Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low
Author: theconductor
Date: 06-02-2010 - 23:20

Beaver Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------>
> Unions shelter weak performers from demotions or
> discipline they should be due, and hinder strong
> performers from receiving rewards and accolades
> they deserve. Steve Jobs or Bill Gates did not
> need a union to succeed. Each employee or worker
> should be their own entrepreneur free to fail or
> succeed as their performance merits and should not
> be bolstered by absurd unions that further
> abdicate personal responsibility beyond what
> frivolous legal suits and wealth hating
> neo-communists already have.

This is what upsets me most about unions. Even my own. Most of the unions time and money is spent protecting and enabling the weak. Seniority based systems are absurd. It upsets me when I think that I have to work nights with poor days off and the guy who holds the day shift with weekends off is a worthless POS. The only thing seniority should protect is vacation and keeping you from being furloughed. Unions should want to work with the company to give the best jobs to those that work the hardest. It would benefit both sides.

I used to think that the UP was a monster that treated us like children. I've been here for over ten years now and realize that it's because we act like children.

I'm not against unions, I just wish they would modernize.



Subject Written By Date/Time (PST)
  Union Pacific sinks to a new low Robert 06-02-2010 - 14:54
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Bill B 06-02-2010 - 15:25
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low M. Harris 06-02-2010 - 16:37
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low WAF 06-02-2010 - 18:23
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OPRRMS 06-02-2010 - 19:19
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Beaver 06-02-2010 - 19:36
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OTN 06-02-2010 - 19:41
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Confused 06-02-2010 - 19:46
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low WAF 06-03-2010 - 08:52
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low E 06-03-2010 - 09:50
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low SP 8800 06-02-2010 - 20:20
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Jesse 06-02-2010 - 21:02
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low fkrock 06-03-2010 - 09:27
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Beaver 06-02-2010 - 21:46
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Conductor 06-02-2010 - 22:33
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low SLOCONDR 06-02-2010 - 22:33
  MESSAGE FOR SLOCONDR smitty195 06-02-2010 - 23:48
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low theconductor 06-02-2010 - 23:20
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Sam Reeves 06-03-2010 - 10:19
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low WAF 06-03-2010 - 15:42
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low SP8800 06-02-2010 - 22:55
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Robert 06-02-2010 - 23:26
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low DHB 06-03-2010 - 07:34
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OTN 06-03-2010 - 10:13
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Peter D Sr 06-03-2010 - 12:24
  Unions and railroads OPRRMS 06-03-2010 - 12:46
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Kevin Dunwoody 06-03-2010 - 13:32
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Mike Swanson 06-03-2010 - 21:45
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low Taxpayer 06-03-2010 - 21:06
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low kEVIN dUNWOODY 06-04-2010 - 11:59
  Re: Union Pacific sinks to a new low OldPoleBurner 06-05-2010 - 12:44
  Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-03-2010 - 17:43
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-03-2010 - 18:56
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-03-2010 - 20:00
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) One more go 'round 06-04-2010 - 12:23
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) jwl 06-04-2010 - 12:59
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) KIE 06-04-2010 - 17:55
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-04-2010 - 21:17
  Re: Answers for the future Severe Duty 06-04-2010 - 22:46
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-05-2010 - 09:19
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) Tom Moungovan 06-05-2010 - 10:17
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) WAF 06-05-2010 - 10:50
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-05-2010 - 11:24
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-05-2010 - 13:23
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-05-2010 - 15:51
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) WAF 06-05-2010 - 16:54
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-05-2010 - 17:13
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-05-2010 - 18:47
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) JWL 06-06-2010 - 07:32
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) WAF 06-06-2010 - 08:08
  Re: Answers for Robert (and anyone interested) OPRRMS 06-06-2010 - 13:04


Go to: Message ListSearch
Subject: 
Your Name: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********   **     **  ********  **     **  ********  
 **     **  **     **  **        **     **  **     ** 
 **     **  **     **  **        **     **  **     ** 
 ********   **     **  ******    **     **  ********  
 **         **     **  **         **   **   **     ** 
 **         **     **  **          ** **    **     ** 
 **          *******   **           ***     ********  
This message board is maintained by:Altamont Press
You can send us an email at altamontpress1@gmail.com