• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Job Cuts: Small Town Strikes Back, Iowa Town Suing Railroad Over Job Cuts

dmcowen674

No Lifer
4-21-2004 Iowa Town Suing Railroad Over Job Cuts

BURLINGTON, Iowa - Battered by layoffs over the past few years, this Mississippi River town of crumbling brick buildings and faded Victorian homes is striking back at the one that hurt it the most ? by suing the railroad that shares its name.

In January 2003, BNSF laid off 260 workers in Burlington. In December, 93 more jobs were moved to Topeka and another shop in Galesburg, Ill. Today, there are only 44 workers are left at the West Burlington shops.

Des Moines County, in which Burlington is located, has lost about 1,800 jobs since 1996 ? well-paid jobs at longtime employers such as the railroad, Case IH, General Electric and Exide Technologies. In that time, two grocery stores and a department store in Burlington closed.

Workers who were laid off or transferred were bewildered by BNSF's decision to take the jobs away.

"These guys just don't understand," said Deb Olson, whose husband, Terry, an electrician, now commutes 100 miles every day to work at the Galesburg shop. "They had the best shop, the best record in the country. This town was pretty much built on the railroad. It's pretty sad."

The mayor said the city begged the railroad to stay, offering tax breaks and other incentives to no avail.

"Doing nothing just wasn't an option," Edwards said. "We tried our little carrot approach, and that didn't work. So now we're going to try the stick."

About three dozen BNSF trains still rumble through Burlington every day. Train whistles rattle the windows in downtown buildings, many of them now empty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
rose.gif
 
Topic Title: Job Cuts: Small Town Strikes Back, Iowa Town Suing Railroad Over Job Cuts
Topic Summary: What happened CAD, thought Iowa was Booming?
Calling people out is against forum rules... but then you're adding so little to the conversation recently that even your troll posts only get fed by me.

Please consider reforming your behavior.
 
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Topic Title: Job Cuts: Small Town Strikes Back, Iowa Town Suing Railroad Over Job Cuts

Topic Summary: What happened CAD, thought Iowa was Booming?
Calling people out is against forum rules... but then you're adding so little to the conversation recently that even your troll posts only get fed by me.

Please consider reforming your behavior.

Please consider learning to read, may or may not help.

Summary is not a Title. Iowa is CAD's backyard and he touts it all the time.

Funny, This Iowa Mayor was on the News last night. Don't see CAD coming in here and telling the Mayor and the entire town to just dry up and blow away but apparently you would huh?

You may say that here but highly doubt you would say that to their faces.

"Please consider reforming your behavior."
 
In their ?hayway? [around the end of the 19th century], ?the shops employed up to 2,000 workers ? blacksmiths, mechanics, machinists, carpenters, upholsterers and other tradesmen engaged in building and repairing steam locomotives and freight and passenger cars.?

Are members of that community lining up at the station to ride the 'BNSF Express'? It appears they aren't, as clearly there is not enough demand for their services to warrant having the 260 laid-off workers standing around doing nothing. I have an idea--let's sue the company and make them hire workers in order to provide a service that has relatively little demand...that make sense.
 
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
In their ?hayway? [around the end of the 19th century], ?the shops employed up to 2,000 workers ? blacksmiths, mechanics, machinists, carpenters, upholsterers and other tradesmen engaged in building and repairing steam locomotives and freight and passenger cars.?



Are members of that community lining up at the station to ride the 'BNSF Express'? It appears they aren't, as clearly there is not enough demand for their services to warrant having the 260 laid-off workers standing around doing nothing. I have an idea--let's sue the company and make them hire workers in order to provide a service that has relatively little demand...that make sense.

No one is abdicating "force". They just could've done the town right, they could've handled the situation better. Both sides are at fault. The Country is failing itself.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
In their ?hayway? [around the end of the 19th century], ?the shops employed up to 2,000 workers ? blacksmiths, mechanics, machinists, carpenters, upholsterers and other tradesmen engaged in building and repairing steam locomotives and freight and passenger cars.?



Are members of that community lining up at the station to ride the 'BNSF Express'? It appears they aren't, as clearly there is not enough demand for their services to warrant having the 260 laid-off workers standing around doing nothing. I have an idea--let's sue the company and make them hire workers in order to provide a service that has relatively little demand...that make sense.

No one is abdicating "force". They just could've done the town right, they could've handled the situation better. Both sides are at fault. The Country is failing itself.

How is the company at fault again?
 
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

In their ?hayway? [around the end of the 19th century], ?the shops employed up to 2,000 workers ? blacksmiths, mechanics, machinists, carpenters, upholsterers and other tradesmen engaged in building and repairing steam locomotives and freight and passenger cars.?

Are members of that community lining up at the station to ride the 'BNSF Express'? It appears they aren't, as clearly there is not enough demand for their services to warrant having the 260 laid-off workers standing around doing nothing. I have an idea--let's sue the company and make them hire workers in order to provide a service that has relatively little demand...that make sense.

No one is abdicating "force". They just could've done the town right, they could've handled the situation better. Both sides are at fault. The Country is failing itself.

How is the company at fault again?

Just as much as you and I are at fault.
 
How can you sue someone for laying people off? Did they have some sort of agreement saying they wouldn't lay people off? That doesn't make any sense at all.
 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
How can you sue someone for laying people off? Did they have some sort of agreement saying they wouldn't lay people off? That doesn't make any sense at all.

As a matter of fact they did.

"There was a catch: The 1858 agreement said that in exchange for free use of the land, the railroad must maintain its principal repair shops in Burlington."



 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
How can you sue someone for laying people off? Did they have some sort of agreement saying they wouldn't lay people off? That doesn't make any sense at all.

As a matter of fact they did.

"There was a catch: The 1858 agreement said that in exchange for free use of the land, the railroad must maintain its principal repair shops in Burlington."

Tell that to Indian Country.


Also, I think there was a court decision--Campbell Soup vs. (some carrot farmer)--that addresses this very topics...contracts can be changed over time to reflect prevailing market conditions...I haven't looked at the case in years, so if you researcher-Googlers want to dig it up, I would appreciate it...
 
Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz

172 F.2d 80 (3d Cir. 1949)

GOODRICH, Circuit Judge. ? The transactions which raise the issues may be briefly summarized. On June 21, 1947, Campbell Soup Company (Campbell), a New Jersey corporation, entered into a written contract with George B. Wentz and Harry T. Wentz, who are Pennsylvania farmers, for delivery by the Wentzes to Campbell of all the Chantenay red cored carrots to be grown on fifteen acres of the Wentz farm during the 1947 season. Where the contract was entered into does not appear. The contract provides, however, for delivery of the carrots at the Campbell plant in Camden, New Jersey. The prices specified in the contract ranged from $23 to $30 per ton according to the time of delivery. The contract price for January, 1948 was $30 a ton.

The Wentzes harvested approximately 100 tons of carrots from the fifteen acres covered by the contract. Early in January, 1948, they told a Campbell representative that they would not deliver their carrots at the contract price. The market price at that time was at least $90 per ton, and Chantenay red cored carrots were virtually unobtainable. The Wentzes then sold approximately 62 tons of their carrots to the defendant Lojeski, a neighboring farmer. Lojeski resold about 58 tons on the open market, approximately half to Campbell and the balance to other purchasers.



Found it 🙂 Will look for the full-text and make an argument once I get some grub from lunch 🙂
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

In their ?hayway? [around the end of the 19th century], ?the shops employed up to 2,000 workers ? blacksmiths, mechanics, machinists, carpenters, upholsterers and other tradesmen engaged in building and repairing steam locomotives and freight and passenger cars.?

Are members of that community lining up at the station to ride the 'BNSF Express'? It appears they aren't, as clearly there is not enough demand for their services to warrant having the 260 laid-off workers standing around doing nothing. I have an idea--let's sue the company and make them hire workers in order to provide a service that has relatively little demand...that make sense.

No one is abdicating "force". They just could've done the town right, they could've handled the situation better. Both sides are at fault. The Country is failing itself.

How is the company at fault again?

Just as much as you and I are at fault.
ah, so not at all: thnks for finaly making any point of your post at all.


Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz

172 F.2d 80 (3d Cir. 1949)
hum.. so 145 year old contracts might not be exactly 'enforceable', odd that.


 
Ever consider doing some research on Burlington dave? While a couple hundred jobs is nothing to take lightly - it surly doesn't destroy a town of 30K. There are other jobs in the area and the slack will be picked up elsewhere. Times change - people don't seem to be willing to admit that - they think they are "guaranteed" lifelong jobs and other things, but they aren't living in the real world if they really think that.

Meh - I read this thread last night but chose to ignore it because it really is a non-issue. The only thing that really may need discussed is the "contract" and how a town can sue an business into bringing back jobs.😛 Talk about a BS lawsuit😛

CkG
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
How can you sue someone for laying people off? Did they have some sort of agreement saying they wouldn't lay people off? That doesn't make any sense at all.

As a matter of fact they did.

"There was a catch: The 1858 agreement said that in exchange for free use of the land, the railroad must maintain its principal repair shops in Burlington."

Your quote doesn't say they can't lay people off.

Looking at contract law, one could also say that during the time it was the principal shop, they get free land. If it isn't their principal shop now, one could conclude they must start paying, but not any back payments. If that was the case, they are free to hire, fire and sell that property.
 
Back
Top