Re: newspaper article about remote loco ops, runaway
david parsons
Randal L. Schwartz <mer...@stonehenge.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "brasil98@despammed" == brasil98@despammed com
><(bras...@despammed.com)> writes:
>
>brasil98@despammed> Labor unions are also saying that crews are
>insufficiently trained to use
>brasil98@despammed> the remote locomotives due to Union Pacific's crew
>shortage problem.
>
>Maybe there wouldn't be such a crew shortage if the crews charged
>market wages instead of union-mandated wages.
So you think that the wages are being kept _low_ because the
union won't let the railroads set their own wage scales?
____
david parsons \bi/ Oooo-kay.
\/
Randal L. Schwartz
>> Maybe there wouldn't be such a crew shortage if the crews charged
>> market wages instead of union-mandated wages.
david> So you think that the wages are being kept _low_ because the
david> union won't let the railroads set their own wage scales?
No, but maybe I'm missing the problem. If the trouble is that there's
only a fixed amount available for total crew expenses, and that gets
spent on artificially high (read "union") wages, then they hire fewer
crew, and they discover that it's easier to invent technology (remote
cabs) rather than reduce productivity.
Unions get in the way of the market process. Unions were great in the
1800s, but they are long past their days now.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<mer...@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
David Barts
> Unions get in the way of the market process.
Who gives a flying fuck? Markets aren't some sort of god or anything.
They (as all social creations) should exist to serve people, not the
other way 'round.
Besides, if unions get in the way of the market process by
monopolizing on worker representation, then corporations also get in
the way of it by monopolizing on management at the same workplace.
> Unions were great in the
> 1800s, but they are long past their days now.
What on earth are you smoking? Top management now makes over 300
times in wages and bonuses what workers do. That's tenfold the level
of inequality that existed at the start of the Reagan years. It's on
par with the worst of the Gilded Age.
--
David Barts
Portland, OR
Randal L. Schwartz
David> What on earth are you smoking? Top management now makes over 300
David> times in wages and bonuses what workers do. That's tenfold the level
David> of inequality that existed at the start of the Reagan years. It's on
David> par with the worst of the Gilded Age.
You make it sound like they do that at gunpoint. If someone makes
$3000/hr when you only make $10/hr, it's because someone else *agreed*
to pay them to do that, just as you *agreed* to work at $10/hr. It
would be silly to interfere in that process.
You get what you're able to negotiate for. That's the way it works.
Dave Goldman
mer...@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> You make it sound like they do that at gunpoint. If someone makes
> $3000/hr when you only make $10/hr, it's because someone else *agreed*
> to pay them to do that, just as you *agreed* to work at $10/hr. It
> would be silly to interfere in that process.
>
> You get what you're able to negotiate for. That's the way it works.
Hardly.
CEOs and board members are an interlocked, incestuous bunch. Today's board
member is tomorrow's CEO (not necessarily at the same company); a member
of one company's board often belongs to other companies' boards as well.
When these board members vote on their own and each other's salaries and
benefits, knowing that each vote sets a precedent for their own future
salaries and benefits, I'd hardly call this "negotiation".
Meanwhile, if a worker is faced with the option of taking a $10/hr job or
going unemployed, that worker has little room to "negotiate".
Workers banding together into a union with the intention of "collective
bargaining", on the other hand, is an excellent example of negotiation.
- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
bras...@despammed.com
I've re-added misc.transport.rail.americas to the discussion, since there
are a few locomotive crew members on that group that could add a lot more
insight to this discussion than I could.
In article <0e10ded582782800...@news.teranews.com>,
mer...@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> >>>>> "david" == david parsons <o...@pell.portland.or.us> writes:
>
> >> Maybe there wouldn't be such a crew shortage if the crews charged
> >> market wages instead of union-mandated wages.
>
> david> So you think that the wages are being kept _low_ because the
> david> union won't let the railroads set their own wage scales?
>
> No, but maybe I'm missing the problem. If the trouble is that there's
> only a fixed amount available for total crew expenses, and that gets
> spent on artificially high (read "union") wages, then they hire fewer
> crew, and they discover that it's easier to invent technology (remote
> cabs) rather than reduce productivity.
>
> Unions get in the way of the market process. Unions were great in the
> 1800s, but they are long past their days now.
The railroad world, unfortunately, is a little more complicated than some
guy digging ditches or what have you.
The Federal Railroad Administration and congress, a few years back,
decided that railroad eingineers need to be federally licenced.
Therefore, going out and hiring a railroad crew is a bit like going out
and hiring a pilot for a 747: a new engineer has to go through "The
Process" between hiring and actually working as a locomotive driver.
Adding to the complication, over the rules governing truck drivers and the
like, is that "The Process" is apparently more expensive than previously.
One railroad operating in the Portland area used to have a number of its
administrative people with locomotive operating experience. Under tight
circumstances, most of the administrative personnel (including the company
president) could operate a train if they had to. Apparently, this is too
expensive under the current regulations.
The railroad companies (at least the large companies) themselves also must
take considerable blame for their own crew shortage problem, because they
have created such a negative work envoronment that few people would want
to work under the current circumstances. Days off and call-ups are very
erratic and contribute a lot to crew fatige. Crews must sometimes spend
hours in the middle of nowhere waiting for replacement crews. An employee
might get hired in Portland, but get transferred to some less desirable
place to work, like Cheyenne, Wyoming or Winnemucca, Nevada or Billings,
Montana. The decision to relocate the employee probably doesn't take into
account how that employee's spouse feels about having to change jobs, and
in some crew centers the spouse may have zero chance of finding employment
at all.
These working conditions are almost certainly one of the large problems
that Union Pacific is facing right now. If the working conditions were
better, then they wouldn't have had the huge number of employees take
advantage of the early retirement package a few months ago, and wouldn't
be placed in this situation.
Raising the wages, which seems to be what you are suggesting here, might
help a little bit, but what really needs to happen is an improvement in
overall working conditions.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
lein
> In article <0e10ded582782800...@news.teranews.com>,
> Randal L. Schwartz <mer...@stonehenge.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "david" == david parsons <o...@pell.portland.or.us> writes:
>>
>>>> Maybe there wouldn't be such a crew shortage if the crews charged
>>>> market wages instead of union-mandated wages.
>>
>>david> So you think that the wages are being kept _low_ because the
>>david> union won't let the railroads set their own wage scales?
>>
>>No, but maybe I'm missing the problem. If the trouble is that there's
>>only a fixed amount available for total crew expenses, and that gets
>>spent on artificially high (read "union") wages, then they hire fewer
>>crew, and they discover that it's easier to invent technology (remote
>>cabs) rather than reduce productivity.
>>
>>Unions get in the way of the market process.
>
> Unions are part of the market process.
Not when a condition of employment requires union membership.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"lein" <jo...@spammer.die> wrote in message
news:Xns94E8E35...@216.148.227.77...
You're wrong. That -contract- provision was negotiated.
David Barts
> Not when a condition of employment requires union membership.
Why? If the prospective employee doesn't like the union, s/he can
always choose to work for someone else where the employees are
represented by a different union (or none at all). Or she can choose
to start a business of her own. Looks like there's still a market to
me.
david parsons
If you're too dim to understand what a contract is, perhaps you'd
better just shut up and listen while the grownups argue.
____
david parsons \bi/ Shoo!
\/
bras...@despammed.com
dav...@scn.org (David Barts) wrote:
There's workers who get around the union dues deduction by working for 89
days, or whatever the contract time is minus one day, then quitting and
getting rehired, then working another 89 days, etc. Looks bizarre on
employment records though.