[PRCo] Labor Turnover at PAT

[Fred W. Schneider III]

I picked up on something interesting to me while working at PTM over the
weekend ... was told there is a rather significant labor turnover
problem at PAT right now because of a large number of people with around
30 to 35 years service ... "all those people that PAT hired early on."

I questioned if PAT didn't hire or didn't keep the men from the Railways
and all the independents in 1964, in order to get such a huge inbalance
in hiring dates.  I was told that most people from the predecessor
companies didn't stick around ... perhaps discouraged by the change from
private sector to government methods.  And of course, Harold, we could
all cite examples.  My favorite case would be Charlie Shauck, who was
thoroughly disillusioned by the kind of people who were being rammed
down his throat.  I think the direct quote was, "The politicians were
telling me to hire people as overhead linemen who didn't know how to tie
their shoes."  Shauck was gone within a year or so.  But ... and that's
a really big BUT ... Charlie was my father's age ... the both graduated
from Carnegie about 1930 ... and he had 33+ years with Pittsburgh
Railways when the change came.  He may have retired early in age but he
had 35 years in the business.  

So comment, Harold:  Were most of the Railways and Independent men
relatively old in 1964, perhaps because for many years no youngsters
wanted in a dying business?  Or were a lot of good young men driven away
in the middle 1960s?  Or is it a statistical fluke that PAT has trouble
now?  Or is this just one man's story that PAT has a problem, which in
reality is non-existent?