This is a classic example of the fallacy of the middle. In general, there are often two sides to an issue. But the correct balance is almost never directly in the middle.
You present the union and the management as equal players, both with radical views, and the truth as somewhere near the midpoint. Except the unions are trying to fight to keep two people per train, not have 100.
> Efforts to require at least two-person crews, including via
regulation, lack a safety justification; ignore the decades
of safe and successful use of single-person crews at
some U.S. freight railroads and in passenger and freight
rail systems throughout the world; upend meaningful
collective bargaining, and undermine the rail industry's
ability to compete against less climate-friendly forms of
transportation.
> This is a classic example of the fallacy of the middle. In general, there are often two sides to an issue. But the correct balance is almost never directly in the middle.
What gave you the impression that the parent post thinks the right answer is "in the middle"? He was simply pointing out that both parties have an incentive to say the "right" amount is lower/higher, and therefore just because one party says the amount needs to be changed, doesn't mean it actually needs to be changed.
You present the union and the management as equal players, both with radical views, and the truth as somewhere near the midpoint. Except the unions are trying to fight to keep two people per train, not have 100.
> Efforts to require at least two-person crews, including via regulation, lack a safety justification; ignore the decades of safe and successful use of single-person crews at some U.S. freight railroads and in passenger and freight rail systems throughout the world; upend meaningful collective bargaining, and undermine the rail industry's ability to compete against less climate-friendly forms of transportation.
https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/AAR-Crew-Size...