With respect to "unnecessary staffing," that's the entire point. The union wants to maintain jobs for its membership, specifically including its diesel crews, and doesn't want those workers to get laid off. So they built in provisions to the CBA to disincentivize layoffs of those workers.

April 09, 2026 - 15:32 UTC

1
0
7
If the railroad wants to lay off diesel crews anyway and not have enough workers, they have to pay the penalty. That was the railroad's choice when it decided to cut diesel crews.

Is it inefficient? Sure; employers' labor efficiency is not workers' concern. Their concern is keeping their jobs.
2
0
13
The entire point of collective bargaining is for workers to extract as much value for their labor as they can without the employer deciding it's better to go out of business. Nobody bats an eye when employers work to maximize profits; when labor works to maximize wages people see it as an affront.
2
1
17
And that seems fair. If the company's sole interest is it's own profits, surely the worker's sole interest being their own profits is equally acceptable.
1
0
4