QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear Having a labor pulpit means you need a management pulpit as well. Thanks but no thanks. In case you haven't noticed we have far too many labor/management fights here already. We don't need to polarize this group any further, nor do we need that in the magazine. If that happens I'll certainly be first in line to cancel my subscription. In addition, there are plenty of articles and comments posted here that come directly from labor sites and have a significant labor slant (I know, I post quite a few) so you thesis that labor is underrepresented here is incorrect. LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I would like to hear other points of view before passing judgement. Not that I necessarily believe what management says is true but it would be nice to make sure I am getting ALL the facts before advocating for or against management.
QUOTE: Originally posted by croteaudd Irregardless of one’s perspectives and leanings on management-labor conflicts, everything is irrelevant and misses a greater universal national concern. Until TRAINS boldly identifies and exposes the ultimate problem, everyone will just grope in warring confusion. Whatever TRAINS’ real editorial outlook is, everyone must understand that TRAINS is in itself a helpless victim of the “greater universal national concern.” Thus, it is not surprising that this forum topic has arisen.
QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033 QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear Having a labor pulpit means you need a management pulpit as well. Thanks but no thanks. In case you haven't noticed we have far too many labor/management fights here already. We don't need to polarize this group any further, nor do we need that in the magazine. If that happens I'll certainly be first in line to cancel my subscription. In addition, there are plenty of articles and comments posted here that come directly from labor sites and have a significant labor slant (I know, I post quite a few) so you thesis that labor is underrepresented here is incorrect. LC Every word in every article in Trains is managements pulpit, when is the last time Trains stood on labor's pulpit, NEVER is the answer. LC, if its in Trains its biased against labor. Jim - Lawton, NV MP 236
QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033 QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan I would like to hear other points of view before passing judgement. Not that I necessarily believe what management says is true but it would be nice to make sure I am getting ALL the facts before advocating for or against management. Its not about passing judgement, its about forming an opinion! To date, sounds like you've been getting your facts from a baised Trains! Jim
23 17 46 11
Quentin
QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033 ... Then you have a very ego filled Don Phillips in a column talking about open access, and all of railroads problems would be solved with sleeper cab locomotives. Trains never let, invited, or allowed labor to respond to Dons totally absurd ideas, yet he has credibility! The Potomac Pundit is the most anti union fellow I ever read... Then there is this really over weight Ed King, he didn't get fat by working. When he was entertaining us fans with his stories about how dumb us working people are, just how true were these stories. Did labor have a chance at fair play, NO, it didn't... Jim - Lawton, NV
QUOTE: Originally posted by sammythebull In an issue of the magazine from either 2004 or early 2005, the writer made a comment on a article on remote control that the new method was perhaps the most productive upgrade since steam engs were phased out. That has to be the most stupid ,pro rr, anti rail labor statement ever printed in Trains. Get real here--all RCO has done is slowed down yard operations, increased expenses for repairing worn out brk shoes and its much, much slower than the old way. It doesn't work!!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by sammythebull In an issue of the magazine from either 2004 or early 2005, the writer made a comment on a article on remote control that the new method was perhaps the most productive upgrade since steam engs were phased out. That has to be the most stupid ,pro rr, anti rail labor statement ever printed in Trains. Get real here--all RCO has done is slowed down yard operations, increased expenses for repairing worn out brk shoes and its much, much slower than the old way. It doesn't work!!! Well, I'm sure you'll be interested in hearing that one man road crews will be in the Section 6 notices this year... LC From Railway Age: One-person crews: How much of a savings? The Class I railroads served Section 6 notices in November and are in the midst of negotiations with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and United Transportation Union. Among the items on the table are one-person train crews for road operations, which, according to MorganStanley railroad analyst Jim Valentine, came into play just this week. Based upon information received from industry sources, Valentine released a report earlier today that suggests a move to one-man road crews “could save the industry over $1 billion annually, resulting in 11% to 32% higher earnings per share than 2004 levels.” “While we are enthusiastic about the prospects of one-man crews, we caution investors that there are many hurdles that will need to be overcome before this becomes reality, and thus it's unrealistic for investors to expect closure on this issue any time in 2005,” Valentine said. “Even 2006 may be optimistic. Historically, railroad labor negotiations have lasted well over a year and often times can drag on for multiple years.” Presumably, one of the hurdles Valentine is referring to that will have to be overcome is the technology that will make one-person crews possible. This is Positive Train Control, which the industry is currently struggling with from a feasibility and cost-effectiveness basis. One of the biggest hurdles for PTC is interoperability, among railroads and among the different, largely-proprietary systems suppliers are currently offering. Several major railroads are either deploying pilot PTC systems or considering them, and it will most likely take far longer than the current labor negotiations to develop interoperable PTC architecture that the railroads can agree upon. Cost estimates for implementing PTC on a national basis have been as high as $10 billion.
QUOTE: Originally posted by luckyboy First off, I really enjoy Trains magazine in its present form. As a Rail, however, I would like a place to talk with fellow Rails, to compare notes so to speak. I'm not suggesting something secretive, rather a place where employee information is discussed. Maybe some railfans are interested in listening in however I think most would find it boring. I guess I would like to talk to people familiar with today's railroading. I' m not that interested in debating the merits of the paint schemes for RR's that no longer exist. geoff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.