How about, "a job in hand is worth two possible recalls to the railroad at the bottom of the seniority list?"
Flintlock76Old saying, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
Euclid The Government made it clear that they could not tolerate a strike because it would damage the economy. At this time, the bad working conditions are causing a shortage of employees, resulting in delayed shipping. Does delayed shipping damage the economy? If so, how does the Government fix the problem of insufficient workforce?
Wait till the next election is close and then act like they care.
Flintlock76 jeffhergert If you find a decent job when furloughed do you leave it when the railroad calls? Especially when you've been recalled and cut off before? I wouldn't, if it was a good job with pay to match. Why leave what you know you've got when you DON'T know what the future might bring with someone who's trying to get you back? Who knows if you'll be furloughed again or not? Old saying, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
jeffhergert If you find a decent job when furloughed do you leave it when the railroad calls? Especially when you've been recalled and cut off before?
I wouldn't, if it was a good job with pay to match. Why leave what you know you've got when you DON'T know what the future might bring with someone who's trying to get you back? Who knows if you'll be furloughed again or not?
Old saying, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
Thus the carriers 'surprise' when they lay off a group and only get 10% or less to respond to the recall notice.
The unemployment rate is not in double digits any more - there are jobs available even if someone gets laid off at the railraod.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
jeffhergertIf you find a decent job when furloughed do you leave it when the railroad calls? Especially when you've been recalled and cut off before?
zugmannIf we're so important that the gov't is just going to force contracts on us, then why not just make the railoads part of the federal gov't and make us all gov't employees?
Post office redux...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
zugmann jeffhergert Can the government do something to make the railroads less attractive to those type investors to speed their departure? Can government do so without overreaching and killing off the entire industry? As long as there are lawyers to question the meaning of any law or regulatiion there is always the threat of unintended consequences. If we're so important that the gov't is just going to force contracts on us, then why not just make the railoads part of the federal gov't and make us all gov't employees?
jeffhergert Can the government do something to make the railroads less attractive to those type investors to speed their departure? Can government do so without overreaching and killing off the entire industry? As long as there are lawyers to question the meaning of any law or regulatiion there is always the threat of unintended consequences.
If we're so important that the gov't is just going to force contracts on us, then why not just make the railoads part of the federal gov't and make us all gov't employees?
I think there is a high probability of that happening. Although this may be put on hold if the coming recession slows everything down for a year or two.
They did that a few times in the past to end or prevent a strike. I think Harry Truman was the last to do so, because the law authorizing action was a war time law that expired with the end of WW2, the signing of the peace treaties-not the surrender on the USS Missouri, and extended for a short time due to the Korean Conflict. He put the Army in place to run the railroads, in effect federalizing all employees.
Jeff
jeffhergertCan the government do something to make the railroads less attractive to those type investors to speed their departure? Can government do so without overreaching and killing off the entire industry? As long as there are lawyers to question the meaning of any law or regulatiion there is always the threat of unintended consequences.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Electroliner 1935 Two things have changed and that is labors willingness to accept furloughs as they had in the past. And the extremes to which managment has pushed attendence.
The people they like to hire now, older and more established, can't weather a furlough as easy as when they hired young men right out of school or the military. Add to the fact that with all the guaranteed boards, they want to cut as soon as there is a slow half. They don't wait to see if the slowdown is temporary, even if it's obvious that it is. When things start moving again, they are slow to add jobs back. This results in the very youngest in seniority bouncing like a ball. Cut off for weeks or months, then called back but often being cut off again, possibly before finishing refresher classes/trips.
If you find a decent job when furloughed do you leave it when the railroad calls? Especially when you've been recalled and cut off before? I think often when people are recalled and don't come back, it's those who've experienced this before.
The railroads, like any business, are run the way the majority of owners (shares held) want the business to be run. The only way to change that is to get the short term large investors out.
Eventually, there will be no place to cut and volumes will drop until all that's left is the few who can't easily switch to trucks. Once the "easy" money and high payouts are gone, those short termers will leave.
Can the government do something to make the railroads less attractive to those type investors to speed their departure? Can government do so without overreaching and killing off the entire industry? As long as there are lawyers to question the meaning of any law or regulatiion there is always the threat of unintended consequences.
EuclidNo matter how the Common Carrier Obligation is handled by the Government, I think the main point is to assure that a railroad’s plant and labor force are sufficient to meet its full potential of performance capability, and to serve the shippers to that extent. This would have to be monitored somehow, but if performance falls below this optimum threshold, there needs to be a Federal enforcement mechanism. The Government apparently has that authority whether or not it stems from the CCO. It is intuitive to assume that any corporation is trying as hard as they can to make the most money possible by maximizing sales. And that would imply using the plant and labor to the fullest extent possible. What is not intuitive is laying off half the labor force, and thus slowing down production in order to sell more product in order to make the most money possible. This is perhaps the least understood element of this current rail shipping hindrance. And not only is this hurting shipping service, it is also overstressing the remaining labor force after the cuts. So the shortage of labor that is directly causing the delays in shipping is also degrading the quality of life for the labor force that is overstressed as a result of the labor shortage. If Congress realized this was happening and fully understood why it is happening, I think they would investigate it and create a mandate to control it. It appears that Congress is just starting to become aware of this current trend of management cutting services to increase profit at the expense of service reliability. For as much as railroad management hates regulation, it is only new regulations that will force management to build up the labor force back to a level at which shipping times can be normalized. This will be ironic because the very management that hates regulation will be causing the re-regulation needed to make rail shipping adequately fluid again.
The ICC and the various state regulatory commissions were responsible for such things as mandating operation of passenger trains with more crew than paying passengers, non-compensatory rates on passenger service (see NYC suburban service on both sides of the Hudson, the initial rejection of Big John grain rates, and mandating various and sundry other misallocations of resources. I doubt that re-reg would do much to alleviate current issues.
It's 'eminent domain', and in most railroad contexts the 'right' has been effectively moot since the chartered lines were completed, usually more than a hundred years ago.
Just as the Pentagon often was 'fighting the last war', government regulation (whether democratic or autocratic) usually lagged perceived offenses by railroads, or overreacted in various ways. In some cases the perceived 'abuse' was largely illusory or misguided, as with ruining the "plot" to peddle more electricity by owning interurbans by forbidding utilities to own them... whoops? where'd the interurbans go?
There was an ongoing controversy when I was still a child about the infamous George Hilton's thesis that railway regulation was in fact designed and implemented for the benefit of railway owners. Forward and backward the tirade raged. But curiously it never involved looking at the record to see if the ICC in the days of the Commerce Court might be the same thing as the ICC under Eastman. Even the matter of the reasoning behind Federal Control and then the patent expediency in some of the legislation winding it down have to be carefully considered, specifically including the events influencing them.
The current pending re-regulation 'involving the common-carrier obligation' is just the latest swing of this age-old pendulum. I might actually support the idea... if it were equally and impartially imposed on all modes of shipping and transport. And fully government-subsidized by an incremental surtax on shippers, not run out as another unfunded mandate, or imposed on the service providers because expedient.
Many railroads received government charters for the lines that they built or their construction was authorized by acts of Congress. Thru these charters and acts of congress they received the power of imminent domain. The expectation was that the railroads would be operated for the benefit of the public. And before someone goes off about the debacle of the ICC and government regulation, just remember that the railroads engaged in a lot of bad behavior that stirred up the ire of public opinion against them first. Sound familiar?
cx500 Euclid One point that I am curious about is the origin of the Common Carrier Obligation and the exact rationale that was cited as justifying why private corporations should be encumbered by such an obligation. Clearly such a Federal obligation would not be in the interest of the private corporation. At the time the railroads were the only reasonable mode of long distance transportation. Roads were poor, vehicles primitive and air cargo still in the future. The Federal obligation was a necessary protection for trade. Even today with much better highways and transport trucks some cargo is much better kept on the rails. In return the railroads were given substantial protection from local authorities trying to add their own regulations, perhaps no trains through town between 10 pm and 7am, and none on Sunday. Some try to impose absurdly slow speed limits. That privileged protection is something few, if any, "private corporations" enjoy. John
Euclid One point that I am curious about is the origin of the Common Carrier Obligation and the exact rationale that was cited as justifying why private corporations should be encumbered by such an obligation. Clearly such a Federal obligation would not be in the interest of the private corporation.
One point that I am curious about is the origin of the Common Carrier Obligation and the exact rationale that was cited as justifying why private corporations should be encumbered by such an obligation. Clearly such a Federal obligation would not be in the interest of the private corporation.
--
Common carier, from Cornell Law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/common_carrie
Yet if this basic problem is actually damaging the company long term in pursuit of short term gain, then there is a real problem for the health of the company.
This is the point most have made about groups like 'The Children's Fund,' etc.
jeffhergert I don't think anyone is against all shareholders. It's just the short sited, want it all yesterday activists-who make their living off moving around paper and money-whom most of us have issue with. Those willing to tear down a business for their profit, and yes others will also profit-even if they would rather have long term security.
I don't think anyone is against all shareholders. It's just the short sited, want it all yesterday activists-who make their living off moving around paper and money-whom most of us have issue with. Those willing to tear down a business for their profit, and yes others will also profit-even if they would rather have long term security.
Ma and Pa don't force their way on to the board either
I found a chart of UP's operating ratio going back to 1992. Except for a spike around 1995, around the years they acquired CNW, then SP, the OR was around 80%. And they were profitable. I don't remember very many years, even before the OR hit the upper 50s when the UP wasn't profitable. Often crowing about record profits.
UlrichI love it when they blame the shareholders
I believe it is imperative to hold Ma & Pa equally accountable as the activists, otherwise the activists will use Ma & Pa as their "get away car" (love those metaphors).
Expecting consumers to replace all the loot, would be "inflationary".
Ulrich ns145 There's a lot of nays to says these days!!! I love it when they blame the shareholders.. is it owning the stock that is offensive to them or is it the "outsized" dividends railroads pay out?
ns145 There's a lot of nays to says these days!!!
There's a lot of nays to says these days!!!
I love it when they blame the shareholders.. is it owning the stock that is offensive to them or is it the "outsized" dividends railroads pay out?
I think its the whole "public and employees be damned" attitude that has me miffed. Obviously businesses need to make a profit to remain viable. But there is such a thing as taking things too far. Read the news stories on this website. Things aren't going well. Rail traffic is down 2.5% vs 2021 and Union Pacific is embargoing traffic. That type of thing never really happened prior to PSR. Your shareholder profits are coming at the expense of the nation's wellbeing.
ns145 Ulrich ns145 jeffhergert Ulrich The days of hiring and firing people appear to be coming to an end. Now its more like hire them if you can and hang on to them as best as you can through thick and thin.. maybe that's better anyway.. My how time flies. April 1st already. But my calendar still says December. Just recently I was reading the recrew report. One train had to have another crew called at the originating terminal because one of the crew members had been pulled out of service before they departed. The reason? Attendance. Jeff I'm a lifelong railfan, but I have to admit that the rail industry is the absolute pits. Bad management, little forward thinking, crappy service even in the best of times, generally inferior to all other forms of transportation, and management ranks filled with absolutely lousy human beings. Honestly there's nothing to be a fan of, except for the glory days. Its turned into a complete dumpster fire s*** show. Very easy to critique.. much much harder to do better yourself. Falacious argument. It's not a fan's job to reinvent an industry. Only an idiot would conclude that just because they couldn't do better themselves things really must be awesome. Do I have to be a great football player to correctly determine that the Chicago Bears really suck in 2022?
Ulrich ns145 jeffhergert Ulrich The days of hiring and firing people appear to be coming to an end. Now its more like hire them if you can and hang on to them as best as you can through thick and thin.. maybe that's better anyway.. My how time flies. April 1st already. But my calendar still says December. Just recently I was reading the recrew report. One train had to have another crew called at the originating terminal because one of the crew members had been pulled out of service before they departed. The reason? Attendance. Jeff I'm a lifelong railfan, but I have to admit that the rail industry is the absolute pits. Bad management, little forward thinking, crappy service even in the best of times, generally inferior to all other forms of transportation, and management ranks filled with absolutely lousy human beings. Honestly there's nothing to be a fan of, except for the glory days. Its turned into a complete dumpster fire s*** show. Very easy to critique.. much much harder to do better yourself.
ns145 jeffhergert Ulrich The days of hiring and firing people appear to be coming to an end. Now its more like hire them if you can and hang on to them as best as you can through thick and thin.. maybe that's better anyway.. My how time flies. April 1st already. But my calendar still says December. Just recently I was reading the recrew report. One train had to have another crew called at the originating terminal because one of the crew members had been pulled out of service before they departed. The reason? Attendance. Jeff I'm a lifelong railfan, but I have to admit that the rail industry is the absolute pits. Bad management, little forward thinking, crappy service even in the best of times, generally inferior to all other forms of transportation, and management ranks filled with absolutely lousy human beings. Honestly there's nothing to be a fan of, except for the glory days. Its turned into a complete dumpster fire s*** show.
jeffhergert Ulrich The days of hiring and firing people appear to be coming to an end. Now its more like hire them if you can and hang on to them as best as you can through thick and thin.. maybe that's better anyway.. My how time flies. April 1st already. But my calendar still says December. Just recently I was reading the recrew report. One train had to have another crew called at the originating terminal because one of the crew members had been pulled out of service before they departed. The reason? Attendance. Jeff
Ulrich The days of hiring and firing people appear to be coming to an end. Now its more like hire them if you can and hang on to them as best as you can through thick and thin.. maybe that's better anyway..
The days of hiring and firing people appear to be coming to an end. Now its more like hire them if you can and hang on to them as best as you can through thick and thin.. maybe that's better anyway..
My how time flies. April 1st already. But my calendar still says December.
Just recently I was reading the recrew report. One train had to have another crew called at the originating terminal because one of the crew members had been pulled out of service before they departed. The reason? Attendance.
I'm a lifelong railfan, but I have to admit that the rail industry is the absolute pits. Bad management, little forward thinking, crappy service even in the best of times, generally inferior to all other forms of transportation, and management ranks filled with absolutely lousy human beings. Honestly there's nothing to be a fan of, except for the glory days. Its turned into a complete dumpster fire s*** show.
Very easy to critique.. much much harder to do better yourself.
Falacious argument. It's not a fan's job to reinvent an industry. Only an idiot would conclude that just because they couldn't do better themselves things really must be awesome. Do I have to be a great football player to correctly determine that the Chicago Bears really suck in 2022?
Not an argument.. just an observation.. There are far more naysayers and critics around than people who can get er done..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.