PC: Re: RE:Goodby Conrail

["NEW HAVEN U25B" <ERIE-LACKAWANNA@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The number of high level, premium paid alleged executives out number 3-5 man
crews who worked all times of the day and night, holidays, etc while these
exec's were home or at the Bahama's enjoying themselves. More crews per
train made the trains safer than the typical two man crews today. The lay
offs here are not industry wide but a result of CR finding ways to to
increase their revenues and jacking up exec saleries.  Unions made for
better paying jobs. If there had not been any, railroads could easily have
gotten away with paying minimum wage. The gov't poured billions into the
highway and airline industry in the 40's promoting Firestone's tire and
Standard oil's fuel products and not a cent to the railroads. Yes, money
should have been funded to the PC and others to keep them going than having
a gov't agency called Conrail (ConWreck) wreck and dismantle a vast majority
of the system. Jobs and lines would have been saved that will never come
back again. Typical corporate greed to benefit the exec's and not employee's
who filled exec's pockets with gold n silver.

This is not the south but northeast were there is much business to be made
in these branch lines. Railroads ofen lost business on purpose raising
shipping fees that they knew no one would pay just to get rid of the line
whiles others were the reverse, economical rates and high taxes that made
companies close down or move away,


----- Original Message -----
From: Craig E. Hatter <ns4610 -AT- bluegrass.net>
To: Penn-Central <penn-central -AT- smellycat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 2:59 PM
Subject: PC: RE:Goodby Conrail


> The employees that were furloughed were victims of the rationalization of
> the entire industry,not just on the railroads merged into CR. Secondaries
> not viable are cut off,we call them branchlines here in the south. How
much
> money can you pour into a sieve like the PC/eastern roads? With 5 man
crews
> and other archaic business practices to protect the unions,all railroads
> were destined to fall on hard times. These are the facts of business and
the
> railroads had to rationalize both their physical plant as well as labor
> costs. Please don't think I'm anti-union,my father was a steward for the
IUE
> at the giant GE plant here in Louisville. He would probably disown me for
> speaking such anti-union rhetoric,it's just that with modernization and
> mechanization of certain jobs,loss of almost all LCL business and <200mile
> haul to trucks,railroads had to change. But not for the better in terms of
> the people involved.
>
>