|
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/16/2014 5:46 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 12:42 PM, wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:05:31 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/16/14, 11:58 AM, wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:35:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: If open land existed between two remote cities and a high speed train could actually run at 150 to 200 mph for most of the run it might make sense and people might use it. But we don't have that space in many places where people would want to travel and the number of stops between the cities negates the whole allure of high speed train transportation. One of the most used Amtrak routes are on the northeast corridor. It still represents a tiny fraction of the traveling public however. It's not high speed and will never be high speed. Land doesn't exist and there are too many required stops. Exactly right. The Acela boasts of speeds around 130-135 MPH but it averages more like 60-65 and that is "train time" not the time at the station parking, checking bags, security, boarding and getting off. TSA is already talking about going into a full scale "airport" like security system. We are just one threat away from it and the government likes to get bigger. Bull****. I've been on the Acela many times and when it is "train time," it is moving a hell of a lot faster than 65 mph. Even the ****ty old trains running on the ****ty CSX trackage from here to Florida hit 80 mph during "train time" and maintain that pace through each of the seven million or so unguarded railroad crossings. It is 190 miles from Boston to New York. The Acela take 3.5 hours. That is 54 MPH DC is about 200 from NYC and it takes 2 hours and 45 minutes That is 72 MPH if you don't stop in Philadelphia. You are underestimating the car mileage via Hartford. It's at least 220 miles. And if you follow the Shoreline Train Route, it is even longer. Unless there have been drastic changes in trackage, the train route from Boston is through Rhode Island and then along the Connecticut shoreline. Again, the Acela is even slower than it should be because of crappy trackage and too many stops, although the tracks are better in that part of NY/NEw England than from DC to Florida. Personally, I'd rather travel by boat. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/16/14, 5:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/16/2014 5:46 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/16/14, 12:42 PM, wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:05:31 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/16/14, 11:58 AM, wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:35:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: If open land existed between two remote cities and a high speed train could actually run at 150 to 200 mph for most of the run it might make sense and people might use it. But we don't have that space in many places where people would want to travel and the number of stops between the cities negates the whole allure of high speed train transportation. One of the most used Amtrak routes are on the northeast corridor. It still represents a tiny fraction of the traveling public however. It's not high speed and will never be high speed. Land doesn't exist and there are too many required stops. Exactly right. The Acela boasts of speeds around 130-135 MPH but it averages more like 60-65 and that is "train time" not the time at the station parking, checking bags, security, boarding and getting off. TSA is already talking about going into a full scale "airport" like security system. We are just one threat away from it and the government likes to get bigger. Bull****. I've been on the Acela many times and when it is "train time," it is moving a hell of a lot faster than 65 mph. Even the ****ty old trains running on the ****ty CSX trackage from here to Florida hit 80 mph during "train time" and maintain that pace through each of the seven million or so unguarded railroad crossings. It is 190 miles from Boston to New York. The Acela take 3.5 hours. That is 54 MPH DC is about 200 from NYC and it takes 2 hours and 45 minutes That is 72 MPH if you don't stop in Philadelphia. You are underestimating the car mileage via Hartford. It's at least 220 miles. And if you follow the Shoreline Train Route, it is even longer. Unless there have been drastic changes in trackage, the train route from Boston is through Rhode Island and then along the Connecticut shoreline. Again, the Acela is even slower than it should be because of crappy trackage and too many stops, although the tracks are better in that part of NY/NEw England than from DC to Florida. Personally, I'd rather travel by boat. It's a nice boat ride through LI Sound and then up to Boston. When I was a kid, though, I was on the train at least once a month from New Haven to Back Bay Station to visit grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins. It was a great train ride back then. At least once, I had to navigate myself from Back Bay to Maverick Station to get to Revere Beach via the BEYr streetcar line. My paternal grandparents lived there. I was probably 11 years old at the time. Great adventure. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/16/2014 6:19 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 5:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Personally, I'd rather travel by boat. It's a nice boat ride through LI Sound and then up to Boston. When I was a kid, though, I was on the train at least once a month from New Haven to Back Bay Station to visit grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins. It was a great train ride back then. At least once, I had to navigate myself from Back Bay to Maverick Station to get to Revere Beach via the BEYr streetcar line. My paternal grandparents lived there. I was probably 11 years old at the time. Great adventure. Not recommended travel for an 11 year old now-a-days. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/16/14, 6:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/16/2014 6:19 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/16/14, 5:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Personally, I'd rather travel by boat. It's a nice boat ride through LI Sound and then up to Boston. When I was a kid, though, I was on the train at least once a month from New Haven to Back Bay Station to visit grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins. It was a great train ride back then. At least once, I had to navigate myself from Back Bay to Maverick Station to get to Revere Beach via the BEYr streetcar line. My paternal grandparents lived there. I was probably 11 years old at the time. Great adventure. Not recommended travel for an 11 year old now-a-days. No. I agree. Times were a lot simpler and safer back then. |
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/16/2014 8:37 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 8:28 PM, wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:19:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Every form of motorized travel in this country is subsidized, Bilious. I don't like commercial airlines. I do fly, but I don't enjoy it. You can't even start to compare the direct cash infusions into rail with the user tax supported government programs like the FAA, TSA or the highway system.. In fact, gasoline taxes meant to support highways are diverted to the rails. There are many many more subsidies to transportation beyond what you have mentioned. Here's an example. My wife takes a privately operated commuter bus to and from DC every day. It's about 45 miles each way. The fare is $3.75. The fare is subsidized by the state of Maryland. The purchase of tickets for the bus can be handled via a pre-tax dollar account. The construction and maintenance and operation of airports is subsidized. Research and development of passenger jets is subsidized. The manufacture of passenger jets is subsidized. The ownership of passenger jets is subsidized. Drilling for the oil from which to make jet fuel for passenger jets is subsidized. You're right. May as well add a few more trillions to rail subsidies for something that very few will use. It's the Democratic way. |
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:31:52 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/16/2014 6:19 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/16/14, 5:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Personally, I'd rather travel by boat. It's a nice boat ride through LI Sound and then up to Boston. When I was a kid, though, I was on the train at least once a month from New Haven to Back Bay Station to visit grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins. It was a great train ride back then. At least once, I had to navigate myself from Back Bay to Maverick Station to get to Revere Beach via the BEYr streetcar line. My paternal grandparents lived there. I was probably 11 years old at the time. Great adventure. Not recommended travel for an 11 year old now-a-days. That's due to the influx of dangerous Republicans. |
The boys must have their toys...
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:25:30 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:42:22 -0400, wrote: It is 190 miles from Boston to New York. The Acela take 3.5 hours. That is 54 MPH === Yes, and if you are going 'burb to 'burb, you can drive it in less time. I did drive to Elizabeth when I stayed there. That is actually not a bad ride into town in the morning on Amtrak. IBM was at 2 Penn Plaza so the only time I was outside was walking across the street from the motel to the station. If I stayed at the Penn Garbage, I took the Metroliner. In the 80's we took the train in to NYC from East Islip. Much easier than trying to park. Same with going in to DC, take the rapid transit, park outside. |
The boys must have their toys...
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:19:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Every form of motorized travel in this country is subsidized, Bilious. I don't like commercial airlines. I do fly, but I don't enjoy it. You can't even start to compare the direct cash infusions into rail with the user tax supported government programs like the FAA, TSA or the highway system.. In fact, gasoline taxes meant to support highways are diverted to the rails. And the railroads are run really bad. I was talking to a person shipping 200 WW2 tanks from the SF Bay Area to the East Coast. Was cheaper on trucks in the end. Railroad wanted $4800 a tank, 3 months to get them there. Plus the safety inspector wanted bribes to allow them loaded. Otherwise had to move them like 3/8 inch. Plus after 3 months of travel they had a short time to unload before rent on the railcar kicked in. Truck was only $6400 and a week delivery. |
The boys must have their toys...
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 3:12 PM, Califbill wrote: F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/16/14, 7:18 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/16/2014 6:41 AM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/16/14, 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote: F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/15/14, 4:50 PM, Califbill wrote: "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/15/2014 12:01 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/15/14, 11:50 AM, Califbill wrote: F*O*A*D wrote: Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter hits more turbulence Developed by Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is DOD’s most expensive and most ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be nearly 70 percent over budget Continued software problems related to the Defense Department’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program could lead to delivery delays of less-capable aircraft at a long-term price tag that may prove unaffordable, congressional investigators said today. Developmental testing of software deemed critical to the F-35′s initial warfighting capability remains so far behind schedule, the Marine Corps may not receive all of the capabilities it expects when it plans to begin flying the F-35. In addition, continued delays could push the total lifecycle cost of the F-35 from its current projected level of $390.4 billion to an estimated $1 trillion — a figure with which DOD program officials disagree. “Delays in developmental flight testing of the F-35’s critical software may hinder delivery of the warfighting capabilities the military services expect,” according to a report released today by the Government Accountability Office. “Challenges in development and testing of mission systems software continued through 2013, due largely to delays in software delivery, limited capability in the software when delivered, and the need to fix problems and retest multiple software versions. Delivery of expected warfighting capabilities to the Marine Corps could be delayed by as much as 13 months. Delays of this magnitude could also increase the already significant concurrency between testing and aircraft procurement and result in additional cost growth.” In addition to delivery deadlines and weapon system capabilities issues, DOD also faces steep financial burdens related to the F-35 acquisition effort. For the program to continue as planned, DOD will have to dedicate an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037, with several years peaking at $15 billion, according to GAO. At $12.6 billion per year, the F-35 would consume almost one-quarter of DOD’s annual major defense acquisition funding. “Annual funding of this magnitude clearly poses long-term affordability risks given the current fiscal environment,” GAO investigators concluded. “The F-35 fleet is estimated to cost around $1 trillion to operate and support over its lifetime. In a time of austere federal budgets, cost projections of this magnitude pose significant fiscal challenges.” DOD plans call for spending $400 billion to develop and acquire 2,457 F-35s — known as the Joint Strike Fighter — through 2037, plus hundreds of billions of dollars in long-term spending to operate and maintain the aircraft. The F-35 family of next-generation fighter aircraft will incorporate stealth technologies, which make it more difficult to be identified by radar, as well as advanced sensors and computer networking capabilities. DOD is developing three U.S variants for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, as well as eight international variants that will be sold to allies. The F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, is DOD’s costliest and most ambitious acquisition program. The program is estimated to be nearly 70 percent over budget. - See more at: http://fedscoop.com/f-35-joint-strik....lS4foNhR.dpuf - - - The Pentagon exists more than just partly to keep officers in uniform and defense contractors in business. What a fripping this F35 program is. This is a Congressional boondoggle! I understand the Pentagon, does not want this thing. But, Congress people want jobs in their districts. Generals are pussies who can't say no? Surely the defense contractors can be retrained to produce useful stuff, like high speed rails and the high speed trains that run on them. That's not how it works Harry. Calif Bill is correct. The Defense Department and Pentagon did not want to continue the F-35's development. It's Congress that is forcing it. And we have a high speed rail boondoggle already being pushed here in California. Would that be a San Francisco-LA-San Diego high speed train? I'd sure ride it in preference to the damned airplanes and SD airport. And how many billions should we pay for the privilege of you being able to ride this train? Right, because here in the Top of the Heap U.S.A. it's better to waste trillions on an oversized military than to provide fast, reliable public transportation in a heavily traveled corridor. ... that very few would use. It's at least a six to seven hour drive from LA to SF, and flying, taking into account the airport bull****, is a two hour misadventure. A 200 mph train could make the trip in the same two hours, with much less hassle. But, of course, we don't have high speed trains running anywhere in Top of the Heap USA. Or even modern airports. Or highways that aren't falling apart. But, hey, we do spend what, five times more on the military than the next largest military spending nation. And get nothing tangible out of it that we wouldn't get by cutting that military spending in half. It will still take 6 hours. You have stops along the way, trains do not travel 200mph most of the time, or even that fast. You do not think that there would not be a TSA for trains, if they were fast and popular? How much do you want to subsidize the ticket? $100? $300? We would be much better off with a car train. Drive you car on the train, get out go to the club car. 6-7 hours later, you drive off the car. Now you do not have to rent a car, you are relaxed, maybe drunk, and if you could do it for $200, you are cheaper than driving. And if the train ran on time, even if not driving, you could use the club car to travel. Why do you need a 2 hour trip. Takes only about an hour difference from my house to LA, driving vs. flying. If no delays at the airport. Book ahead, and you can fly for less than a $150 RT. And that is with a tax paying business, not a tax sump, government business. Every form of motorized travel in this country is subsidized, Bilious. I don't like commercial airlines. I do fly, but I don't enjoy it. Bull****. Cars and trucks pay through the nose. Electric cars are why they are thinking of a milage tax. Those landing fees, and overpriced food courts pay for the FAA and the airports. |
The boys must have their toys...
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/16/14, 3:12 PM, Califbill wrote: F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/16/14, 1:18 PM, Poquito Loco wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:42:22 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 12:05:31 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/16/14, 11:58 AM, wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:35:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: If open land existed between two remote cities and a high speed train could actually run at 150 to 200 mph for most of the run it might make sense and people might use it. But we don't have that space in many places where people would want to travel and the number of stops between the cities negates the whole allure of high speed train transportation. One of the most used Amtrak routes are on the northeast corridor. It still represents a tiny fraction of the traveling public however. It's not high speed and will never be high speed. Land doesn't exist and there are too many required stops. Exactly right. The Acela boasts of speeds around 130-135 MPH but it averages more like 60-65 and that is "train time" not the time at the station parking, checking bags, security, boarding and getting off. TSA is already talking about going into a full scale "airport" like security system. We are just one threat away from it and the government likes to get bigger. Bull****. I've been on the Acela many times and when it is "train time," it is moving a hell of a lot faster than 65 mph. Even the ****ty old trains running on the ****ty CSX trackage from here to Florida hit 80 mph during "train time" and maintain that pace through each of the seven million or so unguarded railroad crossings. It is 190 miles from Boston to New York. The Acela take 3.5 hours. That is 54 MPH DC is about 200 from NYC and it takes 2 hours and 45 minutes That is 72 MPH if you don't stop in Philadelphia. Harry would be much better off, time wise and cost wise, by driving. I consider a lot of factors when I take a trip. Time and cost are only two of them. We're going up to New Haven later this year on the Acela, a four and a half hour trip, and pleasant...no Interstate traffic, comfortable, even scenic in a couple of places, and a decent snack car and clean bathrooms. No fuss, no muss. I don't drive to NYC. I prefer the train. There's really very little that is pleasant along I-95. Two years ago, we took the train to Glenwood Hotsprings, CO. Buddy's 70th b'day. Not cheap, but we had a sleeper, and couple meals. Could have driven, had a better room for the night, and probably cheaper for the 2 of us. If 4 had gone ride sharing, a lot cheaper. But was a fun trip as a group. Economically better? Probably not. A handful of hours in a train is enough for me. We've taken the sleeper car to Florida a couple of times. The compartment and its bathroom were ok, and the food and service were pretty good. But the trackage between here and Florida is in terrible shape. It is owned, I think, by CSX. Whoever does own it doesn't spend any serious money maintaining it, which is why, I suppose that CSX has so many freight derailments. Also, the train toots its horn as it approaches every crossing and there must be hundreds of them. The train from here to Philly or NYC or even New Haven is fun. Longer than that, not fun. And you want an over subsidized train? More a job program for overpaid union workers. |
The boys must have their toys...
On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:13:24 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:19:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Every form of motorized travel in this country is subsidized, Bilious. I don't like commercial airlines. I do fly, but I don't enjoy it. You can't even start to compare the direct cash infusions into rail with the user tax supported government programs like the FAA, TSA or the highway system.. In fact, gasoline taxes meant to support highways are diverted to the rails. And the railroads are run really bad. I was talking to a person shipping 200 WW2 tanks from the SF Bay Area to the East Coast. Was cheaper on trucks in the end. Railroad wanted $4800 a tank, 3 months to get them there. Plus the safety inspector wanted bribes to allow them loaded. Otherwise had to move them like 3/8 inch. Plus after 3 months of travel they had a short time to unload before rent on the railcar kicked in. Truck was only $6400 and a week delivery. The railroads in this country are heavily unionized. Paying union wages is expensive, and then the union inspectors are corrupt. Surprise! |
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/14, 1:35 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 18, 2014 1:22:19 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 1:16 PM, wrote: On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:13:24 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote: And the railroads are run really bad. I was talking to a person shipping 200 WW2 tanks from the SF Bay Area to the East Coast. Was cheaper on trucks in the end. Railroad wanted $4800 a tank, 3 months to get them there. Plus the safety inspector wanted bribes to allow them loaded. Otherwise had to move them like 3/8 inch. Plus after 3 months of travel they had a short time to unload before rent on the railcar kicked in. Truck was only $6400 and a week delivery. The railroads in this country are heavily unionized. Paying union wages is expensive, and then the union inspectors are corrupt. Surprise! Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes. Polly want a cracker? Here, I'll fix it for you: Railroads are forced to pay high wages to their union-protected corrupt employees, and that ****es off real working people who depend on their work achievements and ethics to get and retain the best paying jobs. Have a nice day. High wages? Salaries for railroad workers aren't that high. The median is $42k, locomotive engineers are in the $50 to $60k range, conductors in the $40k range. You're just another right-wing asshole who resents hard-working Americans and what they have to do to earn a living. |
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/14, 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:42:41 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: High wages? Salaries for railroad workers aren't that high. The median is $42k, locomotive engineers are in the $50 to $60k range, conductors in the $40k range. Your numbers are low by about 35% http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/ra...RCH_KO0,18.htm Conductor $45k-87k $65k median http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/en...0,8_KE9,17.htm Engineer $50k-100k $70k median Plus a very generous benefit package and an overtime package far above what the law requires. That may not sound like a lot of money in New York or California but if you are out in flyover country that is a pretty good job. One of my friends retired as a conductor on the Amtrack line from New York up through Connecticut. Another friend was the conductor on the Seminole Southern train here. My daughter actually got to run the train once. It is pretty mind numbing work. The salary ranges depend on the site, eh? The site I found had lower numbers. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/2014 4:34 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews, working of crews too many hours. You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff, you're all for it. That's deplorable. Why do the unions let management get away those things? I thought the unions were supposed to protect and coddle the employees. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/2014 4:34 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 3:59 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:22:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes. Actually what ****es us off is paying premium wages to "fire proof" employees who fall asleep in the cab and crash their trains, derail with hazardous cargo and put us all in danger.. I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews, working of crews too many hours. You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff, you're all for it. Small sampling and just my observation from working with and knowing many fellow "working stiffs", it seems to me that the ones who complain most about their working conditions, pay and overall job satisfaction have been those who belonged to unions. Maybe it's because there is always that "management versus worker" mentality going on. Always something to bitch about. My son's father-in-law was union all his working career. He's a great guy but we groan when the subject of work comes with him because it ignites a half hour round of complaining and bitching about his former employer. He's been retired for over 2 years and still can't get it out of his system. |
The boys must have their toys...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:31:13 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:42:41 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: High wages? Salaries for railroad workers aren't that high. The median is $42k, locomotive engineers are in the $50 to $60k range, conductors in the $40k range. Your numbers are low by about 35% http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/ra...RCH_KO0,18.htm Conductor $45k-87k $65k median http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/en...0,8_KE9,17.htm Engineer $50k-100k $70k median Plus a very generous benefit package and an overtime package far above what the law requires. That may not sound like a lot of money in New York or California but if you are out in flyover country that is a pretty good job. One of my friends retired as a conductor on the Amtrack line from New York up through Connecticut. Another friend was the conductor on the Seminole Southern train here. My daughter actually got to run the train once. It is pretty mind numbing work. You didn't actually expect the truth, did you? You noticed he didn't post a site? |
The boys must have their toys...
On Friday, April 18, 2014 5:31:01 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/18/2014 4:34 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 3:59 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:22:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes. Actually what ****es us off is paying premium wages to "fire proof" employees who fall asleep in the cab and crash their trains, derail with hazardous cargo and put us all in danger.. I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews, working of crews too many hours. You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff, you're all for it. Small sampling and just my observation from working with and knowing many fellow "working stiffs", it seems to me that the ones who complain most about their working conditions, pay and overall job satisfaction have been those who belonged to unions. Maybe it's because there is always that "management versus worker" mentality going on. Always something to bitch about. My son's father-in-law was union all his working career. He's a great guy but we groan when the subject of work comes with him because it ignites a half hour round of complaining and bitching about his former employer. He's been retired for over 2 years and still can't get it out of his system. The union operatives implant it into them. I sat in on a union meeting years ago (IBEW) where a union suit came in to give a talk. He literally told the workers that management was out to get them any way they can, so they'd better build a file on management "misconduct" so they could use that info to try save their jobs when management "came after them". Turning the workers against the company that feeds them. That's some way to build a successful company, eh? Any wonder nearly all unionized companies are poor performers, and fail? Fear mongering. Intimidation. Lies. Deceit. The tools of unions. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/2014 6:50 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 18, 2014 5:31:01 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/18/2014 4:34 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 3:59 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:22:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes. Actually what ****es us off is paying premium wages to "fire proof" employees who fall asleep in the cab and crash their trains, derail with hazardous cargo and put us all in danger.. I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews, working of crews too many hours. You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff, you're all for it. Small sampling and just my observation from working with and knowing many fellow "working stiffs", it seems to me that the ones who complain most about their working conditions, pay and overall job satisfaction have been those who belonged to unions. Maybe it's because there is always that "management versus worker" mentality going on. Always something to bitch about. My son's father-in-law was union all his working career. He's a great guy but we groan when the subject of work comes with him because it ignites a half hour round of complaining and bitching about his former employer. He's been retired for over 2 years and still can't get it out of his system. The union operatives implant it into them. I sat in on a union meeting years ago (IBEW) where a union suit came in to give a talk. He literally told the workers that management was out to get them any way they can, so they'd better build a file on management "misconduct" so they could use that info to try save their jobs when management "came after them". Turning the workers against the company that feeds them. That's some way to build a successful company, eh? Any wonder nearly all unionized companies are poor performers, and fail? Fear mongering. Intimidation. Lies. Deceit. The tools of unions. Krause was one of those union suits, and he's mighty proud of himself for being so. |
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/14, 5:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/18/2014 4:34 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 3:59 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:22:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes. Actually what ****es us off is paying premium wages to "fire proof" employees who fall asleep in the cab and crash their trains, derail with hazardous cargo and put us all in danger.. I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews, working of crews too many hours. You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff, you're all for it. Small sampling and just my observation from working with and knowing many fellow "working stiffs", it seems to me that the ones who complain most about their working conditions, pay and overall job satisfaction have been those who belonged to unions. Maybe it's because there is always that "management versus worker" mentality going on. Always something to bitch about. My son's father-in-law was union all his working career. He's a great guy but we groan when the subject of work comes with him because it ignites a half hour round of complaining and bitching about his former employer. He's been retired for over 2 years and still can't get it out of his system. Right, because we all know that the boss is king and that the worker-serfs are lucky to have a job and should just take whatever it dished out, and take it with a big smile. |
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/14, 8:29 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:50:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote: The union operatives implant it into them. I sat in on a union meeting years ago (IBEW) where a union suit came in to give a talk. He literally told the workers that management was out to get them any way they can, so they'd better build a file on management "misconduct" so they could use that info to try save their jobs when management "came after them". Turning the workers against the company that feeds them. That's some way to build a successful company, eh? Any wonder nearly all unionized companies are poor performers, and fail? Fear mongering. Intimidation. Lies. Deceit. The tools of unions. Unions had a function 100 years ago but they are anachronisms today. Most of the "protections" they pioneered are now federal law That's just absolute, complete bull****. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/2014 8:18 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 5:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/18/2014 4:34 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 3:59 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:22:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes. Actually what ****es us off is paying premium wages to "fire proof" employees who fall asleep in the cab and crash their trains, derail with hazardous cargo and put us all in danger.. I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews, working of crews too many hours. You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff, you're all for it. Small sampling and just my observation from working with and knowing many fellow "working stiffs", it seems to me that the ones who complain most about their working conditions, pay and overall job satisfaction have been those who belonged to unions. Maybe it's because there is always that "management versus worker" mentality going on. Always something to bitch about. My son's father-in-law was union all his working career. He's a great guy but we groan when the subject of work comes with him because it ignites a half hour round of complaining and bitching about his former employer. He's been retired for over 2 years and still can't get it out of his system. Right, because we all know that the boss is king and that the worker-serfs are lucky to have a job and should just take whatever it dished out, and take it with a big smile. Assume my observations are valid and more widespread. Why are those least satisfied with their jobs "protected" by unions? What working experience do you have ... meaning employment ... where *you* were were subject to the king boss and had to take whatever the job dished out? Ever? I suspect zero. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/14, 8:38 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:17:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 5:03 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:34:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews, working of crews too many hours. That was the excuse they tried with the train that drove up the escalator last week. Then someone actually looked at the engineer's schedule and she had worked ZERO overtime. Your anecdotes do not disprove my posit. This is a fact, compared to your conjecture. What, an incident? |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/14, 8:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/18/2014 8:18 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 5:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/18/2014 4:34 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 3:59 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:22:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes. Actually what ****es us off is paying premium wages to "fire proof" employees who fall asleep in the cab and crash their trains, derail with hazardous cargo and put us all in danger.. I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews, working of crews too many hours. You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff, you're all for it. Small sampling and just my observation from working with and knowing many fellow "working stiffs", it seems to me that the ones who complain most about their working conditions, pay and overall job satisfaction have been those who belonged to unions. Maybe it's because there is always that "management versus worker" mentality going on. Always something to bitch about. My son's father-in-law was union all his working career. He's a great guy but we groan when the subject of work comes with him because it ignites a half hour round of complaining and bitching about his former employer. He's been retired for over 2 years and still can't get it out of his system. Right, because we all know that the boss is king and that the worker-serfs are lucky to have a job and should just take whatever it dished out, and take it with a big smile. Assume my observations are valid and more widespread. Why are those least satisfied with their jobs "protected" by unions? What working experience do you have ... meaning employment ... where *you* were were subject to the king boss and had to take whatever the job dished out? Ever? I suspect zero. Your suspicions would add up to...zero. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/14, 11:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:36:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 8:29 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:50:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote: The union operatives implant it into them. I sat in on a union meeting years ago (IBEW) where a union suit came in to give a talk. He literally told the workers that management was out to get them any way they can, so they'd better build a file on management "misconduct" so they could use that info to try save their jobs when management "came after them". Turning the workers against the company that feeds them. That's some way to build a successful company, eh? Any wonder nearly all unionized companies are poor performers, and fail? Fear mongering. Intimidation. Lies. Deceit. The tools of unions. Unions had a function 100 years ago but they are anachronisms today. Most of the "protections" they pioneered are now federal law That's just absolute, complete bull****. You never heard of OSHA, NLRB, the various labor laws and last but not least a very litigious society with lawyers trolling for clients every day. Carnegie is not sending the Pinkertons in to shoot strikers, you don't have kids working in unsafe conditions and putting in 72 hours a week for base pay. I think I know a bit more about the real world of labor law and what is enforced and what isn't, generally, than you do. Most of the teeth in many labor laws have been excised, and the NLRB is only a shadow of what it used to be. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/2014 6:50 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 18, 2014 5:31:01 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/18/2014 4:34 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 3:59 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:22:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes. Actually what ****es us off is paying premium wages to "fire proof" employees who fall asleep in the cab and crash their trains, derail with hazardous cargo and put us all in danger.. I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews, working of crews too many hours. You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff, you're all for it. Small sampling and just my observation from working with and knowing many fellow "working stiffs", it seems to me that the ones who complain most about their working conditions, pay and overall job satisfaction have been those who belonged to unions. Maybe it's because there is always that "management versus worker" mentality going on. Always something to bitch about. My son's father-in-law was union all his working career. He's a great guy but we groan when the subject of work comes with him because it ignites a half hour round of complaining and bitching about his former employer. He's been retired for over 2 years and still can't get it out of his system. The union operatives implant it into them. I sat in on a union meeting years ago (IBEW) where a union suit came in to give a talk. He literally told the workers that management was out to get them any way they can, so they'd better build a file on management "misconduct" so they could use that info to try save their jobs when management "came after them". Turning the workers against the company that feeds them. That's some way to build a successful company, eh? Any wonder nearly all unionized companies are poor performers, and fail? Fear mongering. Intimidation. Lies. Deceit. The tools of unions. Absolutely, I saw it all from my seat in the Teamsters with my dad... |
The boys must have their toys...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:08:34 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:
Your anecdotes do not disprove my posit. This is a fact, compared to your conjecture. What, an incident? === A series of similar incidents. |
The boys must have their toys...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:57:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Assume my observations are valid and more widespread. Why are those least satisfied with their jobs "protected" by unions? What working experience do you have ... meaning employment ... where *you* were were subject to the king boss and had to take whatever the job dished out? Ever? I suspect zero. === And I'm sure you're right. I wonder if Harry has ever looked at the working conditions in the Chinese plants where his beloved Apple products are produced. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/2014 8:17 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/18/14, 5:03 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:34:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews, working of crews too many hours. That was the excuse they tried with the train that drove up the escalator last week. Then someone actually looked at the engineer's schedule and she had worked ZERO overtime. Your anecdotes do not disprove my posit. Your points are blunted by your lies. |
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/18/2014 8:57 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/18/2014 8:18 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 5:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/18/2014 4:34 PM, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 3:59 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:22:19 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: Funny stuff. Railroads pay living wages to their employees, and that really, truly ****es off right-wing assholes. Actually what ****es us off is paying premium wages to "fire proof" employees who fall asleep in the cab and crash their trains, derail with hazardous cargo and put us all in danger.. I'd bet far more rail accidents and fatalities are the result of corporate decisions, such as deferred maintenance, shorting of crews, working of crews too many hours. You righties are funny guys, in that you will readily dismiss all manner of corporate misbehavior, but if you can pin a rap on a working stiff, you're all for it. Small sampling and just my observation from working with and knowing many fellow "working stiffs", it seems to me that the ones who complain most about their working conditions, pay and overall job satisfaction have been those who belonged to unions. Maybe it's because there is always that "management versus worker" mentality going on. Always something to bitch about. My son's father-in-law was union all his working career. He's a great guy but we groan when the subject of work comes with him because it ignites a half hour round of complaining and bitching about his former employer. He's been retired for over 2 years and still can't get it out of his system. Right, because we all know that the boss is king and that the worker-serfs are lucky to have a job and should just take whatever it dished out, and take it with a big smile. Assume my observations are valid and more widespread. Why are those least satisfied with their jobs "protected" by unions? What working experience do you have ... meaning employment ... where *you* were were subject to the king boss and had to take whatever the job dished out? Ever? I suspect zero. As a young serf he did clean out boilers to pay his tuition. Aparently his rich daddy wasn't willing to help him out with college expenses. |
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/19/14, 1:07 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 23:08:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 11:03 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:36:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 8:29 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:50:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote: The union operatives implant it into them. I sat in on a union meeting years ago (IBEW) where a union suit came in to give a talk. He literally told the workers that management was out to get them any way they can, so they'd better build a file on management "misconduct" so they could use that info to try save their jobs when management "came after them". Turning the workers against the company that feeds them. That's some way to build a successful company, eh? Any wonder nearly all unionized companies are poor performers, and fail? Fear mongering. Intimidation. Lies. Deceit. The tools of unions. Unions had a function 100 years ago but they are anachronisms today. Most of the "protections" they pioneered are now federal law That's just absolute, complete bull****. You never heard of OSHA, NLRB, the various labor laws and last but not least a very litigious society with lawyers trolling for clients every day. Carnegie is not sending the Pinkertons in to shoot strikers, you don't have kids working in unsafe conditions and putting in 72 hours a week for base pay. I think I know a bit more about the real world of labor law and what is enforced and what isn't, generally, than you do. Most of the teeth in many labor laws have been excised, and the NLRB is only a shadow of what it used to be. Are you seriously going to say that there is anything like the kind of labor problems now as they had at the turn of the last century? There are still many serious labor/management problems, and during the Reagan mis-administration, they started getting worse again. |
The boys must have their toys...
|
The boys must have their toys...
On 4/19/2014 7:13 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/19/14, 1:07 AM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 23:08:37 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 11:03 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:36:59 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote: On 4/18/14, 8:29 PM, wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:50:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote: The union operatives implant it into them. I sat in on a union meeting years ago (IBEW) where a union suit came in to give a talk. He literally told the workers that management was out to get them any way they can, so they'd better build a file on management "misconduct" so they could use that info to try save their jobs when management "came after them". Turning the workers against the company that feeds them. That's some way to build a successful company, eh? Any wonder nearly all unionized companies are poor performers, and fail? Fear mongering. Intimidation. Lies. Deceit. The tools of unions. Unions had a function 100 years ago but they are anachronisms today. Most of the "protections" they pioneered are now federal law That's just absolute, complete bull****. You never heard of OSHA, NLRB, the various labor laws and last but not least a very litigious society with lawyers trolling for clients every day. Carnegie is not sending the Pinkertons in to shoot strikers, you don't have kids working in unsafe conditions and putting in 72 hours a week for base pay. I think I know a bit more about the real world of labor law and what is enforced and what isn't, generally, than you do. Most of the teeth in many labor laws have been excised, and the NLRB is only a shadow of what it used to be. Are you seriously going to say that there is anything like the kind of labor problems now as they had at the turn of the last century? There are still many serious labor/management problems, and during the Reagan mis-administration, they started getting worse again. Is that why general union membership has gone from about 20 percent of all employed in 1983 to 11.5 percent now? Unions seem to be losing their flavor for many. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com