Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BigRed323 t1_j5qltx5 wrote

Employees don't own the railroad. Shareholders do. This is what the shareholders want.

−29

Stromaluski t1_j5qpokw wrote

Corporate America at this point is all about "how do we make the most money right this instant, even if it means we're out of business in three years?"

Shareholders are so far removed from the business that they couldn't care less if it closes tomorrow, as long as they can make money today. It's short sighted and screws over everybody that actually works at the company.

I'm not saying you're wrong with your statement. Just saying that it's dumb that our business world is set up this way.

22

DENelson83 t1_j5qxag3 wrote

Capitalism's core mantra is "as much profit as possible, come hell or high water, until you die".

8

sirfuzzitoes t1_j5qq79y wrote

Shareholders don't make the railroad run. Employees do. Sure would suck if their shares plummeted bc trains aren't moving.

17

voidsrus t1_j5qrm65 wrote

>This is what the shareholders want.

sounds like shareholders shouldn't own the railroad then, since their childish short-term wants are getting in the way of the nation's transportation infrastructure.

15

AnybodyMassive1610 t1_j5r4798 wrote

No, this is what vulture capitalists & corporate raiders want - a large portion of these stocks are held in pensions and funds - they are controlled by a small percentage of the actually “shareholders” and they are purely driven by “profit at all costs” not the long term success of the company (which shareholders used to care about)

7

ImminentZero t1_j5unr4w wrote

Sounds like it's time to nationalize critical rail infrastructure then.

1

BigRed323 t1_j5uo5a2 wrote

Why?

1

ImminentZero t1_j5uooir wrote

Because if the profit motive is what has brought us to the point of nearly having a rail shipping shutdown that would be so damaging to the economy and supply chains that Congress itself stepped in to avert it, then the profit motive has to go.

What other reason is there for not increasing employee costs during a time of record profit, other than the profit motive that is required by shareholders?

I don't say this just for rail, I believe that ALL critical infrastructure should be nationalized. If something is required for survival it should not be left to the whims of people whose first concern is their portfolio and not the general welfare.

1

BigRed323 t1_j5upaa1 wrote

OK tankie. Move to china where all critical infrastructure is already nationalized and tell me how that is.

1

ImminentZero t1_j5uu65u wrote

Definitely not a tankie. You also aren't refuting anything I've said. Name calling is not an argument.

If you knew your history you'd also know it wouldn't be the first time railroads were nationalized in the US, and that it's not just places like China that have nationalized critical infrastructure.

1

BigRed323 t1_j5uvqg3 wrote

Yes I am refuting that nationalizing would make the railways better for anyone besides those in control of the new nationalized entity. Investment and efficiency would tank just like we see in any places that nationalize things on the regular.

1

ImminentZero t1_j5uwovl wrote

The quest for efficiency is how we got to this point though. Rail companies are at a point where they've cut so deeply that they are unable to absorb an employee calling out sick unexpectedly. This is explicitly due to headcount reduction and a "do more with less" push. Of course this could be alleviated by investing in human capital for the company, at a cost to the bottom line, and the rail companies explicitly refuse to do so.

There is no rational reason to not provide the employees with better pay and benefits, in addition to surge hiring headcount needed to facilitate the new benefits (people to cover leave primarily.)

When a company is acting irrationally as they are in this case, and instead spending the profits on stock buybacks to enrich shareholders, it strains credulity to imply that continuing to operate as they are is in the best interest of the company, and that a change that removes the basis of the irrationality would somehow be more detrimental.

1