blue streak 1Why class 1s and Amtrak cannot keep employees is not covered but these practices certainly apply to RRs. If employees loose confidence maybe only a complete turnover of top management is the answer? Preemptive Layoffs and Rescinded Job Offers Destroy a Company From the Inside (msn.com)
Preemptive Layoffs and Rescinded Job Offers Destroy a Company From the Inside (msn.com)
Get the BEAN COUNTERS out of top management. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing. PSR is a bean counter strategy in the railroads. Similar bean counter strategies are wrecking other industries all across the country.
Today's management doesn't want to believe they have ANY responsibility to ANY PARTY but the shareholders. They don't feature the continuing operation of their operation has any real value. They don't feature their customers deserve the service the customers are paying for. They don't feature they have ANY RESPONSIBILITY to their employee in being compensated and also having a life to be able to enjoy that compensation.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Some people also retire or, when jobs are plentiful, find work that pays better or is more to their liking. In a bad economy people will hunker down and accept a lousy job..which is not the case right now.
The ruling class was spoiled by decades of enjoying a buyer's market as the boomers competed with one another for decent jobs.
Now with the boomers heading towards retirement, and the workforce shrinking as a result,...employers now find themselves on the other end of "market forces" that once were in their favor.
Convicted OneThe ruling class was spoiled by decades of enjoying a buyer's market as the boomers competed with one another for decent jobs. Now with the boomers heading towards retirement, and the workforce shrinking as a result,...employers now find themselves on the other end of "market forces" that once were in their favor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHE9vSty9N0
Convicted One The ruling class was spoiled by decades of enjoying a buyer's market as the boomers competed with one another for decent jobs. Now with the boomers heading towards retirement, and the workforce shrinking as a result,...employers now find themselves on the other end of "market forces" that once were in their favor.
Yep! "Chickens home to roost."
This is also a time in which workers ought to care about their pay because it is dropping every minute as inflation eats up its value. Are railroads raising their shipping rates because of inflation raising their cost of fuel, materials, and equipment? Why should employees’ pay be frozen as its value evaporates?
Euclid I have been told that railroaders are not concerned about the pay, but only concerned about the bad working conditions.
Most guys I know that quit the RR took jobs with lower pay.
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
Raise the pay too much and the shippers move to trucks..which means the RRs go out of business.
azrailRaise the pay too much and the shippers move to trucks..which means the RRs go out of business.
Like truckers don't want to be paid. Maybe we can do away with transportation companies and just have John Q Public carry around commercial products in the bed of their pick up trucks when doing their daily chores.
Cut the pay and I'm sure the savings will be passed on to the shippers.
...right?
Higher pay may get workers, but working conditions is what's going to keep them here.
zugmann Higher pay may get workers, but working conditions is what's going to keep them here.
Quite true. We had a technician working for us, a good one too, who got his commercial driver's license and became a long-haul trucker. A year later he was back with us and we were glad to have him. The pay was better as a trucker than it was as a copier repair technician but the working conditions sucked.
He was never home, the trucking company bounced him all over the country like a ping-pong ball and finally he had enough.
A recent survey from the bureau of economic research showed that for most worker cohorts (except age 20-29) working from home is more valued than pay increases.
Another factor that crops up is that a lot of younger workers don't seem to realize that if you want to make the big bucks then you will have to put in the time at work to earn them and that sometimes the job has to come first.
CSSHEGEWISCH Another factor that crops up is that a lot of younger workers don't seem to realize that if you want to make the big bucks then you will have to put in the time at work to earn them and that sometimes the job has to come first.
Sometimes there's other things involved. Several years back I was reading a trade publication for the HVAC industry where an employer said his problem with new hires was they wanted to work but they didn't know how to work! They'd never had part-time or summer jobs so he had to start from Square One teaching the basics of being in the workforce.
His attitude was "Hey, you do what you have to do but WHY do I have to do it? Where were their parents, teachers, or anyone else who could have influenced these kids and taught them how the real world operates?"
Disturbing, to say the least.
Euclid The problem of railroads not able to hire enough employees is a problem of the railroads, and there is one simple solution. Raise the pay. I have been told that railroaders are not concerned about the pay, but only concerned about the bad working conditions. So under that theory, raising the pay will not attract new workers. I think it will attract new workers that care about the money and not about the working conditions. But the value of workers is only determined by what they are willing to accept as wages.
Flintlock76 CSSHEGEWISCH Another factor that crops up is that a lot of younger workers don't seem to realize that if you want to make the big bucks then you will have to put in the time at work to earn them and that sometimes the job has to come first. Sometimes there's other things involved. Several years back I was reading a trade publication for the HVAC industry where an employer said his problem with new hires was they wanted to work but they didn't know how to work! They'd never had part-time or summer jobs so he had to start from Square One teaching the basics of being in the workforce. His attitude was "Hey, you do what you have to do but WHY do I have to do it? Where were their parents, teachers, or anyone else who could have influenced these kids and taught them how the real world operates?" Disturbing, to say the least.
Backshop Flintlock76 CSSHEGEWISCH Another factor that crops up is that a lot of younger workers don't seem to realize that if you want to make the big bucks then you will have to put in the time at work to earn them and that sometimes the job has to come first. Sometimes there's other things involved. Several years back I was reading a trade publication for the HVAC industry where an employer said his problem with new hires was they wanted to work but they didn't know how to work! They'd never had part-time or summer jobs so he had to start from Square One teaching the basics of being in the workforce. His attitude was "Hey, you do what you have to do but WHY do I have to do it? Where were their parents, teachers, or anyone else who could have influenced these kids and taught them how the real world operates?" Disturbing, to say the least. Correct. Remember when fast food restaurant were staffed with high school kids? Now it's retirees and people in their 20-30s. Many parents spoil their kids by wanting them to "enjoy" HS and not have an afterschool job.
Correct. Remember when fast food restaurant were staffed with high school kids? Now it's retirees and people in their 20-30s. Many parents spoil their kids by wanting them to "enjoy" HS and not have an afterschool job.
Several years ago I went to the McDonalds in Sebring, FL - not a single employee was under what appeared to be 70.
I didn't have a job in HS because I was involved in scholastic sports - Track, Soccer and Baseball. Tried Football in Freshman & Sophomore year then the famaily transferred to a school district that took football seriously - met Larry Csonka at the Spring meeting - he was 6'2" and 220 as a Junior - I was 5'8" 160; I could see what the epitaph after tackling practice would be.
BackshopCorrect. Remember when fast food restaurant were staffed with high school kids? Now it's retirees and people in their 20-30s. Many parents spoil their kids by wanting them to "enjoy" HS and not have an afterschool job.
Oh, I remember all right! Mom and Dad kicked me out the door and into a part-time job as soon as I turned sixteen. Not only was it a valuable learning experience about being in the workforce but also the value of money. Money you work your butt off to get isn't something you're likely to blow away casually.
Sadly, many of those fast-food workers in their 20's and 30's are the college grads with unsellable degrees, but that's a WHOLE 'nother story. Man, the sad tales I've read...
Most surveys I saw when I was taking various management courses put pay down the list a ways.
Job satisfaction/conditions is much higher on the list. The railroads are going to have to find a way to provide "home every night" (a common advertising point of local trucking companies) and/or regular hours. A twelve hour shift (max HOS) followed by ten hours off makes a 22 hour day. There is a subset of railroaders who like that kind of schedule. Most others, not so much.
This probably means more people - something the PSR bean counters will clearly chafe at.
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...
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 Euclid I have been told that railroaders are not concerned about the pay, but only concerned about the bad working conditions. Different crafts have different concerns. I have not heard anyone from my craft complain about working conditions. Pay and cost of insurance are the main issues raised.
Cost of Health Insurance or Job Insurance?
BaltACD n012944 Euclid I have been told that railroaders are not concerned about the pay, but only concerned about the bad working conditions. Different crafts have different concerns. I have not heard anyone from my craft complain about working conditions. Pay and cost of insurance are the main issues raised.
I mean I have been told that here on the fourm in one of the other threads related to this topic. I regard it as a very generalized statement.
Euclid If railroads need workers, they must raise the pay. If they raise it high enough, they will get all the workers they need. And they will be paying them what they are worth. Trucking companies will have to raise their driver pay too. These pay raises for truckers and railroaders will have to be paid for by the shipping revenue. If it turns out that railroads cannot hire labor at a low enough cost to make a profit, then they will go out of business. Also, if railroads don’t want to raise their pay high enough to attract labor, they can start improving their working conditions, and couple that with a more modest pay increase in order to attract labor.
Euclid,
You seem to be having a disconnect with Millennials, and Gen Z .. They don't make pay their top priority generally speaking.. They want a balance of a healthy work environment, and personal time. They don't want to work their lives away... It's really that simple. I can't blame them to be honest..
SD60MAC9500You seem to be having a disconnect with Millennials, and Gen Z .. They don't make pay their top priority generally speaking.. They want a balance of a healthy work environment, and personal time. They don't want to work their lives away... It's really that simple. I can't blame them to be honest..
Which just goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Those personnel management classes I mentioned were taken in the 1970's...
The railroads are (and have always been) a 24/7 business. How many more Rentzenberger vans are you going to have to hire to have 9-5 jobs? How high do you raise your shipping rates without losing your shippers to pay for van rentals and 9/5 jobs? And if your customer can't get his shipment on time-he goes to another mode who will.
The problem is with the investment funds like Black Rock and The Children's Fund-they need to be restricted into how much of a company they can own.
SD60MAC9500They don't want to work their lives away... It's really that simple. I can't blame them to be honest..
I can't really blame them either. I worked my butt off for 40+ years, so now I play.
I remember my sister-in-law and her husband working for a company back in the 80's who shall remain nameless. Since they were white-collar salaried employees said employer ran them (and others) into the ground with 10, 12, 14 hour workdays. When they got home all they could do was have a quick meal and then collapse into bed. Then the next day it started all over and damn it, it wasn't right. It sure taught me not to think the grass was greener on the other side of the fence. I had the lesson re-enforced at quite a few other places over the years.
I thought all that ended with the "Career-crazed Yuppie 1980's" but apparantly it hasn't, not in some quarters.
.
azrail The problem is with the investment funds like Black Rock and The Children's Fund-they need to be restricted into how much of a company they can own.
They often don't own a controlling amount of stock, They may not even be the biggest single stock holder.
They exert control by getting other investors who hold large shares of stock to agree to their gaining control of the board by promising better returns.
Jeff
azrailThe railroads are (and have always been) a 24/7 business. How many more Rentzenberger vans are you going to have to hire to have 9-5 jobs? How high do you raise your shipping rates without losing your shippers to pay for van rentals and 9/5 jobs? And if your customer can't get his shipment on time-he goes to another mode who will.
Nobody is naive enough to think we're going 9-5. But it's pretty pathetic when most people will tell you they held better jobs 5 years ago than today.
Flintlock76 SD60MAC9500 They don't want to work their lives away... It's really that simple. I can't blame them to be honest.. I can't really blame them either. I worked my butt off for 40+ years, so now I play. I remember my sister-in-law and her husband working for a company back in the 80's who shall remain nameless. Since they were white-collar salaried employees said employer ran them (and others) into the ground with 10, 12, 14 hour workdays. When they got home all they could do was have a quick meal and then collapse into bed. Then the next day it started all over and damn it, it wasn't right. It sure taught me not to think the grass was greener on the other side of the fence. I had the lesson re-enforced at quite a few other places over the years. I thought all that ended with the "Career-crazed Yuppie 1980's" but apparantly it hasn't, not in some quarters.
SD60MAC9500
They don't want to work their lives away... It's really that simple. I can't blame them to be honest..
I retired in 2002 from the OTR Trucking Industry.
After a little over 25 years...Recently, acquaintances have noted to me that those still working (Regular woork week hours,etc... seem to hear the old refrain...."...need to keep up, that e-mail stream... "
Being told ,"... it only takes a short time in the evening ! (?)...".
{ The same thing falls under to old saying" don't pea down my leg, and tell me it's rainin'..." )
The "Hammer" seems to be held over their heads... Job Performance, Corporate Loyalty, etc. any that that 'gives' supervisory level 'peope' that 'edge' on their work force...It's the 'game'... old as time.
When it comes to employment in the 21st Century - it only works one way. That way is not in favor of the employees.
I remember when it was not legal for a semi to operate on Wisconsin roads on sundays. And our church did not hold services on sundays during August. Simpler times.
SD60MAC9500 Euclid If railroads need workers, they must raise the pay. If they raise it high enough, they will get all the workers they need. And they will be paying them what they are worth. Trucking companies will have to raise their driver pay too. These pay raises for truckers and railroaders will have to be paid for by the shipping revenue. If it turns out that railroads cannot hire labor at a low enough cost to make a profit, then they will go out of business. Also, if railroads don’t want to raise their pay high enough to attract labor, they can start improving their working conditions, and couple that with a more modest pay increase in order to attract labor. Euclid, You seem to be having a disconnect with Millennials, and Gen Z .. They don't make pay their top priority generally speaking.. They want a balance of a healthy work environment, and personal time. They don't want to work their lives away... It's really that simple. I can't blame them to be honest..
This would be the right time to read, or reread, Tom Brokaw's book The Greatest Generation. We have been too spoiled with free money and benefits for no work.
BaltACD n012944 Euclid I have been told that railroaders are not concerned about the pay, but only concerned about the bad working conditions. Different crafts have different concerns. I have not heard anyone from my craft complain about working conditions. Pay and cost of insurance are the main issues raised. Cost of Health Insurance or Job Insurance?
Health, as the company has no say in the cost of job insurance. Since I have had the same job insurance policy for almost 20 years, and the cost has not changed, I don't think it is an issue.
EuclidAlso, build in the stipulation that you are willing to give up some pay in exchange for these improvements in working conditions.
Management notwithstanding, I don't believe most Class 1 railroaders are salaried (I'll gladly stand corrected), being paid only for time worked.
Thus any measure that reduces time worked (and thus increases time off) amounts to a cut in pay.
And therein lies a conundrum.
As for relative value - how do you place a dollar value on attending your kid's baseball game (and witnessing her first home run), or birthday, or First Communion, your wedding anniversary, or any of a host of other life events?
This is where draconian attendance rules and the lack of depth in available manpower come home to roost.
If you want to improve working conditions, this is where you need to start. Have enough employees available so Joe can go to his kid's champtionship football game without facing a penalty.
EuclidThis would have to start with someone making a list of every change in working conditions needed to satisfy the employees. It would have to be what you might call “within reason,” but it would just be a starting point that could be negotiated. It would have to be a compromise between the two parties.
They exist. They're called Section 6 notices.
tree68 Euclid Also, build in the stipulation that you are willing to give up some pay in exchange for these improvements in working conditions. After a fashion, the railroaders would give up pay for better conditions already. Management notwithstanding, I don't believe most Class 1 railroaders are salaried (I'll gladly stand corrected), being paid only for time worked. Thus any measure that reduces time worked (and thus increases time off) amounts to a cut in pay. And therein lies a conundrum. As for relative value - how do you place a dollar value on attending your kid's baseball game (and witnessing her first home run), or birthday, or First Communion, your wedding anniversary, or any of a host of other life events? This is where draconian attendance rules and the lack of depth in available manpower come home to roost. If you want to improve working conditions, this is where you need to start. Have enough employees available so Joe can go to his kid's champtionship football game without facing a penalty.
Euclid Also, build in the stipulation that you are willing to give up some pay in exchange for these improvements in working conditions.
After a fashion, the railroaders would give up pay for better conditions already.
diningcar This would be the right time to read, or reread, Tom Brokaw's book The Greatest Generation. We have been too spoiled with free money and benefits for no work.
BackshopThat's why they fought for unions, OSHA, EPA, etc. Add Quote to your Post
The Greatest Generation concept has no distinction for or against unions. Currently people with "free money and health benefits" provided in the last two years and so some are willing not to work as a result.
My sense is that the majority of railroaders would give up some pay in return for more regular, predictable schedules, and enough time off to lead a semi balanced life.
in law there's the concept of What would a reasonable person deem to be X. I don't think most non-railroaders would deem current RR attendance policies to be fair.
People deserve to have some balance in their lives, and having to wait 10-20 years is not reasonable.
Still in training.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/15/president-biden-signs-executive-order-creating-a-presidential-emergency-board/?fbclid=IwAR1oJUnjl9wOv4JBMxGrOIzZzQUzfDml-eflI5KNIkXxvHI9Oq2ecj8OwOM
For those keeping score at home.
diningcar Backshop That's why they fought for unions, OSHA, EPA, etc. Add Quote to your Post The Greatest Generation concept has no distinction for or against unions. Currently people with "free money and health benefits" provided in the last two years and so some are willing not to work as a result.
Backshop That's why they fought for unions, OSHA, EPA, etc. Add Quote to your Post
2. Any stimulus money is long gone. Nobody can live on that amount of money for long.
Unions created the 'middle class'. Employees compensated with both money time conditions that allowed those employees to have a life. Being able to own a home and enough 'free time' to be able to have a family and interact with those family members and all the trials and travails that happen in families.
What BNSF (and other carriers) is doing with their Hi-Viz attenance policy is to 'claw back' the time employees had for family life.
Carriers while they have negotiated Vacation and Personal Leave provisions in the various craft contracts tend to do everything they can to prevent employees from using those benefits to the employees advantage.
While in college, I co-oped with the PRR. ,When graduating I was offered a starting a starting position as a Signal & Communications Assistant Supervisor by the RR. My dad had worked for the MOPAC as a chief Clerk and had been moved from Indianapolis to Chicago to Milwaukee to Cincinnati. When they told him about four years after that move, He said no, and stayed in Cincinnati for the rest of his life. He had two sons in school and didn't want to uproot them. I had observed the supervisors, assistant supervisors and other people I was working with being relocated and working very irregular hours, I chose to NOT accept the PRR's job offer. Also, the "salary" they offered was less than what I was offered by most other positions I was offered.
I can feel the pain the BNSF crews are experiencing and think the upper executives have no concept of what their people have done for them, they see them as a serf to push to do more than is reasonable. Just as they want to overload a locomotive until it stalls or burns out.
Generally, most of the trainmen (Conductors, Brakemen, and Switchmen) have guaranteed boards. Some of the guarantees are for the pay half, the other for the month. If you don't make guarantee, the railroad pays the difference. However, there are things that can take away part or all of the guarantee.
Some engineer's boards (extra, yard and locals) have a guarantee, again some by the half month the other the full month. Road thru freight boards don't have a guarantee. (Local agreements may be in effect that are different than the above for both train and enginemen.) In not having a guarantee, the union local chairman is supposed to control the manning of the road boards. There is a formula to regulate the boards as to adding or removing turns on the boards.
Some jobs have days off. Usually locals and yard jobs. The road and extra boards don't. We had a pilot program about 20 years ago for days off on the extra boards. When implemented, there was no offset for the extra board guarantees. We worked 7 on and 3 off. The days off rotated, and if you worked into your first off day, the 72 hours was extended so you got the full time off. It was that guarantee wasn't modified because of the time off that killed it. Most large terminals that had mostly road vacancies to protect were OK. The extra board worked over guarantee even with the time off. It was the small terminals that either had a few people on the extra board or where the extra board protected a lot of yard jobs. You could work mutiple yard jobs and with the time off, not break guarantee. The paying of guarantee at those terminals is what killed it.
If we had rest days, on both pool and extra boards, the draconian policies might make some sense. You would have an idea when you would be off for appointments, etc. You could schedule some life beyond work. Less reason to take time off between days off, although life's pitfalls don't follow a schedule.
We do have personal leave days, instead of holiday pay, for road and extra board crews. (Currently there are 11 PL days possible. You don't get all 11 at first, it takes time to build to the full 11.) Some places allow us to convert vacation weeks to be used as single days. The problem is, the company must approve the use of PL or single days. The reason of course, is manpower issues. In response to the outcry of their Hi-Viz policy, the BNSF gave their people a few more PL days to use. What good is it to have those days if you aren't allowed to use them?
One more thing about our guaranteed boards. If they are off uncompensated for more than 48 hours within the pay half, they lose the entire guarantee for the half. The uncompensated time off includes time off required because of the RSIA Federal Requirement for working 6/7 consecutive jobs without a period 24 hours off between them. Usually if you're working to enough to get the Federal Rest, you should break guarantee anyway. However, it can be feast or famine, even now. It's possible to work like gang busters and then everything come to a halt. You could work the 6/7 days on one half and then have to lose 2 or 3 days on the next. It could be enough to wipe out the guarantee on a half where things have slowed way down.
Well said, Jeff, Backshop, B&O, Electroliner, Zug, et al. Unions and one political philosophy helped this great nation have an increasingly larger middle class. Too bad it's been eroding since 1981.
If you want to see the final offers from both the National Carrier's Conference (the railroads) and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, go to this link.
National Contract Negotiations | Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (ble-t.org)
I won't claim my experience is typical, but it is a real-world case study that may give some insight. I have changed jobs twice in the last six months. About 18 months ago my office was moved from one building to another; my new workspace was close to 1/4 mile and a 40-foot climb from the only available parking, and we went from individual offices for everyone to the non-supervisors sharing small offices or being crammed into small cubicles almost on top of one another. For several years we had been paid less than employees in the same specialty at other agencies in town. I found a job that offered an instant 15% pay increase, my own (small, but my own) office, and parking near the building where I worked. Before leaving, I told the managers at the old job what the pay and conditions were at the new job, and why I was going to leave. I also told them the reason I wanted to leave was 60% pay and 40% office situation and distant parking.
A month after starting the new job, my old boss called and asked if I would consider coming back for another 15% pay raise over what I was making at the new job, which about matched the going rate in town for my specialty. The new pay at the old job would be about a 15% premium over the going rate in town. I thought it over and accepted the offer. Sharing an office and making a long hike morning and evening still isn't ideal, but for a 15% premium over the going rate in town it's tolerable. I only plan to work another five years (I'm 65 now) before retiring, so it won't be forever.
My boss got bought out about a year ago. The new owner at first could not figure out my job wondering why I was so popular with the drivers. Then he sat beside me for a week and realized just what I did. He also wondered why since he bought us out his own carriers turnover rate dropped 40% in the same timeframe. It was because they had someone that had their back and would listen to their complaints and could forward them to mangement in a way they took notice of them. Things like if the shop was refusing to fix something or if they needed to get home in a hurry and operations was not wanting to get them home. However where I make the biggest help is just being there to listen to complaints and then go lets see what we in the office can do to make your job better. He never realized that just having one person that took care of his drivers issues wheter they where in the home or on the road meant so much for the drivers. The new guy is learning that 1 I take no BS from anyone in his company. 2 in terms of who comes first it is the Drivers then their families then company issues. We had a driver whose wife had a miscarriage. Operations did not want him to fly home from Dallas. Not only did I override them had him on the next plane back to Midway but his replacement driver was on the flight down to get his truck and bring it home. Let's just say the dispatcher that refused to get him home was fired even though he had been with the new parent company for 28 years. Boss realized that in my contract I had with the old boss it states if a dispatcher refuses to do something in an emergency that could cause a driver reason to take legal action I have the power to terminate that dispatcher or whomever else refuses. There was a clause he put in there that stated even if we merged with another carrier as long as I am employed by my old carrier or the new one until my contract was redone. New boss liked that clause and kept it in my new one along with a 25% pay bump. Why instead of 250 drivers I now have about 450 drivers to keep happy.
If you run a business and no one is happy then you're doing something wrong. If run a business and everyone is happy you're doing something wrong too (not that that ever happens).. It's a very fine line..
The larger progressive companies do exit interviews to determine why people leave. At the end of each quarter they collate the data and report the results to senior management. This approach doesn't work so well for smaller businesses as it is statistically based.. and if the numbers are too small they become meaningless in terms of identifying trends.. i.e. a company with five employees has two quits.. one guy turned 80 and decided to retire and the other won the lottery.. clearly the retention numbers took a beating, but none of it was really the employer's fault, and the quits thus don't point to any trend requiring corrective action. Given how large the class 1 railroads are, they must have some pretty good data to identify trends.. they have a good handle on what's not working for them and where they need to improve. The data base is also big enough to allow employers to discard quits that aren't the employers' fault and to hone in on quits that are attributable to the employers' actions. If quits rise sharply directly after a new attendance policy is implemented, for example, then it shouldn't require Sherlock Holmes to conclude that the policy should be amended or discarded.
Ulrich The larger progressive companies do exit interviews to determine why people leave. At the end of each quarter they collate the data and report the results to senior management.
The larger progressive companies do exit interviews to determine why people leave. At the end of each quarter they collate the data and report the results to senior management.
CN does exit interviews when conductors or engineers quit, well, if the now former employee will do it (some guys just quit on the spot and literally walk out). Most everyone says something about how bad the management attitude and 'schedule' is.
If our upper management ever sees the true data from these interviews, they are ignoring it.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70DudeIf our upper management ever sees the true data from these interviews, they are ignoring it.
Who? Me?
Shadow, I love what you post. My employer had reasonable personnel policies that I appreciated. Some companies would not treat an animal as they treat their employees.
Electroliner 1935Some companies would not treat an animal as they treat their employees.
You had to go out and buy a mule. Wokers would show up at the front door.
Electroliner 1935Shadow, I love what you post. My employer had reasonable personnel policies that I appreciated. Some companies would not treat an animal as they treat their employees.
And remember, in the railroads, as bad as they treat Contract employees, that is about 10 times better than they treat their first level non-contract supervision (Asst. Trainmasters, Trainmasters, Roadmasters, General Car Dept. Foremen etc). Contract employees have SOME protection in their union contracts and the federal Hours of Service laws, first level supervision doesn't.
It's been said that the gap between the top and the bottom wages has been increasing (insanely) for years.
Electroliner 1935 Some companies would not treat an animal as they treat their employees.
Some companies would not treat an animal as they treat their employees.
Yet some people choose to work there because???
tree68 It's been said that the gap between the top and the bottom wages has been increasing (insanely) for years.
Just the same, the lot of those who find themselves at "the bottom" is generally better than it was a hundred years ago. Compare the life of a railroader (they're not at the bottom but just by way of example) of 1922 to one of today and I doubt that anyone would say that things were better in 1922. Of course, the rate of improvement is not linear.. maybe things were better 15 years ago or 30 years ago... but over longer spans things have always improved. What we're experiencing now is serious, and the logjam it will cause in the supply chain will be remembered for years, but this too shall pass, and by 2122 it will be no more than a footnote... remembered by historians only.
EuclidHow much gap should there be between the top and bottom wages?
Since you are asking the question - poist YOUR answer, since you will disagree with anyone else's.
Euclid How much gap should there be between the top and bottom wages?
Only Mr Market knows the answer to that. And Mr. Market simply reflects our values as a whole..
BaltACD Euclid How much gap should there be between the top and bottom wages? Since you are asking the question - poist YOUR answer, since you will disagree with anyone else's.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid I have never suggested or believed that there is any control that determines how large or small the gap between highest and lowest wage should be. But many people here and elsewhere complain that this gap is too large. So since they know this, they ought to be able to explain how large is too large. Of course everyone has the freedom to start their own company and make all pay equal from top to bottom. Actually I don’t expect people to answer these questions. The answer is in their refusal to answer. It works like a charm.
The control is supply and demand. You and I might not believe that an entry level NHL hockey player should make more than an experienced cancer researcher.. but the market says otherwise. Diddo for the spread between what the CEO gets and what the worker bees get.. the market is the mechanism that controls the spread.
EuclidI have never suggested or believed that there is any control that determines how large or small the gap between highest and lowest wage should be. But many people here and elsewhere complain that this gap is too large. So since they know this, they ought to be able to explain how large is too large. Of course everyone has the freedom to start their own company and make all pay equal from top to bottom. Actually I don’t expect people to answer these questions. The answer is in their refusal to answer. It works like a charm.
Turds smell. Works like a charm.
Ulrich Electroliner 1935 Some companies would not treat an animal as they treat their employees. Yet some people choose to work there because???
$$$. If you're living paycheck to paycheck you might be willing to put up with a lot more crap at work.
And in the case of the railroads it might be the best paying job they can get in that area.
In the U.S. there is also the little issue of health insurance.
Health insurance, RR retirement, and many business owners in a lot of areas still think it's 1950 and $11 an hour is a lot of money.
And I know this is weird, but many RRers actually like RRing.
Ulrich Euclid I have never suggested or believed that there is any control that determines how large or small the gap between highest and lowest wage should be. But many people here and elsewhere complain that this gap is too large. So since they know this, they ought to be able to explain how large is too large. Of course everyone has the freedom to start their own company and make all pay equal from top to bottom. Actually I don’t expect people to answer these questions. The answer is in their refusal to answer. It works like a charm. The control is supply and demand. You and I might not believe that an entry level NHL hockey player should make more than an experienced cancer researcher.. but the market says otherwise. Diddo for the spread between what the CEO gets and what the worker bees get.. the market is the mechanism that controls the spread.
zugmann Health insurance, RR retirement, and many business owners in a lot of areas still think it's 1950 and $11 an hour is a lot of money. And I know this is weird, but many RRers actually like RRing.
Hey, not that weird.. I like my job too although it has its drawbacks.. customers who don't pay.. accidents.. stolen loads.. freight claims.. but.. I guess overall it still pays the bills and beats gargling broken glass.
EuclidSo then why do some people cite a difference between the top and bottom wage as being unfair?
Who cited that?
zugmann Euclid So then why do some people cite a difference between the top and bottom wage as being unfair? Who cited that?
Euclid So then why do some people cite a difference between the top and bottom wage as being unfair?
I'll not cite anything - the $7.75 'minimum wage' at 8 hours per day and 260 days per year works out to $16,120. The photo I posted earlier showed Foote's total compensation to be north of $20 Million; with the UP and NS CEO's going for $14 Million. I won't argue the difference between CEO's and minimum wage but I will question how Foote is $6 million 'better' than the UP and NS CEO's?
Maybe CSX just believes Foote is worth that much more than the UP and NS CEOs.
Today's News Wire:
CEO outlines ongoing crew shortages, need for changes in jobs
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/csxs-foote-blaming-psr-for-rail-problems-is-nonsense/
Mr. Foote's statements, within this article, actually explains that PSR via CSX's upper management IS key to the rail problem. He states that presumably under his watch, [his] CSX management cut about 1,000 jobs. After being able to recall ~800 and have hired another ~2,000. "… and we’re going backwards,” Foote said." So if PSR implementation, layoffs & work rule changes, isn't the problem why hasn't CSX management responded by offering positions that will attract and keep capable people? Management should know their employees and customers. IF they are failing to address either then Management is failing. IF they are failing on both fronts they HAVE failed!
EuclidMaybe CSX just believes Foote is worth that much more than the UP and NS CEOs.
Which really means all three boards are idiots.
The figures posted are their whole compensation package. Their actual wages are probably a lot less. (A few UP CEOs back was the last time I checked, but the actual wage was 2 or 3 million dollars. The add-ons and bonuses was worth about two or three times their listed wage. A lot of those extras are to give them, so it's said, "skin" in the game. Also those extras are non taxable or taxed at a lessor rate than wages are.
It could simply be that the way the packages are done is why CSX comes out better.
Euclid Ulrich Euclid I have never suggested or believed that there is any control that determines how large or small the gap between highest and lowest wage should be. But many people here and elsewhere complain that this gap is too large. So since they know this, they ought to be able to explain how large is too large. Of course everyone has the freedom to start their own company and make all pay equal from top to bottom. Actually I don’t expect people to answer these questions. The answer is in their refusal to answer. It works like a charm. The control is supply and demand. You and I might not believe that an entry level NHL hockey player should make more than an experienced cancer researcher.. but the market says otherwise. Diddo for the spread between what the CEO gets and what the worker bees get.. the market is the mechanism that controls the spread. So then why do some people cite a difference between the top and bottom wage as being unfair? They always refuse to answer that question.
1. Perhaps you need to consider that the so-called market* is the best or fair or only way to rationalize and distribute everything? What's good for corn, wheat and soybeans isn't necessarily ideal for humans.
2. Balt calculated the yearly gross earnings of a minimum wage worker. But let us look at a $15.00/hour worker. He or she grosses ~$30k. Is a CEO making 100 or 600 or even 800 times that actually worth that? How?
* Let's not even bring in sophisticated market concepts like elasticity
zugmannWho cited that?
I mentioned it.
The key thing with that is not the level of compensation as such. I've seen it mentioned in the past in various places that the concern is the widening gap between the average worker and the top executives.
One might think that wage increases between top and bottom would be relatively linear - ie, my pay goes up 5%, the CEO's pay goes up 5%. I'm left with the impression that some folks feel that such hasn't been the case.
Others might feel that it should be on a decreasing scale - I get 5%, the CEO gets 2%.
When I was in USAF, there was a huge readjustment in pay (late 1960's). A basic airman (E1) went from about $109 per month to around $235 a month - better than a 100% increase. In fact, an E1's monthly pay was now more than an E4 would have been making, had their pay not also been increased. When you got to O10 (general), the increase was well less than 100%.
A variable with the CEO's pay, however, has been mergers and consolidations, which obviously increase the CEO's responsibilities.
It would take a lot of research and interpretation to sort it out.
Food for discussion.
charlie hebdoIs a CEO making 100 or 600 or even 800 times that actually worth that? How?
Because a CEO sometimes make decisions that can have 100 or 600 or even 800 times greater impact on performance or future of the entire company?
adkrr64 charlie hebdo Is a CEO making 100 or 600 or even 800 times that actually worth that? How? Because a CEO sometimes make decisions that can have 100 or 600 or even 800 times greater impact on performance or future of the entire company?
charlie hebdo Is a CEO making 100 or 600 or even 800 times that actually worth that? How?
And generally the ones that make BAD decisions, jump ship with a Golden Parachute worth several years of their inflated salary & options from the time before they put the company in distress and had a financially fatal effect on all the employees of the company.
Someone being rewarded for failure doesn't leave a good taste for the employees that are disadvantaged.
Evidence? And as Balt points out, where are the severely negative consequences for terrible decisions? Seldom on CEOs, often seen in paycuts or RIFs for a company's workforce.
charlie hebdo Euclid Ulrich Euclid I have never suggested or believed that there is any control that determines how large or small the gap between highest and lowest wage should be. But many people here and elsewhere complain that this gap is too large. So since they know this, they ought to be able to explain how large is too large. Of course everyone has the freedom to start their own company and make all pay equal from top to bottom. Actually I don’t expect people to answer these questions. The answer is in their refusal to answer. It works like a charm. The control is supply and demand. You and I might not believe that an entry level NHL hockey player should make more than an experienced cancer researcher.. but the market says otherwise. Diddo for the spread between what the CEO gets and what the worker bees get.. the market is the mechanism that controls the spread. So then why do some people cite a difference between the top and bottom wage as being unfair? They always refuse to answer that question. 1. Perhaps you need to consider that the so-called market* is the best or fair or only way to rationalize and distribute everything? What's good for corn, wheat and soybeans isn't necessarily ideal for humans. 2. Balt calculated the yearly gross earnings of a minimum wage worker. But let us look at a $15.00/hour worker. He or she grosses ~$30k. Is a CEO making 100 or 600 or even 800 times that actually worth that? How? * Let's not even bring in sophisticated market concepts like elasticity
As much as is possible, everyone's pay should be tied to performance, with performance criteria clearly spelled out for each position. Certainly no management bonuses should be paid where the Company has performed under par or has downsized its workforce to trim costs. No golden parachutes for anyone..
Euclid: Your entire thesis is circular and reveals some degree of naivete or ignorance on your part concerning the corporate world. Did you ever work in management in a large business?
And The "Company" is the Board of Directors who decide the CEO raise (or bonus, or …). The subsequent impact on the people making up the Company will take the hit on bad decisions and only get a trickle, if any, should there be a good one.
UlrichAs much as is possible, everyone's pay should be tied to performance, with performance criteria clearly spelled out for each position. Certainly no management bonuses should be paid where the Company has performed under par or has downsized its workforce to trim costs. No golden parachutes for anyone..
When I was non-contract (official) with Chessie System and following through with CSX - there were no levels of remuneration that were established for individual positions throughout the system. All increases came about through the Performance Review type process. The head of whatever organization would undertake a performance review of all his subordinates - ostensibly a 'fair' evaluation against defined metrics. One thing that I observed through this process was that if, say, the head of a department was 'down graded' by his superior - all those under that supervisior would be downgraded without regard to any individual performance.
When I was initially 'promoted' to non-contract status, I was told I was getting a 15% increase over what I was making in my contract position with by new non-contract rate being $700 a month. When I got my W-2 for the year I was promoted it read about $8800. Obviously what I had been earning during my period as a contract employee exceeded what I was being paid in my non-contract position.
Employee compensation, outside of Union Contracts, is a real den of inequity.
charlie hebdo Euclid: Your entire thesis is circular and reveals some degree of naivete or ignorance on your part concerning the corporate world. Did you ever work in management in a large business?
Euclid charlie hebdo Euclid: Your entire thesis is circular and reveals some degree of naivete or ignorance on your part concerning the corporate world. Did you ever work in management in a large business? Oh yes, and you can't provide any details, just make sure you get your snarky insult across.
Oh yes, and you can't provide any details, just make sure you get your snarky insult across.
Could it be that the higher payrates for some CEOs has to do with possibility instability of the higher paying company? If my prospects at company A is only 8 months and company B 1 year what will I accept at A to work there.
A big factor is stock options. One company I know of certain management got options starting a $8.75 that went down to $4. Stock rose above $30. They bought at the lower cost and sold at higher. Which the management exercised at low price and sold at high price even with some paying short term capital gains. BTW price went down below option price later.
What do each of the Class 1s have in the way of stock options? Real incentative to do every thing to increase stock prices including PSR. The only upside of stock options is that Amtrak cannot offer them.
[quote user="BaltACD"]BaltACD wrote the following post 9 hours ago: Euclid Maybe CSX just believes Foote is worth that much more than the UP and NS CEOs. Which really means all three boards are idiots. [/que]
BINGO!
The Annual Reports almost always claim that .most exec compensation is pay for performance. I rarely see any report where the exec's don't meet the minimums even though sales and net earnings are below the previous years. I think there is a significant amount of Fiction in annual reports
blue streak 1 Could it be that the higher payrates for some CEOs has to do with possibility instability of the higher paying company? If my prospects at company A is only 8 months and company B 1 year what will I accept at A to work there. A big factor is stock options. One company I know of certain management got options starting a $8.75 that went down to $4. Stock rose above $30. They bought at the lower cost and sold at higher. Which the management exercised at low price and sold at high price even with some paying short term capital gains. BTW price went down below option price later. What do each of the Class 1s have in the way of stock options? Real incentative to do every thing to increase stock prices including PSR. The only upside of stock options is that Amtrak cannot offer them.
Murphy Siding blue streak 1 Could it be that the higher payrates for some CEOs has to do with possibility instability of the higher paying company? If my prospects at company A is only 8 months and company B 1 year what will I accept at A to work there. A big factor is stock options. One company I know of certain management got options starting a $8.75 that went down to $4. Stock rose above $30. They bought at the lower cost and sold at higher. Which the management exercised at low price and sold at high price even with some paying short term capital gains. BTW price went down below option price later. What do each of the Class 1s have in the way of stock options? Real incentative to do every thing to increase stock prices including PSR. The only upside of stock options is that Amtrak cannot offer them. Stock options almost make it seem like the CEO's main job is to get the stock price higher, so he, and the powerful people who put him in the job can cash out, take the money and run.
Stock options almost make it seem like the CEO's main job is to get the stock price higher, so he, and the powerful people who put him in the job can cash out, take the money and run.
From the viewpoint of decisions being made - You nailed it. Pump & Dump
Why aren't they dumping now then? Lots of clouds on the horizon.. now would be the time to dump it.
I pointed out several factors in econ. You apparently don't understand so you keep whining that no one will answer your comments.
What you really mean is nobody will provide the answers that you agree with.
Ulrich Why aren't they dumping now then? Lots of clouds on the horizon.. now would be the time to dump it.
I was shocked this morning that one of our engineers, one who has a year or two more time in on the railroad than I do, has resigned. I don't believe he is old enough to retire, even to take an early retirement. No one so far knows anything as to why.
Murphy Siding Ulrich Why aren't they dumping now then? Lots of clouds on the horizon.. now would be the time to dump it. In the case of CEOs with stock options, how do we know they're not quietly execising those options and selling stock?
In the case of CEOs with stock options, how do we know they're not quietly execising those options and selling stock?
That's a matter of public record... there are various sites that allow one to see what key execs are doing with their stock..
jeffhergert I was shocked this morning that one of our engineers, one who has a year or two more time in on the railroad than I do, has resigned. I don't believe he is old enough to retire, even to take an early retirement. No one so far knows anything as to why. Jeff
I'm guessing, and probably guessing wrong, he got another job lined up somewhere and decided to walk. It's an old truism that it's easier to find a job when you HAVE a job than it is if you're unemployed.
I haven't said much on this topic as not being a professional railroader I don't believe it's my place to do so, but from what I've been reading I wouldn't be surprised if many train crew people are contemplating the same thing.
Flintlock76 jeffhergert I was shocked this morning that one of our engineers, one who has a year or two more time in on the railroad than I do, has resigned. I don't believe he is old enough to retire, even to take an early retirement. No one so far knows anything as to why. Jeff I'm guessing, and probably guessing wrong, he got another job lined up somewhere and decided to walk. It's an old truism that it's easier to find a job when you HAVE a job than it is if you're unemployed. I haven't said much on this topic as not being a professional railroader I don't believe it's my place to do so, but from what I've been reading I wouldn't be surprised if many train crew people are contemplating the same thing.
Everybody has their own motivations. When the Baltimore Dispatching office was moved back to Jacksonville a number of Dispatchers got other jobs and stayed in Baltimore, despite having followed their jobs when the office was moved from Jacksonville to Baltimore, 9 years earlier. One followed his job back to Jacksonville and shortly thereafter got a dispatching job in Honolulu.
Through my career any number of employees with 'reasonable' seniority both in craft positions and non-contract positions left CSX and its predecessors to railroad jobs with a variety of Short Lines in a variety of position.
I'm hearing that he retired. He doesn't seem to be old enough for full retirement, but may have other sources from a previous job to take an early retirement or something lined up for a semi-retirement. Anyway, I wish him well.
jeffhergert I'm hearing that he retired. He doesn't seem to be old enough for full retirement, but may have other sources from a previous job to take an early retirement or something lined up for a semi-retirement. Anyway, I wish him well. Jeff
Yes, I can understand it. When things started going sour with us one of the guys took a look at his income sources besides the job and since he'd just turned 62 pulled the plug. As he said "My income's only going to be $300 less a month than it is with the job. If I can't budget out $300 shame on me!"
I waited until I was 65 and took the buyout. I was happy to do so. It wasn't the same place anymore.
Ulrich Murphy Siding Ulrich Why aren't they dumping now then? Lots of clouds on the horizon.. now would be the time to dump it. In the case of CEOs with stock options, how do we know they're not quietly execising those options and selling stock? That's a matter of public record... there are various sites that allow one to see what key execs are doing with their stock..
I once was offered stock options as a (relatively small) part of my overall compensation package. They were structured in a way so that I could only take advantage of a portion of the total grant in any given year. I suspect most are setup that way as a means to encourage at lest some modest long term performance of the stock. But I'm sure the arrangements can vary considerably depending on company and individual.
adkrr64I once was offered stock options as a (relatively small) part of my overall compensation package. They were structured in a way so that I could only take advantage of a portion of the total grant in any given year. I suspect most are setup that way as a means to encourage at lest some modest long term performance of the stock. But I'm sure the arrangements can vary considerably depending on company and individual.
About 6 years before I retired, CSX offered Train Dispatchers a 'Profit Sharing Plan' that was tied around stock options - in place of the previously negotiated stepped compensation package over the following three years.
The company's plan was put to NLRB authorized vote. The vote was 317-0 AGAINST the profit sharing plan. First time I have EVER seen a Shutout on any kind of a Union vote. Calculations performed at the conclusion of the time period of the plan - it was calculated that Dispatchers would have earn about $25K LESS with the plan than they earned with the traditional compensation package.
I understnd, several Unions fell for the plan when it was offered to them - they ended up kicking themselves.
I guess the law of entropy applies to business as well. Over the years I've seen many well organized and well managed companies slowly degrade to become so so companies or worse.. poor performers. Rarely have I seen poor performers slowly evolve to become well run and efficient. I have seen poor performers transformed quickly however.. through massive change involving restructuring and new management, and perhaps that was the impetus behind PSR.. the proverbial kick in the pants to jolt companies into better performance.. only the "kick" missed its mark.
Lots of clouds on the horizon, but I see some positives as well.. It looks as if carriers are nolonger fixated on the OR.. and PSR itself is nolonger the be all end all that it was touted to be when it was first introduced. Around here I see alot of reinvestment in plant.. new bridge signals at Bayview for example.. and more care and attention to the roadbed. Lots of work to be done, and there's at least some acknowledgement now that things could have been done better to mitigate/avoid the current labor and retention problems. Let's hope that lessons are being learned and that futures generations don't have to relearn them.
UlrichI guess the law of entropy applies to business as well. Over the years I've seen many well organized and well managed companies slowly degrade to become so so companies or worse.. poor performers. Rarely have I seen poor performers slowly evolve to become well run and efficient. I have seen poor performers transformed quickly however.. through massive change involving restructuring and new management, and perhaps that was the impetus behind PSR.. the proverbial kick in the pants to jolt companies into better performance.. only the "kick" missed its mark. Lots of clouds on the horizon, but I see some positives as well.. It looks as if carriers are nolonger fixated on the OR.. and PSR itself is nolonger the be all end all that it was touted to be when it was first introduced. Around here I see alot of reinvestment in plant.. new bridge signals at Bayview for example.. and more care and attention to the roadbed. Lots of work to be done, and there's at least some acknowledgement now that things could have been done better to mitigate/avoid the current labor and retention problems. Let's hope that lessons are being learned and that futures generations don't have to relearn them.
That is your assessment North of the Border. I don't see the lessons having been learned South of the Border.
The last communication from the STB seems to offer a glimmer of hope... it remains a work in progress.
There is a shortage of employees at other industries.
Talked to a customer of mine (CEO of a medium sized trucking company) and they have 30 tractors sitting...lack of drivers. This is out of a fleet of about 250 tractors.
Ed
BaltACD Ulrich I guess the law of entropy applies to business as well. Over the years I've seen many well organized and well managed companies slowly degrade to become so so companies or worse.. poor performers. Rarely have I seen poor performers slowly evolve to become well run and efficient. I have seen poor performers transformed quickly however.. through massive change involving restructuring and new management, and perhaps that was the impetus behind PSR.. the proverbial kick in the pants to jolt companies into better performance.. only the "kick" missed its mark. Lots of clouds on the horizon, but I see some positives as well.. It looks as if carriers are nolonger fixated on the OR.. and PSR itself is nolonger the be all end all that it was touted to be when it was first introduced. Around here I see alot of reinvestment in plant.. new bridge signals at Bayview for example.. and more care and attention to the roadbed. Lots of work to be done, and there's at least some acknowledgement now that things could have been done better to mitigate/avoid the current labor and retention problems. Let's hope that lessons are being learned and that futures generations don't have to relearn them. That is your assessment North of the Border. I don't see the lessons having been learned South of the Border.
Ulrich I guess the law of entropy applies to business as well. Over the years I've seen many well organized and well managed companies slowly degrade to become so so companies or worse.. poor performers. Rarely have I seen poor performers slowly evolve to become well run and efficient. I have seen poor performers transformed quickly however.. through massive change involving restructuring and new management, and perhaps that was the impetus behind PSR.. the proverbial kick in the pants to jolt companies into better performance.. only the "kick" missed its mark. Lots of clouds on the horizon, but I see some positives as well.. It looks as if carriers are nolonger fixated on the OR.. and PSR itself is nolonger the be all end all that it was touted to be when it was first introduced. Around here I see alot of reinvestment in plant.. new bridge signals at Bayview for example.. and more care and attention to the roadbed. Lots of work to be done, and there's at least some acknowledgement now that things could have been done better to mitigate/avoid the current labor and retention problems. Let's hope that lessons are being learned and that futures generations don't have to relearn them.
CN a couple years ago, read it in Railway Age, saw the light. They started reinvesting in assets, undoing what EHH cut or doing what EHH deferred. There were some who didn't have too many kind words for EHH.
Down here, the most of them talk like they've seen the light, but still cut as much as they can.
CN should invest some money in the old B&LE Allegheny River bridge just east of Pittsburgh. In the old days, it was painted a solid light green. I saw it today and a quarter of surface area was rust.
BackshopCN should invest some money in the old B&LE Allegheny River bridge just east of Pittsburgh. In the old days, it was painted a solid light green. I saw it today and a quarter of surface area was rust.
Carriers inspect their bridges for structural integrity - not for esthitics. In many cases, a coat of rust is just as good a protector as a coat of paint.
BaltACD Backshop CN should invest some money in the old B&LE Allegheny River bridge just east of Pittsburgh. In the old days, it was painted a solid light green. I saw it today and a quarter of surface area was rust. Carriers inspect their bridges for structural integrity - not for esthitics. In many cases, a coat of rust is just as good a protector as a coat of paint.
Backshop CN should invest some money in the old B&LE Allegheny River bridge just east of Pittsburgh. In the old days, it was painted a solid light green. I saw it today and a quarter of surface area was rust.
And they know the graffiti people will paint it in short order anyway. Why waste precious shareholder dollars on that..
I guess that you're not familiar with the bridge.
Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Bridge - Wikipedia
BackshopI guess that you're not familiar with the bridge. Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Bridge - Wikipedia
I've passed it hundreds of times on the PA Turnpike - before the Turnpike Commission decided to make the Turnpike even more costly than gasoline.
In comparison trips to Akron, using I-70, I-68, I-79, I-70, I-77 is only about 15 minutes slower, more photogenic and NO TOLLS
BaltACD Backshop I guess that you're not familiar with the bridge. Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Bridge - Wikipedia I've passed it hundreds of times on the PA Turnpike - before the Turnpike Commission decided to make the Turnpike even more costly than gasoline. In comparison trips to Akron, using I-70, I-68, I-79, I-70, I-77 is only about 15 minutes slower, more photogenic and NO TOLLS
Backshop I guess that you're not familiar with the bridge. Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Bridge - Wikipedia
Backshop BaltACD Backshop I guess that you're not familiar with the bridge. Bessemer & Lake Erie Railroad Bridge - Wikipedia I've passed it hundreds of times on the PA Turnpike - before the Turnpike Commission decided to make the Turnpike even more costly than gasoline. In comparison trips to Akron, using I-70, I-68, I-79, I-70, I-77 is only about 15 minutes slower, more photogenic and NO TOLLS My comment was directed more at Ulrich, since I don't think graffiti artists would be clambering on that bridge. The first time that I saw it in the mid 70s, we were on the Turnpike and there was a southbound ore train. I thought that would be a common occurence but I never again saw a train on it during my numrous trips.
My comment was directed more at Ulrich, since I don't think graffiti artists would be clambering on that bridge. The first time that I saw it in the mid 70s, we were on the Turnpike and there was a southbound ore train. I thought that would be a common occurence but I never again saw a train on it during my numrous trips.
I was commuting between Akron & Baltimore for a number of years in the 1970's on a bi-weekly basis. Seeing trains on the bridge was a infrequent happening.
Today's news: Ford to lay off 8000 due to the requirement to build EV's.
The UAW President expects to lose 35000 jobs because the manufacture of EV's have fewer parts.
With every innovation there is an adjustment in the workforce. Anyone ready to go back to the horse and buggy?
Where's the electricity going to come from to juice all those EV's?
How about charging stations? They're still far from universal. And if you do find one if you need one plan on being there 20 minutes to a half-hour, assuming there isn't a line ahead of you. No five-minute gas n' go like the Exxon station. And plan on using up the battery charge faster if you're using the air conditioning or the heater.
How will those huge batteries be disposed of when they wear out? And they will. Speaking of the batteries, do we really want to keep buying lithium from China, a major polluter in their own right and who could care less?
Where's the funding going to come from for highway maintanance when the gas tax money isn't there?
And EV's are a lot heavier than gas cars are, so has anyone thought about used tire disposal? Tires will wear out sooner so there's going to be a lot more to get rid of. Speaking of weight don't plan on pushing that thing any great distance if you're battery's dead. Better have AAA on speed-dial.
Mind you, I'm not 100% against EV's, they do have uses in some applications but in my (and others opinions) they're not the panacea they're being presented as. They're going to have issues all their own. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
110 years ago:
Where's all the gasoline going to come from?
How about service stations?
How to dispose of those horseless buggies when they wear out? All that steel!!
How to pay for roads?
What to do with all those worn out tires?
Better get a horse, sonny,!!
charlie hebdo110 years ago: Where's all the gasoline going to come from? How about service stations? How to dispose of those horseless buggies when they wear out? All that steel!! How to pay for roads? What to do with all those worn out tires? Better get a horse, sonny,!!
140 years ago - what is all this unusuable liquid that is coming from refining crude oil into kerosene.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/car-technology/a24666/how-the-amish-build-a-buggy/
I notice 'road apples' when I travel US 11/15 when going to race at Watkins Glen, NY.
Right now, my wife and I have two Subarus, which both get 30+mpg. I can see us getting a hybrid in the future. Right now, I don't see an electic vehicle being in our future since we do a lot of road trips.
Euclid Meanwhile we can completely eliminate present internal combustion private automobiles in just months or weeks.
charlie hebdo 110 years ago: Where's all the gasoline going to come from? How about service stations? How to dispose of those horseless buggies when they wear out? All that steel!! How to pay for roads? What to do with all those worn out tires? Better get a horse, sonny,!!
1. Gasolene was a waste byproduct of oil being refined into kerosene. No-one knew what to do with it until the gasolene engine came along other than to use it as a solvent.
2. 110 years ago? That's 1912. There were thousands of automobiles on the road by that time and filling stations had been established. If you couldn't get it at a filling station you could get it at the general store.
3. How to dispose of all those horseless buggys? Easy. They melted 'em down into more horseless buggys. Or during the 1940's they made tanks, ships, artillery, and other things useful at the time.
3. How to pay for roads? At first, drivers licences. Later, gas taxes. Later, tolls. Later, run screaming to Uncle Sugar. Just like a lot of people do now anyway for other things, like high-speed rail.
4. Worn out tires? We've still got the problem. And we'll still have it.
Get a horse? Imagine the pollution problem if the 90+ million cars on the road were 90+ million horses.
Your turn.
By the way, the answer to $4.00+ a gallon gasolene is not a $40,000 electric car, not if you're a person of limited means.
Flintlock76Get a horse? Imagine the pollution problem if the 90+ million cars on the road were 90+ million horses. Your turn.
My first response is ...NEIGH....
But seriously, I am 86 and living in a senior community and driving a 2008 GMC Envoy that has 58k miles on it. I am doubting whether I will ever buy a new car again. Driving less than a 1000 miles a year now. It is four wheel drive but lacks all the new safety tech (lane avoidance, back up camera, etc.) that I would like.
Also, I would have to have a charging station installed on our campus just for me. Not going to happen.
But I can dream...
Flintlock76... By the way, the answer to $4.00+ a gallon gasolene is not a $40,000 electric car, not if you're a person of limited means.
Locally, in the past 6 or so weeks price has gone from $5.01 for Regular down to a observed $4.19 today. How low it will go, remains to be seen.
Backshop Right now, my wife and I have two Subarus, which both get 30+mpg. I can see us getting a hybrid in the future. Right now, I don't see an electic vehicle being in our future since we do a lot of road trips.
Outbacks or Legacys? Our Camry Hybrid is coming to end of lease. Neither Subaru nor Toyota dealers here have any new cars on their lots. I lucked out to reserve a Venza that's due in in six weeks. Everything else is six months or more out. The only thing I don't like about our Outback is the slow response screen. Camry's been good with mpg in the 40's.
BaltACD Winter is coming..both here and in Europe. Expect oil prices to go up again, especially without Russian oil supplies to Europe. Flintlock76 ... By the way, the answer to $4.00+ a gallon gasolene is not a $40,000 electric car, not if you're a person of limited means. Locally, in the past 6 or so weeks price has gone from $5.01 for Regular down to a observed $4.19 today. How low it will go, remains to be seen.
Flintlock76 ... By the way, the answer to $4.00+ a gallon gasolene is not a $40,000 electric car, not if you're a person of limited means.
And what about farm equipment, construction equipment, trucks, Diesel locomotives, ships, aircraft...there are little or no electric alternatives for those.
"Trucking companies will have to raise their driver pay too. These pay raises for truckers and railroaders will have to be paid for by the shipping revenue."
There will always be an independent truck driver that will do it for less...especially immigrants-look at some of the names on the trucks.
Gramp Outbacks or Legacys?
Outbacks or Legacys?
The ranges are increasing dramatically. Even so, if you have two cars, replace one with a cheaper EV, use other for long trips if you aren't adventurous.
Flintlock76 charlie hebdo 110 years ago: Where's all the gasoline going to come from? How about service stations? How to dispose of those horseless buggies when they wear out? All that steel!! How to pay for roads? What to do with all those worn out tires? Better get a horse, sonny,!! 1. Gasolene was a waste byproduct of oil being refined into kerosene. No-one knew what to do with it until the gasolene engine came along other than to use it as a solvent. 2. 110 years ago? That's 1912. There were thousands of automobiles on the road by that time and filling stations had been established. If you couldn't get it at a filling station you could get it at the general store. 3. How to dispose of all those horseless buggys? Easy. They melted 'em down into more horseless buggys. Or during the 1940's they made tanks, ships, artillery, and other things useful at the time. 3. How to pay for roads? At first, drivers licences. Later, gas taxes. Later, tolls. Later, run screaming to Uncle Sugar. Just like a lot of people do now anyway for other things, like high-speed rail. 4. Worn out tires? We've still got the problem. And we'll still have it. Get a horse? Imagine the pollution problem if the 90+ million cars on the road were 90+ million horses. Your turn. By the way, the answer to $4.00+ a gallon gasolene is not a $40,000 electric car, not if you're a person of limited means.
I guess the sarcastic spoof was lost on you. I should have put a sign at front:
Achtung! Sarkasmus voraus!!
charlie hebdo Achtung! Sarkasmus voraus!!
Try "Achtung! Minen!" THAT I'll get!
charlie hebdo Backshop Right now, my wife and I have two Subarus, which both get 30+mpg. I can see us getting a hybrid in the future. Right now, I don't see an electic vehicle being in our future since we do a lot of road trips. The ranges are increasing dramatically. Even so, if you have two cars, replace one with a cheaper EV, use other for long trips if you aren't adventurous.
A Ford mechanic I've had as a client detailed me on what they've had to do to be able to service electric Mustangs at the dealership. An example of the cost and complexity, they're required to wear hazmat suits to work on the cars. What fools we mortals be.
test cannot paste. gives 403 forbidden error all day.
https://www.trains.com
works here?
Concerning lack of charging stations: You guys are missing out on starting a new enterprise: little trailers with generators that you can pull with your electric cars when on long trips.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Does anybody remember the original subject of this thread?
Paul of Covington Does anybody remember the original subject of this thread?
Top levels of management, in their mind, still think they can get as many employees as the need anytime they want them at somewhere near the lowest possible labor price. Reality bites.
The Board Room think the ONLY parties they have to satisfy is the shareholders, employees be damned. Reality bites.
That is PSR.
BaltACD The Board Room think the ONLY parties they have to satisfy is the shareholders, employees be damned. Reality bites.
That situation applies to a lot of other businesses besides railroads. It seems to be fallout from the leveraged buyout binge of the 1980's.
CSSHEGEWISCH BaltACD The Board Room think the ONLY parties they have to satisfy is the shareholders, employees be damned. Reality bites. That situation applies to a lot of other businesses besides railroads. It seems to be fallout from the leveraged buyout binge of the 1980's.
Bean counters only concern themselves with beans - norhing but beans matter.
azrail And what about farm equipment, construction equipment, trucks, Diesel locomotives, ships, aircraft...there are little or no electric alternatives for those.
The same people pushing for EVs are also the ones saying fossil fuels are bad. Coal and oil was one thing but now they don't even like natural gas. They better put up a wind turbine in their backyard and solar panels on their roof or they're going to be SOL.
BackshopThe same people pushing for EVs are also the ones saying fossil fuels are bad. Coal and oil was one thing but now they don't even like natural gas. They better put up a wind turbine in their backyard and solar panels on their roof or they're going to be SOL.
In my local area, I am one of the few exceptions, that don't have solar cell arrays on their roof. I am not in California, I am in a near reactionary Republican county.
On my block there are several Class A motorhomes, a pelthora of pleasure boats including one 40+ foot Cigarette speed boat, a former military duce and a half - any number of dinosaur powered vehicles. I haven't seen any EV parked in the neighborhood.
Backshop The same people pushing for EVs are also the ones saying fossil fuels are bad. Coal and oil was one thing but now they don't even like natural gas. They better put up a wind turbine in their backyard and solar panels on their roof or they're going to be SOL.
It's worse than that. Shall I run through the litany I've heard over the years?
Oil is bad, coal is bad, natural gas is bad, solar panels are eyesores and the panel farms take up greenspace and windmills kill birds. Don't even bring up nuclear power or some folks will have human meltdowns.
I suppose saints Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla, George Westinghouse, and Charles Steinmetz are supposed to send the juice down from Heaven. Or something.
I used to be a longtime member of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. They were always preaching about wind and solar power. Then someone dared put up wind turbines within sight of the trail. They went crazy saying what an eyesore they were. Hypocrites.
Flintlock76 Backshop The same people pushing for EVs are also the ones saying fossil fuels are bad. Coal and oil was one thing but now they don't even like natural gas. They better put up a wind turbine in their backyard and solar panels on their roof or they're going to be SOL. It's worse than that. Shall I run through the litany I've heard over the years? Oil is bad, coal is bad, natural gas is bad, solar panels are eyesores and the panel farms take up greenspace and windmills kill birds. Don't even bring up nuclear power or some folks will have human meltdowns. I suppose saints Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla, George Westinghouse, and Charles Steinmetz are supposed to send the juice down from Heaven. Or something.
Humans are bad! Says it all.
BaltACDHumans are bad! Says it all.
They've got an answer to that though!
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement! Think I'm joking?
https://www.vhemt.org/
Good lord, are you even paying attention to world events? If the geopolitical costs of burning fossil fuels aren't apparent to you, you must be living in a cave.
Psychot Backshop The same people pushing for EVs are also the ones saying fossil fuels are bad. Coal and oil was one thing but now they don't even like natural gas. They better put up a wind turbine in their backyard and solar panels on their roof or they're going to be SOL. Good lord, are you even paying attention to world events? If the geopolitical costs of burning fossil fuels aren't apparent to you, you must be living in a cave.
Surely the answer is obvious on a forum largely populated by folks who are climate change minimizers or doubters and all that goes with that.
I'd go for nuclear plants, but they're against them, also.
Backshop Psychot Backshop The same people pushing for EVs are also the ones saying fossil fuels are bad. Coal and oil was one thing but now they don't even like natural gas. They better put up a wind turbine in their backyard and solar panels on their roof or they're going to be SOL. Good lord, are you even paying attention to world events? If the geopolitical costs of burning fossil fuels aren't apparent to you, you must be living in a cave. No, living in a nice 1700sf house, thank you. I just believe that people are pushing for the closure of fossil fuel plants when there isn't enough capacity of wind/solar to pick up the slack. Just like everyone is pushing EVs, when the charging infrastructure is basic. Things have to be brought along in step with each other. Also, the majority of pollution these days comes from countries like China, India and Brazil, which pollute to their heart's content. Because of this, they're driving our companies out of business due to lower costs. I'd go for nuclear plants, but they're against them, also.
No, living in a nice 1700sf house, thank you. I just believe that people are pushing for the closure of fossil fuel plants when there isn't enough capacity of wind/solar to pick up the slack. Just like everyone is pushing EVs, when the charging infrastructure is basic. Things have to be brought along in step with each other. Also, the majority of pollution these days comes from countries like China, India and Brazil, which pollute to their heart's content. Because of this, they're driving our companies out of business due to lower costs.
That's a fair point. And as you said, the solution is nuclear power. The tide is turning on nuclear, as environmentalists are slowly starting to realize that their climate goals will not be achieved without it. And recent geopolitical events have focused minds among politicians around the world.
Psychot Backshop Psychot Backshop The same people pushing for EVs are also the ones saying fossil fuels are bad. Coal and oil was one thing but now they don't even like natural gas. They better put up a wind turbine in their backyard and solar panels on their roof or they're going to be SOL. Good lord, are you even paying attention to world events? If the geopolitical costs of burning fossil fuels aren't apparent to you, you must be living in a cave. No, living in a nice 1700sf house, thank you. I just believe that people are pushing for the closure of fossil fuel plants when there isn't enough capacity of wind/solar to pick up the slack. Just like everyone is pushing EVs, when the charging infrastructure is basic. Things have to be brought along in step with each other. Also, the majority of pollution these days comes from countries like China, India and Brazil, which pollute to their heart's content. Because of this, they're driving our companies out of business due to lower costs. I'd go for nuclear plants, but they're against them, also. That's a fair point. And as you said, the solution is nuclear power. The tide is turning on nuclear, as environmentalists are slowly starting to realize that their climate goals will not be achieved without it. And recent geopolitical events have focused minds among politicians around the world.
All that, and the one-size-fits-all, we know it all, we know what's good for you attitudes.
PsychotThat's a fair point. And as you said, the solution is nuclear power. The tide is turning on nuclear, as environmentalists are slowly starting to realize that their climate goals will not be achieved without it.
To more than a few people, I think the issue isn't that they don't trust nuclear power, but they don't trust today's shareholder-driven cost cutting companies to operate a nuclear power plant.
I heard our local nuclear plant (since closed) really went to crap in its last years and changes of ownership. Pay for operators was absolute garbage.
zugmann Psychot That's a fair point. And as you said, the solution is nuclear power. The tide is turning on nuclear, as environmentalists are slowly starting to realize that their climate goals will not be achieved without it. To more than a few people, I think the issue isn't that they don't trust nuclear power, but they don't trust today's shareholder-driven cost cutting companies to operate a nuclear power plant. I heard our local nuclear plant (since closed) really went to crap in its last years and changes of ownership. Pay for operators was absolute garbage.
Psychot That's a fair point. And as you said, the solution is nuclear power. The tide is turning on nuclear, as environmentalists are slowly starting to realize that their climate goals will not be achieved without it.
Operators at both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island performed a highly effective PR campaign AGAINST nuclear power generation.
Society has yet to develop a viable commercial use for the spent nuclear fuel, which to date just keeps growing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.