An epidemic of disability

Read this and then you will know why the partisan Democrats love Unions.

Friday November 21, 2008

At the Long Island Rail Road, working the system is routine

ANYONE who despairs of West Virginia's experience with people out to game benefits programs will be cheered by tales of the Long Island Rail Road. There, as the New York Times revealed this fall, the craft of fleecing the public has been developed into a fine art.

First, union work rules make it possible for L.I.R.R. workers to earn as much as four days' pay for one day's work.

The Times found one engineer who was assigned to the rail yard but was sent instead to passenger service. Under the rules, he got an extra day's pay.

Because he operated both an electric engine and a diesel engine on the same shift, the same engineer earned a second day's pay. Because he took an engine in for maintenance on the same shift, he was given a third day's' pay.

Instead of earning $247 for that day's work, he ended up with $1,177. The engineer did this seven times in one year. He earned $211,586 that year, and $276,456 the following year.

That practice, by no means uncommon, plumps up both pension benefits and disability payments, too. (People hired before 1988 with 20 years of service can start drawing a pension at 50.)

And on the Long Island Rail Road, the Times found, "virtually every career employee - as many as 97 percent in one recent year - applies for and gets disability payments soon after retirement." And it's not just people who did physical work - engineers, conductors, track workers - but also the former deputy general counsel, an employment manager, a claims manager and a director of government and community affairs.

A similarly sized commuter railroad had 32 disability awards from arthritis and rheumatism between 2001 and 2007. In the same period, 753 L.I.R.R. retirees collected disability payments for those complaints.

"With monthly disability payments averaging about $3,000 a month, plus pension, retirees can earn their base salary and sometimes more until they reach normal retirement age," the Times said."In each year since 2000, between 93 percent and 97 percent of employees over 50 who retired with 20 years of service also received disability payments."


The Railroad Retirement Board, headquartered in Chicago, "approves nearly 100 percent of disability requests from all the nation's railroads," the Times reporters found. The Social Security system threw in $3.6 billion last year to cover the board's outlay.

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorials/200811210146

And Barrack Obama wants to give all government agencies the right to unionize.

Can you imagine.

Instead of earning $247 for that day's work, he ended up with $1,177. The engineer did this seven times in one year. He earned $211,586 that year, and $276,456 the following year.

Well, at least he earned it.

How much did railroad CEO'S "earn" that year?

He didn't "earn" anything Frank.

Ever the good soldier.

He didn't "earn" anything Frank.

Sam's anecdotal story is either credible, or it isn't. And it says he earned $211,586.

So again, how much did railroad CEO's "earn" that year?

No, he didn't earn $211,000+ Frank, he jobbed the system and ripped off the company and taxpayers as all railroad retirement is publically funded.

As for the CEO, his salary nor his duties were mentioned. If you can find that information, we can discuss that.

Regardless of what it is though, it does not excuse the union employee jobbing the system and getting money he didn't earn with his labor.

If we can't believe the part about that he "earned" that money, then how can we believe any of the rest of it?

Why are all these anecdotes about blue collar and not about white collar workers who "jobbed the system"? Are we to think that CEOs and other "management" executives don't rip off the company?

The wrong doings of blue collar workers is not justified by the salaries of white collar managers.

That dog don't hunt.

Aaron wrote:The wrong doings of blue collar workers is not justified by the salaries of white collar managers.

But the article says he EARNED it. When we've argued it before, you and Sam have argued that white collar managers earned all that they are paid- even though the blue collar folks actually did the work. But white collar managers too, often "earned" those high salaries by "jobbing the system" and ripping off the company- as well as ripping off the people who actually worked to produce the $$$.

Ziggy, the Socialist, is always wanting the smart hard working capitalist minded people to work their ass off and create corporations, hire a bunch of dueless nitwits to work for them and then pay out all the money the corporations earns to those hired hands .......... because they are the ones responsible for the whole shebank.

Ziggy really hates all the corporate capitalist that start those successful businesses because Ziggy once started a business and failed miserably at it even though he worked 16+- hours every day.

He does claim to have made a bunch of money when he sold the property and building where his business was located.

But hells bells, anyone who bought property in the right location back in the 50's, 60' or early 70's didn't have to do anything with it except pay the taxes on it ...... and they would have made bunches of money on it if they sold it in the 90's, ..... and maybe 30% to 40% more if sold in the 00'.

Ziggy keeps harping that those business owners should "share the profits" with anyone that works for them ........... but Ziggy didn't share the profits with any of his employees when he sold his business for a big profit.



.

Ziggy, the Socialist, is always wanting the smart hard working capitalist minded people to work their ass off and create corporations, hire a bunch of dueless nitwits to work for them and then pay out all the money the corporations earns to those hired hands

Corporations don't earn anything. They don't make anything. The guys and gals who actually do the work make it happen. Otherwise the managers would not hire even one of them "dueless nitwits".

Ziggy keeps harping that those business owners should "share the profits" with anyone that works for them ........... but Ziggy didn't share the profits with any of his employees when he sold his business for a big profit.

Ziggy certainly did share those profits. My employees were paid their profits every week for those 23 years that I wasn't paid.

Well dont worry about it zig. My guess is that guy never operated a business for 25 days let alone 25 years.

So maybe he is just jealous that you could be so successful and still treat people right.

ziggy wrote:

Ziggy keeps harping that those business owners should "share the profits" with anyone that works for them ........... but Ziggy didn't share the profits with any of his employees when he sold his business for a big profit.

Ziggy certainly did share those profits. My employees were paid their profits every week for those 23 years that I wasn't paid.

So why didn't you pay them any money from your windfall profits. After all, by your reasoning it is they who earned it, not you.

Read it again. I did.

So the individuals of who's labor you are living off got there measly pittance on a week by week basis but once the big ship came in, their labor wasn't worthy to share in those profits. Seems that makes you a bit of a hypocrite, doesn't it!!!

No. Read it again.

I have. More then once. You're claiming that you sacrificed for 23 years and they were paid then so they are not entitled to your windfall profits. And I agree with that.

Thing is, you don't. Not by your postings on labor and profits (I know it's a bad word for you) and corporations.

Seems to me you didn't practice what you preached.

ziggy wrote:Corporations don't earn anything. They don't make anything. The guys and gals who actually do the work make it happen. Otherwise the managers would not hire even one of them "dueless nitwits".

Ziggy, pick a corporation, ..... any corporation, ....... and send all those guys and gals you speak of out to a park or ballfield somewhere ....... and then tell me just how much work they get done on their 8 hour shift.




.

Aaron wrote:So the individuals of who's labor you are living off got there measly pittance on a week by week basis but once the big ship came in, their labor wasn't worthy to share in those profits. Seems that makes you a bit of a hypocrite, doesn't it!!!

Well "NO", ....... by his definition it made him a full blown "corporate capitalist".




.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:Corporations don't earn anything. They don't make anything. The guys and gals who actually do the work make it happen. Otherwise the managers would not hire even one of them "dueless nitwits".

Ziggy, pick a corporation, ..... any corporation, ....... and send all those guys and gals you speak of out to a park or ballfield somewhere ....... and then tell me just how much work they get done on their 8 hour shift.

Better yet, Sam, send 'em all home for a few months and see how much the corporation and its managers can "earn" without the guys and gals who actually do the work being there and doing it.

SamCogar wrote:.......... ....... by his definition it made him a full blown "corporate capitalist".

I was a proprietor capitalist. And I'd bet that even Aaron knows what that is Sam, and how it differs from "corporate captalist"- even if you don't.

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:.......... ....... by his definition it made him a full blown "corporate capitalist".

I was a proprietor capitalist. And I'd bet that even Aaron knows what that is Sam, and how it differs from "corporate captalist"- even if you don't.

Ya' mean there's no "Ziggy, Inc."?

Yes Frank I know the difference. I also know that the goal is the same, making money.

The difference between proprietor capitalist like yourself and and corporations is that while folks like you might provide some jobs, you're not going into an area like Buffalo and investing billions of dollars and creating jobs for thousands of people.

You can bitch about them all you like, but were it not for corporations and their greed, the vast majority of Americans wouldn't have jobs. That's a simple fact.

How many Americans are employed by corporations that "invest billions"- compared to individuals and small busines partners who invest a few thousand?