I enjoyed the Trains article on Mr Harrison and the changes he has made at CN. All in all a very balanced article although I wish people who have negative things to say would be brave enough to go on the record. A shipper says CN is impossible to work with... that's a damning statement..and if whoever said it believes it to be true then he/she should reveal himself/herself and be prepared to defend that statement. Moreover, hiding behind a cloak of anonymity detracts from the statement. Same with Glassdoor.com...or whatever it is called...have something negative to say then show who you are and be prepared to defend what you say...calling someone a thief without provding any kind of details is assinine and cowardly.
The article has one person stating that we're afraid of Hunter...why? Does he breathe fire? Good grief...the worst he can do is send you packing...
Overall I believe that Hunter and his team have done a fine job and that Hunter has a legacy he can be proud of. However, CN does need to step back from its fixation with the OR and look at other more important benchmarks. For example...customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is the truest indicator of any business's success, and everything flows from that...especially ongoing profitability. OR on the other hand.. is just a number which may, in the worst case, be pointing out how much should be but is NOT being put back in plant upkeep.
I couldn't help but notice that there was no mention of how the "operating efficiencies" led to some of the derailments and other "accidents" the CN has had in the last few years.
Not that I expected Hunter to admit to that problem, but the author of the article could hardly be ignorant of the above-mentioned incidents.
Railroads are steeped in tradition: this is the way we've always done it syndrome. Hard to change 175 year old procedures and thinking. But when it does happen, it usually works for the better. What really has me concerned is the arrogance that "this is my product and here is how I will deliver it to you" ignores American business custom of "the customer is always right". Yes, you've got to orgainze yourself to delever the best product at the best price, but you also have to bend somewhat to customer needs and demands. Likewise, customers have had a field day demanding and getting what they want rarely having to pay the consequences of higher prices or whatever. Hunter is right, "this is how my product works for you and this is what it costs". The message has to be absorbed by the industry that that is who they have to be to succeed in the future...and the customers have to see and accept the way it best serves thier interests. If there is no meeting of the minds, then there is no business and the guy in the next business gets the business!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
That's true...but "the customers is always right" is one of those bromides that gets passed down through the generations without anyone really thinking about it much. Customers are people after all...and people are never always right. But it does have alot to do with the presentation...CN probably CAN improve the entire shipping process via intense asset utilization however they do need to get the buy in from their customers and they do need to sell their customers on the advantages of change over the status quo.. Just using the carrot and stick approach to smooth out the ebb and flow of the shipping cycle does not come across the right way. CN and their larger accounts need to sit down and go over the potential pros and cons of going to a seven day shipping cycle...a big plus for CN may not be a big plus for the shipper when all is said and done. At the end of the day one size does not fit all..they will find that their seven day cycle works well for some but not at all for others. And instead of penalizing the ones who don't fit the mold...maybe look at alternatives. I view any account to pays me a fair rate and who pays me on time as a GOOD account. Everything else is up to me..if the shipper doesn't like my way of doing things or if he needs something that I can't provide then that's my problem to fix...but not by trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Customer satisfaction is down, morale is the worst it has ever been. Oh yes, Hunter is a "great" man.
His cost cutting killed more than a few employees. Remember the bridge collapse in McBride, BC? What about the runaway at Lillooet? Caused by he and his minions trying to squeeze every penny out of the assets.
He has instilled a culture of fear and intimidation, his management teams consist of psychopaths, nitwits, and yesmen. Running trade employees are being fired for sneezing the wrong way yet the Boom Boom Boychuck(responsible for the Lillooet runaway and the disaster at Prince George) gets a promotion.
I have absolutely zero respect for the man and I know many who would not brake if they saw him crossing the street.
UlrichA shipper says CN is impossible to work with... that's a damning statement..
A shipper says CN is impossible to work with... that's a damning statement..
It's the truth. Customer satisfaction is a term rarely heard on the CNR. And if you don't believe me I will put you in touch with some of the local customers. Any customer that is not shipping more than 20 cars a day, CN will refuse to switch them. The Ainsworth mill in Lillooet is scrambling to find alternative transportation because CN has told them "either give us 20 cars a day, or we won't switch you."
and if whoever said it believes it to be true then he/she should reveal himself/herself and be prepared to defend that statement. Moreover, hiding behind a cloak of anonymity detracts from the statement. Same with Glassdoor.com...or whatever it is called...have something negative to say then show who you are and be prepared to defend what you say...calling someone a thief without provding any kind of details is assinine and cowardly.
A co-worker of mine recently came forward to talk about how badly CN treats its employees on one of these websites. Someone from CN saw his posting and for the next 3 months supervisors were constantly tailing this person, who was an excellent railroader, trying to find something, anything to fire him for.
Managers at CN are hired from McDonalds and Starbucks and don't have a clue how to run a railroad. They have no clue as to the operating rules and employees have been fired for insubordination because they will not break an operating rule. In formal company investigations after an accident or for any reason that management has pulled you in for a hearing, any evidence that can incriminate you is front and centre, in the evidence package that is given to you. However any evidence that could exhonorate you is surprisingly missing. It's to the point now that many employees have a personal recording device to record any conversation with a supervisor.
Ulrich The article has one person stating that we're afraid of Hunter...why? Does he breathe fire? Good grief...the worst he can do is send you packing...
Speaking on behalf of those with mouths to feed, student loans to pay off, and a mortgage to pay, in a recession no less, HUH?!? "The worst he can do is send you packing" as a reason for not being afraid of him?
I would be FAR less scared of someone who breathes fire.
Gabe
Well the good news then is that there's change coming at the top. According to Trains the new man has strengths that Hunter does not have ( and vice versa I'm sure)...
enr2099 A co-worker of mine recently came forward to talk about how badly CN treats its employees on one of these websites. Someone from CN saw his posting and for the next 3 months supervisors were constantly tailing this person, who was an excellent railroader, trying to find something, anything to fire him for. [emphasis added - PDN]
Sounds like a really productive use of supervisory personnel and their costs . . .
enr2099 Managers at CN are hired from McDonalds and Starbucks and don't have a clue how to run a railroad. They have no clue as to the operating rules . . .
Perhaps that's why Hunter requires that everyone at CN become qualified as conductors and engineers, if I understood that part of the article correctly . . . . I hadn't heard or read that before - despite having followed CN and owned its stock for over 10 years now - maybe it's because that's the only way to get them trained [Q]
enr2099 . . . and employees have been fired for insubordination because they will not break an operating rule. In formal company investigations after an accident or for any reason that management has pulled you in for a hearing, any evidence that can incriminate you is front and centre, in the evidence package that is given to you. However any evidence that could exhonorate you is surprisingly missing. It's to the point now that many employees have a personal recording device to record any conversation with a supervisor.
How is it going with the investigations, and the union representation [Q] Is the turnover that much higher than any other similar railroad - say, CP, BNSF, or UP [Q] Are these being appealed to arbitrators or the courts - not sure how you do that in Canada - and who is winning most of the time [Q] If this is too far out of line, why hasn't the union called a walkout, or at least filed a grievance on this [Q]
Just curious - I don't have an agenda here, other than the long-term viability of the company. I've been around long enough to see the good and the bad of these types of personalities - it isn't fair to Rob Krebs to use his name in the same sentence as Drew Lewis, but that illustrates my point - I'm just trying to get a measure of which Hunter is, and by how much. Or, could this be the result of someone else - a 'hatchet-man' - in the middle-management ranks [Q] Then again, someone who can talk at a meeting or seminar for 8 or 9 hours straight as Hunter is said to have done either must have something really interesting to say, or is afflicted with the common-enough dictator's syndrome of being in love with the sound of his own voice [think of Fidel Castro's and Saddam Hussein's half-day speeches to the crowds assembled in the squares . . . . ].
- Paul North.
I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that Hunter is a very capable railroader...however his "tough as nails" bull in a china shop management style often doesn't work because the end result is fear (which staff readily enough admit to) and fear of course breeds anxiety and anger. Unfortunately, as is so often the case...his greatest strength may also be his greatest weakness. His tough managment style is what got him promoted right along at CN and at other roads...but has worked against him as a leader at CN where a more concilliatory tone with staff and customers might have been more effective. Nonetheless...I won't take anything away from him..he's had quite a run from his start as a carman at Frisco.
enr2099 [snip] His cost cutting killed more than a few employees. Remember the bridge collapse in McBride, BC? What about the runaway at Lillooet? Caused by he and his minions trying to squeeze every penny out of the assets. The infrastructure is falling apart, CN will not maintain anything until it breaks, often in the case of track and bridges, catastrophically. Locomotives and rolling stock aren't much better. Crews turn in locomotives for safety or mechanical defects and are threatened with disciplinary action for delaying the assignment because CN doesn't make any money if the locomotives are in for repairs. I can understand sweating the assets, but he's pushed them to the breaking point. [snip]
Subjective claims are hard to evaluate, but objective, quanitifiable matters - 'metrics' - usually seem more believable. So - Do the usual statistics -other than the 'Operating Ratio' ['OR'] - shed any light on this [Q] lSuch as - M/W Ratio, work done each year - number of ties replaced, miles of rail laid, and miles of track surfaced, etc., lost-time injuries per 100 or 200,000 hours, fatalities per year, wreck damage per year, loco availability percentage, average age of the loco fleet, car bad-order ratio, etc.
I could look them up, but I'm busy with some other things right now. Right off the top of my head, I believe that 2007 was a pretty lousy year for employee injuries and deaths on CN. Was that part of a trend - or a fluke, a one-time spike, an 'outlier' in the data [Q] Has CN ever taken home any of the Harriman Safety Awards in the last 15 or 20 years [Q]
Yes, I know well that statistics can lie - for examples, deferring bridge maintenance takes a long time to show up, and even then can be so sporadic and different in how it shows up as to seem random to the casual and uninformed observer. But deferring tie renewals and surfacing will show up in 3 to 5 years - and Hunter has now been in charge for like 10 years - so if that's what's been done, then it will come home to roost. Remember the conclusion of what Abraham Lincoln said - 'You can't fool all the people, all the time'.
UlrichMoreover, hiding behind a cloak of anonymity detracts from the statement. Same with Glassdoor.com...or whatever it is called...have something negative to say then show who you are and be prepared to defend what you say...calling someone a thief without provding any kind of details is assinine and cowardly.
Ulrich —
You're absolutely right, of course. I think there's the misperception out there that journalists like using anonymous sources. My preference is always to get on-the-record comment whenever possible.
However, I'm sure you can also appreciate why a rail shipper or employee would be reluctant to talk on the record about this kind of stuff. Not specific to CN, as it's certainly not my place to cast aspersions on them, but I think most employees would be fearful of talking on the record and saying negative things about his employer, and same with a rail shipper toward his railroad. In cases like these, background reporting is often the only way to get the story. Your choice is basically, anonymous sources, or no sources at all.
When a journalist uses a background source like Fred did, he's asking his readers to place some trust in him. There have certainly been journalists through the years that have abused that privilege. However, being a longtime fan of Fred's writing, my opinion is that his request for our indulgence is well-placed. But I guess it's up to each reader to agree or disagree, and I wouldn't deign to tell you or anybody else what your interpretation should be.
Best,
For the most part, I like what CN has been able to do with the former IC/ICG Iowa Division and making it look like something again although I am disappointed that they haven't pushed for a paired track arrangement with UP between Denison and Council Bluffs AND pushed the Council Bluffs/Omaha gateway harder; particularly for auto and auto parts traffic.
Great response Mr Cummings...and I too am a fan of Fred's writing. I don't fault Fred or Trains...however I'm more critical of those folks who make very serious negative comments. I appreciate that Trains and other news media must use discretion when revealing sources. My view is that if I can't sign my name to it then I don't say it (or I say direct to the offending party for his/her ears only)..
Regarding the use of unidentified 'sources' in the Hunter Harrison article -
1. Frailey's got the background and 'street credibility' as a working journalist outside of Trains magazine to make it believable - to me, at least - that he needed to use those sources without attribution, or he wouldn't be able to get their comments.
2. It's interesting to me that people who are protected by a contract - and a union - are manifestly afraid or at least concerned about speaking against Harrison and/ or CN 'on the record'. Their actions in requiring anonymity speak loudly that they are genuinely concerned - you can decide whether that's rational or not, or they are over-reacting, paranoid, etc.
At the shipper level, it's even more interesting, and curious. All rail shippers are large corporations [no 'Mon 'n' Pop' grocery stores have sidings]. As such, they are 'big boys' - have lobbyists, are accustomed to the rough 'n' tumble of the business world and the customary frictions with politicians and consumers, etc. Neither the businesses nor their important officials can be afraid of taking a stand - publicly, if they have to - and some even seem to relish 'pulling the tiger's tail' from time to time. Yet here even that supposedly tough crowd seems cowed and muted compared to their usual willingness - nay, enthusiasm - to gripe about a railroad - which usually bounces off it anyway. So I have to ask why is that dynamic different here - 'Why isn't that dog barking [Q]' - and what does that mean [Q]
Maybe hunter really does breathe fire..
I don't get it either... I've never had a problem getting people to open up about their problems to my face. Maybe because I've encouraged that...and strongly discouraged the other kind. Straighforward pointed discussion can be useful...is often very humbling...and at the end of the day the person who "unloaded" feels heard...
When a strong character causes significant change, it tends to polarize the constituency into those who will be elated and those who will be dismayed. As humans, we tend to place little stock in supporters, thinking them biased, and we tend to look more to cues that provide us with important information about hazards that could cause us trouble. We tend to sympathize with, and to pay more attention...and credence...to those who give the appearance of caution, of being cynical, and somehow aloof from the hubris spouted by the supporters.
IOW, we'll gladly believe what we wish to about an organization or a person, and lend much more weight to information that bolsters our pre-conceived notions. Also, many of us can't stand it when someone powerful succeeds, even if it isn't necessarily at our expense.
-Crandell
Re: Tyler W posting, specifcally this quote:
I assume you meant the accident of 29 June 2006. I reviewed the report and I do not find any blood on Harrison's hands. According to my reading, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada was never able to pin this accident on any specific cause. They noted that the air brakes on the one car in the train did not appear to have operated properly. However, the car's control valve did operate properly in testing. Inspection noted metal shavings inside the control valve. These shavings "could" have caused the control valve to malfunction. This was a condition that was present created when the control valve was manufactured and not something that CNR was responsible for.
When BCR ran this railroad only units equipped with dynamic brakes were used on this run. When CNR took over the DB units were pulled and a non-DB unit was assigned. DB is great; however, railroads have succesfully operated mountain grade without DB for years. In any event I really doubt it was Harrison who actually pulled the DB units off the mountain.
I would like to quote from the report:
The investigation learned that some railway operating employees were concerned about GP 40-2L locomotives being able to safely perform in the same manner as DB-equipped locomotives that were formerly assigned to the Exeter Switcher. These concerns were not communicated to management either formally or informally for their review and response. Furthermore, they were not reported to the local OSH Committee because the operating employees did not participate in the committee in spite of management's invitation to select a representative (my emphasis.) Since employee concerns regarding the use of non-DB-equipped locomotives on this territory were not brought to the attention of management through the local OSH Committee, or by any other available means, an opportunity was lost to resolve this safety issue."
I don't think Harrison is responsible for this accident. There is a lot of guilt to go around.
enr2099 [snip] Any customer that is not shipping more than 20 cars a day, CN will refuse to switch them. The Ainsworth mill in Lillooet is scrambling to find alternative transportation because CN has told them "either give us 20 cars a day, or we won't switch you." [snip]
OK - but what's 'The rest of the story' here - at what rate, and on what terms, is CN refusing to switch for less traffic than 20 cars a day per shipper [Q]
If it's at a market rate - yeah, then we'd have to wonder what CN is thinking. Or, did the mill negotiate a more favorable multi-car rate based on '20 or more cars tendered at one time' [Q] And now, with the economy as it is of course, the mill is finding that it can't live up to that end of its deal - but the mill still wants the benefit of the lower rate, naturally enough [Q] Or, did CN agree to send out a local -'patrol' - to make individual switches of the mills at certain times of the day, but only if the mills guaranteed a 20-car minimum shipment to make it worth CN's while to call the crew, incur the engine start, and tie up the main line's other traffic with the local, etc. [Q] Or maybe none of the above - the mill is the wronged innocent, and CN is the black knight. But we need more data - and both sides [or more] of the story - to evaluate all that for ourselves.
Allow me to emphasize a slightly different portion of the report quoted above;
'These concerns were not communicated to management either formally or informally for their review and response.'
On the other hand - the management should not - and should not have to - depend on the rank-and-file to tell them when something is being or is about to be done wrong - that's why they're the managers. 'This ain't rocket science here, people'. Imagine the dialogue that somebody should have had -
'Well, we've got this here steep grade that's been run with dynamic brake-equipped locomotives for the past so-many years. What d'ya say - why don't I take the DB units away from the crews, and give them much less-capable units instead [Q]'
What were they thinking [Q] [or not] What part of that makes any sense [Q] Somebody should have some explaining to do - not only the person who made the loco change, but at least his immediate supervisor, too - for failing to properly train and instruct the subordinate.
Ulrich [snip] . . . he's had quite a run from his start as a carman at Frisco.
Can someone enlighten me, please [because I don't have that issue or any other references handy at the moment] -
Has Mr. Harrison ever attended or graduated from a full-time, multi-year course of study/ degree program at a significantly accredited college or university [Q]
If not, has he done anything reasonably similar, but just not as long - such as a semester or two in an MBA-type or management course or program, etc. [Q]
Or, is he truly an up-from-the ranks [only], 'self-made' man [Q]
- PDN.
clarkfork Re: Tyler W posting, specifcally this quote: His cost cutting killed more than a few employees. . . . What about the runaway at Lillooet? Caused by he and his minions trying to squeeze every penny out of the assets. I assume you meant the accident of 29 June 2006. I reviewed the report and I do not find any blood on Harrison's hands. According to my reading, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada was never able to pin this accident on any specific cause. [snip]
His cost cutting killed more than a few employees. . . . What about the runaway at Lillooet? Caused by he and his minions trying to squeeze every penny out of the assets.
I assume you meant the accident of 29 June 2006. I reviewed the report and I do not find any blood on Harrison's hands. According to my reading, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada was never able to pin this accident on any specific cause. [snip]
See the Transportation Safety Board of Canada's RAIL REPORTS - 2006, esp. the 2nd one for 29 June 2006, Report Number R06V0136, which is available as both HTML and PDF formats at -
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2006/index.asp
It involved a locomotive and - only a single, fully-load loaded lumber car. The ruling track grade was 2.2 per cent, but may have varied locally to as high as 2.85 per cent. There appear to have been issues with the brake shoes and wheels, as well as 4 other major derailments on the former British Columbia Railway from August - December 2005.
Paul_D_North_Jr Has Mr. Harrison ever attended or graduated from a full-time, multi-year course of study/ degree program at a significantly accredited college or university [Q]
Paul,
CN's website makes no mention of Mr. Harrison attending a tradional institiution of higher learning. It does say he started working at the Frisco 1963 while attending school; he would have been 19 years old at the time.
Re: Tyler W. Post and Paul North response
I agree that pulling DB off the hill was a bad idea. But I was responding to the assertion of Tyler W. repeated below:
The way I read it the author is blaming Harrison personally for this accident. And just I don't think that is right. Unless he has something that directly connects Harrison with this accident I don't think he should make these accusations.
As to the union participation in the OSH, I didn't come up with that, the Tranportation Safety board did. In my experience (not CNR) union types try to play "hardball" with safety. My employer had some sort of union-management safety structure. Some of the unions participated and some did not or they periodically dropped out over various issues. That imay be their perogative. But in this case it might have made a difference.
enr2099The Ainsworth mill in Lillooet is scrambling to find alternative transportation because CN has told them "either give us 20 cars a day, or we won't switch you."
This would be a "captive shipper" type of situation. If the mill can't use CN then they are looking at trucking it out.
In today's economy you can easily see that business is way below normal. The mill may have an order for 10 carloads to arrive at the customer's door by so and so date, but if the mill has to wait until it has orders to fill the next ten cars to different customer's they will lose the order for the first ten cars. At this point CN should smarten up and get the ten cars because they could end up moving zero cars.
There must be a government regulator the mill can complain to, but for the life of me I can't recall who it would be. And even then the process may involve having to change the entire contract instead of some sort of arbitration process that could set some sort of solution to get everybody past these difficult economic times.
The bottom line I can't get past though is; do you want to move ten cars or zero cars.
AgentKid
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
I think it is important to point out that what Tyler is saying has as much to do with the operating practices and culture of CN under Mr Harrison's watch as anything elso I believe this is so for the following reasons:
1. As the TSB report points out CN did not consider db equipped locomitives to be necessary on the BCR. The practice, as the report points out, was not even addressed as on of the 19 items covered in the Risk Assessment Assessment Report filed by CN before acquisition of the BCR. Why was this? Previous BCR operating practice was to use db equipped locomotives in that territory. If you've been to that area (as I have) you will know that there is little if any room for error. RAilroading here is not for the faint of heart. There was also a defect in one of the centrebeam car's braking system IIRC (it's been a while since I read the report) Lack of redundancy in the braking systems was a factor, especially as the brakes began to fade on the downgrade leading to the wreck. Where was the braking backup in a one car loaded train. Sounds like squeezed assets and 'flatlander' thinking to me.
2. Following this wreck and the one at Cheakamus Canyon, then federal Minister of Transport Lawrence Cannon ordered a report into the operating practices and workplace culture of CN and other Canadian railways. CN did not come off well in this report. The words 'culture of fear' were used in this form or in various other ways to describe a railway whose management practices were 'bluntly coercive' to put it kindly. The report is worth a read. Look on the Government of Canada Website, Transport Ministry, for links to the report. CN ranked close to if not at the bottom for the quality of its workplace culture in that report. Is it any wonder that operating employees were (and perhaps still are) unwilling to participate on OHS committees, given that type of management style use here and elsewhere (and on the BCR) by CN. It's not just unions that employ hardball tactics with regard to safety. The possibility of retribution also comes to mind. I for one consider Mr Harrison to be accountable, directly or otherwise, for such practices and workplace culture. He is the CEO of the company. The buck and the responsibility stops at his desk.
3. Assets are being indeed squeezed. As the TSB report into the MacBride wreck points out, the bridge causing the wreck was structurally deficient. This report pointed out that the centralizing and downsizing of the Bridge Engineer's department at Kamloops was a significant factor in bridge assessment and repair practices, resulting in the failure of this particular bridge of this specific design. If that's not asset squeezing I don't what is. I believe locomotive power doesn't come off a lot better for condition and repair.
Like it or not, CEO's are responsible for and accountable what occurs on their watch as corporate leaders. Workplace culture, operating practices and the like are his responsibility as much as they are those under him. CN has much to do to improve its record IMO. Listen to Tyler and people like him. They have a point.
Charlie
Chilliwack, BC
I keep hoping that Clique of One would post here soon; I'd bet HE has some interesting stories to tell us about this "great" man.
Ulrich I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that Hunter is a very capable railroader...however his "tough as nails" bull in a china shop management style often doesn't work because the end result is fear (which staff readily enough admit to) and fear of course breeds anxiety and anger. Unfortunately, as is so often the case...his greatest strength may also be his greatest weakness. His tough managment style is what got him promoted right along at CN and at other roads...but has worked against him as a leader at CN where a more concilliatory tone with staff and customers might have been more effective. Nonetheless...I won't take anything away from him..he's had quite a run from his start as a carman at Frisco.
I can. Just ask the folks who worked GTW. Pulling up a second main line, then without admitting stupidity, had to replace it because traffic got fouled up. The list goes on. When they took over WC, customers were last in consideration, unless they were large shippers. All that good will built up by WC was for naught.
Capable railroader my foot. As it goes, most good rails remain rails, those who wash up, become Management, or some government lackey. Now that so many management types no longer come from the ranks, they have no clue how to move a box car from one track to another without a meeting and filling out job briefing forms.
I have guys out here who know about the business, and the fact that without customers, we become unemployed. They take care of their customers, and as a result, we still have business. It was drilled into my head as a brakeman, and today forgotten by some middle management.
I have seen too much business go away because of Management arrogance, and indifference. In these times no amount of begging will bring it back.
clarkforkThe way I read it the author is blaming Harrison personally for this accident. And just I don't think that is right. Unless he has something that directly connects Harrison with this accident I don't think he should make these accusations.
The person ultimately responsible for the Lillooet runaway is a product of EHH's management school, one of Hunter's proteges.Therefore I stand by my acusations. It IS EHH's fault!
selector.....many of us can't stand it when someone powerful succeeds, even if it isn't necessarily at our expense.
I suppose it somewhat depends on who the 'powerful' screwed on their way to the top. If you think like the "screwer", then other people are just 'resources' to be used or discarded; however, if you think more like the 'screwee", then you realize that you're the resource to be used or discarded.
The phrase used by the morally bankrupt to justify the way they treat their subordinates is, "Nothing personal, it's just business". To me, that speaks volumes about their philosophy.
Too often, the ends do not justify the means.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.