Amtrak Strike

[JT22CW]

Kudos to Rigel for the correct assessment of unions.

For the record, unions are at their worst when they collude (in secret, of course) with management.  The government, remember, does allow for member recourse against such unions, whereupon such unions can be charged with (and convicted of) failure to represent.  However, this requires, to be effective, members to form a sort of "union within a union", which really should not be.

The government, though, has taken an active role in the interference with business practices throughout the years.  Allowing businesses to outsource to other countries without punishment has severely undermined not only the middle class in this country but also our national security (by making us dependent upon other countries for raw materials related to defense and infrastructure, among many other things) and has turned this economy from a producer into a consumer, which is the ultimate expression of "false economy".

[wabash1]

Will the last 22 posts on here, go back and read original question...I will assume I was only one that did...And ill repeat myself...You heard it here,SECOND time.....NO AMTRAK STRIKE......                                  "ALWAYS PRACTICE SAFE EATING, USE YOUR CONDIMENTS"

Bring to the board real evidance that what you say is true. I have not heard  any word if there is or is not going to be a strike, they can go on strike and there is always a presidential order that could sugest they stay at work, if you strike you strike let them sign all them orders they want how they going to arrest all of us. there is no jail big enough to hold us all. then let us go one step farther who gonna run them trains if we all in jail. I dont think there be a strike either but i think the engineers over there should get some better benifits.

[Murphy Siding]

Will the last 22 posts on here, go back and read original question...I will assume I was only one that did...And ill repeat myself...You heard it here,SECOND time.....NO AMTRAK STRIKE......                                  "ALWAYS PRACTICE SAFE EATING, USE YOUR CONDIMENTS"

I am soooo happy to get this news.  I am sure that union leaders, Amtrak management, Amtrak rank and file, The White House, US Congressmen and thousands of travelers who don't want their plans upset are just as relieved as I am.  We can all sleep so much better knowing that there will be no strike.

  I guess I won't sell my Amtrak stock after all!

[PNWRMNM]

I do not know if it will come to a strike or not, but disagree with Jeaton's expectation that congress will step in.  To the best of my knowledge there has never been an Amtrak only stirke.  Most recent rail (freight and passenger) have been "settled" by congress.  The most important exception being the N&W strike which went for most of 90 days before Carter intervened to save the union's bacon.

A passenger strike would do yery little damage to the economy so congress should have very little interest in intervening and even if they did Bush might have the courage to veto it.  I don't expect congress to do anything and that thought should be weighing on union leadership.  

Mac

[kenneo]

Something really important seems to be overlooked in all of the responses - if there is an AMTK only strike, AMTK is "ashes to ashes, AMTK to rust".  The only parts to survive will be those that are funded by local and/or state governments and have hired AMTK to operate their service - such as CalTrans.  Almost - in not everything else - will be gone.  Some will get revived by locals putting up their money for the service desired, but that will take some time.  Those who desire AMTK to disappear will have succeeded byond their wildest expectations.

[Dutchrailnut]

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.

 

[Dakguy201]

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.   

[zardoz]

Wow there's a lot of hot air in here......

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!

[doghouse]

 

  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)?

[Krazykat112079]

 

  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.

[jeaton]

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.

[jeaton]

 

  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.

Not sure where you got the $4 billion.  I checked back on reports and Amtrak offered $4500, but the PEB went close to the unions demand for almost $13,000.  The $13,000 would be a one time "sign up" amount and while the unions want payments to be made to any covered employee that worked for Amtrak as far back as 2000, the PEB basicly limited it to current employees.  I've seen the current headcount of 8,000 covered so the total retro pay would be $104 million.  True, that's not chump change.

[Krazykat112079]

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. 

[sanvtoman]

 

    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]

 

    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. 

[bajadog]

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! 

 

[jeaton]

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. 

No problem.

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.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

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.  

[jeaton]

 

    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. 

A national survey a couple of years ago said that 70% of the public favored a national railroad passenger service.  Add in the taxpayer contribution to the question?  Would $4.33 per person for this year's grant change many minds?

[tomikawaTT]

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

[Mr_Ash]

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

[zardoz]

 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?

[Dakguy201]

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? 

[sanvtoman]

 

 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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Dutchrailnut]

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.

 

 

 

[chefjavier]

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".

[zugmann]

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. 

[chefjavier]

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..

[Dutchrailnut]

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