top | item 31876832

(no title)

gambler | 3 years ago

Hm, after reading the title I monetarily thought the article would talk about the implosion of Union Pacific and complications of switching to a different provider. FYI:

https://www.manufacturing.net/labor/news/13118134/union-paci...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/union-pacific-to-cut-nearly-3-0...

https://www.thepacker.com/news/transportation/union-pacific-...

https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/sd9kqw/union_paci...

https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/s6c04a...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/14/los-angeles-...

https://www.cfindustries.com/newsroom/2022/union-pacific-shi...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDxp8lUXDz0

Meanwhile at the top:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF_5jng3RYM

TLDR version. UP switched to some fancy "efficient" system several years ago, laid off thousands of employees. At the time many people predicted collapse of the company in a couple of years. Three years later it is plagued by rampant theft and trash on the tracks. This year it refused to ship fertilizer during planting season. It also refused to ship additives to diesel fuel earlier this year (amidst general truck shipping issues and skyrocketing fuel costs). Meanwhile the CEO is smiling like a Cheshire Cat and giving out Bloomberg interviews about efficient management.

discuss

order

No comments yet.