Ulrich - right you are. There's almost always an alternative - not necessarily the ones you'd want, or prefer, or that are good for you and/ or the other guy - but they're out there, and if that's what it takes or what the shipper gets forced into, that's better than economic starvation or suicide.
Shifting gears ever so slightly - coborn35's post above reminded me of it again -
Reviewing the Canadian TSB's report on the 2006 Lillooet wreck above, it seems that both the lumber car and the locomotive had brakes that were at least partially defective for a variety of reasons and factors - such as a 'load indicator plate' for the 'Empty / Load Adjustment Valve' missing from the top of a truck of the lumber car. Something was also assembled wrong - a spring was mis-seated or in the wrong place, as well as others. None of this happened just before or during the wreck - they were all pre-existing conditions, which could have been caught by a routine thorough mechanical inspection, it seems to me. Since that quite evidently didn't happen, it starts to look like this kind of negligence has become habitual - or at least failure to counter-act such inattention - a common enough pre-cursor to many disasters. This raises the question of what the 'culture' there at CN has become - Is it now, 'Don't be pro-active, and just do the absolute minimum necessary' [Q]
As a result, a full-size main-line locomotive could not successfully hold back a single loaded lumber car on a 2.2 per cent grade. Doesn't that seem odd to you [Q] Even back in the day of the steam locomotives and hand brakes, they did better than that. Sure, the dynamic brakes would have prevented this, but that misses the key question of, 'What else went wrong here [Q]'
And finally - A couple months ago there was a thread here about the FRA being pretty zealous about checking car inspections at one of the former WC shops - North Fond Du Lac, if I remember correctly, for a period of several weeks. Such an action says to me that the FRA wasn't trusting the integrity of CN's inspections and quality control process for same there any more. So - Anybody here know what eventually happened with all that [Q] [I shouldn't have to draw pictures to complete my analysis here, I think.]
- Paul North
On the Missabe, which the CN totally butchered, AND tried to get away with non DB units for awhile, things are pretty bad. Got rid of all the MISSABE SPECIFIC units, and brought in crappy IC units, and now wants more EJE units? The crews are much more worse off. For example, the Sat-Sun Proctor Roadswitch is run by furloughed crews. Yes furloughed crews. Which means they really arent making enough money for it to be worth it.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
Or worse..that nothing boils over and the customer votes with his feet and leaves without saying a word. That's how it usually happens..most don't complain...they just quietly disappear.. That's why shippers who complain should be appreciated...they are the few who WILL give the carrier a chance to make it right before calling it quits. Hopefully CN doesn't believe that their accounts have no options...because they sure do. Even shippers who depend on rail (where truck or boat isn't an option) can close up shop and move somewhere else.
CN's change from public to private ownership happened and was over long before Hunter Harrison came onto the scene, so that's not what the problem is here. Instead, that was accomplished when Paul Tellier was CEO. Significantly, Tellier had never held a private sector job before then, either - he was a lawyer who had 'maxed out' by rising to the top of the Canadian federal bureaucracy as Chief of Staff of the Privy Council [or similar - apologies to our Canadian members, whose governmental structure I fear I have just mis-named, mangled, or worse]. So maybe it was better, because Tellier could legitimately take the moral high ground position of not asking anyone to do something that he wasn't also - Tellier could in effect say - 'Hey - I'm making this transition to a for-profit culture right along with the rest of you'.
The problem with the advice that jeaton was given when he was on the shipper side is this - 'OK, then what recourse or means of redress are you left with to fix things that are clearly wrong [Q]' If fear of retribution - legitimate or not - means that you've been silenced, it ain't ever gonna get better, fella, unless you've got some other method in mind, such as bribery or favors of some sort, or intercession by higher-ups [which also often cause the retribution], etc. Now to be fair, jeaton said 'be very careful . . . [don't] Get on the wrong side', not 'Don't ever complain', which does leave some room for legitimate gripes - we hope, as contrasted with just cutting off incessant whining and begging by shippers. But if the channels of reasonable communication are blocked, then the pressure will build until it blows in some uncontrolled and unforseen manner - like a boiler that's had its safety valve ['pops']tied down.
- Paul North.
CN has been a corporation for almost 15 years now..that ship sailed long ago. Any adjustments from crown corp. status to corporate status happened long ago. I don't think there's alot of featherbedding going on at CN..everything I read tells me they are running a tight ship...maybe even too tight given what some of the operating people are saying.
Some late thoughts.
In the best of circumstances, changing a business from government ownership to privite ownership is not culture change, rather culture shock. In the former, the bosses are politicians with a focus on people and their votes. Obviously, private ownership puts the focus on the bottom line and in the course of the transition, people lose their livelyhood or, for those who keep a job, find they are expected to do much more with less resources. It is no surprise that criticism will be bitter. Much of the criticism may be valid, but it is hard for an insider to be objective and harder for an outsider to get to the details of the matter to make an accurate assessment.
Very few people possess the skill to manage such a change and still have the general apporval of the rank and file. Conrail's Stanley Crane comes to mind. It is clear that Harrison won't ever win a popularity contest and only time will tell whether his strategy will prove to have worked for the longer term. Allegations that assets are not being replaced as they are used up would give one pause.
When I worked on the shipper side, one of the first things I was taught was to be very careful with complaints about carrier service. Get on the wrong side of the local trainmaster, and consider yourself lucky if your switch shows up on time, or his buddy, the local mudchicken, doesn't come up with a long list of defects on the plants tracks. And I guarantee, having your complaint written up with attribution in a widely circulated publication that covers the business will dramaticly reduce returns to your e- and voice mail messages.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
[quote user="zardoz"]
[quote user="selectorThe 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.
[/quote]
Very true...because it's always personal..
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.
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!
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 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.
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.
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
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"
. . . __ . ______
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:
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 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.
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]
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.
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.
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] -
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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]
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)..
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.
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,
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'.
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 . . . . ].
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)...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.