[PRCo] Re: I was in USA!

[Fred Schneider]

I think you are comparing private enterprise to a government authority.  This is
unfair in this instance because there is no commonality between the two just
because they are in the United States.   You should not compare the U. S. to the
Czech Republic; you need to compare private and government businesses in the U.
S. without any regard whatsoever to how something is done in Europe.  U. S.
governmental transit agencies also behave very differently from those in Europe.
Private corporations borrowed money (stocks, bonds) to build a line, and
hopefully earned enough money by operating that line to cover all operating
expenses and to pay back all the loans.  It did not, in actuality, work that
way.  The totals for all the companies in Pennsylvania showed they had  enough
money at the end of the year to pay bills on hand at the end of the year in only
four of the fifty-one years from 1900 to 1950.  But they were at least set up
with the idea that they would pay their bills.  And they either controlled their
expenses (labor, materials, interest, capital repayments, insurance, taxes and
so forth) or they went out of business.  And one way you controlled costs was by
not fixing things that didn't show.  You also didn't fix things on cars that you
planned to retire.  And by the time 1138 was retired, business was declining
rapidly enough that the railways company had a surplus of PCC cars and could ill
afford to waste money on any of the older ones.  We knew they were rusted then.
So did the railways company.  And Pullman Standard came in to Pittsburgh in the
early 1960s to assess a proposal to make double-end PCCs for emergencies; my
friend with the P-S told me then that only the 1700s were good enough to invest
money into and then they were only marginally good enough.

Government operated agencies exist for the benefit neither of the governed nor
the users but to provide jobs for important government people and to provide a
conduit through which money is moved to support those people more deserving of
it than you or I.  It is not important if the people in the shops are working or
are not working.  What is important is that they or their union contribute money
to the politicians' reelection funds, that the equipment builders and other
contractors also contribute money.  It is important to the local politicians
that they control this huge agency that buys labor and materials and issues
contracts to consultants, car rebuilders, track rebuilders, and so forth in
order that some of that money might come back to the elected officials.  It is
not called a bribe.  It is called a contribution to the reelection campaign.

One person on another list opined today that MBTA in Boston does not want to
have anything photographed because it might show someone doing nothing.  And he
went on to relate an incident during his tenure when a mechanic at Mattapan came
to work drunk, watched television all day while he continued to drink.  His
successor came in that afternoon and found that he had to repair five dead PCCs
in time for the evening rush.  He got a hammer and broke up the television set.
The incident turned into a fist fight.  Both were fired.  Then the governor of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts order the MBTA to reinstate both to their jobs
(places to sit and collect money?).  Just maybe the order happened because the
transport workers union had passed a half million dollars into the governor's
reelection fund?  That was the suggestion I read today.  In Boston, the union
and the politicos run the show.  Obviously it wasn't the public or they would
not have gotten away with shutting down all the train service to the north and
all subway service to North Station last week during the Democratic convention,
and then running special trains from North Station and the end of the convention
each night.

Virtually all of the major government owned transit authorities in the United
States were formed with in a very short time span in the late 1960s and early
1970s.  It probably would not have happened if government had to make money.
But I feel that this happened as fast as it did simply because the politicians
were totally aware of the value of the money they would control and what it
would buy them.

The private and government systems are totally different ... one had to make
money to survive and the government agencies have the right to pick our pockets
to pay the people who do nothing.

And do the workers care as you suggested?  My feeling is that about 9 workers
out of 10 do not care about their jobs.  Only about one out of ten like what
they are doing, and would be happy to be there even without the money.  But in
the case of the Adtranz people at Elmira who worked on PRC 1138 and 1711 and PTC
2711, they were the good people that Adtranz wanted to maintain in case they
were able to win the next bid.  The others were gone and the plant was mostly
empty.   I remember taking a load of truck parts for 1138 up to Elmira and being
shown around.  I was incredibly impressed by the people who were doing the body
work ... one of those men was welding new steel into 1138, grinding down the
welds, and finishing it to a level of perfection unheard of for streetcar work.
Certainly PRC could not have invested that time.  I found out that he had
previously worked in an autobody repair shop.  And if I was lucky enough to have
a 1930 Packard auto needing restoration, I would want him to do it.  I'm pretty
sure they [Adtranz]  either bid or were considering a bid on the 18 rebuilt cars
for SEPTA.  However, that plant was closed when Bombardier acquired Adtranz.


Boris Cefer wrote:

> My experience says that no supervision is absolute. In addition, all people
> like to make their job easier; some more, some less. Some even don't care
> about results of their job. They don't care if something is done precisely
> and thoroughly, or it is botched. I think that workmanship almost
> disappeared from this world and only hobbyists dispose it. All is only job.
>
> I failed to understand Economics 101. OK. But I expected that working morals
> has to be better in the USA than here because you seem to have better
> economical results as a whole country.
> I was again wrong. At shops in Philadelphia I didn't see many people
> working, they were mostly sitting and talking about what they will do after
> the shift ends in hour.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Schneider"
>
> > Your opinion is wrong.  They [Adtranz] did what they were told to do,
> under supervision from PTM.  I did not use the world asbestos ... you did.
> But that was the issue.  Asbestos presents legal issues and its presence
> causes the workers to follow legal and very expensive requirements for its
> removal,, regardless of your opinion.   We are dealing with United States
> and New York State and Pennsylvania health and safety laws.
> > To make profits as high as possible is correct as far as you have taken it
> ... more correct would be to say to make any profit at all.  The money
> simply wasn't there to make cars look nice.  The city made every effort
> possible to control Pittsburgh Railways' income and in the 1960s to make
> them loose money so that the county could condemn the private company at a
> lower cost.   I think you fail to understand Economics 101 as it applies to
> business in a free world economy.