Trump To Take Action After Ohio Train Disaster

[Aldebaran]

If the only solution is to begin jailing management people, then perhaps we should create laws to more easily prosecute management level employees? Sending them straight to prison for careless or preventable mistakes?

What mistake did someone in management make in the railroad case? Video indicates that it was a faulty wheelset that caused the problem. Seems to be a maintenance or inspection issue.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Then it would have better that this happened in your hometown so that you could show us your patriotic capitalism by happily accepting a giant corporation polluting your town so the rest of us can get our new jeans and Xbox’s in a timely and financially prudent manner.

For a group of people who claims to hate socialism, the right sure does love socialism for corporations. They’d rather see fellow human beings see their home values get shanked than a soulless corporation be held responsible for its mistakes.

I think the mistake some people make, is that they assume that these corporations actually "try" to "do the right thing"...

Realistically, narcissist and sociopathic types are most frequently the ones who rise to the top. I know! I've worked with many sneaky people who do NOT do the right thing, and I've seen them lie and cheat for their own personal gain.

These are tactics good people ought to resist.

 

[Landon Caeli]

What mistake did someone in management make in the railroad case? Video indicates that it was a faulty wheelset that caused the problem. Seems to be a maintenance or inspection issue.

Exactly, the company was unwilling to address preventive maintenance issues, possibly because they wanted to save money where they shouldn't.

...If that is the case, and regular preventive maintenance was put off, someone should go to prison, IMO. And do hard time, at least.

There have been many times, in my job, that I have written up broken equipment, and management does not contact a mechanic to fix the problem. Then the next time we need to use it, if I were to shut the job down, management would frown on me, and start looking for ways to get rid of me, because I just prevented $20,000 in profits. This is a common way management spends less money, in order to make themselves "appear" successful - by cutting costs... Which might get them a promotion in the future. It's a dangerous game, that puts others at risk.

 

[rambot]

I was responding to someone about PG&E which serves California, which has the highest electricity rates in this country. I had also been responding about how costs go up for the consumer when companies are "choked to death" by fines and regulations, whether it's energy producers, or transportation companies.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance but Is PG&E the sole provider of electricity in California? Because from the 0,00023 second google searched I've just done, I see that there are 6 regulated, investor owned electricity companies in California.
And the next search, which took a bit longer, suggested these are the reasons for higher costs:

So California's rising prices can be traced to higher energy procurement costs, increases in transmission, and most significantly, distribution costs

A quick, sensible read.....it makes a LOT of sense:
Why is electricity so expensive in California? | Yorkshire Roofing

Pray, how do their rates compare to PG&E. If you think it's ONLY "fines and regulation" then SURELY these other companies are in a GREAT position to have PG&E prices right out of the market...


And, after having this HUGE train spill,, I certainly hope you are NOT advocating for a lessening of regulations around transportation safety? Because that seems...... a bit tone deaf for the environment.

 

[rambot]

Exactly, the company was unwilling to address preventive maintenance issues, possibly because they wanted to save money where they shouldn't be.

...If that is the case, and regular preventive maintenance was put off, someone should go to prison, IMO. And do hard time, at least.

I'm ALL for punishing the single (or few) workers whose negligence WOULD have caused this problem but it does not keep this type of accident from happening again.

 

[Aldebaran]

Exactly, the company was unwilling to address preventive maintenance issues, possibly because they wanted to save money where they shouldn't.

...If that is the case, and regular preventive maintenance was put off, someone should go to prison, IMO. And do hard time, at least.

There have been many times, in my job, that I have written up broken equipment, and management does not contact a mechanic to fix the problem. Then the next time we need to use it, if I were to shut the job down, management would frown on me, and start looking for ways to get rid of me, because I just prevented $20,000 in profits. This is a common way management spends less money, in order to make themselves "appear" successful - by cutting costs... Which might get them a promotion in the future. It's a dangerous game, that puts others at risk.

Looks like an investigation should be done to see who dropped the ball here. Maybe it was an inspector who didn't report a problem, or maybe someone higher up who didn't address it, or the train engineer who didn't heed the warnings fast enough. But simply blaming the company itself or the CEO (or even the entire industry) is what people are often inclined to do, but that doesn't fix the problem to minimize the chances of it happening again.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'm ALL for punishing the single (or few) workers whose negligence WOULD have caused this problem but it does not keep this type of accident from happening again.

True. It's a hard problem. Every action creates another reaction it seems, and it becomes like a juggling act, adding more bowling pins as you go. Then you add environmentalism, and overpopulation, and materialism and bad habits, and you wind up with a super-complicated mess.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Looks like an investigation should be done to see who dropped the ball here. Maybe it was an inspector who didn't report a problem, or maybe someone higher up who didn't address it, or the train engineer who didn't heed the warnings fast enough. But simply blaming the company itself or the CEO (or even the entire industry) is what people are often inclined to do, but that doesn't fix the problem to minimize the chances of it happening again.

You're probably right. As people, we always try to find a rule or blanket-method for situations, but sometimes, the environment is just too complex.

I can't say that I support any prominent ideology in situations like this, or that any political backdrop is the fool-proof method for handling these types of situations. Everything, it seems, has it's faults.

 

[iluvatar5150]

We'd all end up paying for that when goods can't be transported.

That’s how a true free market is supposed to work: with the parties to a transaction bearing the full cost of the transaction. What we have now are rail companies and consumers enjoying artificially low expenses/prices while offloading those extra costs onto the residents of the regions where trains crash as well as the rest of the taxpayers.

 

[comana]

Looks like an investigation should be done to see who dropped the ball here. Maybe it was an inspector who didn't report a problem, or maybe someone higher up who didn't address it, or the train engineer who didn't heed the warnings fast enough. But simply blaming the company itself or the CEO (or even the entire industry) is what people are often inclined to do, but that doesn't fix the problem to minimize the chances of it happening again.

That is what NTSB is doing.

 

[rambot]

Looks like an investigation should be done to see who dropped the ball here. Maybe it was an inspector who didn't report a problem, or maybe someone higher up who didn't address it, or the train engineer who didn't heed the warnings fast enough. But simply blaming the company itself or the CEO (or even the entire industry) is what people are often inclined to do, but that doesn't fix the problem to minimize the chances of it happening again.

To an extent I see your point but fundamentally I disagree.

I am well aware that CEOs are solely in the business of maximizing profits. That means their opinion on what is best to benefit society as a whole, should REALLY be taken with a grain of salt; Because they aren't interested in all society, they are just interested in making the sweet sweet cash.

Now if a bunch of CEOs in one industry get together and recognize a great way to save money, and then lobby the government to try to make it come to fruition, it should be ASSUMED that these people, also, don't have society's best interest at heart. But, because they have a LOT of money, they are able to buy the politicians into voting for certain things.

Conservatives bemoan regulation like it's this terrible thing but it's truly NOT a terrible thing. The issue is that it cuts into the profits of companies or sectors. If there are proper regulations that a implimented and followed consistently, those problems all but disappear. I mean, there health and hygiene rules about eating shirtless in a macdonalds but metric tonnes of toxic chemicals can be parked on a traintrack with no back up safety systems in place?

What the......?

 

[SimplyMe]

Not good enough.

In limited liability capitalism, lots of management will roll the dice on nothing bad happening so they can save on safety to beat share price expectations and get their bonus. If things do go haywire they bail out with their pre negotiated severance.

Doesn't seem fair. When I was a crane operator, if I tipped a crane on a house, I was personally responsible, and would serve jail time if a miscalculation caused loss of life. ...But management isn't held to the same standards for their miscalculations in causing damage or loss of life?

And this is it, exactly. I can't help but think of a couple of examples in popular media, such as the first season of the West Wing we have Sam Seaborne, a big law firm lawyer in NYC, setting up the purchase of an outdated oil tanker for a major company. He sets up the deal and legally makes it so that the oil tanker is owned by an Limited Liability Company (LLC) that is owned by the oil company but, later in the season when the tanker has a rupture and leaks oil, the oil company is protected against any liability -- instead the LLC that owns the tanker quickly goes bankrupt. The oil company is merely out the cost of their investment in the tanker while the clean up and damage cost falls on governments and those harmed.

Another example is in John Grisham's book, The Rainmaker. In this case an insurance company is basically running a scam -- taking policies but finding questionable reasons to prevent paying out on major claims. The lawyer proves what the insurance company is doing but, again, this is an LLC, one directly set up to sell low cost insurance (to largely poor people who can't fight back) but deny major claims. So, when the judgement comes down the LLC declares bankruptcy but the major insurance company that set up and owns the LLC has no liability in the case -- so got all the profit from the years the LLC "grifted" profits from their policies but can't be held legally responsible for the "crimes" of the LLC.

But even in this case, where it is the "major company" that had the issue, there is a clear cost/benefit analysis, done by the company, of how whether it is cheaper to invest in added maintenance and safety or to payout on claims if a failure occurs. A prime example of this is Ford Motor Company and their Pinto, if you recall, that is the car in the 70s where the gas tank blew up if the car was rear-ended. Because so many details are known, and the grisly accidents that occurred, it has become the example schools use to teach about cost/benefit ratios. It came out in lawsuits against Ford, through discovery, that Ford did a cost/benefit analysis on the Pinto and found that upgrading the car, so the gas tank would not explode, would cost $11 per car. Ford executives made a clear choice, they decided, based on the cost/benefit analysis, that it would be cheaper to pay off the lawsuits, from those whose cars exploded and the families of those who died in accidents, than it would be to add an $11 extra cost on millions of vehicles. Of course, one of the arguments here that outrage people, is that Ford essentially put profits over customer lives.

What we, as consumers, don't see is that these types of decisions are made daily. McDonalds may find that they have an issue with a cleaner being used in their stores -- that it can make workers sick and, if improperly used can also contaminate food. Does McDonalds pay more to upgrade to a better cleaning solution in exchange for possible higher workman's comp claims and the hope that the workers always properly use the chemical? Boeing, with the 737 Max, do they cheap out on some testing thinking that the current testing is good enough and risk plane crashes from inadequate testing, since they think it will save more long term than doing better testing (amazing how Boeing blew that call)? Does a car company add autonomous features (software/hardware that allow automatic braking and keeping the car in its lane) to improve the safety of a car or do they not add it, to keep the price a bit lower in order to sell more of that model of car?

It's an interesting topic when you really dive into just how many decisions, made by major corporations, can effect your life -- not to mention that the decision is not typically based on what will protect lives but, rather, what will make the most money for the company. This decision will sometimes include whether it is cheaper to pay out wrongful death claims or make a product more inexpensively (and possibly sell it for less to gain a competitive advantage). And, unfortunately, like the Pinto, there is no way to know that a company has done this -- at least until it is too late.

 

[iluvatar5150]

What mistake did someone in management make in the railroad case? Video indicates that it was a faulty wheelset that caused the problem. Seems to be a maintenance or inspection issue.

It could also be an issue with the spacing of the thermal sensors. IIRC, the preliminary NTSB report cited two sensors roughly 10 miles apart which detected wheel temperatures that were elevated, but not high enough to throw a warning. (though the second wasn’t far below the threshold) The third sensor that detected extreme temperatures shortly before the derailment was 20 miles past the second.

 

[Aldebaran]

That’s how a true free market is supposed to work: with the parties to a transaction bearing the full cost of the transaction. What we have now are rail companies and consumers enjoying artificially low expenses/prices while offloading those extra costs onto the residents of the regions where trains crash as well as the rest of the taxpayers.

"consumers enjoying artificially low expenses/prices"
Have you actually been to a grocery store lately?

 

[iluvatar5150]

"consumers enjoying artificially low expenses/prices"
Have you actually been to a grocery store lately?

frequently

 

[essentialsaltes]

"consumers enjoying artificially low expenses/prices"
Have you actually been to a grocery store lately?

Just moments ago you were complaining about "how costs go up for the consumer when companies are "choked to death"" by regulations.

In your perfect world, would the railroad pay for this accident (and then raise prices for freight that will be passed on to consumers) or is the railroad not going to pay for this to keep prices low?

In your perfect world, would it have been better to have the railroads pay for more highly regulated transport that might have avoided this catastrophe, and people paid higher prices all along? Or is it better that people paid lower prices for a while, and a mere handful of Ohioans are going to have a few bonus cancers?

 

[Pommer]

Just moments ago you were complaining about "how costs go up for the consumer when companies are "choked to death"" by regulations.

In your perfect world, would the railroad pay for this accident (and then raise prices for freight that will be passed on to consumers) or is the railroad not going to pay for this to keep prices low?

In your perfect world, would it have been better to have the railroads pay for more highly regulated transport that might have avoided this catastrophe, and people paid higher prices all along? Or is it better that people paid lower prices for a while, and a mere handful of Ohioans are going to have a few bonus cancers?

It’s interesting to me that the “maximum-freedom-in-the-market” folks seem to have also been the ones that touted the Ten Regulations Commandments as necessary to a just and moral society.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It’s interesting to me that the “maximum-freedom-in-the-market” folks seem to have also been the ones that touted the Ten Regulations Commandments as necessary to a just and moral society.

What’s interesting to me is that so few seem to understand how externalities work to distort the market they claim to cherish.

 

[childeye 2]

This feels like a weird debate to have but that is just a stylistic choice of writing. Additionally, this could be an automated report generated (in which case it isn't too far off hte mark). Folks understand reports don't search for the term but the report shows the results of a person searching the term.

That is the ONE piece of this writing, I'll grant, could sound like it came from trump

I regret coming off as if I'm debating. But I honestly don't see a report. I see propaganda.

 

[variant]

When Californians are able to pay enough, they can get all the electricity they want. They'll just end up going bankrupt in the process (as Obama promised): (More) Breaking News! California Electricity Prices are Still High!

I mean, you don't really want the electric company's negligence burning half the state down either.