|
Post by lotus098 on Feb 22, 2007 21:49:44 GMT -5
Well, there is a precedent in history about a similar thing that happened during one of the world wars, I don't remember which one. Railroad workers went on strike. The president fired every one of them, inducted them into the army and put them back to work on the railroads in their former capacities. They couldn't strike then. If they did, they'd be executed for treason. Hmm, hadn't heard about that before.
|
|
|
Post by icmr on Feb 22, 2007 22:30:06 GMT -5
That would suck.
|
|
|
Post by UP Patcher on Feb 22, 2007 22:40:44 GMT -5
I think it was back during WWI when the government took over the railroads for the duration.
|
|
|
Post by lotus098 on Feb 22, 2007 23:59:47 GMT -5
That was a mess!
|
|
|
Post by lorne on Jun 23, 2007 13:05:19 GMT -5
Forgive my lack of knowledge here, but what ever happened about that strike? Obviously they all went back to work but did the union get what they were wanting?
|
|
|
Post by TrainboySD40-2 on Jun 23, 2007 14:07:03 GMT -5
Well, it kind of...imploded. Workers started trickling back to work, and the strike just slowly disappeared...
|
|
|
Post by RR Redneck on Jun 23, 2007 15:30:31 GMT -5
Ok. This is good right?
|
|
|
Post by lorne on Jun 23, 2007 19:03:40 GMT -5
I read they were wanting 40 breaks over a 9 hour shift and 4.5% wage increase over the next 2 years. Did they get it? I'm guessing not. More like threatened into going back to work.
|
|
|
Post by espeefoamer on Jul 11, 2007 17:44:34 GMT -5
I read they were wanting 40 breaks over a 9 hour shift and 4.5% wage increase over the next 2 years. Did they get it? I'm guessing not. More like threatened into going back to work. 40 breaks on a 9 hr. shift? What do they think CN is,the Post Office?
|
|
|
Post by UP Patcher on Jul 11, 2007 21:36:52 GMT -5
I don't think even the postal service gets that many breaks.
|
|
|
Post by RR Redneck on Jul 25, 2007 20:51:47 GMT -5
Forty break? Can you SCREAM unresonable?
|
|
|
Post by icmr on Jul 29, 2007 10:51:28 GMT -5
Thats a lot of breaks, thats over three hours of break time.*
*based on 5 minute breaks
|
|
|
Post by RR Redneck on Jul 29, 2007 10:53:31 GMT -5
That is too damn many breaks!
|
|
|
Post by icmr on Jul 29, 2007 10:55:15 GMT -5
Yes it is.
|
|
|
Post by lorne on Jul 29, 2007 16:21:31 GMT -5
LMAO, that was a bit of a typo. I didn't mean 40 breaks in a 9 hr shift. I meant 40 minute breaks in that shift. Still, unless they're talking about lunch break, this is a very long break. I'm lucky if I get even one break in a day.
|
|