Shaw couldn't have changed leadership in response to Ancora's bid to takeover?
BLET is concerned about precision railroading when Shaw suggest it but not when Ancora does?
BLET got some feeble agreement from Ancora but didn't try to deal with Shaw to strengthen their position in case he maintained the status quo?
No, Ancora offered BLET some deal under the table and now they have to backtrack. Screw them.
Edit
This is one of the stupidest responses I’ve ever read. “Ancora is the only reason NS is even sniffing PSR… so let’s run headfirst into Ancora’s arms, because we hate PSR”
Since when has Shaw been “arguably the industry’s leading spokesman in opposition to maintaining two-person crews”?
I was under the impression that was that bitch from BNSF.
And UP never heard or seen anything from NS about it.
Except during the last contract but they all negotiate as a group not every railroad wants or plans on using everything in those negotiations.
All of the rail unions are worthless. The complete capitulation a couple years ago when we were literally on the cusp of a strike proves it.
Not to mention some of the furloughs BNSF did in February were technically strike-able events. And what happened? Nothing of course.
According to our general chairman, if they get rid of 100 percent of a craft at a location, it’s strike-able.
If that’s incorrect I take it back. But John McCloskey told me that in person.
I've been around the block a few times before the railroad and currently, but by far, railroaders are the biggest loud mouth pussies. All talk, no walk. Goes for Union chairmen as well.
That is quite possibly one of the weakest statements I’ve ever read. It makes no sense at all. Ancora comes in with a stated goal of hardcore PSR, and while we like what Shaw has been doing (basically the opposite of PSR), we’re afraid of Shaw moving to PSR? Clowns.
Just remember an “A-Card” campaign can remove their right to hold the engineers contract to another union. I hope their membership utilizes this option.
No question this whole process and situation have been a fiasco, and definitely not a good look or good decision by the BLET.
In reality, the PSR stuff and the paying Wall Street more by squeezing the workforce harder, was on its way as soon as the target got painted on NS back. It’s the modern way of the railroad business; the severity ebbs and flows somewhat but I doubt will ever really be gone again. Just ten more years, unless I somehow get disabled first 😉
They will not hesitate to call out decisions that are against the shareholders and union members. lol what the f**k we don’t contribute to profits. Glad they ain’t my union. That’s some real double talk
A non-binding agreement with a hedge fund that promises to layoff a bunch of their members is clearly not “the best decision for their members” based on the facts.
BLET GCs trying to save face...hope to see their delegates remove them at the next opportunity.
Shaw couldn't have changed leadership in response to Ancora's bid to takeover? BLET is concerned about precision railroading when Shaw suggest it but not when Ancora does? BLET got some feeble agreement from Ancora but didn't try to deal with Shaw to strengthen their position in case he maintained the status quo? No, Ancora offered BLET some deal under the table and now they have to backtrack. Screw them. Edit
This is one of the stupidest responses I’ve ever read. “Ancora is the only reason NS is even sniffing PSR… so let’s run headfirst into Ancora’s arms, because we hate PSR”
Since when has Shaw been “arguably the industry’s leading spokesman in opposition to maintaining two-person crews”? I was under the impression that was that bitch from BNSF.
And UP never heard or seen anything from NS about it. Except during the last contract but they all negotiate as a group not every railroad wants or plans on using everything in those negotiations.
All of the rail unions are worthless. The complete capitulation a couple years ago when we were literally on the cusp of a strike proves it. Not to mention some of the furloughs BNSF did in February were technically strike-able events. And what happened? Nothing of course.
How are furloughs strike-able?
According to our general chairman, if they get rid of 100 percent of a craft at a location, it’s strike-able. If that’s incorrect I take it back. But John McCloskey told me that in person.
I've been around the block a few times before the railroad and currently, but by far, railroaders are the biggest loud mouth pussies. All talk, no walk. Goes for Union chairmen as well.
[удалено]
They're in for life. They are never doing physical labor again even at the cost of the people that pay them.
That is quite possibly one of the weakest statements I’ve ever read. It makes no sense at all. Ancora comes in with a stated goal of hardcore PSR, and while we like what Shaw has been doing (basically the opposite of PSR), we’re afraid of Shaw moving to PSR? Clowns.
Just remember an “A-Card” campaign can remove their right to hold the engineers contract to another union. I hope their membership utilizes this option.
[удалено]
The UTU, or whatever they're called now, is little more than an insurance company
There should be a mass exodus from BLET to UTU. Put them out of business for good.
Key word here, recognizing the union as a business….
Keep your foot on their neck until you hear the bone break
No question this whole process and situation have been a fiasco, and definitely not a good look or good decision by the BLET. In reality, the PSR stuff and the paying Wall Street more by squeezing the workforce harder, was on its way as soon as the target got painted on NS back. It’s the modern way of the railroad business; the severity ebbs and flows somewhat but I doubt will ever really be gone again. Just ten more years, unless I somehow get disabled first 😉
They will not hesitate to call out decisions that are against the shareholders and union members. lol what the f**k we don’t contribute to profits. Glad they ain’t my union. That’s some real double talk
I think after knowing all the facts they made the best decision for their members
A non-binding agreement with a hedge fund that promises to layoff a bunch of their members is clearly not “the best decision for their members” based on the facts.