Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain Not an expert, but it appears to me that there's been a bloodletting of union truckers in recent years. Their cost structure has been too high as in other businesses, and they haven't had gov't regulation to keep lower cost/better service competitors or divisions from serving customers. [/quote] Remember, trucks pay a higher labor rate per unit of cargo than railroads. You basically have one unit of labor per 35 tons (max) for trucks, whereas railroads (counting all "hands on" units of labor to make up a typical train) might use at most 10 units of labor per 3500 tons (minimum), or 350 tons per unit of labor. That's 10 times the labor efficiency at a minimum, and the average is probably even greater. Thus, to continue having a total unionization of OA rail transporters will not make that much of a dent in profit potential vs non-unionization of OA rail transporters, so what would be the point in trying to bust up unionization of railroaders for the sake of establising OA? That's why I would not oppose an OA Davis-Bacon type of requirement for OA transporters, at least on the cost side. So, though it may be true that union truckers might start feeling the pressure of non-union hires when and if the economy starts to slow, since there is no cost reason to try to de-unionize railroad transporters under OA there would be no real effect on union railroaders during economic slowdowns if the Davis-Bacon approach is used.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag