense, this makes all employees part of a de-facto union, although there is no bargaining between the “union” and the employer. While unions do have some power, especially when they go on strike, they don’t have absolute power to dictate to businesses. There is some give and take between the employees and the employers. The City Council has completely skipped this give and take. Given the nature of City Council and the great Seattle area, this is not really surprising.

In the original Seattle Times article there were some quotes from folks that supported this measure including a small businesswoman;

Makini Howell, who runs the small vegan eateries Hillside Quickie and Plum Bistro, said she supports the legislation, because she doesn’t want her employees handling food while sick.

“All of us get sick. I can afford losing good employees,” she said. She added: “I don’t want to serve H1N1 with your fries.” (Source: Seattle PI)

My response back to her is that if she wants to offer up paid sick leave for her employees, then there is nothing stopping her. As far as I am aware, there is no Seattle city ordinance that says you cannot provide sick leave if you want. Why these people feel they have to force others is beyond me.

In a second post I mentioned that rather than using a blunt object (city ordinance) it might actually be better if they tried to get these businesses to initiate paid sick days voluntarily, which I suggested in an earlier post. What is wrong with using a carrot? Could none of these people on the council come up with some sort of incentive to offer paid sick leave, and then highlight them as a “preferred Seattle business”? I know none of my liberal readers will think this ordinance as forcing a business to do something, since it is all for the common good. But when you boil down the basics, this is forcing a business to do the City Council’s bidding through force of the law.

Seattle Sick Days Policy, An Update

In the later years of my time in the Air Force, one of my leadership traits was to get people to solve their own problems. I’m not talking about personal issues here; I am referring to operational problems. When someone came to me with an operational issue that needed a fix, one of my requirements was for them to bring a solution to the problem. Sometimes the solution was great sometimes, not so much. And many times, they would bring to me: “Hey Super (short for Superintendent), we had this problem, and here is how we are going to fix it. What do you think?” This solved tow things for me. I could devote more time to actually running the Squadron and the people who worked for me would gain experience with problem-solving. A good Non-Commissioned Officer always worked at making themselves irrelevant.

I make this point because a reader (Carolyn) posted a comment to my Seattle City Council post that made me think. Here I was complaining about the Seattle City Council’s actions, but didn’t provide an alternative. I think from now on, this will be a goal for my posts. Some will be good and well-thought out, others, not so much. But I am going to try.

I agree with the commenter, up to a point. Do I think Seattle should mandate sick days? NO!  But I do happen to know that there will be businesses that won't provide this in any form. Life does happen. But the City Council's action is like a sledgehammer when only a tinker's hammer is needed.

Rather than mandate by ordinance, the council could pass a resolution that it might be a good idea for Seattle Area businesses to offer their employees sick days.. Then follow that up with an award or recognition from the City to a business that voluntarily provides employees with sick days as a "Seattle Recognized Preferred Business" or “A Seattle Choice Business”. Then people could decide for themselves if they want to patronize a business that provides sick days for the employees. The Progressives get what they want, and a business owners do what they do best, which is make business decisions that are best for THEIR business.

Seattle To Mandate Sick Leave Policy to Private Businesses (UPDATE Below)

If I were a Seattle business owner, this proposed ordinance would have me really concerned. The Seattle City Council is considering mandating that businesses that operate in Seattle give employees a certain number of paid sick days each year.

The ordinance would require businesses to give workers in Seattle up to five, seven, or nine days of paid sick leave a year, depending on the size of the business and number of work hours accrued.

Larger businesses would have to pay more sick days than smaller businesses. Workers wouldn’t be eligible unless they’ve worked a minimum number of days. Businesses with less than 250 employees would have a year to comply, if the ordinance is passed.  Bigger businesses would have six months. (Source: Seattle PI)