The railroads are used to transport many raw materials and finished products.
What sort of illegal and dangerous activities by CUSTOMERS will actually cause the railroad management to actually get involved?
Are the railroads only there to transport goods to make money for the top leader and top shareholder?
How fraudulent, dangerous, and lethal of a product has to be made by the CUSTOMER before the railroad management will stop transportation of raw materials and finished products?
When will ethics and public safety come ahead of earning profits for the quarter?
Does the management use the railroad police to investigate the true safety of a tranportation CUSTOMER’s products?
I’m not sure I understand the (slanted) question. Should a railroad take a moral(?) stand against transporting metal lawn darts?
I’d suggest that railroads are just like every other business. As long as the product is legal and safe to haul, why wouldn’t a railroad take the business? The rates charged would certainly take liability into consideration. Maybe a trainload of Ninja stars commands a higher rate than a trainload of marshmallows?
Your question(?) seems to sniff at the idea that railroads are hauling that “fraudulent, dangerous, and lethal” coal, oil, and other fossil based products that are tied to the greenhouse gas debate.
All of the railroads I’ve worked for had a moral imperative to keep the employees and the public safe. That’s good business, profits can be wiped out in seconds without attention to safety. No “manager” will willfully endanger the company.
What about a machine that is claimed to be a “Processing Machine” that in fact can only be used to fatally injure humans? If it has not yet been ruled illegal, but it has been in the news, will the railroad stop delivery of parts and materials?
What if some Chemical Combination is claimed to be one safe product, but the CUSTOMER is loading something extremely toxic between processing plants? Then it is sold to Consumers as something different entirely. A Bait and Switch scenario on everybody. Does the railroad board and CEO ever step in and say “not on our railroad”.
What has to be realized is that a railroad as a common carrier, registered and incorporated to carry freight commodities in interstate commerce cannot legally deny transportation out of hand. It can charge and surcharge, apply fees and special handling to assure efficiency and safety of people and property. But cannot say no because they don’t like the product or the producer. They can fight it,…and have…but it is costly and often pointless.
Correct me if I am wrong, but railroads are common carriers, that is, they cannot discriminate against any shippers. One CEO I’ve heard speak says that they should be allowed to either turn away the business of hauling dangerous chemicals or charge higher rates to cover insurance costs.
If the commodity is legal, is correctly discribed and in a proper shipping container - common carrier railroads are required to haul it. There are a whole lot of NASTY, NASTY chemicals that are hauled daily by railroads - without incident.
REMEMBER, if the railroads don’t haul it some fly by night trucker will (at 3 truck loads per railcar load) - right down your Main Street or strategic Interstate at rush hour.
I can’t remember the specific names, but railways in both Canada and the US are governed by specific acts of their federal governments as to the nature and safe handling of dangerous products. These acts are based solely on scientific properties, not on any moral issues that may surround the products. In the US the act is similar to the act that also deals with the Post Office. Or maybe it is the same one. I recall from the news that act being modified after 9/11.
Anything they think is unethical, illegal, excessively dangerous, or not going to make them enough money…although they may do it to keep an otherwise good customer. If they’re earning their keep, it would be their daily business to have reports come to them from trusted subordinates who monitor shipments for those qualities. IOW, they would properly be oriented to ‘want to know’.
Yewbetcha. Good thing, too, or they’d go out of business in a jiffy.
Sufficiently fraudulent, dangerous, and/or lethal a product that a reasoned business analysis suggests would make it too risky or simply wrong from a moral standpoint. It might be a 7/10 case or only a 4/10 case based on a set of criteria, but surely the management would want to know about borderline cases, especially those that don’t seem to fit their normal cargo shipments. Basically, if it is legal to ship as specified in The Law, the rail corporations would probably enjoy shipping it if it paid a decent buck. The management always has the right of refusal, though.
[quote user=“Andrew Falconer”]
When will ethics and public safety come ahead of earning profits for the quarter?
If the railroad discovers that the shipper is describing the goods incorrectly they will certainly take some form of action. Two reasons: if the goods are dangerous they need to know in case of an incident (and also to ensure it is shipped in a suitable car), and secondly to charge the proper freight rate for the commodity. They will also quickly get involved if a load on an open car is improperly secured and liable to shift in transit.
Otherwise they are obliged as a common carrier to handle the goods, as long as the customer is willing to pay what the railroad chooses to charge and meets any other conditions the railroad may impose to ensure it can be moved safely.
Are you suggesting they should decline to move armed forces weaponry around the country on ethical grounds, since I can’t think of anything else that fits what you are attempting to describe?
Even if railroads are “required” to haul it, it isn’t all that hard to lose a customer or to encourage them to look elsewhere. In the trucking biz we quote it HIGH if we don’t want it. And if that doesn’t work we offer terms of service that only an idiot would accept.