 |
Re: Job Insurance? An investment portfolio or a second marketable skill
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 02-27-2011 - 12:34
>So I take that there was some sort of actual incident that had to be "interpreted". At least you got some sort of formal hearing - few others do. Many get canned right on the spot - union or not, without even waiting to "interpret" anything, or even to know all the facts.
Per the Railway Labor Act and union agreements there has to be a hearing, called an "investigation", although the charged party can waive the investigation and sign outright for discipline.
>The only mitigating circumstance I can think of, is that it somehow went red in your face (it was not red when you passed the next signal back);
Didn't you mean "previous" instead of "next"?
>but most modern signal installations record that sort of stuff anyway, so there is not much open to any "interpretation" there either.
This is true for controlled signals but not necessarily intermediates.
>The attitude makes me wonder though - Did your train run the damn red or not! Yes or No. What the hell difference does it matter how, or why. So what then is there to interpret, other than did it in fact happen - or not.
So I guess the engineer whose train ran into Washington Union Station in the early 1950s is ipso facto guilty, even though the train's braking system had been working for him beforehand.
>As to "Job Insurance". Are you talking about state um-employment?
Doesn't appy to railroaders, with certain very specific exceptions.
>No one that gets beached or "fired for cause" ever gets a dime from them. So I'm not sure what this "Job Insurance" is.
It's an insurance fund you pay into in order to receive a certain level of benefits. None of them pay out for things like cases of willful negligence nor repeat offenses. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you.
>Is there some sort of insurance that railroaders can buy that indemnifies them,
When anyone works for a self-insured company, railroad or not, that company has to indemnify it's employees from liability (yes, this means Metrolink/Connex is liable for Rob Sanchez's actions). This is a legal principle which goes back to the 1880s. You're mixing up liability insurance with income insurance, which are two vastly different things.
Per the Railway Labor Act and union agreements there has to be a hearing, called an "investigation", although the charged party can waive the investigation and sign outright for discipline.
>The only mitigating circumstance I can think of, is that it somehow went red in your face (it was not red when you passed the next signal back);
Didn't you mean "previous" instead of "next"?
>but most modern signal installations record that sort of stuff anyway, so there is not much open to any "interpretation" there either.
This is true for controlled signals but not necessarily intermediates.
>The attitude makes me wonder though - Did your train run the damn red or not! Yes or No. What the hell difference does it matter how, or why. So what then is there to interpret, other than did it in fact happen - or not.
So I guess the engineer whose train ran into Washington Union Station in the early 1950s is ipso facto guilty, even though the train's braking system had been working for him beforehand.
>As to "Job Insurance". Are you talking about state um-employment?
Doesn't appy to railroaders, with certain very specific exceptions.
>No one that gets beached or "fired for cause" ever gets a dime from them. So I'm not sure what this "Job Insurance" is.
It's an insurance fund you pay into in order to receive a certain level of benefits. None of them pay out for things like cases of willful negligence nor repeat offenses. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you.
>Is there some sort of insurance that railroaders can buy that indemnifies them,
When anyone works for a self-insured company, railroad or not, that company has to indemnify it's employees from liability (yes, this means Metrolink/Connex is liable for Rob Sanchez's actions). This is a legal principle which goes back to the 1880s. You're mixing up liability insurance with income insurance, which are two vastly different things.
