Read it here

[edblysard]

All I got out of the article was that Canadian railroaders on CN felt the Canadian Goverment owed them a job, that Americans shouldnt be allowed to buy Canadian National stock, but that is was ok for CN to buy American companys, like WC, but only if they ran them like Canadian companies, with Canadian work rules enforced in the US.

If the writer felt so badly about American railroads, he should have said so up front.

Sorry to the Canadian workers who feel displaced and cheated, but when your a publicly owned/traded company, pretty much anyone is allowed to buy your stock, not just Canadians.
And now your railroad has to compete in a free market place, which means they have to cut costs and increase profits, because everything is paid for out of the company pockets, not the goverments.

Would like to have seen the CN managements response to this article, and read something from their point of view.

I did get the culture differences, like the no fault injury policy, socialized health care, and the feeling that the workers felt they were owed a job by their goverment.

But, I also feel that any goverments major policy, be it AMerican or Canadian, should be to create a atmosphere where businesses can grow, which, in turn, should generate more jobs.
Not necessary that said jobs be the same as before, but still would like to see the other side of the coin.

Ed

[Anonymous]

This is indeed a slanted bit of muck. I would imagine that if one in the U.S. were to write such negative content about Canadians there would be an international incident.

The article is badly lopsided in favor of labor and concerns all sorts of speculation without citation to facts or sources. It takes money to fund a railroad and pay employees, a couple of facts quickly forgotten by the writer. I don't claim that CN management is perfect (and I am neither affiliated with CN or any subsidiary nor am I a CN shareholder) and there is certainly room for improvement in any organization, but I also see employees who decided to strike against an agreement approved by their union leadership. Perhaps they had reasons for their decision, but it would seem the major concerns were resolved. So what is the need for this article at all except to bash Americans??

LC

[garr]

Interesting article, however didn't seem at all balanced in viewpoints. IMO having managements' side or at least a reference that an attempt was made to get managements' side would make the article more credible. This article is from 'Canadian Dimension"- a self-described "independent forum for debate on a broad range of issues of interest to the LEFT." Debate usually takes two sides, this article unfortunately only presents one side.

Jay

[Anonymous]

This is a very good article. Beyond the specifics, this article goes right to the heart of basic cultural differences between the U.S. and Canada, such as who pays for health care, the role of the state in promoting and regulating business, the guarantees offered to citizens by a government, and the fact that it's difficult to give every side what they want.

This is one of the things I really like about learning about railroads. Because they cross geographical regions and political boundaries, railroads bring social conflict into focus problems like almost no other invention of man.

Whatever your politics happen to be, the other thing this article brings into question is this: When promises are made, whether to employees, the public, or investors, what is the responsibility to keep them? Thanks to CliqueofOne for posting this link.

[CliqueofOne]

If anyone has any interest in the state of affairs on the CNR try these links.
http://www.local100.org/maxwebportal/article_read.asp?id=16
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,743657
You will be able to read an accurate, informative and well written article about a company that has lost it's way. Signal Mechanic. Signal Department. Canadian National Railways. [:(!]