Why do you assume this? I’ve never heard of a rail directive like the FAA issues.
They’re the agency that is responsible for regulating the safety of the rail industry. If they can’t or don’t issue safety directives there’s either a problem with how the agency wields its power (that’s my guess, I’m sure railroad executives run the FRA) or how Congress has empowered the FRA. But the FRA was created at the same time and by the same act as the FAA. If they’re not issuing safety directives to the railroads then no one is.
Republicans, including Pete Buttigieg, don’t know what the Secretary of Transportation does
2 Likes
Hofstadter argued that both anti-intellectualism and utilitarianism were consequences, in part, of the democratization of knowledge.
The internet has only made this much worse.
But it invites an interesting discussion point: is gatekeeping knowledge and limiting transparency preferable to what we have developed over the last 70 years?
Yup, the current FRA administrator is a lawyer and former rail executive. Never been a railroad worker. The FAA is also generally run by airline executives, but at least there the administrator is almost always an experienced commercial pilot. The FRA being run by a former rail worker instead of some lawyer whose only experience with a train is maybe riding on one would probably substantially improve things.
Is there a mechanism by which the Executive acting alone (let’s assume for this hypothetical that Congress won’t assist or obstruct) could both require the rail industry to adopt electronic breaking systems, limit hours of operation, and increase leave benefits for employees while also preventing them from simply paying these employees less given the now-less lucrative nature of the operation?
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good (I can’t do it because with The System I can’t do it perfectly!) and don’t keep believing that the industry doesn’t already precisely know the finer points on how to systemically get safer
Is anyone aware of what ramifications that would have? Obviously it seems like it would mean that many more trains would be subject to costlier safety measures. It’s not as if only benefits would flow from the designation.
I dunno. Executive can declare various emergencies and do a lot of stuff. I was talking about regulations that the executive writes though (Obama admin wrote and Trump recinded) and the thing about the employee pay and time off is that the government affirmatively ordered the workers not to strike. The government made striking illegal. Really illegal, like they could send various sorts of cops and soldiers to force people to work, or go to jail, break up the union. Not very free is it?
The pay and benefits being for the workers and railroads to work out and everyone else letting them is like the least we’re supposed to have here in the USA, not people with guns forcing people to work.
1 Like
So, if the rail workers said “ok, fine, put us in jail” how long would the government and industry take before they bent and caved?
Obviously it is awful to criminalize striking, but if the workers made it clear they wouldn’t stand for it until a reasonable compromise could be brokered they would have a tremendous amount of support.
I don’t think anyone in the world could answer that question with any confidence.
Yeah, it’s awful to criminalize striking.
It’s the workers’ fault
Recall the great outpouring of public support when Ronald Reagan broke the ATC strike. Or when Truman put the railroads under direct control of the Army when they threatened to strike.
And both of those happened when there was when there was a much more vibrant and powerful labor movement in this country.
Parts of the regulations have to be perfect or they get thrown out in court.
Rail workers collective bargaining rights are limited with good reason, they shouldn’t get to hold the whole country hostage.
The problem with this logic is where do you draw the line. Everything is “critical” if you are anti labor organizing.
2 Likes
Question: Are train brakes referred to as breaks because I’ve seen it spelled that way numerous times in this thread and now I’m doubting I know the difference between brakes and breaks.
I think those would both likely turn out differently today, even in the modern anti-labor climate.
Look at how quickly malign actors are cancelled
today via instant internet communication.
I have a bad time spelling homophones. Wear our you?
1 Like