Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [FJGRailroad] Re: FJG 34064 Photo---Mellon and the ST move

Expand Messages
  • Paul Larner
    Re: Fonfulco, Inc. From the 1964 annual report: Progressive coal and oil sales volume decline in recent years resulted in annually recurring net losses for
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 13, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Re: Fonfulco, Inc.  From the 1964 annual report:  "Progressive coal and oil sales volume decline in recent years resulted in annually recurring net losses for this company's wholly owned affiliate, Fulton County Coal and Oil Co. Inc., and in order to preserve assets - it retired from the coal and oil business, selling its inventory and other fuel business assets on May 8 1964, and the name of the affiliate was threafter changed to Fonfulco, Inc."
       
      More to follow on the other issues as I have to get to a meeting.
       
      PKL
       

      To: FJGRailroad@yahoogroups.com
      From: akeller_1979@...
      Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:57:41 -0800
      Subject: Re: [FJGRailroad] Re: FJG 34064 Photo---Mellon and the ST move

       
      Please keep in mind that my point for bringing this information out there was to describe the various corporate moves... the FJ&G charter being applied to the SB&NY (OnTrack) was the only union-related move.  Theoretically any company can "unionize," SB&NY could have done so, too, but no one there wanted to.  They also wanted to be able to run the Budd cars with one-man crews vs. two-man crews.  This point was mainly an "aside" to the discussion on Fonfulco being used to run the work crews.  Not just any company can claim Railroad Retirement Board benefits; Fonfulco could not.  It was basically a contract to a railroad, not a transportation provider.  Note that nowhere did I accuse DO or anyone affiliated with it of trying to "bust" a union; they didn't.  By all accounts Walter and his management teams were extremely generous to their employees over the years; perhaps more generous than most other employers. 

      -Aaron



      From: John <jsesonske@aol. com>
      To: FJGRailroad@ yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Wed, January 13, 2010 12:34:32 PM
      Subject: [FJGRailroad] Re: FJG 34064 Photo---Mellon and the ST move

      I will preface my remarks by saying I am neither for or against unions as they have an important role to play but they can get out of control. The rail unions did hinder railroad economies for many years (firemen on diesels being the classic example).

      Mellon did not really make the union go away. By putting everything under ST he swapped agreements for one with more flexible work rules so he was in a better position to make money in a tough operating arena. Maybe not labor friendly but probably really good business. And a creative and bold move.

      I am by no means a Guilford fan after what went on with the D&H but the recent Trains article on Pan Am Railway was, in my opinion, very well written and eye opening as to Tim Mellon and what he has done. There are a ton of Guilford bashers and from a railfan perspective its not a line I have liked in the past but they have survived. Most of the B&M more or less still exists which is a small miracle.




      Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.