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.
UlrichLongevity 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?
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
Thought I already answered that.. (or maybe I'm losing my mind)..
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?
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
I'm a cat person to. Anyone who is pro kitty is okay w/me
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.
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?
SFbrkmn 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
RMECurtis Fitts
Who is he?
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
schlimm RME Curtis Fitts Who is he?
RME
Curtis Fitts
Try Curtis Pitts. He was an aircraft designer and pilot.
Norm
Norm48327 schlimm RME Curtis Fitts Who is he? Try Curtis Pitts. He was an aircraft designer and pilot.
Thanks for the name correction.
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.
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.
NKP guy 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 RRB and teacher pensions in many states were designed to provide for retirement. SS was designed as a supplement and for most, it still is that. The systems should not be merged. I am not sure what the hidden agenda of merger proponents is, but it's not to benefit recipients.
schlimm NKP guy The RRB and teacher pensions in many states were designed to provide for retirement. SS was designed as a supplement and for most, it still is that. The systems should not be merged. I am not sure what the hidden agenda of merger proponents is, but it's not to benefit recipients.
NKP guy
The hidden agenda is a bigger pot of gold to loot for favored pork barrell projects. Just like they have looted SS.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD schlimm NKP guy The RRB and teacher pensions in many states were designed to provide for retirement. SS was designed as a supplement and for most, it still is that. The systems should not be merged. I am not sure what the hidden agenda of merger proponents is, but it's not to benefit recipients. The hidden agenda is a bigger pot of gold to loot for favored pork barrell projects. Just like they have looted SS.
Maybe that or, if some folks get their way, privatization to benefit the financiers.
schlimm BaltACD schlimm NKP guy The RRB and teacher pensions in many states were designed to provide for retirement. SS was designed as a supplement and for most, it still is that. The systems should not be merged. I am not sure what the hidden agenda of merger proponents is, but it's not to benefit recipients. The hidden agenda is a bigger pot of gold to loot for favored pork barrell projects. Just like they have looted SS. Maybe that or, if some folks get their way, privatization to benefit the financiers.
In any event - those covered by Railroad Retirement won't benefit.
Good chance there may be a renewed push for the end of RRT. Hope all my conservative RR bothers like their jobs - they may be doing them well into their 70s.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
schlimmMaybe that or, if some folks get their way, privatization to benefit the financiers.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
zugmann Good chance there may be a renewed push for the end of RRT. Hope all my conservative RR bothers like their jobs - they may be doing them well into their 70s.
But, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!???
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70M-2DudeBut, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!???
Says the guy that owes his job to an American Railway Executive....lol.
I don't share the gloom and doom. A large rising tide lifts all boats, even the ones with Moosehead on board.
CMStPnP SD70M-2Dude But, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!??? Says the guy that owes his job to an American Railway Executive....lol. I don't share the gloom and doom. A large rising tide lifts all boats, even the ones with Moosehead on board.
SD70M-2Dude But, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!???
Except for those who have holes in their boats.
Jeff
Just the opposite. Those American Railroad executives owe their jobs to all those worker bees making the railroad profitable!
schlimm CMStPnP SD70M-2Dude But, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!??? Says the guy that owes his job to an American Railway Executive....lol. I don't share the gloom and doom. A large rising tide lifts all boats, even the ones with Moosehead on board. Just the opposite. Those American Railroad executives owe their jobs to all those worker bees making the railroad profitable!
They need each other. Workers need entrepreneurs who start and run businesses, and businesses, of course, need workers to produce the products and services that the business sells. Nobody owes anyone anything. Its very much a symbiotic relationship.
......And a few years before they had to import American Airline Executives to fix their National Airlines that were nearing the rocks. I tried to think of the largest manufactuerer in Canada but all I come up with is Ford and General Motors and aren't they really managed from Detroit, Michigan?
We've got some big ones here too.. Bombardier, Magna International, Linamar, the Irving Group, McCain Foods, are five multi billion dollar manufacturing companies that immediately come to mind . Granted, we don't have the manufacturing base that you do... our population is 10% of yours, and we're more heavily dependent on resources and services. The flow of talent runs both ways too. You sent us E Hunter Harrison.. we sent you JJ Hill (the Empire Builder).. etc.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.