Two thoughts regarding the idea of getting rid of unions and strikes:
1. The strikers could be shot dead, arrested, or black-listed. After all, in the 1877 Railroad Strike and the 1894 Pullman Strike (not to mention the 1892 Homestead Strike) the Companies simply hired men to shoot striking workers; the government helped the Companies by perverting the law and common justice to serve the interests of the owners. While I would hope Mr. Ash wouldn't like to see this result, the tone of his comments reminds me of how many viciously anti-union people there are in this country, often, I think, out of jealousy or sour grapes. I bet there are many people in America who'd like to see strkers shot, even in 2008.
2. In 1936 when FDR was running for a second term, a man was quoted as saying he would vote for FDR because, "Mr. Roosevelt knows my boss is a son of a female dog." I think it's laughable that anyone thinks that bosses or Companies will look out sufficiently for the rights of their workers, simply out of the good of their hearts, which is paternalism. Workers are only able to negotiate effectively with Companies through collective bargaining (another word for unions), not individually, which produces divide-and-conquer results for workers.
Mr. Ash, as a young or new union member you may have been at the bottom of the union totem pole when you were let go. It's unfortunate, but it happens. But generally, if one can survive in a union job and gain some seniority, a cornucopia of benefits, and maybe even a nice retirement pension, can be earned or gained. Labor and unions, especially in American railroading, have a most important place in the history, and future, of our Republic.
chefjavier wrote:Thanks for the inside!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
correct the work to fill watertanks in yards is done by carman/ carman helpers.
so if the car was at a service track and other crafts are standing there it is not their job to do so. A electrician does not fill watertanks, neither does car cleaner or machinist or trackworker or Mechanical supervisor, so unless a carman(helper) were available it is nobody's job, you get hurt doing a job you were not trained for that same railroad will fire your a**.
And good thing Mr.Gunn did it himself after all we paid him big bucks to do something besides riding around in a office car
zugmann wrote:I am hired for a specific job. I will NOT do the work of others. You want conductors to go work on the signal system? That would be a riot. The point of having a specific job is that you do what you are trained for.
I am using a quote from Jeaton, "Gunn was on the Amtrak office car on the service track at Chicago Union Station and the potable water tank needed to be filled. Four workers were having a conversion by the car and he asked them to have the tank filled. The four then got into a debate over who's job it "wasn't". Meanwhile, Gunn went over and filled the tank himself."
Are you trying to tell me that's not your job? We work for the same company? You have the big bosses in a train? Keep in mind I am using as a example..Its not personal toward you..
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Dutchrailnut wrote: And most of Union dues is a tax deduction so how much does it really cost you ;-) If it were not for Unions there would be no:Overtime after 40 hoursTwo day weekendsPaid holidaysVacation allotmentsPersonal daysBereavement daysMedical insurance.Grievance procedures against employer.Etc. in short even non- union people benefit or we be all slave labor.
And most of Union dues is a tax deduction so how much does it really cost you ;-)
If it were not for Unions there would be no:
Overtime after 40 hours
Two day weekends
Paid holidays
Vacation allotments
Personal days
Bereavement days
Medical insurance.
Grievance procedures against employer.
Etc.
in short even non- union people benefit or we be all slave labor.
I agree with your theory but you have the other side of the equation. You always have those individuals in the union that would take that step further by saying. "That's not my Job". I will say to them, " I thought you get pay by the hour not by the work".
I pay $1049.00 a year in Union dues and make $85,000 a year sounds like a damn fine trade off to me. Plus I have insurance for me and my family, senority rights and some protection from the bastards I work for.
You said you work security, and are non union good for you, when your bosses son-in-law gets your job you can always drive for one of the rail cab companies I think you would fit in well with them. I believe other Rails on here will know what I mean.
I have stated before when i was working i was in 2 rail unions. And the unions had as much corruption as did the carriers. Having said that without unions on the railroads we would have got screwed twice as much as we did.
Everyone seems to indicate that work rules are a major (perhaps the major) point of deep division between the parties. However, I have not had a lot of luck obtaining much information on exactly what it is that management is proposing, nor what, if anything, the unions might be willing to accept.
Does anyone want to offer a link or a reasonable summary of each side's proposals?
jeaton wrote: A side story on this issue. Gunn was on the Amtrak office car on the service track at Chicago Union Station and the potable water tank needed to be filled. Four workers were having a conversion by the car and he asked them to have the tank filled. The four then got into a debate over who's job it "wasn't". Meanwhile, Gunn went over and filled the tank himself.
A side story on this issue. Gunn was on the Amtrak office car on the service track at Chicago Union Station and the potable water tank needed to be filled. Four workers were having a conversion by the car and he asked them to have the tank filled. The four then got into a debate over who's job it "wasn't". Meanwhile, Gunn went over and filled the tank himself.
I wonder if any of those "workers" filed a timeslip grievance against Mr. Gunn?
bajadog wrote: it's obvious that Mr.Ash should return to school where a UNION teacher might be able to teach him spelling and grammer.Together we bargain, divided we beg!
it's obvious that Mr.Ash should return to school where a UNION teacher might be able to teach him spelling and grammer.
Together we bargain, divided we beg!
Yeah because a union teacher is so much more smarter than a non union teacher. So what is the "union" title like the performance part sticker some kid stuck on the side of his little 4 banger rice burner thinking the sticker alone add's 20 horse power? Just being "union" must be like +50 IQ points if thats the case! By the way its spelled Grammar
Go pay your union dues
With the number of Congresscritters who want to kill Amtrak, and with a strike as a perfect excuse to drive a stake through its heart, any labor action against Amtrak would be tantamount to career suicide.
Of course, nobody selects union officials on the basis of their intelligence...
Chuck
Krazykat112079 wrote: sanvtoman wrote: The first thing the that has to be figured out is does the public even want Amtrak. Or more importantly does the public want to pay for Amtrak. People use it don't they? As a member of the public you can count my vote towards paying for Amtrak. The funding can come from any number of things I don't think the government should be paying for.
sanvtoman wrote: The first thing the that has to be figured out is does the public even want Amtrak. Or more importantly does the public want to pay for Amtrak.
The first thing the that has to be figured out is does the public even want Amtrak. Or more importantly does the public want to pay for Amtrak.
People use it don't they? As a member of the public you can count my vote towards paying for Amtrak. The funding can come from any number of things I don't think the government should be paying for.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
The latest news about the Amtrak labor negotiations (not a strike yet, but a potential strike) is the Presidential Emergency Board has recommended that the workers get the 8 years back pay, and that the imposition of the changes to the work rules should be delayed. The next move is up to Amtrak. Stay tuned.
The issue is not whether unions are good, bad or indifferent, but whether the Amtrak will accept the Presidential Emergency Board's Recommendations, and if not, will the workers go out on strike.
Krazykat112079 wrote: jeaton wrote:Not sure where you got the $4 billion. That makes two of us. I know I based it off financial type statements I found online and calculations I made in my head, but I can't seem to find either one right now. I have no problem defering to your numbers.
jeaton wrote:Not sure where you got the $4 billion.
That makes two of us. I know I based it off financial type statements I found online and calculations I made in my head, but I can't seem to find either one right now. I have no problem defering to your numbers.
I think I saw that the jump in pay scales from the year 2000 end of the last contract to the proposed new level is 35%. There have been some sort of COLA increases so the actual current pay level is not still at the 2000 level. If you got an estimate of the total wages being paid to the covered employees for a year times six years times 35% you probably would come up with a number of about $4 billion. If it came to that amount, I doubt I would have an Amtrak train to ride.
The first thing that has to be figured out is does the public even want Amtrak. Or more importantly does the public want to pay for Amtrak.
Krazykat112079 wrote: doghouse wrote: Pro Union, Anti Union: scrambled or sunny side up. Personal preference, I guess. Anyway, has there been any new news on the strike(or no strike)?http://www.progressiverailroading.com/freightnews/article.asp?id=11997 It seems that it is still in limbo. January 30th is the deadline when I guess a strike becomes a legal option. Based on what I read, they are looking for ~35% retroactive increase in wages back to 2000. It will be interesting to see where this money comes from, because we are talking about $4 billion in retroactive pay, not to mention what they would need to pay from here on. With only about $3 billion in revenue and government funds per year, I can see where Amtrak official may be reluctant to give in.
doghouse wrote: Pro Union, Anti Union: scrambled or sunny side up. Personal preference, I guess. Anyway, has there been any new news on the strike(or no strike)?
Pro Union, Anti Union: scrambled or sunny side up. Personal preference, I guess. Anyway, has there been any new news on the strike(or no strike)?
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/freightnews/article.asp?id=11997
It seems that it is still in limbo. January 30th is the deadline when I guess a strike becomes a legal option. Based on what I read, they are looking for ~35% retroactive increase in wages back to 2000. It will be interesting to see where this money comes from, because we are talking about $4 billion in retroactive pay, not to mention what they would need to pay from here on. With only about $3 billion in revenue and government funds per year, I can see where Amtrak official may be reluctant to give in.
Dakguy201 wrote: It might be useful here if someone would summarize the final positions/offers of both the unions and Amtrak, or a summary of the differences between them. I don't think a lot of us understand precisely what the differences are.Personally, I have doubts that the current Congress and Administration can come to enough of a consensus to impose a legislative settlement.
It might be useful here if someone would summarize the final positions/offers of both the unions and Amtrak, or a summary of the differences between them. I don't think a lot of us understand precisely what the differences are.
Personally, I have doubts that the current Congress and Administration can come to enough of a consensus to impose a legislative settlement.
You can go on the NARP site and probably other places to get a fairly good summary of the PEB's recomendations, but it is basicly a "how much for how much" situation. This is what I see. Antrak management is not likely to go to the wall just over the union requested wage scale. Already several years back, Dave Gunn had noted that Amtrak wage scales for various trades were less than for those trades in other businesses. For example, he noted that Amtrak had become a training spot for electricians working on power transmission systems who, with sufficient experience, would quit and go to electric utility companies for more money. I think he also noted that transit T&E personnel have wage rates higher than Amtrak.
A key money issue at this point is retroactive pay. I think these are the numbers. Amtrak offered $4,500, but the PEB recommended the union requested $12,500. With 8,000 employees involved that is an extra $64,000,000, which by the PEB recommendation, Amtrak would pay in 2009. Obviously, in Amtrak's situation, coming up with that chunk of money would be tough. Further, it could also set a pattern for retro pay when Amtrak and the UTU covered train employees finally come to terms. I don't know how many train employees are covered by the UTU contract, but figure an extra $8 million per thousand employee for that part.
I couldn't get an exact sense of the impact of the PEB's recommendation on the cost of fringe benefits. The PEB seemed to go with the union demands on that area, but it didn't seem that Amtrak and the unions were very far apart in that area.
Amtrak's biggest demand was for changes in work rules that would allow personnel to be assigned to work cross trade positions and also allow more work to be outsourced to other companies. Of course the unions oppose this and it appears to me that the PEB went with the unions on this issue. A side story on this issue. Gunn was on the Amtrak office car on the service track at Chicago Union Station and the potable water tank needed to be filled. Four workers were having a conversion by the car and he asked them to have the tank filled. The four then got into a debate over who's job it "wasn't". Meanwhile, Gunn went over and filled the tank himself.
I personally think something will be done to avoid a strike. While a strike causing the long distant trains to stop running might be politically tolerable, shutting down the Northeast Corridor, California services and many of the other regionals would cause big problems for passengers and politicians alike. There are any number of ways that a strike could be avoided and the prevailing view is that Congress will come up with something, probably very favorable to the union positions, to order a settlement by law. Word is that the House and Senate Committees involved are working on something. There is always the prospect that such a law would be vetoed by the White House, but remember that there is a risk of a major political fall-out in an election year.
Among other prospects is that maybe with some small adjustments, Amtrak could settle along the lines of the PEB. Of course, that would mean Amtrak would have to give up the demands for changes in work rules. Considering that increases in wage rate are inevitable and perhaps justifiable in any case, that would leave Amtrak at statue quo on the whole issue of labor/management relations. The big obstacle here is the back pay issue. By the PEB recommendation, the extra $64 million could be put off until 2009, but then it would probably have to be added to or come out of the federal grant for fiscal 2009. That might make Congress very upset on the grounds that Amtrak would be effectively be commiting federal funds without an OK from Congress. On the other hand, there is a political tit for tat. Congress is loath to make tough decisions in an election year. Working behind the scenes, Amtrak might find sufficient tacit support in Congress to settle, just to keep the issue off the Congressional agenda this year. Could this go? It is possible, because there is no law that keeps Amtrak from reaching an agreement with the unions.
Time will tell.
solzrules wrote: Wow there's a lot of hot air in here......
Wow there's a lot of hot air in here......
solzrules wrote: For those of you who hate the thought of unions - they aren't 100% bad 100% of the time. My trade union has provided me with a top notch education on how to do my job safely and efficiently. Yes I pay dues, but they help fund the apprenticeship program which I feel is second to none. I'm actually mighty proud of it. Unions have won some pretty stadard labor issues that we take for granted today - 8 hour day, overtime, holidays, etc. 100 years ago these were not normal characteristics of our labor force, and we have unions to thank for this. They also provide a good avenue for collective bargaining - one entity is answering for all the employees in the local - this isn't always a bad thing. I am sure that railroad unions provide some level of protection to employees that are trying to do their jobs and go home every night - I know they do for elecrical construction workers. One the other hand, there are those who adhere to the union the way one might subscribe to a religion. Unions can and do get too powerful for their own good. Collective bargaining works best when the employers and the employees come to the table on an equal footing. If one has more power than the other, the industry suffers (the brewery industry in Milwaukee is a prime example, or even the automotive industry today). Unions do not realize that they can gain enough power that they become the exploitive entity that they claim to be against. There are also serious corruption problems in some unions. Typically, these are the unions that are so powerful they worry less about collective bargaining and more about padding their own pockets at the expense of the membership - thus exploiting the very people they claim to want to protect.
For those of you who hate the thought of unions - they aren't 100% bad 100% of the time. My trade union has provided me with a top notch education on how to do my job safely and efficiently. Yes I pay dues, but they help fund the apprenticeship program which I feel is second to none. I'm actually mighty proud of it. Unions have won some pretty stadard labor issues that we take for granted today - 8 hour day, overtime, holidays, etc. 100 years ago these were not normal characteristics of our labor force, and we have unions to thank for this. They also provide a good avenue for collective bargaining - one entity is answering for all the employees in the local - this isn't always a bad thing. I am sure that railroad unions provide some level of protection to employees that are trying to do their jobs and go home every night - I know they do for elecrical construction workers.
One the other hand, there are those who adhere to the union the way one might subscribe to a religion. Unions can and do get too powerful for their own good. Collective bargaining works best when the employers and the employees come to the table on an equal footing. If one has more power than the other, the industry suffers (the brewery industry in Milwaukee is a prime example, or even the automotive industry today). Unions do not realize that they can gain enough power that they become the exploitive entity that they claim to be against. There are also serious corruption problems in some unions. Typically, these are the unions that are so powerful they worry less about collective bargaining and more about padding their own pockets at the expense of the membership - thus exploiting the very people they claim to want to protect.
Well said!
Even" The Shrub" will not shut down Amtrak over something as silly as wages.
Employees and passengers are voters , and its getting to close to presidential election.
Using these scare tactics with industries may work, your work will just go to India Or Pakistan, but It would not wash with a semi Government company like Amtrak.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.