I can pass it to Rob, but I'll answer quickly.
The best line I heard on this was when a department official went to examine a fatigue management program for a company. The company's response was that it was in the filing cabinet. He asked if it was implemented. The company said they were told they had to have one; they weren't told they had to implement it.
The truth of the matter is fatigue in a railway is recognized. Mr. Harrison Hunter previously stated to his shareholders that fatigue is the greatest cause of accidents. When he said that, we were in the middle of negotiations where they were saying we're not going to deal with scheduling rules.
We've almost had two national strikes, not over money, not over conditions, not over pensions, not over anything except scheduling rules. People are falling asleep.
We know this from medical science—people die younger when they're fatigued. It's a medical issue. It's an issue for our health care system that we have to pay for. It's something that should be dealt with.
This is our way of doing it—I hope not in an aggressive, regulatory manner. This may not be the right place, but if a clause like this is in the bill, it will make companies aware that they have to deal with it.
We'll deal with it tomorrow. We'll do a memorandum of understanding. We'd do anything to have proper scheduling rules.
I'll tell you how silly it gets. Half of their employees have scheduling rules, I think maybe two-thirds, and maybe a half or a third don't. It depends on what part of the country you're in. It depends on what craft you belong to. It's not even that they're not doing it. It's just a matter of obstinance—they don't want to do it.
But they came before this committee, I believe, in 2007--at least I was informed--and said they were going to deal with it because it was a fatigue issue. It's 2011. Let's move forward.
All we want is your help. This clause we're talking about is just to help us get what we should have.