Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BigRed323 t1_j5uo5a2 wrote

Reply to comment by ImminentZero in Major railroad posts record earnings, spends more on share repurchases than on its employees by esporx

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