"Labor fees" might mean that in certain union shops, in order to work there, you have to join the union and pay their dues. This might annoy certain libertarian-minded people, as they might feel that you shouldn't have to belong to an organization if you don't want to. There's also a political angle that I don't want to go into too much detail, but by joining a union, your dues might go to fund political activities with which you don't agree. I don't know enough about how unions fund their favored political candidates, so I can't really say whether this is a real concern. For all I know, the unions do separate fundraising efforts for candidates, and members who don't support a particular candidate don't have to contribute. Or maybe general union funds go to the candidates. As I said, I don't know. Of course, if I work for a corporation, or own stock in one and the management of that company funds a candidate I really don't like, there's really not a whole lot I can do., either.
"A decent wage" is a very slippery term, indeed. I mean, I think a corporate CEO is definitely worth a salary of up to a couple hundred thousand a year, but the corporate CEOs do their darndest to get paid 10, 50, 100, 150 million a year. Are dining car attendants who make $20-$40 an hour overpaid? Well, most restaurant workers commonly make under $15/hour and may not even get to work 40 hours a week. Is that a "decent wage?"
As far as unions fostering "excessive staffing," well, based on all of the experiences recounted here, I would say that Amtrak's problem is that there's insufficient staffing to do the job right. Amtrak is not the only company with the problem, by the way. Practically every company I do business with is understaffed, whether they're unionized or not.
"Little or no competition?" With what? Amtrak competes with people driving their cars burning underpriced gasoline on taxpayer-funded highways and traffic law enforcement. Driving is significantly cheaper than riding in any form of public transportation and it's some pretty potent competition. It's cheaper because a lot of the true cost of driving is an externality in the form of pollution and greenhouse gases.
"Antiquated regulations?" Maybe. But on the other hand, updating the regulations might make them stricter and increase costs. Then there's the issue of "
regulatory capture," though I don't think Amtrak is powerful enough to be accused of that.
"Over-generous [labor?] contracts?" -- Are Amtrak's contracts really out of line with the rest of the railroad industry? (I'm talking here about the class 1's, not small local short lines operating in low-cost rural areas.)
"Thwarting any attempt to keep the cost of rail down..." An excessive emphasis on cutting costs leads to the
race to the bottom scenario, which doesn't help any business, government, or non-profit enterprise provide a quality product and service and in the long run doesn't help the company, government agency or non-profit.
I joined the union (National Treasury Employees Union) a year or so before I retired. Sorry I didn't do it sooner. (I worked in and "open shop." We had a union contract, but you didn't have to join the union to work there.) Being I was a civil servant, they couldn't do much about our pay and benefits beyond lobbying Congress on our behalf, but they did help me out with something that saved me a whole lot of money.
