A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

33 C H A P T E R 3 The researchers conducted the following three major efforts in an examination of recruitment and retention efforts in the rail industry: • Focus groups with the industry workforce • Survey of the rail industry’s operations managers, system engineers, and craftworkers • Structured interviews with business leaders, executives, and human resource departments The information compiled from these three efforts fed into the development of the competency models detailed in a later section. Focus Groups on Railroad Recruitment, Training, and Retention in Craftworkers The research design included a series of targeted focus groups to inform the issues that were explored in a nationwide survey of railroad craftworkers. The objective of the focus groups was to discuss issues and concerns related to recruitment, training, and employee retention. The information provided by the focus group participants guided the research team in formulating questions that a cross section of railroad workers answered via an online survey. The guided questions used in the focus groups are available in Appendix A. Participant Recruitment The researchers contacted national representatives for each of the major craft labor organiza- tions in the railroad industry. These individuals provided local contacts in the three cities where focus groups were to be held—Waltham, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; and Houston, Texas. The goal was to have two representatives from each of the crafts: train and engine service (T&E), dispatching, maintenance of way (MOW), signal, and car repair. A researcher contacted the local labor representative, described the project and requested two individuals from the craft, one of whom had worked 2 years or less. Only actively working employees of a railroad were eligible to participate; full-time labor organization employees were not. (One exception to this criterion occurred in Waltham. Because no signal employees were available for the first focus group, a full-time BRS employee who had left railroad employment 6 months before participated.) Participant Profiles Ten individuals were recruited for each focus group so that each craft would have the oppor- tunity for equal representation. Because it was likely that not all confirmed participants would attend, the goal was to have nine participants in each focus group session. A total of 59 people Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges

34 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry participated in the eight focus groups. Carmen attended only in Houston and dispatchers were represented in Waltham and Chicago. Because railroad freight T&E people do not work a regular schedule, no T&E workers holding this type of job were able to participate in the focus groups. It proved difficult to recruit recently hired people so the researchers accepted more experienced people. Table 3 summarizes the participants by location and Table 4 provides information about their railroad experience. The participants in Waltham, on average, had 2 years less railroad experience than those in Houston and Chicago and their median experience was 7 years, in contrast to 10 in Houston and 14 in Chicago. The Waltham group also had the least experience with their current employer and the least experience in their present positions. Major Themes by Location Waltham Recruitment. Eleven of the 18 Waltham participants reported having worked in another industry prior to starting a railroad career. They worked in a variety of industries including firefighting (retired), construction, metal finishing, oil drilling, electrical manufacturing, mutual funds, trucking, communications, and sales. Two had worked as prison guards. The majority reported getting a railroad job because they had a family member or friend who worked for their railroad employer. The others knew someone in the industry who suggested that they apply. One person commented, “You don’t get into the railroad without knowing somebody,” but several veteran railroad employees felt it was now more difficult to get hired by the larger railroads if you had a family connection. They felt that having a relative at the railroad might even be considered “a negative.” Participants came to railroad jobs through various paths. A signalman reported that he went to trade school and did not want to wire houses so when he learned about working for a railroad he applied. A dispatcher reported that his father got him a job as a coach cleaner when he was in college and he ended up staying with the railroad. The person who had worked in construction got his railroad job through his union. There were a number of factors that made a railroad job desirable. All were attracted by the money and stability. The health insurance was also considered attractive. At the time they hired Table 4. Participant experience by location. Years of Railroad Experience Years with Current Railroad Years in Present Position Location Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Waltham, MA 12.6 7 7.7 6 6.4 3 Chicago, IL 14.7 14 13.0 14 8.4 7 Houston, TX 14.7 10 11.6 10 10.2 8 Location Number of Railroads Represented Crafts Represented Total Number of Participants Waltham, MA 5 T&E, signal, dispatching, MOW 18 Chicago, IL 6 T&E, signal, dispatching, MOW 23 Houston, TX 2 T&E, signal, car maintenance, MOW 18 Table 3. Focus group participants by location.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 35 on, most were not concerned about a pension but this benefit became desirable once they were working for a few years. The retired firefighter was looking for a second career that would not impact his firefighter pension. Prior training or railroad experience is not a prerequisite. There are a variety of jobs available and relocation is possible. One participant commented that “Getting in is the hard part.” One individual who was hired more recently said that he applied online for all positions and after several months he finally got an interview because of a family member. The hiring process for a Class I railroad takes about 2 months. Applications are completed online and include some basic testing. The railroad screens the applications and selects candidates for an interview and drug test. A job offer is contingent on a physical examination. For a smaller regional railroad that desperately needed people, the process took about 2 weeks. One veteran railroader felt that the smaller railroads are still using the old hiring model that is relative centered. The Class I railroads have gone to a model where it is not possible to approach the recruiters. The railroad brings in several hundred applicants for T&E jobs and puts on a video show describing “all the horror stories.” Anyone who is not scared away is given a drug test. Participants in MOW jobs reported that they were told about travel in their job preview. Dispatchers also reported having a job preview as part of their interview process. They “drew an ugly picture” including working nights and weekends. In fact, some said, the railroad painted a grimmer picture than what actually occurred on the job. Recently some railroads have offered a bonus to those who stay at least 3 years. At Amtrak, if an engineer quits before 4 years, the individual must repay Amtrak for the engineer training. (This is common in the airline industry.) Training. Participants’ training differed by craft: • Veteran dispatchers reported being trained “side by side” with someone already doing the job. They also did track car and front-end rides for territory familiarization. Two dispatchers hired in recent years had 8 to 12 weeks of formal rules training followed by on-the-job (OTJ) training. They felt their railroad needed a more formal training protocol rather than leaving it to the judgment of the senior dispatcher overseeing the trainee. • A signal maintainer’s training was OTJ. His supervisor allowed him to “shadow” an experienced maintainer. He said it made a difference once he got into maintaining. “The only way to learn a job is to do the job. . . . You need to attach yourself to someone and learn the job through them and learn it as quickly as you can.” Another signal employee who worked for a small railroad said he was trained on the equipment that was on the property. There was a lack of sophisticated signal equipment on the system. • Those from the track department reported having 3 weeks of training and then going out to a job site. That was where the real learning occurred. One commented, “You don’t learn anything until you go out there and do it.” • A locomotive engineer trainee felt there was too much formal classroom training for engineers. She didn’t know anything at the start and felt overwhelmed. She had 13 weeks of classroom information and only four field trips to see equipment. “You get all this information memorized and then you get out there and you start seeing things and it feels backwards.” She felt there was a need for more hands-on experience in conjunction with the classroom lessons. • An equipment operator in the track department had 4 days of training. He said, “You learn as you go.” • An assistant conductor from a passenger railroad had 8 weeks of formal classroom training followed by 6 weeks of OTJ training before going on the spare board. He said, “Everything that I have learned I learned from guys that have been here for 40 years.”

36 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry All agreed that training new people is becoming more difficult because the experienced people are all retiring. The result is that “Babies are training babies.” An experienced railroader said, “If somebody shows they are interested in what’s going on, I put more into [the on-the-job training].” A veteran railroader thinks there has been a change from one-on-one “word of mouth” training to the classroom method. People are being taught by the book. The result is that trainees miss a lot of practical techniques. The only training beyond the initial training was annual rules training for crafts where this is relevant. When asked “What would you have to do to qualify for your supervisor’s job?” all agreed that the railroad picks whomever it wants. In addition, all agreed that they would face a pay cut by going from an agreement position, where overtime is possible, to a salaried job. One of the dispatchers present told the group that at his railroad the chief dispatcher, an agreement position, must come from within the office. According to their labor agreement, the railroad may not bring in an outsider with no dispatching experience. Retention. The next set of questions focused on why people stay in a railroad job. Partici- pants offered many aspects of their jobs that keep them at the railroad. These reasons included the following: • There is mobility within the company to other locations and jobs. • “I enjoy the solitary aspect . . .” as a conductor working with an engineer. • There is a sense of accomplishment when finishing a big construction job, e.g., laying miles of fiber optic cable. • “What I like about the railroad is the closeness of everybody” and the sense of brotherhood. • A conductor for a passenger railroad said he is having more fun at this job than he expected. He has a great time when working on the train. • A dispatcher said, “We have a good group of guys and we have a lot of fun.” • “It’s always been enjoyable.” • All agreed that the money was good. “Money is very nice.” All agreed that they would not hesitate to recommend a railroad job to a friend or family member. One person added that it would only be people he enjoyed being with. One participant said that he would recommend a railroad job “in a heartbeat” to the right person. He thinks it is a great place to work but he would give a realistic picture of the job when making the recommendation. All agreed that the railroads need to do a better job of PR. One participant reported that after the CSX TV commercial ran recently, he started getting questions from lots of people about rail- roading. Other participants suggested that the railroads go to trade schools and colleges to recruit. When asked about recommendations to the railroad to encourage employee retention, one felt there was too much “nitpicking.” Another felt his railroad had too many managers and that they should “Let the Indians do their work.” Other. When asked for other suggestions regarding recruitment and retention, participants brought up the following issues: • Two participants commented that the freight railroads do not reach out to the female and minority workforce. This is not the case with Amtrak. The female participant cautioned that if railroads get too concerned with diversity, they can end up hiring the wrong people as not everyone is suited to a railroad career. • Rate progression was mentioned as a detractor in hiring. Dispatchers and T&E workers take 5 years to reach full pay. Everyone agreed that once individuals are doing the job with full responsibility they should be earning full pay. “It is upsetting to know you are doing the same job as someone else and not getting the same money.” Some claimed that when the railroad

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 37 hires, they do not tell new employees about this practice. Participants were not against step raises but they thought 5 years was too long. In the track department, employees reach full pay in two years. • Participants felt that reducing the time on the job before full pay will encourage retention. They voiced the opinion that if you are 100% responsible you should get 100% pay. • Other participants suggested that railroads go to high schools to teach the students about rail- roading and the opportunities in the industry. There are not a lot of railroads in New England so high school students do not know the opportunities that exist. • One participant pointed out that railroads expect you to quit your job, go to training for 2 months, and then have a 90-day period where they can fire you without cause. Chicago Recruitment. At all three focus groups, the majority of participants came to work in the railroad industry because a family member or close friend worked there. For those with a family member connection, they reported understanding railroading and they knew the unique char- acteristics of railroad work. A few participants reported finding their railroad job through an Internet search and former military people learned of the position through a VA advisor or the military outplacement service. These tended to be people hired more recently. Many had worked another job before joining the railroad. Other industries/areas where participants worked prior to joining the railroad included construction, health care, telephone company, machine tool operations, high-power lines, post office, warehousing, and trucking. Those recently hired applied online. They subsequently received a call from the railroad to come for an interview. The time from application to starting work ranged from 2 to 4 months. All reported having a job preview that covered the need to travel, work holidays and weekends, and irregular schedules. Some felt that the railroad wanted to “shake out” people in the hiring process and not after they were hired. One person with a family connection did comment that “Until that phone rings at three in the morning or you have to miss your son’s birthday party, you don’t understand what the job involves. That’s why you lose so many people in that first year.” This comment drew agreement from the others. At one focus group, several participants pointed out that they were not told that they were not eligible for overtime during their training period. They also stated that the vacation accrual policy was not adequately explained and they were not told that there is no sick leave allowance. Participants were critical of the railroad policy to hire only people with college degrees. They felt that having a degree does not guarantee success in a railroad job. Participants at one focus group suggested that the railroads attend job fairs at high schools and colleges. Training. Training varies by craft as follows: • Yardmaster. The one yardmaster participant reported that he went to “Choo Choo U” where he had 7 weeks of classroom training to learn operating rules, procedures for hazardous materials, and the railroad’s computer system. He didn’t really learn how to be a yardmaster until he had 3 weeks of OTJ training and actually did the job. He said he was fortunate that he had an experienced yardmaster to teach him. He feels that the current training focuses on what “not to do” and accountability and that new hires don’t know what they are supposed to do. • Conductor. Conductor participants reported that the training was useful in that it provided a mixture of classroom and hands-on training. One conductor said he didn’t really learn the job until he did it. Another commented that “Whenever somebody new comes in, I try and show him what I know.” When trained for the remote control operator position, a vendor representative came to do the training, was another comment.

38 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry • Dispatcher. Training at a large Class I railroad consists of several weeks of classroom training to learn the rules followed by OTJ training. When assigning a trainee to a desk for training, it is important to have the supervising dispatcher be experienced and willing to teach, but this is not always the case. One dispatcher reported that “Three days after I marked up I had someone training with me.” An experienced dispatcher said that no one in his office has a bad OTJ training experience because it is a small office and everyone has to work cooperatively. He said that, “I’m eager to have a new guy learn my job because it means I can have my time off.” Dispatchers used to have road trips so that they could see the territory that they are dis- patching but this does not happen any longer because the dispatching center is short-staffed and cannot afford to give dispatchers training days. • Signal. Initial training for all signalmen involved a combination of school and OTJ training in several cycles. Everyone stressed the importance of the OTJ training and the importance of having someone willing to teach you. One participant reported that “[I] had a really good foreman who showed me how to do stuff.” Another reported that the National Signal Con- sortium is putting together an online training program but railroads have to pay to participate and his employer was not a part of the consortium. This participant saw this as a “wonderful opportunity.” Two experienced signalmen talked about wanting to teach people who show interest. Everyone agreed that education and experience are key to doing the job. • MOW. Participants reported a variety of experiences. One learned the job after working as a conductor so he felt he already knew the railroad and had an advantage over others who were new to railroading. All had limited classroom time and learned the job by doing it. One participant felt that the railroad should rely more on the old heads to teach the new people but they “go by the book,” which does not teach how the job is really done. He further suggested that the managers should go out on the ground and see what is going on so they understand. Participants reported that a major problem across all crafts is that “You have new people training new people.” A MOW foreman who came to railroading from the military talked about the “battle buddy” system in the military. When he enlisted, this person “showed you the ropes” and passed on his experience. He found this extremely helpful and thought this was a model that the railroads could follow. Participants thought the initial training could be improved by the following: • Provide more hands-on time for dispatchers. Trainees are not ready to dispatch after classroom training. They really don’t understand the job and the field dropout rate is high. • Use trainers who have field experience not inexperienced management trainees. • Use skills testing in candidate screening, at least for dispatching. • Implement a formal mentoring program to pair a trainee with an experienced employee. In terms of refresher training, participants felt there wasn’t enough because the railroads are short-staffed. The signal departments have seen a lot of change in technology over the past 5 to 6 years but there isn’t always training on the new equipment. The manager may be trained and then he trains those under him. Participants had no interest in applying for their supervisor’s job. The primary reason was that it would involve a pay cut. They would end up working more hours for less pay. The potential for a management bonus and a different pension did not compensate for their no longer being eligible for overtime. They felt the railroads have “made a huge mistake” in hiring inexperienced people as supervisors instead of bringing people up through the ranks and paying them more. Retention. Participants stayed with their jobs for a number of reasons: • The pay is good and there is an excellent retirement system. (For someone without a college education, “you are making good money.”) • Job stability.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 39 • Camaraderie of co-workers. • Some expressed a sense of pride in the work they do. “When you fix a switch and see the train go by, you know you did your job.” • Signalmen enjoyed the challenge of always learning something new and tackling challenging problems every day. • Amtrak pays for additional training on employee’s time. When asked if there was anything the railroad could do to encourage people to stay, participants offered the following: • Tailor training (OTJ especially) to the individual. • Use experienced people willing to train for OTJ training. Don’t just assign whoever is available. • An employee who makes an error needs remedial training. Having unpaid time off doesn’t correct the underlying problem. • Stop creating larger maintenance territories. • Hire more staff so existing workforce is not stretched to the limit. • Hire managers who have worked the job and “know what happens on the ground.” • Ask the workers for their opinion. When an issue is brought to management’s attention, follow up with the employee who commented. • Acknowledge employees for a job well done. One participant reported getting a letter from the superintendent thanking him and the other people for their work during a recent snowstorm. • Provide better quality tools and equipment, e.g., better quality work boots used to be provided. • Stop trying to blame or harass the employees. There is an “us vs. them” culture. Everyone would recommend a railroad job to another person but would make sure that per- son understood the nature of the job and the railroad. They would be more likely to recommend to a person under 30 who does not have family responsibilities. Other. Participants offered the following additional comments: • There is too much emphasis on the need for a college degree to work at a railroad. • The railroads need a better screening process for jobs and should give the experienced people as well as the supervisor a say in the hiring process. Houston Recruitment. A majority (13) of the 18 participants in Houston had worked elsewhere before coming to the railroad industry. They reported working in printing, warehousing/distribution, telecommunications, automotive repair, construction, pipeline, steel, and the Federal Reserve Bank. Two came from the military. All but three knew someone working in the railroad industry. Only three came from railroad families. Participants were attracted to the railroad jobs because of earning potential and the benefits in a stable industry/company. Several pointed out that there were not many places where someone with a high school education could make the same amount of money. Some liked working outdoors. One signalman said that he always wanted to work with anything electronic. He was a telephone installer in the military and wanted to do something similar after his military discharge. Those hired more recently reported applying online and that it “wasn’t difficult at all.” The time from application to job offer ranged from 2 to 4 months although one person reported that the process took 6 months until he started work. Several participants reported that their railroad recruits at military job fairs. One participant thinks that railroads like ex-military people because these individuals are used to discipline and

40 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry are “ready to go at any time.” At one time Harris County reimbursed the railroad for half of the first 90 days’ salary for veterans that were hired. All participants reported having a comprehensive job preview that included the work sched- ule. One participant said that they make it sound harsher than it actually is. “Once you are there, you see it’s like that but you can still have a life.” There were still surprises once on the job. These included the following: • Insurance. There is a 12-month waiting period for dental coverage. • Claims process. This is the process by which employees get paid for extra time worked such as when they should have been on meal break. One participant commented that “A new guy wouldn’t have a clue what to put on the claim form.” • Drug testing policy. A participant was surprised to learn that if an employee tests positive for drugs and the individual goes to drug rehab, the employee may come back to work. Most companies would let the person go. • Bumping. Participants in all three focus groups brought up the fact that they were not told about the bumping process prior to joining the railroad. They felt that if the railroad did a better job of manpower planning, there would not be so much bumping. In some crafts, bumping can occur system-wide; in others, such as carmen, it occurs just within the location. Training. Training experiences varied by craft as follows: • Carmen went to a class. According to one participant, the problem is that they teach things in the initial class that the carman might not need to use for several years and by that time, the knowledge is gone. • MOW personnel went to a class where they worked on maintenance track with a trainer. This class covered the tools but not how to actually do the job. This class was followed by OTJ training which was “good.” One participant pointed out that he did not learn about track and time in class. Fortunately, another MOW person was willing to teach him. • In school, the conductor learns how to move around a train. Years ago, the new hire was trained as a brakeman and worked up to switchman and then conductor. Now the new hire goes to train- ing and becomes a conductor right away. Once they pass the test, they are certified as a conductor. • Signal work requires a combination of class followed by field work. The classroom portion teaches the basic principles but most of the learning occurs in the field. Then if a signalman goes from construction to maintenance, someone must do OTJ training for this employee. A Class I railroad has the Yellow Signal Book which provides instruction on how to do main- tenance and this is a big help. Participants saw a number of areas where training could be improved. Participants reported that rules classes are now done online and no one is available to answer questions. They preferred the classroom method for this reason. They felt that today there is too much reliance on classroom training and that there should be more OTJ training. Everyone stressed that OTJ training is where you really learn the job and that “Everybody helps everybody.” Unfortunately, many experienced people have retired and over time the experience base is shrinking. “The knowledge is getting lost.” One participant said that his labor organiza- tion was willing to identify people willing to do OTJ training. “If the railroad asked the union to identify OTJ training people, we would find people who want to do it.” Another felt that if the railroad did a better job of manpower planning that there would be more senior people available to work with the new hires. A conductor commented, “I try to take the new guys under my wing [because someone did that for me].” One carman thought that refresher training and recertification of carmen on “things that can cause big damage” would help. Several participants felt that there was a need for territory

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 41 familiarization for MOW personnel. A signalman talked about his foreman assigning a buddy to every new employee. He said that this system worked because “We all care about each other.” Another signalman reported that, at their morning job briefing, people talk about their experiences solving difficult signal problems so that others can learn from them. He found this valuable. When asked about applying for their supervisor’s job, all agreed that the railroad would have to pay a higher rate because they all can make more money as an hourly worker. A typical comment was “I make as much as my foreman. Why would I take that job?” One participant was willing to apply for the job because he saw it as a way to move up in the organization. He pointed out that there were some benefits, such as an additional week of vacation and the potential to earn a bonus, which the job offers. Retention. People stay because of the benefits, retirement plan, and pay. One participant said that without the benefits he would look for something else. Several participants pointed out that after 10 years, people have to stay because there are no other jobs where they could get the same pay and benefits. Beyond the monetary benefits, “It’s the people we work with that make it worth going to work.” Several voiced this sentiment. In one of the three focus groups, the consensus was that the participants would no longer recommend a railroad job because of the way the railroad treats its employees. They felt there was too much stress. The participants in the other two groups would recommend railroad work to a family member or friend. Participants in all three groups offered a number of ways that the railroad could increase their job satisfaction. These included the following: • “Treat your employees as your best customer.” • Hire supervisors who have experience doing the job. • “Don’t rush me.” Trust the experienced employee’s assessment of how long a repair will take. (signal) • Acknowledge a job well done. One participant commented, “You don’t get as much praise as you should.” • Management should take on a more “one team” concept. There is too much “us vs. them.” • Share the wealth with the employees who keep the railroad running. – All medical insurance – Bonuses – More vacation time – Paid sick days – 401(k) match – Stock purchase program Other. When asked for other suggestions regarding recruitment and retention, participants brought up the following: • One focus group talked about job-related stress and thought this should be on the survey. They talked about always being in fear of losing their jobs because of rules compliance. • One participant believed that by not hiring from railroad families, knowledge is lost. In addition, job candidates from railroad families “know what to expect.” • Everybody wants to work for the railroad so there is no need for the railroads to advertise. • A few thought that the railroads could do a better job in their selection of new hires. “Guys are getting hired who can’t do the job.” (This comment came from a signalman.) • If job candidates are recruited through the Texas Workforce Commission, then “you know what you are getting.” (This is a state agency that aids employers as well as job seekers.)

42 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Overall Themes • People in New England and Chicago were more likely to come from railroad families in contrast with Houston. • Many have worked in other industries prior to joining a railroad. • Only a small number of participants found their jobs through Internet research. Most were referred to the railroad industry by family or friends. • The railroads don’t need to advertise for job applicants. They get plenty of applicants through word of mouth. • The pay, benefits, retirement program, and co-worker camaraderie keep people in their rail- road jobs. They believe that with only a high school education, they could not earn as much elsewhere. • Implementing a buddy system would help new hires more quickly become productive railroad employees. • There are many things that railroad management could do to increase job satisfaction. These include hiring supervisors/managers who have done the job that they oversee, acknowledging a job well done, and adopting a team approach to managing craftworkers. • Overall, the railroads provide an accurate job preview. In fact, the reality of the jobs may not be quite as extreme as the railroad recruiters describe. The job preview, however, did omit discussion of some important factors such as rate progression, lack of sick pay, and bumping. Bumping was an issue in Houston and rate progression was an issue in Boston and Chicago. Survey of Workforce on Railroad Recruitment, Training, and Retention Rail industry craftworkers, operations managers, and systems engineers were the focus of this examination of recruitment and retention issues in the railroad industry. These employees include individuals responsible for the movement of trains (e.g., locomotive engineers, conduc- tors, and trainmen), construction and non-construction maintenance, and communications and signaling. The research team successfully surveyed this stratum of the railroad population with the cooperation of industry and labor associations. The process of surveying the workforce was completed not only to examine the industry’s recruitment and retention strategies, but also to further gather representative demographic information unavailable from earlier research methods. Key Findings 1. The biggest recruitment effort in this craftworker sector was recommendation from a family member or friend. Close to 70% of these participants initiated applying to this industry for this reason. When questioned if they would in turn recommend the railroad industry, the answers were divided. Only 17% indicated a definitive recommendation and an additional 35% indicated a probable recommendation to work in the railroad industry. Contrastingly, 18% would not recommend this industry and 30% stated they are unlikely to endorse this industry to a family member or friend. 2. There was a strong sentiment that proper mentoring and training is needed for new hires. Over a quarter of this group received less than a month of training. On-the-job mentoring was hampered by unwilling trainers/mentors, unwilling supervisors, and inexperienced classroom instructors. The sufficiency of this training varied by job categories. The dispatchers reported sufficient training, whereas signalmen, freight train and engine service, and passenger–freight train and engine service indicated their training was insufficient to absent.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 43 3. Job satisfaction was fair for 58% of this group. Almost a quarter reported a neutral stance on their satisfaction levels. An overwhelming 72% indicated that improving labor–management relations was the key element to retaining railroad employees. Other highlighted sugges- tions included increase or offer sick leave, increase pay, hire experienced supervisors, increase acknowledgment from management for a job well done, and cover more health insurance costs. 4. For the rail engineering and operations group, interest in the rail industry grew from recom- mendations of friends and/or family members. Survey respondents reported that they were attracted to the salary, pensions, and job security offered by the railroads. 5. Job satisfaction was neutral to positive for operations managers and system engineers. They reported finding the work interesting and challenging, but many did not see this field as a life-long career option. Increase pay, improve predictability of work schedules, offer more training and educational opportunities, and increase opportunities for growth and career advancement were cited as ways to improve employee satisfaction and retention. 6. Operations managers and systems engineers report a lack of formal training when entering the rail industry. The greatest obstacle to training was a lack of time. All believed OTJ training was the most effective method and many participated in employer-provided and/or non-employer continuing education and training. Results of Craftworker Recruitment and Retention Survey Survey Design and Response With cooperation from the industry unions, the research team received a sample of names and addresses for individuals belonging to the target craftworker labor categories. A mailed invitation was delivered to randomly selected individuals requesting participation in this survey. All iden- tifying information, including name, address, union participation, and individual responses are strictly confidential. Such information will not be divulged; and all data presented in this document is aggregate with specific identifiers redacted to protect confidentiality. Appendix B contains the survey questions distributed to craftworkers. The research team received 256 responses from the various labor categories, which equates to a 14.6% response rate to the mass mailing to the various craftworkers. Although this is a limited response, the data provides a reasonable and informative representation of worker characteristics, attitudes, and experiences. Figure 9 provides a statistical comparison of this sample to the rail- road industry population. Percentages of labor categorization were calculated separately for the sample and the population. 2% 17% 60% 6% 12% 2% 25% 62% 3% 8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Dispatcher MOW Freight T&E Passenger T&E Labor Category Signalman Respondents Populaon Figure 9. Comparison of labor categorization between survey respondents and the railroad population.

44 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Craftworker Demographics Responses were collected for the following demographic information: craftworker labor category, age, sex, marital status, race/ethnicity, and years worked in the industry. Craftworker Labor Categories. Respondents for the craftworker survey selected the labor category that best fits their current responsibilities from the following options: dispatcher, MOW, freight T&E, passenger T&E, signalman, and mechanical department. Participants were given the option to write in their labor category under the option “other.” The “other” category, comprising 2% of the responses, consisted of yard masters, freight conductors, bridges and structures, and one person who indicated both freight and passenger T&E. Figure 9 breaks down the labor categories by percentage of respondents to this survey. Age. With a range of ages varying between 21 and 69 years, the average age of these respon- dents was 49.32 ± 10.5 years. The proportion of craftworkers in their fifties and sixties, compared to craftworkers under the age of 50, matches the current demographics within the industry today. Sex and Marital Status. As expected, a majority of the respondents were male. The males comprised 97.1% of the participant pool. A significant proportion of the respondents (79.2%) reported being married. The remaining statuses were single (11%), divorced (6.5%), partnered (6.8%), and widowed (1.3%). Race/Ethnicity. The majority of these respondents reported White/Caucasian as their race/ ethnicity, occupying 88.8% of the subject pool (see Figure 10). The remaining percentages included Black or African American, 4.1%; Hispanic American, 1.2%; American Indian or Alaskan Native, 0.8%; and 2.9% elected not to answer. Participants who selected “multiple ethnicity/other” consti- tuted 2.1%; written responses included “American,” “half Hispanic / half White,” “Polish and Italian,” “White/Asian,” and “White/Spanish.” Years in the Industry. With a combined total of 4,885 years in the railroad industry, the respondents reported a mean of 20.1 ± 12.5 years in this field. The respondents’ number of years working for the railroad ranged from less than a year to more than 46 years (Figure 11). No significant differences were detected in the mean of years worked in the railroad industry between the six labor categories (Table 5). Geographic Locations. Figure 12 presents a map of the geographic locations of the participants who completed this survey. Figure 10. Ethnicity distribution of respondents to craftworker survey.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 45 Responses on Pre-railroad Employment Experience Respondents were asked several questions pertaining to their opportunities and experiences upon entering the railroad industry. Where warranted, a breakdown of responses to questions by labor category is presented. Prior Experience Before Joining the Railroad Industry. A large percentage (81.6%) of these respondents worked in a different industry prior to joining the railroad. The breakdown by field is as follows: construction, 25.5%; transportation, 9.4%; military, 7.8%; law enforcement/ criminal justice, 5.7%; education, 5.2%; food industry, 4.2%; telecommunications, 4.2%; health care, 1.6%; and finance, 1.0%. The remaining 35.4% of the respondents selected the option “other.” From the “other” category, the following fields were reported: advertising, agricul- ture, auto motive industry (includes mechanics), aviation, city worker, coal mining, computer/ electronics, factory worker, furniture restoration, landscaping, logging, manufacturing, Fr eq ue nc y Years Figure 11. Number of years that respondents to the craftworker survey had in the railroad industry. Dispatcher MOW Freight Train and Engine Service Passenger Train and Engine Service Signalman Other Mean Years 18.6 16.9 20.6 20.8 21.6 23.6 SD ±11.9 ±13.2 ±11.8 ±12.4 ±14.6 ±12.9 Range 8–39 <1–40 3–46 7–45 2–40 10–38 Table 5. Average number of years by labor category that respondents to the craftworker survey had in the railroad industry.

46 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry maintenance, newspapers, nuclear technician, plumber, production, real estate, retail/sales, textile industry, and welder. In Figure 13, the prior vocations of respondents are presented by labor category. Respondents with a background in the military, construction, or transportation primarily elected positions in freight T&E. Other prior construction workers also chose employment in the trades of MOW and signalmen. No other significant trends in career paths were noted. Awareness of railroad employment opportunities primarily resulted from suggestions from a family member or friend, with 68% of respondents selecting this option. Not only did awareness come from this source for all respondents who have a family member in the railroad industry, but also 63% of this subset stated that this affected their decision to join the railroad industry. The second largest source that provided awareness of employment opportunities was newspaper and Internet job postings, with 28% of respondents selecting this option and 14.2% of this group selecting “other” as a source. Written responses included proximity to railroads, unemployment office, and word of mouth from acquaintances. Suggestions for improved visibility of job open- ings include media advertising, emphasis on benefits available to employees, education centers, Internet job postings, local radio ads, more coverage of the railroad industry, trade magazine advertisements, and social media. Image of Railroad Industry. The researchers inquired about the respondents’ perceived image of the railroad industry before applying for a job opening. Over 60% of respondents indicated a positive image, followed by 37% who did not have a positive or negative view of the railroad. The remaining percentage indicated a negative view of the industry. No statistical difference between labor categories was detected for the pre-existing image of the railroad industry. Additionally, input on the reasons this group chose to work for the railroads was solicited. Wages, health insurance, and pension were some of the most popular answers that influenced respondents’ reasons for joining the railroad industry. Figure 14 shows other reasons and the Figure 12. Geographic distribution of respondents to craftworker survey.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 47 Vocations Co un t Figure 13. Prior vocations of participants in the craftworker survey. Reasons Co un t Figure 14. Reasons provided in the craftworker survey for joining the railroad industry.

48 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry percentage of respondents who selected them. These survey takers had the option to write in other factors that influenced their decision. Write-in responses included “lack of career choice,” “economy tanked in 2004—railroad was one of the few hiring,” “frequency of pay check (twice a month),” “wanted to stay in area,” “liked railroads,” “needed a job,” “needed a challenge and discipline,” “first offered job,” “union workforce,” and “wanted to work outside.” As to the craft sector selected, the survey results demonstrate that pay and availability of position were the primary reasons for choosing a craft. Other reasons endorsed were that the participant possessed the necessary skill set or saw an opportunity to acquire new skills and experience. A small percentage indicated that the offered position was an opportunity for career advancement. A few cited that the work schedule impacted their decision in craft selection. The responses for the labor category are represented and displayed in Figure 15. Different reasons were observed for selecting each craft based on the identifying labor categories. No statistical differences in reasons for choosing a craft based on age were noted. Dispatchers Maintenance of Way Signalman Freight Train and Engine Service Passenger Train and Engine Service 40% 50% 41% 39% 36%36% 20% 21% 24% 25% 25% 13% 11% 14% 13% 14% 18% 7% 7% 9% 4% 3% 8% 4% 7% Pay Possessed the necessary skill set Work schedule Opportunity for career advancement Opportunity to acquire new skills and experience Only position available at the time Figure 15. Reasons by labor category for selecting the railroad industry.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 49 Application Process. In the survey, the craftworkers reported an overall satisfactory expe- rience (68.6%) with the application process for employment with the railroad. An excellent experience was indicated by 17.6%; whereas 8.4% and 5.4% reported unsatisfactory or poor experience, respectively. The labor categories did not differ in their rating of the application process. A vast majority (71.5%) of the respondents were hired within 3 months, while another 15.1% of respondents indicated that the hiring process took 3 to 6 months (see Figure 16). An additional 13.4% of this population stated that the hiring process lasted longer than 6 months. Differences were observed in the hiring process between labor categories. All dispatchers in the survey were hired within 1 month. MOW applicants saw the hiring process take less than 2 weeks for 23% of the respondents, between 2 weeks and 1 month for 18%, 1 to 3 months for 28%, 3 to 6 months for 18%, and over 6 months for 13%. For the freight T&E category, 19% were hired within 2 weeks; for the rest, the hiring process took 2 weeks to 1 month for 22%, 1 to 3 months for 34%, 3 to 6 months for 12%, and over 6 months for 12%. For the passenger T&E category, 13% were hired within 2 weeks, while time frames ranged from 2 weeks to 1 month for 27%; 1 to 3 months for 20%; and 3 to 6 months for 7%; 33% were hired after 6 months. And finally the signalmen reported the following hiring time frames: 14% within 2 weeks; 21% between 2 weeks and 1 month; 17% from 1 to 3 months; 34% from 3 to 6 months; and 14% over 6 months. The researchers inquired whether there were aspects of the job that applicants did not learn about until they started working for the railroad. Over half of all respondents indicated that company discipline policies and job bidding procedures were not discussed prior to working in the industry. Other topics with a major endorsement included bumping, work schedules, and Time Frame Co un t Figure 16. Time frame of application process for survey respondents.

50 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry acquiring seniority rights. Write-in answers given by the respondents are as follows: “Federal Employer’s Liability Act”; “forced promotions”; “railroads put customers before employee safety”; “instability of job”; “lack of timely and accurate information”; “chronic health risks”; “the ‘us against them’ attitude between trainmen and management”; and “all of the above.” See Figure 17 for a histogram of participants’ responses. Participants were allowed to choose multiple items. Education and Training Opportunities A vast majority (68.8%) of the respondents had a high school diploma or general educational development (GED) certification as their highest level of education. A little over 20% of respondents had an associate’s degree, and less than 10% had a bachelor’s degree. A small percentage (1.4%) attended some high school but did not receive a diploma. No differences between labor categories were detected in terms of educational levels upon entering the railroad industry. Prior to joining the railroad industry, only 8.4% of respondents had ever received any education or course work specific to the railroad industry. Four respondents indicated exposure through construction work, railroad museum participation, 2-week classroom training, or conductor school. Of these who received educational exposure, 50% indicated their educational program was sufficient and the other 50% that the exposure was limited. An overwhelming majority (72%) of respondents indicated that the most helpful element in preparing to enter a career in the railroad was guidance from someone else already working in the industry. The guidance came from family, friends, acquaintances, and co-workers. Twenty- two percent of respondents indicated that their previous employment was the most helpful preparation for working in the railroad industry. In particular, some indicated a military back- ground was instrumental because it enabled “adjusting to a variety of situations with minimal stress and working with many different personalities of people.” “Learning from individuals Job Aspects Co un t Figure 17. Job aspects identified in the craftworker survey as not discussed in the hiring process.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 51 with decades of experience is where I actually gained the most knowledge” was strongly endorsed throughout the survey. On-the-Job Training. Overall, the training period for almost 80% of the respondents lasted no more than 6 months (see Figure 18). Respondents who received less than a month of training make up 31.1% of the total, while 23.1% reported a training period of 2 to 3 months and 24.4% indicated a training period of 4 to 6 months. Only a small percentage (11.8%) received training beyond 6 months. Of important note, 9.7% revealed that they received no training at all. All the dispatchers in this group received training lasting anywhere from 2 to 6 months; 60% noted training from 2 to 3 months and 40% indicated 4 to 6 months (Figure 19). For MOW, only 8% received training longer than 6 months and a smaller percentage (5%) indicated a period of 2 to 3 months. Over half (59%) of the MOW respondents indicated less than a month of training and 28% stated they received no training. In the freight T&E category, only 3% did not experience any training period; 24% had less than a month; 27% had 2 to 3 months; 36% had 4 to 6 months; and 10% indicated longer than 6 months. All of the respondents in the passenger T&E category were involved in a training period: 27% for less than a month; 33% received 2 to 3 months; 13% recorded 4 to 6 months; and 27% received over 6 months of training. These percentages contrast with the 65% of signalmen reporting either no training (29%) or less than 1 month of training (36%). Two- to three-month training periods occurred for 7% of this subset, 4 to 6 months for 4%, and over 6 months for 25%. When asked if the training that was received adequately prepared the person to conduct their job in a safe and satisfactory manner, the respondents as a group were split between sufficiency and insufficiency. Sufficient training or more than sufficient training was elected by 41.6% and Time Frame Co un t Figure 18. Training periods of craftworker survey respondents.

52 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry 9.2% of this group, respectively. Insufficient or nonexistent training was endorsed by 40.3% and 5.5%, respectively. The remaining 3.4% of the group were not sure if their training was either sufficient or insufficient. The breakdown by labor category is in Table 6. These respondents indicated in a majority (58.4%) that working with experienced people in the field was the most effective type of training in building their skill set, knowledge, and confidence. Forty percent chose on-the-job training as the second favored training. Labor categories did not differ in this response. Lack of time (33.3%) and assignment to someone who was unwilling to provide training (36.2%) were cited as some of the biggest obstacles these persons experienced during their training period. Others cited unwilling supervisors (19.3%) and inexperienced classroom instructors (15.6%) as other factors faced during their training period. Respondents also indicated qualification of instructors and quality of instruction were the two key components to successful training. One person relayed that their instructor “spoke poor English” and therefore it was difficult to understand and follow the course material. One individual was Time Frame Co un t Figure 19. Training periods by labor category of craftworker survey respondents. More than Sufficient (%) Sufficient (%) Insufficient (%) Absent (%) Unsure (%) Dispatcher – 100.0 – – – Maintenance of Way 15.4 56.4 18.0 2.5 7.7 Freight Train and Engine Service 8.3 33.7 48.0 6.5 3.5 Passenger Train and Engine Service 6.5 40.0 53.3 – – Signalman 10.7 53.6 28.6 7.1 – Table 6. Opinion of training by labor category of craftworker survey respondents.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 53 assigned to a trainer who was out on vacation, and therefore not able to train. Time pressures, poor management cooperation, and inexperienced staff were all contributors to the negative views of the person’s training. Railroad Retention Efforts Job Satisfaction. A majority of respondents reported being satisfied (46.4%) or extremely satisfied (11.8%) with their current job (Figure 20). Almost a quarter (23.6%) reported a neutral stance on their job satisfaction. The remaining participants selected dissatisfaction (14.3%) or extreme dissatisfaction (3.8%) with their current job. No differences were detected in job satisfac- tion across the job categories. Neither number of years in the railroad industry nor age affected the job satisfaction variable; in other words, no differences were seen in job satisfaction based on number of years in service or the age of the survey taker. Many of the selections suggesting ways in which the railroad could increase job satisfaction were heavily endorsed by the participant pool (Figure 21). The number one suggestion, with 72% endorsement, was for the railroad to improve labor and management relations. With over 50% each, the following are presented based on their rank order: increase or offer paid sick leave (61.7%), increase pay (60.9%), hire more experienced supervisors (58%), offer 401(k) match (56%), cover more of the health insurance costs (55.6%), improve predictability of work schedules (54.3%), and acknowledgment from management for a job well done (52.7%). Percentages for other factors are provided in Figure 21. There was an opportunity for survey participants to write in suggestions. Respondents consistently commented on the lack of qualification and experience of super- visors and the need for improved relations between the management and labor. Several people indicated that the disciplinary policies enforced by management are counterproductive to the working environment. Comments included “Management needs to look at themselves instead of blaming crews for problems with the railroad”; “Get management to be HONEST and STRAIGHT FORWARD”; “It is widely accepted . . . that the Labor Relations Department of my employer does everything possible to negatively affect the morale and increase the stress levels of those in . . . service”; and “Start hiring management with field experience. Not kids out of college that don’t have a clue about railroading.” Long-Term Career in the Railroad Industry. An overwhelming majority (80%) of the respondents indicated that they plan to make working for the railroads a lifelong career. Only a small percentage indicated that this will not be a permanent long-term industry for them (5.5%). 46.4% 23.6% 11.8% 3.8% 14.3% Figure 20. Job satisfaction of craftworker survey respondents.

54 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Ways to Increase Satisfaction Pe rc en ta ge Figure 21. Actions suggested by craftworker survey respondents to increase job satisfaction. The remaining participants were unsure about their plans to remain in the railroad industry. No differences were noted between the labor categories or for the different age groups. As expected given national statistics on the number of railroad employees reaching retirement age, almost half of the respondents have plans to retire within the next 5 to 10 years (Figure 22). Interestingly, 32.8% of the respondents did not predict any career movement in the near future. These respondents indicated that they will be working in the same position. Only 3.8% envisioned a promotion to a management position. Close to 10% foresaw a change to a different position. When surveyed regarding factors that would affect their willingness to continue working in the industry, this group suggested the following in rank order (shown in Figure 23): wages (84.4%), pension (79.0%), health insurance (75.7%), job security (53.1%), participation in union (39.9%), friendship with co-workers (38.3%), work schedule (27.2%), mobility within the company to other locations or jobs (13.2%), training and educational opportunities (13.2%), and travel opportunities (5.3%). Opportunities for Career Advancement. Most of the respondents selected either very satis- fied (5.9%) or satisfied (29.8%) with the current opportunities for advancement in the railroad industry (Figure 24). An additional 33.6% took a neutral stance on this topic; whereas, 12.6% and 6.3% were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with advancement opportunities. A small portion (11.8%) stated they did not wish to advance.

Pe rc en ta ge Career Plans (5–10 Years) Figure 22. Craftworker survey results—career plans. Pe rc en ta ge Possible Retention Factors Figure 23. Factors to increase willingness to work in the railroad industry suggested by craftworker survey respondents.

56 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry No differences were noted in satisfaction levels for career advancements across the different labor categories. The survey results also did not indicate differences in opinion for advancement opportunities across the age categories. When asked for conditions that need to change in order to promote career advancement, 40.7% suggested hiring more from within; 30.9% advocated for offering more training to employees to expand skill sets and knowledge; and 23.5% favored improved communication when new positions become available (Figure 25). Respondents were given an opportunity to write in suggestions. They presented the following: “Advancement has always been on favoritism”; “It’s all in who you know that determines if you get the position or not”; “Quit promoting on the buddy system. Make advancement opportunities based on experience, not on friends or outside. Quit hiring these college degree kids and have them run a terminal”; “Stop hiring family and friends over qualified people”; “Stop passing over overly qualified black workers”; “They need to do a better job of hiring qualified supervisors”; and “Matching pay for instructor/trainers may attract more experienced and qualified train operating craft to apply.” Job-Related Stress. Most of the respondents (75.8%) reported that their current level of stress did not persuade them to consider leaving this industry nor their current position. Twelve and a half percent indicated that they would consider switching to a different job within the industry due to their current level of stress. The remaining subset (11.7%) noted that the stress associated with their current position invokes thoughts of switching to jobs outside of the industry. When asked to rate how each of the factors listed in Table 7 contributes to their overall stress at work, the survey takers selected management policies and decisions as well as company dis- cipline policies as the two greatest contributors to their stress levels. Other factors ranking as stressful included ambiguous operating rules or procedures, loss of sleep, inadequate staffing, lack of control over schedule, communication problems, and inadequate time off. Table 7 high- lights the mean stress level for each factor stated in the survey. 29.8% 11.8% 5.9% 6.3% 12.6% 33.6% Figure 24. Opinions on career advancement by the craftworker survey respondents.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 57 Pe rc en ta ge Ways to Promote Career Advancement Improve communication when new positions become available Hire more from within the railroad 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Offer more training to employees to expand skill set and knowledge 23.5 40.7 30.9 Figure 25. Changes needed for career advancement according to craftworker survey respondents. For these respondents, a large majority (60.9%) indicated that working for the railroad affected their relationships with family and/or friends negatively (Figure 26). The remaining group endorsed no change (16.4%), a positive change (13.0%), or unsure how it affects relationships (9.7%). The final question to these participants was “Would you recommend a career in the railroad to a family member or close friend?” The group surveyed was split between answers of yes and no (Figure 27). The largest percentage (35%) was elected for “probably yes” and 16.7% stated “definitely yes.” On the other hand, 30.3% probably would not recommend the railroad industry and an additional 17.9% would definitely not recommend this industry to a family member or a close friend. No differences were detected between the age categories in response to this question. Differences were noted in the likelihood of a recommendation of a career in the railroad industry across the different labor categories. The dispatchers among these respondents would likely recommend this industry, with 100% answering either probably or definitely yes. A similar trend was observed with signalmen: 78.6% endorsed a possible or definite yes. For the MOW group, 75.7% of this subset suggested they would consider recommending working in the railroads. The passenger T&E group was split in their recommendations with 53.3% answering probably yes or definitely yes. The freight T&E group had the least favorable recommendations as only 38.3% would steer a family member or friend to a career in the railroad industry. Figure 28 provides a graphical representation of the selected items to this question.

58 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Table 7. Average stress levels of craftworker survey respondents for a variety of job-related factors. 60.9% 13.0% 16.4% 9.7% Figure 26. Effect of the industry on the relationships of craftworker survey respondents.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 59 35.0%30.3% 16.7%17.9% Figure 27. Likelihood of industry recommendation by craftworker survey respondents. Pe rc en ta ge Likely to Recommend Railroads as a Career Figure 28. Likelihood of industry recommendation by craftworker survey respondents by labor category.

60 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Results of Rail Engineering and Operations Recruitment and Retention Survey Survey Background An email invitation to participate in the survey was sent to a blind list of “rail industry profes- sionals” on 31 October 2014. It explained that responses would be anonymous and that the goal of the survey was “to better understand the effectiveness of rail industry workforce recruitment and retention activities, . . . the preferences of working professionals [and] how rail companies can better attract and retain rail industry professionals.” Data used for this analysis was collected on 19 November 2014: 181 respondents started to take the survey and 19 dropped out immediately; of the 162 that continued, 31 provided partial responses and 131 completed the survey. For those who participated, the average response time was 12 minutes. This report includes data from the complete and incomplete responses. The limited response does not provide a statistically valid sample of the industry, but the data seems to provide a reasonable and informative representation of worker characteristics, attitudes, and experiences. Appendix C contains the survey questions distributed to the rail industry. Primary Data Filter Survey respondents were asked to indicate the area that best describes the focus of their current responsibilities: engineering, operations, or none of the above. This question provides the primary filter used throughout this report and all responses are first differentiated as engineering, operations, or other positions. Figure 29 depicts the percentage of all responses by focus area (from complete and incomplete responses). Figure 30 shows the approximate location of each respondent’s primary workplace (for complete responses only). Secondary Data Filters Three secondary data filters are used throughout the report: education, age, and rail industry experience. Figures 31 through 33 use line thickness to illustrate relative number of responses within each of the secondary data filters in the context of the primary filter: focus of current responsibilities. Education. Respondents were asked to indicate their highest level of completed education: high school/equivalent (HS*), associate degree/military equivalent (2-yr*), bachelor’s degree (4-yr), or master’s or doctoral degree (MPhD). Figure 31 graphically displays the results. This filter is applied throughout the subsection. Age. Respondents were asked to indicate their age range: under 25; 25–34; 35–44; 45–54; 55–62; or 63 and older. Figure 32 graphically displays the results. This filter is applied throughout this subsection. Experience. Respondents were asked to indicate how many years they have worked in the railroad industry. Figure 33 graphically displays the results. Responses were grouped and the filter applied throughout this subsection uses these labels: <5, 5–10, 11–20, 21–30, 31–40, 41–50, and 51+. Results of the Retention and Recruitment Survey for Engineering For respondents who identified engineering as the focus of their current responsibility, Figure 34 categorizes their education, age, and experience by annual income and employer type. From this 51% 22% 27% Engineering Operations Other Positions Focus Areas Figure 29. Self- selected focus areas of the respondents to the rail engineering and operations survey.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 61 Figure 30. Locations of respondents to the rail engineering and operations survey. Figure 31. Education by focus area of respondents to the rail engineering and operations survey.

62 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Figure 32. Age by focus area of respondents to the rail engineering and operations survey. Figure 33. Experience by focus area of respondents to the rail engineering and operations survey. data and other survey responses, the research team developed profiles of the respondents in the following areas: • Industry image, recruitment, and employee satisfaction • Education and access to rail-related courses • Getting onboard with a rail career • OTJ training and continuing education • Employee satisfaction and retention • Education, professional participation, and 5- to 10-year plans Industry Image, Recruitment, and Employee Satisfaction—Engineering. The data shown in Figure 34 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ initial image of the railroad industry, how they learned about employment opportunities, current job satisfaction, and whether they recommend that others consider working in the industry: • Respondents with annual income exceeding $115,000 (>$115K) had a neutral image of the railroad industry before starting their job search, became interested in opportunities in response to one-on-one recruitment initiatives or other personal contacts (including suggestions from

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 63 family or friends), find the work satisfying or extremely satisfying, and would recommend a railroad career. • Respondents with annual income between $80,000 and $115,000 (<$115K) had a neutral or positive image of the industry, became interested in opportunities in response to one-on-one recruitment initiatives or experience as an intern, find the work extremely satisfying or satisfy- ing, and are very likely to recommend a railroad career. • Respondents with annual income between $56,000 and $80,000 (<$80K) had a neutral image of the industry, became interested in opportunities through position postings and other recruit- ment initiatives, find the work satisfying, and would recommend a railroad career. • Respondents with annual income less than $56,000 (<$56K) had a neutral or positive image of railroads initially, may have been influenced by family or friends who worked in the industry, find the work satisfying, and would recommend a railroad career. Employee Education and Access to Rail-Related Courses—Engineering. The data shown in Figure 34 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ level of completed education, whether it included rail-related HS* 2-yr* 4-yr MPhD < 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-62 63 + < 5 5-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51 + Class I Railroads > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K Class II Railroads Class III Railroads Commuter / Urban Rail Transit Systems Construction / Maintenance Contractors Consulting Firms Governmental Entities Professional Associations Rail Manufacturers / Suppliers None of the Above annual income ecneirepxeeganoitacude > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K Figure 34. Education, age, and experience of engineering-focused respondents to the rail engineering and operations survey by annual income and employer type.

64 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry course work, and whether respondents feel they had sufficient access to rail-related courses and seminars: • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 45 years old or older hold bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degrees with no formal rail-related course work; they recalled none when asked whether there had been sufficient access to rail-related courses. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 25 to 44 years old hold bachelor’s degrees with no formal rail-related course work; the majority of respondents recalled there having been none, or a small number, of rail-related courses or seminars. • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 25 to 44 years old hold bachelor’s degrees with no formal rail-related course work; the majority of respondents recalled there having been no courses, or only a small number, available related to the rail industry. • Respondents with annual income <$56K who are 25 to 44 years old have post-graduate, bachelor’s, or 2-year degrees (or equivalent military experience); for the majority of respondents, this did not include formal rail-related course work and, at best, only a few courses or seminars related to the rail industry were available. Getting Onboard with a Rail Career—Engineering. The data shown in Figure 34 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning why the respondents chose rail-related work, their experience with the application process and time-to-start, and what was the most helpful preparation for a career in rail: • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 45 years old or older were attracted by the salary, pension, or interest in trains/railroading; found the application process satisfac- tory, or excellent, and likely started within a month; and found the most helpful preparation for a rail career was guidance from one or more people in the industry. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 25 to 44 years old were attracted by salary, job security, interest in trains/railroading, or job variety/options; found the application process satisfactory and likely started within a month; and found the most helpful preparation for a rail career was previous experience, guidance, or mentoring from people in the industry. • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 25 to 44 years old were attracted by job variety/options, security, or salary; found the application process satisfactory and likely started within a month; and found the most helpful preparation was previous experience or guidance. • Respondents with annual income <$56K and who are 25 to 44 years old were attracted by the opportunity to make a career change; found the application process satisfactory and likely started within a month; and found the most helpful preparation was mentoring or educa- tional course work. On-the-Job Training and Continuing Education—Engineering. The data shown in Figure 34 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ training experience (including duration and any obstacles); the most effective type of training (related to skill set, knowledge, and confidence) for the position currently held; participation in non-employer- (NE) and employer-provided (EP) continuing education/training in the past 2 years; and whether respondents feel they were provided with adequate preparation for working in a safe and satisfactory manner: • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 45 years old or older had no formal training period (greatest obstacle was lack of time), found OTJ training was most effective, participated in NE and EP training, and feel they had sufficient preparation for safe and satisfactory work. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 25 to 44 years old had no formal train- ing (greatest obstacle was lack of time), found on-the-job or in-the-field training was most effective, participated in NE and EP training, and feel they had sufficient preparation for safe and satisfactory work.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 65 • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 25 to 44 years old had no formal training period (greatest obstacle was lack of time), found OTJ training was most effective, participated in NE and EP training, and feel they had sufficient preparation for safe and satisfactory work. • Respondents with annual income <$56K who are 25 to 44 years old had no formal train- ing period (greatest obstacle was lack of time), found OTJ training was most effective, may have participated in EP training, and feel they had sufficient preparation for safe and satisfac- tory work. Employee Satisfaction and Retention—Engineering. The data shown in Figure 34 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles con- cerning the respondents’ satisfaction with their job and opportunities for advancement, whether they intend to make rail a life-long career, priorities affecting their willingness to continue working within the industry, and suggested employer initiatives for increasing job satisfaction: • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 45 years old or older are satisfied with their job and satisfied or neutral about opportunities; see rail as a life-long career; say their priorities are interesting/challenging work, wages, and travel opportunities; and suggest these employer initiatives: growth/advancement opportunities, acknowledgment from management for a job well done, and increased pay. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 25 to 44 years old are satisfied with their job and opportunities; see rail as a life-long career; say their priorities are interesting/challenging work, wages, and job security; and suggest these employer initiatives: increased pay, growth/ advancement opportunities, and improved predictability of work schedules. • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 25 to 44 years old are satisfied with their job and opportunities; are unsure about rail as a life-long career; say their priorities are interesting/ challenging work, wages, and job security; and suggest these employer initiatives: increased pay, improved predictability of work schedules, and growth/advancement opportunities. • Respondents with annual income <$56K who are 25 to 44 years old are satisfied with their job and satisfied or neutral about opportunities; do not see rail as a life-long career; say their priorities are work schedule and job security; and suggest these employer initiatives: increased pay, improved predictability of work schedules, and additional training and educational opportunities. Education, Professional Participation, and 5- to 10-Year Plans—Engineering. The data shown in Figure 34 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ age, education level, rail-related professional membership, years of industry experience, and expectations for the next 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income >$115K are 45 years old or older; have a college degree (bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral); belong to a rail-related professional organization; may be relatively new to the industry or have 21 to 40 years of experience; and anticipate being promoted, near retirement, or retired in 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income <$115K are 25 to 44 years old; have a bachelor’s degree; belong to a rail-related organization; have rail experience ranging from recently hired to 20 years; and anticipate being promoted or near retirement in 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income <$80K are 25 to 44 years old; have a bachelor’s degree; are likely to not belong to a rail-related professional organization; have up to 10 years of industry experience; and anticipate being promoted in 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income <$56K are 25 to 44 years old; may have a 2-year degree (or equivalent military experience)or a bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral degree; are likely not a member of a rail-related professional organization; may have up to 20 years of industry experience; and anticipate being promoted in 5 to 10 years.

66 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Results of the Retention and Recruitment Survey for Operations For respondents who identified operations as the focus of their current responsibility, Figure 35 categorizes their education, age, and experience by annual income and employer type. From this data and other survey responses, the research team developed profiles of respondents in the following areas: • Industry image, recruitment, and employee satisfaction • Education and access to rail-related courses • Getting onboard with a rail career • OTJ training and continuing education • Employee satisfaction and retention • Education, professional participation, and 5- to 10-year plans Industry Image, Recruitment, and Employee Satisfaction—Operations. The data shown in Figure 35 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ initial image of the railroad industry, how they learned about HS* 2-yr* 4-yr MPhD < 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-62 63 + < 5 5-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51 + > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K Class III Railroads Commuter / Urban Rail Transit Systems Construction / Maintenance Contractors Consulting Firms Governmental Entities Professional Associations Rail Manufacturers / Suppliers None of the Above annual income ecneirepxeeganoitacude Class I Railroads Class II Railroads > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K Figure 35. Education, age, and experience of operations-focused respondents to the rail engineering and operations survey by annual income and employer type.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 67 employment opportunities, current job satisfaction, and whether they recommend that others consider working in the industry: • Respondents with annual income >$115K had a positive image of the industry before starting job search, became interested in opportunities because of suggestions from family or friends who worked in the industry or after an internship, find the work satisfying, and would be likely to recommend a railroad career. • Respondents with annual income <$115K had a positive image of the industry, became interested in opportunities because of suggestions from family or friends, find the work satisfying, and would be very likely to recommend a railroad career. • Respondents with annual income <$80K had a positive image of the industry, became inter- ested because of suggestions from family or friends who worked for a railroad, find the work satisfying, and would be very likely to recommend a railroad career. • Respondents with annual income <$56K had a positive or neutral image of the industry, became interested in rail opportunities because of suggestions from family or friends or after an internship, find the work satisfying or extremely satisfying, but are unsure about recommending a railroad career to others. Employee Education and Access to Rail-Related Courses—Operations. The data shown in Figure 35 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the fol- lowing profiles concerning the respondents’ level of completed education, whether it included rail-related course work, and whether they feel they had sufficient access to rail-related courses and seminars: • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 63 years old or older have a 4-year degree, which did not include formal rail-related education; only a small number of rail-related courses or seminars had been offered. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 55 years old or older have a 4-year degree, which did not include formal rail-related education; some respondents had no options for rail-related courses, while some had access to many options. • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 55 to 62 years old have a high school diploma or 2-year degree (or the equivalent); no formal rail-related education, although some reported having had sufficient access to rail-related courses and seminars. • Respondents with annual income <$56K who are 55 to 62 years old have a 2-year degree (or equivalent military experience); no formal rail-related education and few, if any, courses or seminars related to the rail industry had been offered. Getting Onboard with a Rail Career—Operations. The data shown in Figure 35 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning why the respondents chose rail-related work, their experience with the application process and time-to-start, and what was the most helpful preparation for a career in rail: • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 45 years old or older were attracted by the salary, interest in trains/railroading, job security, or pension; found the application pro- cess satisfactory and likely started within 2 weeks; and found the most helpful preparation for a rail career was guidance from one or more people in the industry. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 55 years old or older were attracted by job variety/options, career change, or interests; found the application process to be excellent and likely started in 3 to 6 months; and found the most helpful preparation for a rail career was educational course work, participation in a rail-related club/organization, or previous employment. • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 55 to 62 years old were attracted by the salary, variety/options, a career change, or interests; found the application process to be

68 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry satisfactory and started in 2 weeks; and found the most helpful preparation was course work or previous employment. • Respondents with annual income <$56K who are 55 to 62 years old were attracted by the salary, job variety/options, job security, or interest in trains/railroading; found the application process to be excellent and likely started in 1 to 3 months. On-the-Job Training and Continuing Education—Operations. The data shown in Figure 35 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ training experience (including duration and any obstacles); the most effective type of training (related to skill set, knowledge, and confidence) for the position currently held; participation in NE and EP continuing education/training in the past 2 years; and whether respondents feel they were provided with adequate preparation for working in a safe and satisfactory manner: • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 63 years old or older had no formal training period (greatest obstacle was lack of time), found OTJ training was most effective, may have participated in NE and EP training, and feel they had sufficient safety preparation. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 55 years old or older had no formal train- ing period (greatest obstacle was lack of time); on-the-job training was most effective; may have participated in NE and EP training; sufficient safety preparation. • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 55 to 62 years old had no formal train- ing period (greatest obstacle was lack of time), found OTJ training was most effective, participated in EP, may have participated in NE training, and feel they had sufficient safety preparation. • Respondents with annual income <$56K who are 55 to 62 years old had no formal training period (greatest obstacle was lack of time), found OTJ training was most effective, may have participated in NE or EP training, and feel unsure whether they had sufficient safety preparation or that they had sufficient safety preparation. Employee Satisfaction and Retention—Operations. The data shown in Figure 35 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles summarizing the respondents’ satisfaction with their job and opportunities for advancement, whether they intend to make rail a life-long career, work priorities, and suggested employer initiatives for increasing job satisfaction. • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 63 years old or older are satisfied with their job and opportunities; see rail as a life-long career; say their priorities are interesting work, pension, and wages; and suggest these employer initiatives: growth/advancement opportunities, additional training, acknowledgment of a job well done. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 55 years old or older are satisfied with their job and opportunities; see rail as a life-long career; say their priorities are interesting work, wages, job security; and suggest these employer initiatives: increased pay, growth/ advancement opportunities, improved work schedule predictability. • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 55 to 62 years old are satisfied with their job and opportunities; are unsure about a rail career; say their priorities are interesting work, pension, wages; and suggest these employer initiatives: hiring more workers, increased pay, and improved work schedule predictability. • Respondents with annual income <$56K who are 55 to 62 years old are satisfied/extremely satisfied with job and satisfied/neutral with opportunities; do not see rail as a life-long career; say their priorities are interesting work, job security, training/educational opportunities; and suggest these employer initiatives: increased pay and more solicitation of worker input by management.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 69 Education, Professional Participation, and 5- to 10-Year Plans—Operations. The data shown in Figure 35 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ age, education level, rail-related professional membership, years of industry experience, and expectations for the next 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income >$115K are 63 years old or older, have a 4-year degree, may belong to a rail-related professional organization, are likely to have some 40 years of experi- ence, and anticipate being near retirement or retired in 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income <$115K are 55 years old or older, have a 4-year degree, may not belong to a rail organization, may have relatively new experience or 31 to 40 years of experience, and anticipate being in the same job, near retirement, or retired in 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income <$80K are 55 to 62 years old, are likely to have a high school diploma (or GED) or a 2-year degree (or equivalent military experience), may or may not belong to a rail-related professional organization, have 21 to 40 years of industry experience, and anticipate being promoted, near retirement, or retired in 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income <$56K are 55 to 62 years old, are likely to have a high school diploma (or GED) or a 2-year degree (or equivalent military experience), may or may not belong to a rail-related professional organization, may be fairly new to the rail industry, and anticipate being near retirement or retired in 5 to 10 years. Results of the Retention and Recruitment Survey for Other Positions For respondents who identified the focus of their current responsibility to be neither engineer- ing nor operations, Figure 36 categorizes their education, age, and experience by annual income. From this data and other survey responses, the research team developed profiles of respondents in the following areas: • Industry image, recruitment, and employee satisfaction • Education and access to rail-related courses • Getting onboard with a rail career • OTJ training and continuing education • Employee satisfaction and retention • Education, professional participation, and 5- to 10-year plans Industry Image, Recruitment, and Employee Satisfaction—Other Positions. The data shown in Figure 36 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ initial image of the railroad industry, how they learned about employment opportunities, current job satisfaction, and whether they recommend that others consider working in the industry: • Respondents with annual income >$115K had a neutral or positive image of the industry before starting job search, became interested in opportunities because of suggestions from family or friends who worked in the industry or other personal contacts, find the work satisfying, and would probably recommend a railroad career. • Respondents with annual income <$115K had a neutral image of the industry, learned about job opportunities from personal recommendations or newspaper ads, and find the work satisfying but are unsure about recommending a railroad career to others. • Respondents with annual income <$80K had a neutral image of the industry; learned about opportunities from family, friends, or one-on-one contacts; and find the work satisfying but are unsure about recommending a railroad career to others. • Respondents with annual income <$56K had a neutral image of the industry, became inter- ested in opportunities because of suggestions from family or friends who worked in the industry, find the work satisfying, and would also recommend it as a career.

70 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Employee Education and Access to Rail-Related Courses—Other Positions. The data shown in Figure 36 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ level of completed education, whether it included rail-related course work, and whether they feel they had sufficient access to rail-related courses and seminars: • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 63 years old or older have a 4-year or post-graduate degree, which did not include formal rail-related education, although some rail-related courses or seminars may have been offered. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 55 to 62 years old have a 4-year or post- graduate degree, which did not include formal rail-related education; some respondents had no options for rail-related courses, while some had access to many options. • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 45 to 54 years old have a 4-year or post- graduate degree, which did not include any formal rail-related education, and few, if any, rail-related courses or seminars were offered. • Respondents with annual income <$56K who are 45 years old or older have a 4-year degree, which did not include any formal rail-related education, although rail-related courses or seminars may have been offered. HS* 2-yr* 4-yr MPhD < 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-62 63 + < 5 5-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51 + > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K Class II Railroads annual income ecneirepxeeganoitacude Class I Railroads Class III Railroads Commuter / Urban Rail Transit Systems Construction / Maintenance Contractors Consulting Firms Governmental Entities Professional Associations Rail Manufacturers / Suppliers None of the Above > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K > $115K < $115K < $80K < $56K Figure 36. Education, age, and experience of rail engineering and operations survey respondents with other positions by annual income and employer type.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 71 Getting Onboard with a Rail Career—Other Positions. The data shown in Figure 36 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles con- cerning why respondents chose rail-related work, their experience with the application process and time-to-start, and what was the most helpful preparation for a career in rail: • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 63 years old or older were attracted by the salary or job variety/options, found the application process to be excellent and likely started within 2 weeks, and found the most helpful preparation for a rail career was guidance from one or more people in the industry or previous employment. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 55 to 62 years old were attracted by the salary or job security, found the application process to be excellent and likely started within 2 weeks, and found the most helpful preparation was guidance from others or previous employment. • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 45 to 54 years old were attracted by the salary or job security, found the application process to be satisfactory and likely started within a month, and found the most helpful preparation for career was previous employment. • Respondents with annual income <$56K who are 45 years old or older were least attracted by the salary or work schedule, found the application process to be excellent or satisfactory and likely started within 2 weeks, and found the most helpful preparation for rail career was guidance from one or more people in the industry. On-the-Job Training and Continuing Education—Other Positions. The data shown in Figure 36 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ training experience (including duration and any obstacles); the most effective type of training (related to skill set, knowledge, and confidence) for the posi- tion currently held; participation in NE and EP continuing education/training in the past 2 years; and whether respondents feel they were provided with adequate preparation for working in a safe and satisfactory manner: • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 50-plus had no formal training period (greatest obstacle was lack of time), found OTJ training was most effective, may have participated in NE or EP training, and feel they had sufficient preparation for safe and satisfactory work. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 55 to 62 years old had no formal train- ing period (greatest obstacle was lack of time), found OTJ training was most effective, did not participate in NE and EP training, and feel they had sufficient preparation for safe and satisfactory work. • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 45 to 54 years old had no formal training period (greatest obstacle was lack of time), found OTJ training was most effective, participated in EP and NE training, and feel they had sufficient preparation for safe and satisfactory work. • Respondents with annual income <$56K who are 45 years old or older had no formal train- ing period (greatest obstacle was lack of time), found OTJ training was most effective, may have participated in NE or EP training, and feel they had sufficient preparation for safe and satisfactory work. Employee Satisfaction and Retention—Other Positions. The data shown in Figure 36 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ satisfaction with job and opportunities for advancement; whether they intend to make rail a life-long career; priorities affecting their willingness to continue working within the industry; and suggested employer initiatives for increasing job satisfaction. • Respondents with annual income >$115K who are 45 years old or older were satisfied/ extremely satisfied with their job and satisfied with opportunities; see rail as a life-long career; say their priorities are interesting/challenging work, job and career mobility, and wages; and

72 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry suggest these employer initiatives: growth/advancement opportunities, increased pay, and acknowledgment from management for a job well done. • Respondents with annual income <$115K who are 55 to 62 years old were satisfied/ extremely satisfied with their job and satisfied/neutral with opportunities; see rail as a life- long career; say their priorities are interesting/challenging work, wages, and job security; and suggested these employer initiatives: increased pay, acknowledgment from management for a job well done, and more vacation time. • Respondents with annual income <$80K who are 45 to 54 years old were satisfied with their job and neutral about opportunities; half see rail as a life-long career; their priorities are wages, interesting/challenging work, job security, and pension; and they suggest these employer ini- tiatives: increased pay, improved predictability of work schedules, and growth/advancement opportunities. • Respondents with annual income <$56K who are 45 years old or older were satisfied with their job and opportunities; half see rail as a life-long career; their priorities are wages, interesting work, and training/educational opportunities; and they suggest these employer initiatives: increased pay, additional training/educational opportunities, and growth/advancement opportunities. Education, Professional Participation, and 5- to 10-Year Plans—Other Positions. The data shown in Figure 36 and other responses to the survey allowed the research team to develop the following profiles concerning the respondents’ age, education level, rail-related professional membership, years of industry experience, and expectations for the next 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income >$115K are 45 years old or older (and likely to be over 60); have a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree; belong to a rail-related professional organiza- tion; have 11 to 40 years of rail industry experience; and anticipate being close to retirement or retired in 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income <$115K are 55 to 62 years old; have a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree; belong to a rail-related professional organization; have 31 to 40 years of rail industry experience; and anticipate being close to retirement or retired in 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income <$80K are 45 to 54 years old; have a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree; belong to a rail-related professional organization; have 5 to 10 years of rail experience; and anticipate having the same position in 5 to 10 years. • Respondents with annual income <$56K are 45 to 54 years old or 63 years old or older; likely have a bachelor’s degree; may or may not belong to a rail-related professional organization; are likely to have 5 to 20 years of industry experience; and anticipate being promoted, close to retirement, or retired in 5 to 10 years. Summary of the Railroad Competency Model Survey An email invitation to participate in the survey was sent to a blind list of “rail industry pro- fessionals” on 31 October 2014. It explained that responses would be anonymous and that “The goal of the survey is to better understand rail industry workforce development needs and gain a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of working professionals” including knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Survey respondents were asked to indicate the area that best describes the focus of their current responsibilities: engineering, operations, or none of the above. (The latter were not presented with the full survey and their responses are not included in this analysis.) Responses to the question on focus of current responsibilities provide the primary filter used throughout this subsection. Data used for this analysis were downloaded on 8 December 2014: • 129 respondents began taking the survey • 21 dropped out almost immediately

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 73 • 11 went through the entire survey but provided no responses • 26 selected “none of the above” as their primary focus • 25 provided a partial response and are included in this analysis • 46 completed the survey in its entirety Of these 71 participants, 42 are in engineering (29 completed the survey) and 29 are in opera- tions (17 completed the survey). Figure 37 shows the approximate location of each respondent’s primary workplace (for complete responses only). This limited response is not a statistically valid sample of the industry, but it is an interesting representation of knowledge and skills, which provides a model that could be refined by a com- pany or professional organization and deployed to glean more detailed insights about worker knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Engineering For respondents who identified engineering as the focus of their current responsibility, Figure 38 categorizes their education, age, and experience by annual income and identifies the percentage of respondents who work for each of the employer types. Responses. Respondents who indicated that engineering is the focus of their current respon- sibilities were presented with the functions shown in Figure 39 and asked to select one of five terms (see the legend for Figure 39) that most closely characterizes their responsibilities regarding those functions. Comments and Training Recommendations from Engineering Respondents • Engineering Support Systems – Heavy focus on theory of technology (software and hardware) to perform all these functions— this is especially true with the Class I railroads. Figure 37. Locations of respondents to the railroad competency model survey.

74 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Figure 38. Categorization of system engineers’ education, age, and experience by annual income and response by employer types. Figure 39. Engineering responsibilities of respondents to the railroad competency model survey.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 75 Figure 39. (Continued).

76 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry – Training should start early, depending on whether the state has well-trained trainers. Depending on location, the technical institute has to be contacted and related classes on train control, traction power, track work, etc. have to be initiated by systems. – Contractors and the materials and training are provided to the technical school instructors. – Implementation of maintenance and asset management. – Passenger rolling-stock (including metro, commuter, light-rail vehicles, regional) design and operational considerations. – FRA and ADA compliance issues. – Railroad bridge rating—including fatigue analysis of aged structures. – The ability to apply threat management, error management, and cockpit resource management to rail safety. – Traction power substation design, signal engineering, overhead catenary system, and track system. – In addition to applying three-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD) software, the ability to create and design specific approaches and templates to facilitate development of drawings and documents specific to standards for railways and/or railway equipment industry. • Communications/Signals – Depending on the state, training needs are different—in areas like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston, many are familiar with these systems and it may be easier to hire staff with some background in transit systems. In other states, training needs to be started at the technical college level with the help of system providers. – Field training. • Track/Infrastructure – Cybersecurity is a complicated subject and should be considered—although hackers may not have found ways to attack satellites yet, it would bring havoc to the transportation industry. • Bridges/Structures – U.S. bridges have no security—the culture seems to react instead of being proactive. Equip- ment alone cannot provide security and people must be active participants. Everyone must be aware of their surroundings. The workforce needs to be trained to be vigilant and alert, and the “it’s not my job” attitude has to change. – Prioritization of repairs or replacement of bridges based on analysis. • Control Systems – More modeling instruction courses. • Rolling Stock/Traction Engineering – Consultants are relied on to support design review and testing activities on vehicle hardware and software systems [doors, propulsion, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning), etc.] and other special testing activities like electromagnetic interference and electromagnetic compatibility testing. Training to support the management and performance of these duties would be valuable. • Standards – Bridge maintenance permitting requirements. Operations For respondents who identified operations as the focus of their current responsibility, Figure 40 categorizes their education, age, and experience by annual income and identifies the percentage of respondents who work for each of the employer types. Responses. Respondents who indicated that operations is the focus of their current responsi- bilities were presented with the functions shown in Figure 41 and asked to select one of five terms (see the legend for Figure 41) that most closely characterizes their responsibilities regarding those functions.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 77 Figure 40. Categorization of operations respondents’ education, age, and experience by annual income and employer types. Figure 41. Operations responsibilities of respondents to the railroad competency model survey. (continued on next page)

78 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Figure 41. (Continued).

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 79 Comments and Training Recommendations from Operations Respondents • Operations Support Systems – As organizations become more complex, generalized instruction in areas other than one’s own normal sphere of activities seems more valuable. – Fleet management. – Service quality—especially reliability at the car/container level. – Importance of communicating effectively with management as to the importance of various operating systems and strategies, particularly as it relates to obtaining funding for new programs. – Training must be continuous and include an effective mix of classroom training and real- world, hands-on application. – Understanding interface of operations with supply chain management of customers. • Communications/Signals – Event-reporting cars and containers. – Additional radio system training (outside the company). – Upper management needs to have a cursory understanding of the federal regulations and hire people to execute them—this is especially true in the chemical industry. • Yard/Terminal – Fleet management. All Respondents Figure 42 categorizes the education, age, and experience of all respondents by annual income and identifies the percentage of respondents who work for each of the employer types. Responses. Respondents were presented with the functions shown in Figure 43 and asked to review the definitions (see the legend for Figure 43) and select one term that most closely characterizes their responsibilities regarding those functions. Figure 44 presents the results of respondents being asked to select the term (see the legend for Figure 44) that matches their skill level with the effectiveness activities described. Comments and Training Recommendations from All Respondents • Project Management – From an engineering perspective, only a top-level understanding of project management would be beneficial. 26% 13% 17% 32% 6% 43% 2% 9% 4% 23% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Class I Railroad 6 Construcon/Maintenance Contractor 2 Class II Railroad 7 Rail Manufacturer/Supplier 3 Class III Railroad 8 Government 4 Commuter/Urban Rail Transit 9 Professional Associaon 5 Consulng Firm 10 None of the Above UNK HS* 2-yr* Univ. ABET UNK 25-3435-4445-5455-62 63 + < 5 5-10 11-2021-3031-4041-50 >$115K <$115K < $80K < $56K UNKnown experienceannual income education age all responses by employer type Figure 42. Categorization of respondents’ education, age, and experience by annual income and employer types.

80 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry 1U = Understand—infer, interpret, compare, summarize, or explain 2A = Apply—execute or implement a defined ini a ve 3A = Analyze—assess data, problems, or systems based on exis ng criteria 4C = Create—maintain, adapt, or generate in support of ongoing efforts 5E = Evaluate—use self-selected criteria to design, develop, or define new ini a ves or criteria NA = Not Applicable . response categories co lo r s ca le Lighter grays indicate the categories—1U, 2A, 3A, 4C, 5E, and NA— that received fewer responses. For individual statements, color indicates the category(ies) with the most responses: legend Project Management 1U 2A 3A 4C 5E NA Project management processes, including iden
fying steps and deliverables for each phase Stakeholder requirements as they relate to project func
onal requirements Clear, concise, and consistent direc
on Cross-func
onal project teams that include appropriate people and resources Project
me and budget commitments Effec
ve work-breakdown structures and project cri
cal path elements Alterna
ve project management approaches (e.g., lean-and-agile) Contract documents and consistency with company policy Project priori
es and deliverables Ini
a
ves to iden
fy and mi
gate project risks Safety Culture 1U 2A 3A 4C 5E NA Manage-for-safety techniques Hazard-avoidance ini
a
ves that support rail opera
ons during maintenance / construc
on Systema
c approaches for evalua
ng and mi
ga
ng risks Evalua
on scenarios for "near-miss" situa
ons and correc
ve measures Hazard communica
ons for team members Quality checks to minimize risks maintenance, construc
on, and opera
ons ac
vi
es Transparent repor
ng mechanisms for safety issues and incidents Figure 43. Project management and safety culture responsibilities of all respondents to the railroad competency model survey. effecveness legend Effecveness 1W 2C 3S 4C NA Clear and concise verbal and wrien communicaons Represenng my employer in a professional manner Proacvely engaging key internal and external stakeholders Conveying a command of the relevant facts when communicang with others Parcipaon in rail-related professional organizaons Maintaining a challenging professional development plan in cooperaon with my supervisor Effecvely communicang new and beer ways to do things Maintaining a posive work-life balance Approaching situaons with an open mind and adapng to new challenges Developing alternave approaches and soluons Engaging external customers in the development of engineering soluons Using input from customers and internal stakeholders to adapt engineering soluons Understanding customer requirements and translang them into engineering specificaons Understanding the impact of my engineering soluons on shippers and other stakeholders Balancing the needs of shippers and my employer’s business requirements Communicang soluons in terms of their impact on shippers and other stakeholders 1W = Would like to improve 2C = Capable and comfortable 3S = Sasfied and successful 4C = Coaching and providing guidance NA = Not Applicable . indicate the response categories co lo r s ca le Lighter grays the categories—1W, 2C, 3S, 4C, and NA— that received fewer responses. For individual statements, color indicates the category(ies) with the most responses: Figure 44. Effectiveness levels of all respondents to the railroad competency model survey.

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 81 • Safety Culture – Regional railroads can still “get our arms around the railroad” and get closer to stakeholders (owners, employees, patrons, general public) than the Class I counterparts who seem too compartmentalized and driven by an obsession with reducing costs with no concept of the effect on future (or current) operations, etc. Much of the failure of contemporary railroads to perform adequately (e.g., the inability to move the fall harvest in a timely manner, mas- sive traffic erosion, etc.) is the result of an abandonment-focused culture in too many of the big Class I and regional railroads. • Additional Comments – Examine programs offered by other academic institutions including Michigan Technological University, Michigan State University, University of Illinois, etc. – “Co-op programs are GREAT! Wish I had taken one, although I did get railroad and rapid transit experience during a work break in my education, which had a similar effect and started off my proposal writing skills and railroad-related design work later.” – The educational requirements for rail-related vocations vary significantly between Class I railroads and the regional railroads (Class II and III). Also, educational requirements for people employed by railroads and commuter agencies involved in passenger transportation need to focus on safety and customer satisfaction—versus those involved in freight handling. – The short-line railroad industry is in need of experienced railroad engineering consultants with a knowledge of “getting it done right and fast” to emphasize the need to keep trains moving. Structured Interviews with Railroad Human Resource Personnel Purpose and Methodology To gain further insight into the railroad industry’s current recruitment and retention methods, as well as educational and training policies, the research team made efforts to interview HR departments throughout the industry. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) assisted by querying different Class I railroads for willingness and availability to participate. Unfortunately, response rates to both the research team and AAR were quite low. It should also be noted that the researchers attempted to reach out to passenger rails through cold calls with limited success. In the end, the researchers were able to connect with some HR personnel at Class I railroads. AAR was also able to provide valuable information as to where to locate statistics on railroad demographics that ultimately painted a brighter and fuller picture of railroad industry demo- graphics. The review of statistics and structured interviews provided an insightful glimpse into railroads’ perspectives on current recruitment and retention practices, as well as strategies and challenges to building and maintaining workforce capacity in the railroad industry. Appendix E contains the guided questions used during phone interviews. The interviewed HR professionals highlighted points of particular interest in terms of methods, success stories, and challenges related to recruitment, education and training, and retention in the railroad industry. A discussion of the information gleaned from these dialogues follows. For the purposes of anonymity, individuals are referred to as HR. Recruitment Recruitment Methods Railroads were first queried about what they look for in candidates as they begin the recruit- ment process. One of the most important characteristics of potential employees is flexibility

82 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry and the willingness to be able to commit to working an unpredictable schedule. HR depart- ments explain the attractiveness of this quality by pointing to the fact that the railroad is a 24/7 operation and that it takes “a special sort of individual to adapt to that type of working environment.” Leadership and decision-making skills are also of the utmost importance when considering if candidates would be a good fit in the railroad industry workforce. HR profes- sionals also indicated that strong communication skills and the ability to listen and follow directions are critical. The railroads look for individuals with “personal integrity who display ethical behavior. For instance, HR states that employees cannot cut corners when conducting their jobs and that following the rules by the book can often mean the difference between life and death.” When asked about any recent changes made to the recruitment process, railroads discussed their need for a fresh outlook on hiring. For quite some time, there was a hold on recruitment. Many new employees who were hired in the 1980s and before remained working for the railroad, and thus, a relaxed attitude about hiring existed. “The need simply was not what it was now.” If potential candidates were not aggressively pursuing employment in the railroad, they simply did not get hired into the workforce. Furthermore, railroads interviewed indicate that in the past, they would place advertisements in the local newspaper for a hiring session and “around a thousand people would show up. They would take the first hundred or so people who would arrive, interview them and then hire about twenty folks.” This is no longer the case, they state. Now, they proactively recruit top candidates, especially to fill empty management positions. Railroads also reported some success using tools like social media to attract passive candidates who may not have known about a career in the railroad. When asked about branding and trying to sell the railroad as a viable career, HR discusses the importance of stressing the stability that comes with working for the railroad; however, with the improvement of the economy this is admittedly starting to lose its luster. Nevertheless, the stability of a career in the railroad does continue to ring true for interested candidates. HR states to some extent “the railroad really is the backbone of our country.” Financially speaking, HR emphasizes that the railroad “has a good, strong track record of performance.” HR also praises the merits of management and the leadership of the company; HR states that “they have always been forward looking, innovative, and progressive.” With respect to generating future business, the leadership of the railroad was aware that the importance of coal would not last forever, and in the past 5 years, the value of coal dropped dramatically. The railroad, however, continued to thrive, as leadership had already begun to invest heavily in intermodal transportation. This type of leadership ensures ongoing stability. Finally, when trying to recruit new employees, HR makes it a point to discuss the outstanding benefits, including highly competitive pay and outstanding retirement plans, with all potential hires. Success Stories in Recruitment Railroads were asked about any success stories they may have with regard to recruitment. HR reports a great deal of pride with a new recruitment initiative in which they are focusing on hiring veterans. In the last 4 years, HR reports “an average of approximately 26%” of external hires have come from the military. Talent advisors and recruiters have established relationships with military bases, “with some of these folks also having military backgrounds.” They use these relationships to recruit veterans at all levels. They have also participated in military career fairs. Recruiting employees who have been in the military makes perfect sense and allows for hiring qualified candidates. This is in part because the working environment is very similar. “Both military folk and railroad employees work outside, no matter the condition, time of day, or time of year.” HR tells a story about a Marine who in his job interview discussed having to pro- tect his platoon in extreme weather conditions. Because veterans are accustomed to working in extreme weather, and often times in more dangerous conditions than they will face at the

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 83 railroad, “they are well prepared to deal with whatever may come their way, in many different environmental conditions.” Rules and safety are vital to both careers. “Both the military and the railroads live and breathe rules and safety every day, as it is truly the only way to ensure being able to leave work and go home safely.” Both fields use heavy machinery and both must understand the importance of how to use them properly and safely because one slip up could be quite costly. Thus, the culture of doing things the right way, not cutting corners, and following the rules by the book will be familiar to a veteran beginning a career for the railroad. Finally, the need for strong leadership and decision-making skills is of the utmost importance in both careers. Recruitment Challenges Despite changes in recruitment methods and reported success stories, the industry does continue to face challenges when hiring new, skilled workers. One of the biggest barriers when attracting future employees is that a career in the railroad is not for everyone, especially the new generation entering the workforce today. “The idea of unpredictable schedules is quite unappealing to millennials when competing with new tech companies where the culture is very different and much more flexible.” In interviews with HR departments, the idea that workers “are married to the railroad” is revealed. This is because rail employees often miss birthdays, holidays, anniversaries, and other important events with friends and family, “a lifestyle that does not sit well with today’s generation. The railroads, however, understand this and that they must adjust their scheduling policies, stating time off should really mean time off, and not mean one must be accessible by phone on days off in case he or she is called in to work. Railroads point to the need to use technology better to help them with such scheduling issues.” Also, with the economy improving, people have more options for employment and may not be drawn to the stability of working for the railroad as they once were. Challenges of recruiting skilled workers in the rail industry seem to lead back to early education. For instance, “railroads feel that they have largely been left out of initiatives like STEM and the Association of Career Technical Educators,” and thus feel that “they are lagging behind other career fields that young students have become interested in from an early age.” People entering today’s workforce have many options and railroads therefore feel that, to some extent, they are losing out to competing industries when recruiting qualified employees. Interviews with HR departments also revealed sentiments that the way craftworkers are sometimes recruited through hiring sessions is not the most successful way, as it can be too impersonal. Hiring sessions occur where a recruiter will talk to a group of potential candidates who have shown up for 2 hours, then interview the potential candidates for 20 minutes, and “then make quick decisions as to [who] moves on to the next step of the onboarding process.” This method of recruiting does not help the railroads hire the best talent. Through discussion, HR feels more “one-on-one time with pre-screen phone calls to get to know the candidates better prior to hiring sessions would benefit the railroad in the long-term.” “The railroads need to use technology better to recruit. The people who are coming to these hiring sessions often have to take a day off from work to wait around and they may not even get a chance for an interview. This likely doesn’t sit well with candidates because it isn’t a good experience or introduction to the railroad.” “Because technology is much more widespread, with so many people having smartphones and computers now, using technology to recruit makes so much sense. Ten years ago, the assumption was that many folks looking for employment as a craftworker may not have known how to navigate technology. This may have been true then, but it is a different time now.” Suggestions include sending text messages of videos so that potential candidates can view videos of what it would be like to be a conductor, for example, to see whether the potential job is even appealing job to them.

84 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Education and Training Education and Training Methods An interview conducted with the director of training for a Class I railroad offered insight into the education and training methods employed by railroads. From this interview, the researchers gleaned that educating and/or training employees is mostly up to the discretion of the individ- ual railroad employers. This appears to be the case despite industry-mandated annual train- ing requirements for safety, among other certifications and requirements applicable to certain positions in the workforce. For instance, the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 243 (CFR 243), relevant to all rail employees, will mandate annual requirements for safety starting in 2018. This interviewee states that “the regulation discusses the need for refresher training; however, currently he is not aware of any programs that offer training specific to CFR 243.” In November of 2014, a Human Resources Bench-Marking Meeting took place among the Class I railroads. The agenda was centered on staffing and training, led by human resources and operations professionals in the industry as they begin to assist each other in developing programs to satisfy CFR requirements, as well as continuing to try to provide quality training for employees. Due to limited academic institutions that cater to the specific needs of the railroad, this director of team training states that they will “often times bring in someone at an apprentice level with a basic education in electrical or diesel mechanics and then continue to train.” He says that there is no railroad curriculum anywhere. Two schools he discusses are Bossier Parish Community College in Bossier City, Louisiana, and Northwest Louisiana College but reiterates the skills taught there are general and not tailored to the needs of the railroad industry. He also discusses a welding program at Tyler Junior College from which they will hire graduates but then need to continue to train them because the program does not focus on track welding. Welding programs are hard to find in general according to HR, however, again industry has requirements when it comes to this craft. Education and Training Successes Concerning success in education and training, railroads were quick to highlight the develop- ment of training centers. For example, when beginning employment at CSX, new employees are first sent to the Railroad Education and Development Institute to train there for as long as the position they were hired for requires. A suggestion for improved training is “to mix OTJ training with time at a training center. Rather than all training occurring first, [they] spend time at the training center, conduct hands-on training, return to the training center, and continue the cycle until new hires can successfully enter their craft.” This “reinforces the learning of skills necessary for exemplary performance.” In this industry, “things can change quickly,” with proper training protocol new employees can apply what they “have learned in the pristine environment of the training facility in the real world.” Other Class I Railroads have also begun their own training programs in an effort to address the need for more highly skilled and knowledgeable workers. BNSF has partnered with the National Academy of Railroad Sciences (NARS) through Johnson County Community College. Not only do they educate new students to the rail industry, but they also offer training for BNSF employees. NARS employs the use of a simulator to prepare students and experienced engineers for differ- ent safety situations on the rail. The faculty at BNSF’s training facility is headed by Dave Tolle who has a great deal of experience, along with 70 other seasoned railroad workers. One result of programs like these, says students and faculty alike, “is a railroader who gets smarter faster and who’s better able to grapple with today’s increasingly technical crafts.” NARS also boasts the training tool “Net-Sims,” which is a network-based simulator that employees can access through the corporate website as a link to the academy. The “Net-Sims” is especially useful for engineers looking to be re-certified from their home location (Hansen, 2005).

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 85 Canadian National has a different approach to training in that it has training centers located throughout its system, as opposed to in one centralized location. Jim Kvedaras, spokesman for Canadian National, states that safety training is a huge focus of theirs. He states, “We have kept up a steady stream of hiring and training for train and engine service employees and some mechanical forces, to keep pace with retirements and our business growth” (Hansen, 2005). Kansas City Southern (KCS) has a similar decentralized approach and also contracts out training centers, including using BNSF as a training facility for their employees. Conductors and engineers alike spend time in the classroom before getting on the railroad, with re-certification training on a computer occurring every 3 years. Mechanical department apprentices for KCS take part in a 3-year program with the Railway Education Bureau, and also receive 40 hours of training a year, while signalmen and MOW personnel receive training over a 2-year period. New hires at KCS are assigned a mentor at their start date, in addition to receiving classroom training. Education and Training Challenges During the interview process, the railroads expressed several challenges related to education and training. Regarding the previously mentioned mandated requirement for safety with the upcoming addition of CFR 243, there is the hope that the rail industry can come to a common agreement on training curriculums. If the industry was able to inform colleges and training centers of their needs, perhaps standardized curriculums would be developed. This could in turn make the training process of railroad employees less complicated than some feel it is currently. The lack of academic institutions and training centers in many locations throughout the United States also is a major challenge the railroad faces. It is difficult to educate or train pro- spective workers when training centers are not in the vicinity. This is likely why several Class I railroads have started to develop their own training centers, but it is fair to say that this may be more difficult for some of the smaller railroads to duplicate. Retention The research team was not able to discuss retention policies and issues with any HR experts on this matter; however, what follows are the results of limited discussions on retention in the railroad workforce. Retention Methods A discussion of retention methods begins with the appealing benefits that accompany a career in the railroad. Pay is very competitive and the pension or retirement packages offered by railroads are really beyond compare to other industries. Often times, as heard from employees themselves in focus groups and survey results, this is enough to keep people working for the railroad. If an employee of the railroad, in particular a craftworker, is able to stay long enough to achieve senior- ity, the issue of unpredictability in schedules becomes much more tolerable, as it is the newer employees who are often the ones to work the difficult shifts, including nights and holidays. Furthermore, many railroads offer tuition assistance to employees. If a craftworker comes in under a low-level mechanical job “he or she may be able to take advantage of the tuition benefit, moving up while accruing seniority, until reaching a more senior position.” Retention Successes HR professionals interviewed were not easily able to highlight success stories in terms of retention at this time; however, it could stand to reason that the sharp increase in retention rates after 2 years in the industry is a success. For instance, “if folks make it past two years of employ- ment in the industry, retention rates do increase. Throughout the industry, HR departments can see attrition rates of about 25%; this attrition decreases sharply to an estimated 10% or less after two years of employment.”

86 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry Retention Challenges Several challenges came up in discussions with HR professionals about maintaining workforce capacity in the railroad industry. Most important is the issue of unpredictable schedules. Related to the issue of difficult schedules is that some people “don’t realize what it will truly be like until they are on the job for some time. They may decide even though the pay and benefits are great, they would prefer to take a less financially rewarding job so as not to miss out on important events and maintain a regular schedule.” Other times, “the person’s family or significant other may not realize how difficult the schedule can be. Employees sometimes have to choose between their family and the railroad, and often times, people choose family as the more important part of their life.” Another challenge as it pertains to retention in the railroad industry is the changed mindset and work ethic of the new generation entering the workforce today. This generation places a greater emphasis on work–life balance, and as such will not be as apt to work a job with long, unpredictable hours, especially as options for employment continue to grow with the improve- ment of the economy. Furthermore, as seen through a review of existing literature, today’s gen- eration of workers are less apt to stay in one career, let alone one workplace as long as the workers of past generations did. The need to move around from one company to the next to obtain career advancement seems to be an issue all employers, not just the railroad, will need to contend with as they try to maintain a strong workforce moving forward. Another issue highlighted as a potential retention challenge is the current command and control of the industry. Though the railroad has softened up a bit, according to HR, “workers report feeling like they are being watched over so as to be caught doing something wrong, rather than something good.” This sentiment was echoed in focus group discussions and a review of the survey results from the craftworkers. Many feel that there is a culture of craftworkers versus management, and this can lead to qualified workers leaving the workforce for a more autonomous career, especially those from younger generations. Referring to success stories in recruiting veterans, this type of strict culture is something ex-military personnel may be more comfortable with than others. Nevertheless, it continues to be an issue railroads need to address in order to better maintain a quality workforce. Conclusion Railroads have made a significant amount of progress recently in how they build and maintain their workforce capacity. As they continue to strive to find and retain skilled workers, HR profes- sionals interviewed are aware that they need to keep looking to the future to improve. They are cognizant that what used to work when recruiting and retaining workers in the past is no longer the most effective way to build a successful workforce. They also understand the importance technology will play when looking for and hiring new potential. HR departments have made strides in recognizing who will be a good fit for their industry, such as veterans, and have taken matters into their own hands in educating their workers through the development of their own training centers and academic partnerships. It is the hope of the researchers that information discovered in this project will only further assist the industry to become as robust as it once was. Structured Interviews with Executive Leaders Survey Design The research team conducted brief, targeted telephone interviews of well-established, highly regarded U.S. railroad industry subject matter experts from trade associations, management, unions, and regulatory agencies. These interviews led to the list of prospective executive leader interviewees. It also refined the questions included in the Executive Leader Interview Tool

Perspectives on Recruitment and Retention Practices, Strategies, and Challenges 87 (see Appendix D), ensuring the inquiry is relevant, reliable, and unbiased by the standards of working railroad subject matter experts as well as consistent with research protocols. Finally, interviews shaped early thinking about prospective executive leadership patterns, trends, and competencies and contributed to the list of executive leadership development programs known for their efficacy. The prospective pool of interviewees were narrowed and qualified by known performance results, personal demographics, and industry demographics. Participants provided their written and informed consent to participate in the study and to be quoted pseudonymously in this report. Their pseudonyms are as follows: Adams, Bennett, Graff, Hayden, Jeffreys, Oliver, Peterson, Remington, Sutter, and Travers. Interviews were conducted by telephone exclusively with just-in-time transcription into Microsoft® Word. Interviewees reviewed the draft interviews for correctness and returned them to the researchers with their consent for use. Executive Leader Demographics Demographics of the participants are provided in Table 8. Note that individual interviewees fall into multiple categories, a reflection of their varied and rich professional trajectories. Also of interest were the relative arcs of interviewee professional development and rise to senior leadership. All interviewees but one earned bachelor’s degrees early in their adult lives. Undergraduate degrees were most often in civil or mechanical engineering, though degrees in Demographic No. Experience Class I freight railroad 7 Class II, III, short-line/regional freight railroad 3 Class I passenger railroad 0 Regional passenger railroad 1 Railroad industry association 2 Regulatory 1 Substantial other-industry experience 4 Title President/General Manager 3 Executive Vice President 4 Vice President 8 Terminus Director 2 Rail Corridor North American East Coast Corridor 4 North American West Coast Corridor 7 North American Mid-central Corridor 6 Area of Responsibility Operations: Transportation 6 Operations: Mechanical 3 Operations: Engineering 1 Operations: Signal/Telecom 1 Operations: Other 2 Safety 4 Gender Male 8 Female 2 Race Caucasian 9 Ethnic minority 1 Employment Status Retired 3 Currently employed 7 Table 8. Demographics of participants in the executive leader interviews.

88 A Guide to Building and Retaining Workforce Capacity for the Railroad Industry economics, business, and psychology were also reported. Post-graduate degrees followed in early to mid-career, most often as part of interviewees’ rail-related professional development. Fifty percent of the railroad executives interviewed came up the traditional railroad “haws pipe”; they started out as young people walking trains, in the shop, or working on the business/office side and made their way steadily up the organizational chart on the strength of strong outcomes and gritty effort. Two were identified early on as “high fliers” and put on the fast development track with stretch assignments and additionally intense accountabilities. Interestingly, 30% of the interviewees made at least one jump from work at a Class I carrier to a regional or short line or vice versa, with their depth and/or breadth of authority and responsibility expanding as they moved. An additional 20% made similar moves, though theirs were in and around regulatory agencies and industry associations. Two joined the railroad mid-career from entirely separate industries, merged into middle management, and begin rapid ascents in part because their work was enhanced by non-traditional expertise and practices. Three worked as transportation sector consultants, with two of them assisting railroads as part of their project work. One interviewee loved railroading beginning with the toy train around his family’s Christmas tree and eventually found a tiny railroad to purchase, moving immediately, unconventionally, and successfully into an executive leadership position. Data Analysis The interviewers reviewed the data, distilling for trends, patterns, and connections that might prove useful later when the two streams of analysis were brought together. The interviews were then handed off to the grounded theory researcher for further study. To protect the anonymity of interview participants as provided in the informed consent agree- ment, any identifying information (individuals’ names, names of employers and corporations) was deleted and/or pseudonyms were used. Grounded theory methods (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Corbin and Strauss, 2009) were then employed to discover and develop themes in the data. Using NVivo software for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis, the researcher coded the interview transcripts to pull together interview excerpts that illustrate each competency in the model. To provide independent analysis, the early stages of data coding were conducted before the interviewer distillations were read. After the initial, independent analysis was complete, the interviewer distillations were integrated into the grounded theory researcher’s analysis. In this way, the team of analysts was able to develop a model that benefits from the rich industry-insider insights provided by the interviewers as well as from the independent, industry-outsider’s per- spective. Details from these interviews are embedded within the competency model for rail business leaders and executives.