The recent death of Larry Thomas in the Brewster yard of the W&LE leads me to think about this topic/thread, which in the original post asked about merging Railroad Retirement with Social Security.
Mr. Thomas' family will, I hope, receive some kind of financial help from the Railroad Retirement System, and possibly an insurance benefit from his union (I hope he was part of a union). Both of these institutions stem from railroaders themselves coming together to do something for each other and their families, long before 1935. My town, east of Akron, is on the W&LE, which until a few years ago had a small yard here. We also had a large Erie yard and the B&O, too. In my work as a local historian I am well aware of how many men died or were horribly mangled or crippled, or simply rendered unemployable, because of the dangers of working on the railroads these past 153 years. Most were young men with families, just like Mr. Thomas.
Railroad men built these benevolent institutions and unions at a time in American history when no one was looking out for working people. Just by virtue of being a railroad employee, especially after, say, 1914, a man had a job that paid a reasonable wage, thanks to his union, and had a real retirement and disability program, thanks to his fellow-employees who belonged and contributed to it. In general terms, neither the company or the government did much for railroaders after retirement or injury.
In 1920 teachers in Ohio united in a similar fashion to set up their own retirement system to ensure that retirees could live in dignity, if not grandeur. Like railroaders, teachers here contributed more to their retirement systems, and in turn received more benefits.
The Social Security Act of 1935 did not include Ohio's teachers, railroaders, and maybe a few other self-insured occupations (it also deliberately excluded domestic help, but that's another story). For over eighty years the two different systems have co-existed peacefully. To forcibly merge monies from these older retirement systems into Social Secuity would amount to confiscation. Also, as of yet I haven't seen any evidence or complelling reason why such a merger would benefit Social Security. The only class of people who would benefit would be attorneys of every conceiveable stripe. But certainly not teachers or railroaders, let alone the folks receiving Social Security.
I hope the Railroad Retirement System will continue to help Mr. Thomas' family for years to come. They deserve it because he helped build it for others, as others did before him.
Norm48327 Curtis Pitts.
Curtis Pitts.
He worked for the railroad at Ocala and Jacksonville, and is quite revered.
https://www.iac.org/1987-hall-fame-curtis-pitts
http://www.steenaero.com/articles_detail.cfm?PrintFriendly=1&ArticleID=12
For info on Curtis W. Fitts (1901-1960), click the links below the Boston plane crash video.
Norm48327 schlimm RME Curtis Fitts Who is he? Try Curtis Pitts. He was an aircraft designer and pilot.
schlimm RME Curtis Fitts Who is he?
RME
Curtis Fitts
Who is he?
Try Curtis Pitts. He was an aircraft designer and pilot.
Thanks for the name correction.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Norm
https://books.google.com/books?id=sQADAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=%22Curtis+Fitts%22+pilot&source=bl&ots=R2PWAIyg8J&sig=KNmVUwMmrUmtTA7XmlvBZQY-VRI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuta636JDQAhXI5yYKHX6eBDsQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Curtis%20Fitts%22%20pilot&f=false
http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-AIRPLANEACCIDENTS&query=(select+712)
https://bir.brandeis.edu/bitstream/handle/10192/30691/Kalafatas.pdf?sequence=4
RMECurtis Fitts
SFbrkmn I'm a cat person to. Anyone who is pro kitty is okay w/me
I'm a cat person to. Anyone who is pro kitty is okay w/me
My dog Samson is a Husky/Chow cross. He's also a cat person. He especially likes them for dessert.
Tom
Electroliner 1935Would you prefer to fly behind Sully when the birds take out the engines or a younger pilot with five years experience?
Or Curtis Fitts with 23,000 hours in the air?
CSSHEGEWISCH Another issue is the role of 401(k) accounts. They were designed to be a supplement to a pension, not a replacement for it.
Another issue is the role of 401(k) accounts. They were designed to be a supplement to a pension, not a replacement for it.
Not that I ever heard of. My employer, a national newspaper chain, wrote a check for one's supposed interest in his defined-benefit pension to date and flat substituted the 401k.
The way print has gone since, I'm damned glad they did.
Ulrich BaltACD Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for. That is your problem! That manner of thought! Ability to handle new situations comes from the experience of handling all the situations that came before and applying the lessons learned. Those that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. I agree, but the learning curve generally levels out at five years. After five years on the job 98% of the learning should be behind you. So the value in longevity tends to diminish as other factors come into play such as declining health due to age etc.. Don't get me wrong.. I don't hate old people and I'm no spring chicken myself, but I can't do alot of the stuff I could do when I was 22...jus the way it is, and any employer who wanted to hire me for a job such as laying bricks would likely be wiser to choose a young buck over me.
BaltACD Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for. That is your problem! That manner of thought! Ability to handle new situations comes from the experience of handling all the situations that came before and applying the lessons learned. Those that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.
Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for.
That is your problem! That manner of thought! Ability to handle new situations comes from the experience of handling all the situations that came before and applying the lessons learned. Those that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.
I agree, but the learning curve generally levels out at five years. After five years on the job 98% of the learning should be behind you. So the value in longevity tends to diminish as other factors come into play such as declining health due to age etc.. Don't get me wrong.. I don't hate old people and I'm no spring chicken myself, but I can't do alot of the stuff I could do when I was 22...jus the way it is, and any employer who wanted to hire me for a job such as laying bricks would likely be wiser to choose a young buck over me.
Balt: Surely you realize that all these right wingers on the forum want to eliminate unions, collective bargaining and seniority so workers can be be paid lower wages, set against each other in a race to the bottom and be fired when their years of service render them "overpaid" so management/owners can rake off even more of the fruits of labor.
Euclid schlimm Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. A nonsensical rationalization for blind cronyism, nepotism and other forms of favoritism. But then, you are anti-union. Unions have a contract between the workers and the employer, so yes the contract enforces equal pay because it defines the pay. But non-union work has no such contract. The only agreement is the rate of pay for hours worked. I don't know why thay would seem nonsensical to you. I also don't know why it would have anything to do with what I think of unions.
schlimm Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. A nonsensical rationalization for blind cronyism, nepotism and other forms of favoritism. But then, you are anti-union.
Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work.
A nonsensical rationalization for blind cronyism, nepotism and other forms of favoritism. But then, you are anti-union.
Unions have a contract between the workers and the employer, so yes the contract enforces equal pay because it defines the pay. But non-union work has no such contract. The only agreement is the rate of pay for hours worked. I don't know why thay would seem nonsensical to you. I also don't know why it would have anything to do with what I think of unions.
The key words were "same work" not "same job." Your breed want to privatize most government functions and eliminate unions, as Reagan started. You can try to wriggle away, but it is true.
Norm48327 Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. It is only governed by the economics of supply and demand. Each employee makes an individual deal with the employer. It it true that employees will feel resentment for not getting the same pay for essentially the same job. But employees feel resentment for a lot of things, and resentment does not entitle them to what they want. You really think so? Taking a non-union shop as an example: Employees A and B are equally capable but for lack of motivation employee B produces only half the Widgets employee A does. Their work stations are equal in capability but employee B has no personal motivation to be productive and does only what's necessary to keep his job. Who do you think management is going to favor?
Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. It is only governed by the economics of supply and demand. Each employee makes an individual deal with the employer. It it true that employees will feel resentment for not getting the same pay for essentially the same job. But employees feel resentment for a lot of things, and resentment does not entitle them to what they want.
In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. It is only governed by the economics of supply and demand. Each employee makes an individual deal with the employer.
It it true that employees will feel resentment for not getting the same pay for essentially the same job. But employees feel resentment for a lot of things, and resentment does not entitle them to what they want.
You really think so? Taking a non-union shop as an example: Employees A and B are equally capable but for lack of motivation employee B produces only half the Widgets employee A does. Their work stations are equal in capability but employee B has no personal motivation to be productive and does only what's necessary to keep his job. Who do you think management is going to favor?
Electroliner 1935 Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value Would you prefer to fly behind Sully when the birds take out the engines or a younger pilot with five years experience?
Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value
Would you prefer to fly behind Sully when the birds take out the engines or a younger pilot with five years experience?
Thought I already answered that.. (or maybe I'm losing my mind)..
UlrichLongevity is certainly of questionable value
i am 84-1/2 and stilll quite capable of learning and have a proven abilitiy to adapt to new situations. Please do not insult me.
Not being political, but it seems that one Presidential candidate could learn that it is wise to consider what the listener will think before expressing one's immediate thoughts, and another still has to learn that admitting a mistake honestly may be better than a dishonest attempt to cover it up. I think I learned both those lessons a long time ago, and the specific candidates are younger than .me.
Sully was already that good at five years.. it didn't take him 30 years.. he was already an exceptional pilot long before that. If you're not exceptional at five years in the job then you're not going to be exceptional at 30 years into the job either.. There's a good reason why fighter pilots are generally under 70 years old.
UlrichLongevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Longevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for.
And we can't forget simple longevity. Should the new hire get paid the same as the person who's been doing the job for 15 years?
For sake of argument, we'll assume that both are doing the same job, and that the newby has enough training/experience to perform the job at about the same level.
While there are certainly unfair disparaties between men and women doing the same job with the same longevity, experience, etc. - one reason that has been cited for a difference in pay that has been cited is that women often don't have the longevity, for a variety of reasons.
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...
EuclidIn a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work.
schlimmYou seem to be unaware of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (US government) and their payment structure. For example, United Airlines.
PBGC, $88 Billion in assets and $164 Billion in obligations. Obligations growing faster than assets currently.
CMStPnPI am personally happy the pensions have gone away because their structure handcuffed people to a specific employer even if they did not like working there. Also, not much of a guarantee you will get all your pension if your employer goes bankrupt.
You seem to be unaware of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (US government) and their payment structure.
For example, United Airlines.
And sometimes the reasons aren't valid.. you're right.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.