FINANCIAL EDGE, RAILWAY AGE SEPTEMBER 2025 ISSUE: The North American rail media sphere has been dominated by the Union Pacific+Norfolk Southern merger/acquisition and by the inevitable fallout about what will happen next: BNSF+CSX, CPKC+CSX, UP+NS+CN. These events offer rail journalists the opportunity to dance to a new tune (so often relegated are they to discussions as mundane as when and where will rail loadings growth arrive). The entire mix of speculation, the involvement of roguish activist investors and the pure thrill of having something to write about that people outside of the industry may want to consume is extraordinary.
To be honest, the railroad merger dialogue is beginning to make North American rail feel a bit like Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.” Not the best look.
But the world keeps spinning. Railcar loadings into late August looked better than 2024 (especially King Coal) but not good enough for North American rail to look like it is on a growth trajectory. Rail service across North America has been acceptable and consistent, and for the most part that is good enough.
For a railroad looking to change the world by creating continental dominance and promising post-merger volume growth (never heard that before), the late August news that Union Pacific was ordered by OSHA to pay damages to an employee who was fired over what the railroad claimed was a false work injury claim put an ugly spin on a fairly minor event.
“Financial Edge” has never given UP, and all the other railroads for that matter, a pass on their public relations gaffes. There was Lance Fritz’s attempt to blame intermodal container pillaging on the Los Angeles Police Department (Sgt. Joe Friday would never have tolerated that). There have been senior-executive podium statements confirming that the one thing at which UP excels is bureaucracy. Also, there have been recent statements that UP’s customer-facing technology improvements involved their new and updated website.
While a transcontinental merger certainly redirects the conversation, it bears remembering that even prior to the recent OSHA ruling, UP has frequently been on the negative side of employment reporting. Several Propublica.org articles highlight tension between UP and employees. Mostly these articles focus on employees being told to prioritize train speed over safety or on whistleblowers trying to highlight unsafe operating conditions. None of these stories end well. The employee is usually fired. The railroad cites cause and the employee says it is retributive. Litigation or arbitration of one form or another ensues. Payoffs are made.
Propublica is far from the top-ten list of unbiased news reporting agencies. Neither is it the most biased news outlet. As noted before in this space, one thing the railroads do not do well is counteracting negative media and negative perception of themselves in the public domain.
OSHA notes that when it comes to soft tissue injuries, concrete physical diagnosis is often hard to obtain. OSHA stops short of passing definitive judgment about the existence of an injury but goes as far as to suggest that the faking of the injury is a possibility. OSHA walks an odd line, and the facts available to the public are limited. Here’s what is easy to find: OSHA’s report identifies UP as a “serial violator” of the whistleblowing rules. In a window between 2001 and 2015, UP had more than 200 reported whistleblower complaints.
Let’s be clear: All U.S.-domiciled Class I railroads have OSHA retaliatory employment action judgements. They span decades; each railroad has recent decisions against it. The volume of these complaints at UP is clearly more significant than at the other Class I railroads.
No surprise that SMART-TD and TWU (Transport Workers Union of America) have come out strongly against the UP+NS merger. Both unions have targeted safety concerns, immediate labor force impacts and the overarching perception that a merger will line executive pockets while offering little for the employees working on the ground.
Unions have long memories. They all remember the service meltdowns that have followed most railroad mergers. The BLET and BMWED are reserving judgment until they have a sit-down with management. One would guess that the recent NS and UP five-year labor agreements do not include guaranteed employee retention in the event of a transcontinental merger.
No one likes injury, scandal, or the perception of employee-directed apathy. It does create a sense of wonder about why more effort is not being exerted into making UP, its image and its employee relations more positive—especially as it is about to pursue the most significant U.S. railroad merger since the original transcontinental spike in 1869.
Maybe after the merger?
