Comments on: Inside the Rail Worker Disability Program That Never Says “No” http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/10/09/inside-the-rail-worker-disability-program-that-never-says-no/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: sara http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/10/09/inside-the-rail-worker-disability-program-that-never-says-no/comment-page-1/#comment-133001 sara Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:29:06 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=67281#comment-133001 ????? ??? http://www.saudihack.com ????? ???
http://www.saudihack.com

]]> By: Larry Littlefield http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/10/09/inside-the-rail-worker-disability-program-that-never-says-no/comment-page-1/#comment-132661 Larry Littlefield Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:25:07 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/?p=67281#comment-132661 In addition to the issued raised by everyone becoming disabled immediately working massive overtime for a year to increase their pension, there is the issue of the broader attitude of LIRR workers toward the rest of us, and how that affects their work from their first day on the job. I'm told it is bad, and was among the worst dating back to its days as a private company. However, the current NY Times article misses something. Even if the LIRR workers and managers were suddenly afraid of getting caught, you still wouldn't expect a higher percent of workers to be turned down for disability. You would expect a smaller share, the actually disabled, to apply. Maybe its one-twelfth as much, matching the other railroads, maybe somewhat more if there is a safety problem on the LIRR. The Times mentioned how many applied and were rejected, but not the share of the retiring workforce that applied. Is it still 97 percent? In addition to the issued raised by everyone becoming disabled immediately working massive overtime for a year to increase their pension, there is the issue of the broader attitude of LIRR workers toward the rest of us, and how that affects their work from their first day on the job. I’m told it is bad, and was among the worst dating back to its days as a private company.

However, the current NY Times article misses something. Even if the LIRR workers and managers were suddenly afraid of getting caught, you still wouldn’t expect a higher percent of workers to be turned down for disability. You would expect a smaller share, the actually disabled, to apply. Maybe its one-twelfth as much, matching the other railroads, maybe somewhat more if there is a safety problem on the LIRR.

The Times mentioned how many applied and were rejected, but not the share of the retiring workforce that applied. Is it still 97 percent?

]]>