How America’s Largest Railroads are Ruining our Supply Chains - YouTube
The author recommends the solution of nationalization of U.S. railroads. He says this is the solution to the grievances surrounding poor working conditions, and it will also provide better rail service to the public. Are there any downsides to nationalization? The author does not cite any downsides. To what extent does the public and railroad Labor approve of nationalization of the railroads?
The public probably has not developed firm opinions about railroad nationalization, but what about Labor? Surely they have given considerable thought to it. Would it give them the improved working condition they are asking for?
Ever hear the old saying “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing?”
While the guy behind the video makes some points it’s his “little knowledge” that bothers me a bit. And not that I really mind (I’ve been around) but his resorting to “potty words” to make some points makes me wonder about his grasp of this or other subjects.
The “little knowledge” thing is the reason I keep my mouth shut when the professional railroaders on this Forum speak. I just listen or ask a question and don’t attempt to “quarterback.”
And of course he’s missed the fact that those 19th Century land grants had to be paid for, they weren’t gifts.
The land grant excuse is a stalking horse for the idea of forced nationalization of the track and infrastructure, whether to implement an ‘iron ocean’ or a quid pro quo for Government funding of mandated ECP and electrification. The ‘guy behind the video’ has evidently never read his Kneiling, and if he did it might inform some of his thinking in a better operational sense.
Perhaps we’ll see a sort of 21st-Century Hepburn Act that mandates no company owning track and running trains at the same time. Just ‘spin off’ the real-estate assets from the operating company, and be mean 'n clean running PSR traffic expediently… and seeing who gets the more dedicated employees by being more human about hours and discipline…
The fact that the operating model failed dismally in Britain, to the extent an actual stage play was written about it, does not mean it couldn’t be done better here.
He hasn’t missed it, he just hasn’t looked for it.
The whole idea of 10% discount, free priority carriage wouldn’t have registered – he saw ‘grants’ and assumed it was both free and immensely valuable when given. I don’t expect it will be long before he gets around to the mineral rights and other “Government-sponsored resource exploitation” or whatever.
Just mention the OPB ‘scam’ in WWII where they cobbled together ‘equivalent routes’ involving as much nominally land-grant mileage as possible. It’s in the book about ‘Decade of the Trains’, if you need a quick and positive reference entry point to put in the video comments.
Then move from there to the ‘wartime’ 10% passenger tax that… conveniently… didn’t get repealed until passenger trains were well on the way out. All that aggregate revenue should be accounted for at present value if the land-grants are…
Ohh the good ole land grant myth… That a majority of railroads benefited from them. When this is far from the truth. I need to find and cite the reference. Last time I checked only 8% of rail mileage benifited from land grants.
I watched this video a few days ago and found it lacking in depth and intelligence. He may be right on some points concerning labor, and service. However the majority of his presentation is balderdash, I’ll agree with Wayne and his consensus. Adding the dropping of F-bombs and other manner of language doesn’t prove you have knowledge of a subject or to affirm a conviction…
His thought’s about how nationalization is some sort of panacea is even more demonstrative of his lack of railroading knowledge. He then goes on to praise the USSR rail system without in depth knowledge of the system. Yet a simple research would show… We achieve the lowest cost per ton mile here in North America thanks to efficiency of aggregation per unit…
His videos will cause many more to be ignorant of how our rail system really works…
<
I think the author’s point is that if you believe that railroad management will never do the right thing for customers or employees, you have to get rid of management. And nationalization is the only way to accomplish that goal. So I am just wondering what employees think of that solution to the problem. I would expect that nationalization would bring massive improvements in working conditions.
Nationalization would likely get rid of railroad retirement. The discussion probably stops right there. [}:)]
And it would be nationalization of the infrastructure long, long before the government shells out for all the operating assets and gets into train operations ‘and all that implies’.
First off… the gov’t doesn’t enough money to buy the railroads-including all of the short lines, and we don’t seize assets without payment.
Second…Nationalization was tried during WW1…didn’t work and it killed off several railroads (like the Colorado Midland) by diverting traffic.
Third…do you think these employees will be any happier working for Uncle Sam’s choo-choos than a private company? Ask postal workers!
Look at all of the gov’t run railroads overseas…most of them are employment agencies, not efficient transport systems.
And you replace it with some politically appointed poobah who can’t spell train, who is only in there as doing a favor for the regime in office? We have enough of those in our gov’t agencies.
I am sure that the government would come up with a compensation/retirement package that would please labor. Clearly, the primary issue is that management must change almost all of their thinking or they must go. What would people say if management reached out to Labor and said that for the good of the industry, they were willing to make the changes needed to give the job acceptable conditions?
The same conditions are in the trucking and airline industries, you want to nationalize them next, Comrade? We have too many soft people in this country anymore.
Not to mention that most maps (such as the one he used) grossly over-represented the actual area included in the land grants. At least that’s my understanding…
They’d say this:
[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]
followed by variations on “that’ll be the sunny Friday”.
Have you been reading Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” recently? He had a very similar premise…
Land Grants are missunderstood by many, and deliberately wrongly portrayed by some. Following is some information from the time Land Grants were created:
In 1850, when the first railroad land grant was made, there were 1.4 billion acres of public domain unsettled, and which was for sale. Senator William R. King, who later became Secretary of State, said " The best and highest interests of the people of the United States … is to bring them into cultivation and settlement in the shortest space of time and under the most favorable auspices."
The railroad land grants accomplished the objective set for them - and more. Prior to 1850 the government offered land for sale at $1.25 per acre. There were few takers. When the Land Grant legislation was passed the price was raised to $2.50 per acre and where railroads were assured, the land was eagerly purchased. The Federal Government immediately benefited financially.
Benefits to the government also resulted from the reduced shipping rates that were a part of the granting legislation. The reduced rates were finally repealed in October 1946; the ICC determined the government had received $1.25 billion from them. With the government’s ability to sell land along the new railroads at double, or more, than its previous price and receiving the reduced rates it can be reasonably determined that land grants to railroads were a particularly good deal to the USA.
The Railroad Retirement Board is a Federal Government agency. Why would nationalization affect that?
I wonder if he’s one of those people who thinks Communism hasn’t worked because it hasn’t been tried by the “right people.”
The shoe may be on the other foot when the Government is the one paying instead of the one mandating.
Yes, you need to be tough and suffer for the stock holders and PSR, and… I don’t even know anymore.
Such a weird flex.
I’m not saying nationalization is a good idea, but the current system ain’t doing too great either.
Well that’s my point about why the problem cannot be fixed under the existing business model. It needs a radical transformation. But don’t get me wrong. I am not advocating nationalization. That would be the worst possible solution.