Genuine question: why don’t they just start the train? Best case, the cat jumps off. Worst case, it dies but the train continues. Is there something else? Is the presence of the cat on the roof a safety issue?
Edit: I’m asking from the train operator’s perspective. Obviously we want the cat to be safe and well, but a train company with a timetable doesn’t care about that, so I wondered what’s actually stopping them from just starting the train and potentially killing the cat.
No, I don’t think it’s acceptable. But my question wasn’t about me, nor about ethics. There’s no way a train operator with a timetable cares about animal well-being or any other question of ethics. I’m curious what the real reason is.
Why on earth would a train operator care about timetables over basic ethics? They are human beings, not robots, you know?
The controller and driver both get paid either way, and I’m sure the train driver is used getting home late on occasion - and I expect they get overtime pay, so he may well be laughing anyway.
And the controller, or whatever they’re called, will just be seeing it as a PR issue. The slight lost money on the refunds (that passengers actually bother to put through) is easily worth the good PR.
Edit: Missed random words, impatient brain running too fast for fingers.
I do applaud your optimism. Wish I could have that same rosy view. Unfortunately company executives have shown time and again their true motives. You are of course correct that they are not robots; however, studies do show that they are disproportionately psychopathic compared to the general population, and the behavior of companies often reflects that quite visibly. Profits and the interests of stakeholders always take priority over basic human decency. It would definitely be refreshing if that is not the case here.
I just really don’t think that they would care. It’s easier to spin it as, “We didn’t know the cat was there, what a tragedy” than to appease all the passengers who are now late and frustrated.
A small delay for a single train, on a network of thousands, is not enough for the “evil train company” employees, that you seem to think that they all for some reason.
The world isn’t quite as black and white as you seem to believe it is!
One, it’s not the train drivers calling the shots here; the train drivers (like all employees) are stringently controlled by management.
Two, it’s not “hate” to observe that companies just don’t care about ethics and well-being. I thought most of us agreed on this, even the company executives themselves: when ethics conflict with profits, profits are always the higher priority.
Genuine question: why don’t they just start the train? Best case, the cat jumps off. Worst case, it dies but the train continues. Is there something else? Is the presence of the cat on the roof a safety issue?
Edit: I’m asking from the train operator’s perspective. Obviously we want the cat to be safe and well, but a train company with a timetable doesn’t care about that, so I wondered what’s actually stopping them from just starting the train and potentially killing the cat.
Maybe they don’t want to kill the cat?
I would love for that to be the real reason but I severely doubt that it is. I’m curious about the real reason.
So you think it’s acceptable to kill an animal so people aren’t late?
Should the cat know better? I’m not sure cats comprehend timetables.
No, I don’t think it’s acceptable. But my question wasn’t about me, nor about ethics. There’s no way a train operator with a timetable cares about animal well-being or any other question of ethics. I’m curious what the real reason is.
Why on earth would a train operator care about timetables over basic ethics? They are human beings, not robots, you know?
The controller and driver both get paid either way, and I’m sure the train driver is used getting home late on occasion - and I expect they get overtime pay, so he may well be laughing anyway.
And the controller, or whatever they’re called, will just be seeing it as a PR issue. The slight lost money on the refunds (that passengers actually bother to put through) is easily worth the good PR.
Edit: Missed random words, impatient brain running too fast for fingers.
I do applaud your optimism. Wish I could have that same rosy view. Unfortunately company executives have shown time and again their true motives. You are of course correct that they are not robots; however, studies do show that they are disproportionately psychopathic compared to the general population, and the behavior of companies often reflects that quite visibly. Profits and the interests of stakeholders always take priority over basic human decency. It would definitely be refreshing if that is not the case here.
You’re missing a fundamental part here. The company execs are not the ones deciding whether to delay a train with a cat on the roof.
That’s the driver and conductor, who are paid hourly or salaried. The execs don’t even know there is a cat on the roof.
This could lead to traumatized customers and a bad image as heartless company.
(or be a total win if the cat stays on top and became the new mascot; but guess they don’t want to take the risk)
I think your answer is probably the most plausible compared to the others. It’s a public image issue. That makes sense.
Yeah because them killing the cat is going to play sooo well for their reputation.
I just really don’t think that they would care. It’s easier to spin it as, “We didn’t know the cat was there, what a tragedy” than to appease all the passengers who are now late and frustrated.
Why do you hate train drivers so much!?
A small delay for a single train, on a network of thousands, is not enough for the “evil train company” employees, that you seem to think that they all for some reason.
The world isn’t quite as black and white as you seem to believe it is!
One, it’s not the train drivers calling the shots here; the train drivers (like all employees) are stringently controlled by management.
Two, it’s not “hate” to observe that companies just don’t care about ethics and well-being. I thought most of us agreed on this, even the company executives themselves: when ethics conflict with profits, profits are always the higher priority.
Three, this isn’t what “black and white” means.
Lol I really doubt that.