RAILPAX Version 2.0

Nice to know that John Wayne thinks Amtrak on-board personnel should be paid like fast-food employees.

CHTT1 wrote:Nice to know that John Wayne thinks Amtrak on-board personnel should be paid like fast-food employees.

I didn't suggest that all. I merely was stating a hypothetical proposition. Even Amtrak uses non-union contract labor for the well regarded food service on the Downeaster, but that was only possible because the Downeaster was a new service. For the rest of the system, Amtrak has been stuck in the same labor relations timewarp since 1971.

CHTT1 wrote:Nice to know that John Wayne thinks Amtrak on-board personnel should be paid like fast-food employees.

The economic reality of minimum wage, our falling standard of living and poverty aside.

If the labor market is willing to staff the train at " fast food employee" wages why should they pay more? especially considering it's partially funded with tax revenue . If the works that hard then no one will be willing to work for those wages and they will be forced to increase the wage. It's called the free market system.d

I feel the same way about "prevailing wage " highway and municipal construction projects. Plenty of people are willing to push a broom for $16/hour but the Davis Beacon act mandates they get $32.50/hour ( in my area anyhow) I feel its a blatant violation of looking out for the tax payers best interest.

While you may enjoy being conscripted to pay taxes, I do not and with a few common sense exceptions ( like having gov't forms printed in china on chineese paper) I want to most bang for buck. I can sleep at night knowing the guy leaning on a shovel rebuilding the CT river line is only making $14/hour same goes for the guy getting me a soda on the train.

Of course I'm pretty sure we all know this but....

Amtrak isn't paying higher wages because its mandated by law they're paying them as part of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement. Unlike other workers in the rest of the market the railroad employees at Amtrak and elsewhere have wisely chosen to continue to collectively bargain because they can make better wages.

These workers instinctively sense what BigLou refers to, that they are the only ones who can look out for themselves, while others sleep peacefully at night regardless of their working conditions, wages or quality of life. If others had the same courage and smarts they would probably have better wages too.

gokeefe wrote:Of course I'm pretty sure we all know this but....

Amtrak isn't paying higher wages because its mandated by law they're paying them as part of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement. Unlike other workers in the rest of the market the railroad employees at Amtrak and elsewhere have wisely chosen to continue to collectively bargain because they can make better wages.

These workers instinctively sense what BigLou refers to, that they are the only ones who can look out for themselves, while others sleep peacefully at night regardless of their working conditions, wages or quality of life. If others had the same courage and smarts they would probably have better wages too.

Glad to see that someone "gets it." Sharp post.


Ocala Mike

It should be noted that the most successful commercial airline--Southwest--is one also one of the most heavily unionized. SWA doesn't really skimp on employee compensation, but it does have a lot of flexibility in its work rules, and it has really gotten its employees to buy into its operating methods. That, in my view, is where Amtrak and it unions need improvement.

gokeefe wrote:Of course I'm pretty sure we all know this but....

Amtrak isn't paying higher wages because its mandated by law they're paying them as part of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement. Unlike other workers in the rest of the market the railroad employees at Amtrak and elsewhere have wisely chosen to continue to collectively bargain because they can make better wages.

These workers instinctively sense what BigLou refers to, that they are the only ones who can look out for themselves, while others sleep peacefully at night regardless of their working conditions, wages or quality of life. If others had the same courage and smarts they would probably have better wages too.

Actually union busting is illegal, almost any for profit corporation would rid it self of a union ASAP if the unions hadn't lobbied congress for protection over 100 years ago. Amtrak and many other are legally bound to deal with so called " collective bargaining" units. So I would make the argument that Amtrak is legally bound to pay those wages. There is no legal mechanism for them to rid them selves of a union. What would happen if Amtrak went out tomorrow and said we are hiring 50,000 new people at market rate ( what ever people are willing to work for) and as soon as they are trained we are firing every union worker? The union lawyers would have lawsuits filed before the first job application was filled out.

Very few unions ( I know of none) are actually willing to partner with employers, wasn't it a union the drove the final nail in the coffin of the rock island ? Lets talk about unions and big dig cost over runs ? how projects are extorted by PLA's, didn't it take the failure of the PennCentral before unions were willing to allow 2 man train crews ( i may be all wrong on that one) but it did take the PC failure to get unions to make many concessions .

Our standard of living is falling its just a fact ( but at least we can save money at walmart) all most unions are doing is hastening the pace by making it impossible for many corporations to compete. Many manufacturing unions have "collective bargained " them selves right in to a closed factory. Its hard for a railroad to compete with a 5th grade education level trucker who is pleased to make $12/hour.

Everybody wants to save money, I see a lot of this hypocrisy from many union members I know. How many of them are willing to pay 25%- 50% more to help some other worker make more money ? Do all railroad workers leave $20-$30 tips at dinner to assure the waitress is making at least $60/hour ( Im sure most union railroad workers have a TOTAL COMPENSATION worth at least that) instead of the $3.50 + tips she is making? I'm sure all union workers boycott anti union, non health insurance paying, factory closing made in china walmart right ?

If a private sector corporation can deal with a union and still stay profitable good for them, if the union drives them out of business that's what the union gets. I highly object to public sector employee unions when the employer doesn't have to make a profit. I want my tax dollars spent as conservativly as possible, if that means $12/hour soda serves so be it. After all I am just looking out for my best interest.

Of course, Amtrak most certainly is 'legally required' to pay wages under collective bargaining agreements reached with unions in the same way that they must honor any contract. However, there is no federal law that states they must pay a 'prevailing wage', as was referred to elsewhere. There is of course a legal mechanism to end collective bargaining if the employees vote (by secret ballot) to decertify their union. Of course they don't knowing full well that in Amtrak's case they would very likely be faced with immediate decreases in pay.

Station Aficionado makes a very good point about Southwest Airlines, where the company and the unions have managed to work together very well over the years to innovate in airline industry practices.

The bottom line for most civilian employees of the federal government is that they want a piece of the American dream as much as the next person. To them the federal government is one employer among a field of possibilities. No American, including taxpaying members of the civil service will ever abandon their struggle for a better life.

gokeefe wrote:Of course, Amtrak most certainly is 'legally required' to pay wages under collective bargaining agreements reached with unions in the same way that they must honor any contract. However, there is no federal law that states they must pay a 'prevailing wage', as was referred to elsewhere. There is of course a legal mechanism to end collective bargaining if the employees vote (by secret ballot) to decertify their union. Of course they don't knowing full well that in Amtrak's case they would very likely be faced with immediate decreases in pay.

So Amtrak is legally bound to enter in to a collective bargaining agreement, Amtrak can not legally prevent it's employees from unionizing. Amtrak can not at its discretion exit said" collective bargaining" agreement. Amtrak is legally bound to pay the "prevailing" union wage by default, Amtrak management has no say in the matter.

Maybe Amtrak needs a ESOP. If the employees like their wage so much let it become an employee owned company. Lets let their retirement be in company stock options and directly tied to the future performance and earning of the company. If a union is such a great partner let them put their money where their mouth is.

BigLou80 wrote: Maybe Amtrak needs a ESOP. If the employees like their wage so much let it become an employee owned company. Lets let their retirement be in company stock options and directly tied to the future performance and earning of the company. If a union is such a great partner let them put their money where their mouth is.

Amtrak stock doesn't trade and it would be hard to even estimate a value, since it's unlikely that Amtrak will ever break even, let along turn a profit. Employee ownership is also a largely useless motivation to individual workers. Sure, a few workers at Dot Com era start ups made fortunes after IPOs, but the reality is different for unprofitable legacy corporations, let alone a government subsidized company like Amtrak. The "employee owners" of the IAM union allowed United Airlines to go bankrupt back in 2002. Yes, the membership owned a stake in the company and they'd rather lose that equity rather than make concessions. Now imagine a subsidized corporation that literally can't fail as long as the federally funding stream keeps flowing. No, employee ownership doesn't make a difference as far a labor relations. Even incentive pay doesn't make much of a difference in large company, since a single hourly employee doesn't have the ability to impact the bottom line for the entire company.

gokeefe wrote:Of course I'm pretty sure we all know this but....

Amtrak isn't paying higher wages because its mandated by law they're paying them as part of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement.

Actually, after a bit of controversy in the 90s, it turned out that Amtrak could only use non-union employees for food service, and even then, only for start up services.

I think it is worth noting that amtrak has made significant agreements with the unions , that probably wouldnt have been possible if passenger service was still operated by the freight railroads . they are , switch to hourly rate for running crews , and single man in the cab for runs under 6 hours .
There is alot more gain to be had through more flexibility , than any attempt to lower hourly rates through using non union labor .two i can think of are more interchangability between conductors and obs crews , allowing more crew bases , and more flexibilty around enroute switching manning levels .

David Benton wrote:I think it is worth noting that amtrak has made significant agreements with the unions , that probably wouldnt have been possible if passenger service was still operated by the freight railroads .

Check your facts. For routes over 6 hours, Amtrak has exactly twice as many operating personnel as a freight railroad. At a minimum, you have an engineer, another engineer in the cabin , a conductor and an assistant conductor. Why does there need to be a second engineer? Why an "assistant" conductor? It all comes down to union agreements. On any freight, you only have an engineer and conductor. Amtrak needs a 3 or 4 person crew, the Class 1 freight have had 2 person crews since the 80s.

David Benton wrote: they are , switch to hourly rate for running crews , and single man in the cab for runs under 6 hours .

That second engineer looks like the modern equivalent of a "fireman," and as we all know, there really wasn't anything for a fireman to do after the era of steam.

David Benton wrote:There is alot more gain to be had through more flexibility , than any attempt to lower hourly rates through using non union labor .two i can think of are more interchangability between conductors and obs crews , allowing more crew bases , and more flexibilty around enroute switching manning levels .

First of all, nobody was suggesting that operating crews running on Class 1 railroads would ever go non-union. The hypothetical suggestion was that a private startup would never employ the same dated onboard service staffing methods, not that there ever will be any startups of that sort. Operating crews on Class 1 railroads would always be union. Of course, looking at the disparity in staffing between Amtrak and Class 1s, you can draw your own conclusions. If a start-up running over a Class 1, with union crews, start-up could utilize a 2 person operating crew as a opposed to Amtrak's 4 person operating crew, the economics of passenger rail would be far more favorable.

To confuse the comparison a bit, freight railroads with an engineer and no fireman or assistant engineer usually have the conductor in the locomotive cab, where he can help keep the engineer awake on long trips, or distract him.
Are there any Amtrak trains with crews that work them more than 6 hours each, and are yet short enough that assistant conductors would not otherwise be required by agreement?

Things change. People used to say that if you were riding in an electric streetcar or elevated train that happened to get struck by lightning, you were safe because "the MOTORMAN is not a CONDUCTOR".