Amtrak workers fed up too...

[MisterUptempo]

I have to wonder if Amtrak could operate more efficiently - and have more ability to dismiss employees with attitude problems (for example, some members of the dining car wait staffs that moist of us long-distance passengers have experienced all too often) if they could jettison all of their contracts with organized labor.

If employees of a privately owned business want to organized into a union for some reason, I suppose that's OK (but I have to believe top performers in any line of work don't need unions) but government employees should be not be unionized at all. I don't know what percentage of Amtrak's expenses are for labor - if it's anything like the US Postal Service I'm sure it's too high - but between artificially high (above-market) wages, and restrictive work rules, I'm not sure the unions do much to enhance the Amtrak customer experience, or to help keep fares and sleeper changes as reasonable as they could otherwise be.

How soon we forget that organized labor brought us things like an 8 hour work day and 40 hour work week amongst other employee benefits.
An Amtrak OBS employee is not like your typical restaurant employee who works an ~8 hour shift then goes home. On the long distance trains, they can be away from home for almost a week, working +16 hour days.

It’s been a while since I’ve worked a 40 hour work week.
But more to the point, they choose the job knowing they will be away from family. It isn’t sprung on them.

Bucket of crabs, anyone?
Yes, those workers were well aware that those were the terms of employment. But they accepted those terms with the understanding that they would be justly compensated for the unorthodox working conditions as well as for their labor.

Your proof that they aren’t getting the wages they agreed to, please.
Was someone promised a condition of employment they aren’t getting?

No longer being happy with the wages or working conditions you chose to accept means you need a new job, not that you are being treated unfairly.

I really don't know where you're coming from on this one.
At no point did I state, or even imply, that the OBS weren't getting their agreed upon compensation, or that the rate was somehow unfair. I merely responded to your insulting comment that OBS don't seem to possess the capacity to understand the demands of their job when they sign on to work for Amtrak. I believe they understand the terms quite clearly, and those terms include being paid a wage that reflects the unusual demands that the job entails.

With your preface that you no longer work a 40-hour week, your comment takes on an added whiff of jealousy, which prompted my "bucket of crabs" comment. If you believe you aren't being fairly compensated for your work, the remedy does not lie in denying fair pay to others.

I’m not jealous. I am empowered. If so don’t like the conditions I agreed to, I have the ability to look for work elsewhere. Unemployment is at record lows. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head making anyone work. If you aren’t getting what was agreed to, that is a problem. If you are getting what you agreed to and it is no longer adequate, feel free to look for work elsewhere.

If you find having the ability to walk away from unacceptable circumstances insulting, I have nothing else for you. ‍

"If so don’t like the conditions I agreed to, I have the ability to look for work elsewhere."

Are you suggesting that, in all cases, if someone accepts a position at a particular wage that they should never ask for a raise, regardless of tenure or performance? I'm not talking about the Amtrak OBS, whose wages are set by a contract, the result of collective bargaining, but a typical, everyday employee, the vast majority of whom are not in unions.

Do you believe that employees shouldn't have the right to collectively bargain? Just trying to get a fix on where you are, because empowered people don't readily give up the right to sit at the negotiating table as equals of management and capital.

 

[tonijustine]

I have to wonder if Amtrak could operate more efficiently - and have more ability to dismiss employees with attitude problems (for example, some members of the dining car wait staffs that moist of us long-distance passengers have experienced all too often) if they could jettison all of their contracts with organized labor.

If employees of a privately owned business want to organized into a union for some reason, I suppose that's OK (but I have to believe top performers in any line of work don't need unions) but government employees should be not be unionized at all. I don't know what percentage of Amtrak's expenses are for labor - if it's anything like the US Postal Service I'm sure it's too high - but between artificially high (above-market) wages, and restrictive work rules, I'm not sure the unions do much to enhance the Amtrak customer experience, or to help keep fares and sleeper changes as reasonable as they could otherwise be.

How soon we forget that organized labor brought us things like an 8 hour work day and 40 hour work week amongst other employee benefits.
An Amtrak OBS employee is not like your typical restaurant employee who works an ~8 hour shift then goes home. On the long distance trains, they can be away from home for almost a week, working +16 hour days.

It’s been a while since I’ve worked a 40 hour work week.
But more to the point, they choose the job knowing they will be away from family. It isn’t sprung on them.

Bucket of crabs, anyone?
Yes, those workers were well aware that those were the terms of employment. But they accepted those terms with the understanding that they would be justly compensated for the unorthodox working conditions as well as for their labor.

Your proof that they aren’t getting the wages they agreed to, please.
Was someone promised a condition of employment they aren’t getting?

No longer being happy with the wages or working conditions you chose to accept means you need a new job, not that you are being treated unfairly.

I really don't know where you're coming from on this one.
At no point did I state, or even imply, that the OBS weren't getting their agreed upon compensation, or that the rate was somehow unfair. I merely responded to your insulting comment that OBS don't seem to possess the capacity to understand the demands of their job when they sign on to work for Amtrak. I believe they understand the terms quite clearly, and those terms include being paid a wage that reflects the unusual demands that the job entails.

With your preface that you no longer work a 40-hour week, your comment takes on an added whiff of jealousy, which prompted my "bucket of crabs" comment. If you believe you aren't being fairly compensated for your work, the remedy does not lie in denying fair pay to others.

I’m not jealous. I am empowered. If so don’t like the conditions I agreed to, I have the ability to look for work elsewhere. Unemployment is at record lows. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head making anyone work. If you aren’t getting what was agreed to, that is a problem. If you are getting what you agreed to and it is no longer adequate, feel free to look for work elsewhere.
If you find having the ability to walk away from unacceptable circumstances insulting, I have nothing else for you. ‍

"If so don’t like the conditions I agreed to, I have the ability to look for work elsewhere."
Are you suggesting that, in all cases, if someone accepts a position at a particular wage that they should never ask for a raise, regardless of tenure or performance? I'm not talking about the Amtrak OBS, whose wages are set by a contract, the result of collective bargaining, but a typical, everyday employee, the vast majority of whom are not in unions.

Do you believe that employees shouldn't have the right to collectively bargain? Just trying to get a fix on where you are, because empowered people don't readily give up the right to sit at the negotiating table as equals of management and capital.

I don’t mind someone negotiating.

You have the right to ask for a raise. Make your case. If the answer is no, which is within the rights of management to say, you don’t hold a company hostage. You don’t whine. You decide you are worth more and find a new job. Or you accept what you have currently.

To be clear (because it appears I haven’t been), it is futile judging your own happiness by how others are compensated. I am sure that I have coworkers making more money than me and I am relatively sure that others have been hired into comparable positions at wages equal to what I now make 14 1/2 years with the company. Am I mad at that? Nope, not at all.

I get paid a fair wage for what I do, and it is what I need to support my family. I don’t really care what others get. I am getting what I need from my employment and my paycheck. Too many people today determine fairness by what others are or are not making. I determine fairness based on what is proper compensation for the work I do. And I determine my happiness based on what that compensation allows me to do away from work.

I have a proposal on the desk of my boss and the company’s owner asking for a newly created position. I believe it should come with a pay increase. I have told them that. If they say no to the pay increase, I have a choice to make: take the job without a pay increase, stay in my current position, or find a new employer who will pay me what I want.

The 40 hour work week was more about the fact that it is an increasingly rare part of life these days to be able to work only 40 hours a week. For salaried folks, it is expected that you will work as long as it takes to get the job done. This time of year, for me, that means some 14 hour days, and some 50 or 60 hour weeks. But don’t cry for me...when work slows down, I can relax and get back to a more standard work week.

 

[bretton88]

The tweak I'd make to the system is changing the employment structure to "at will employment" or at least an easier road to termination. When there's no threat of termination, the employees have less incentive to care about the quality of their work and it makes it hard for Amtrak to weed out the bad apples.

 

[tricia]

Plenty of blame to go around here....

I think management is the primary culprit, for failing to provide sufficient resources and policies to enable the dining cars to provide excellent service of appropriate and attractive food. Not only are they not addressing that failure effectively--recent moves have been counter-productive.

Staff, however, have failed to do the best they can with what's available. Some of those failures are detailed further up in this thread, and in other threads on this forum: hostile treatment of customers, failure to be open for meals at reasonable hours, inflexibility about customizing orders, taking up multiple tables for staff use, etc.

What seems to be missing on both sides is focus on actually meeting their customers' needs in ways that make those customers feel good about traveling on Amtrak. Instead we see both sides stretching the truth (or outright lying) to make it APPEAR that they (and not their opponents) are aiming for good customer service.

Kinda makes me want to go for a nice rest in a dark room, too.

 

[zephyr17]

Wow. There is a lot to say here.

While I have seldom encountered an SCA who was overtly surly, I have encountered many SCAs that exhibit some of the following habits, none of which are customer friendly. I ride quite a bit and feel I have gotten pretty much the whole gamut of SCAs.

1. Just not being around and available. Seldom or never checking, and call button not answered. SCA often seen hanging around the dining car (not at meal times) chatting with other staff.

2. Drill sergeant that runs the car to their schedule. Announces when they are going to take the beds down, they do not ask.

I do notice that there is some tendency to be good or bad depending on the crew base. I have had generally better luck with Seattle and Los Angeles based crews, generally worse luck with Chicago. That is far from an absolute, have had fantastic SCAs and LSAs from Chicago and the two of the worst cafe LSAs were out of LA.

The most common is somewhere on the 1 continuum, just not being around. The best SCAs, and I have had quite a few really good ones, tend to check in every few hours if your door is open. They announce when they are leaving the car, how long they expect to be gone, and also announce that they are back.

I have thought for a long time that the wildly varying customer service is Amtrak's single biggest problem that is wholly within its control. And I lay that squarely on the shoulders of Amtrak management, not the unions. There are more processes and procedures to discipline an employee working under a union contract, but they are there, and it is up to management to know them and use them appropriately, not ignore it and throw up their hands. Amtrak management has not shown any consistent interest or focus on customer service consistency, let alone improvement. My recollection is when the chiefs of onboard service were on the trains, service was somewhat better. One of the big issues is there is no effective supervision of the onboard staff. The conductor has titular authority, but they mostly don't exercise it, and they are on and off the train and in a different reporting structure anyway. If the dining car LSA (steward) has supervisory authority over the OBS crew, which I have heard postulated, I've never seen them exercise it.

If Amtrak is serious about it, they need to make it an explicit management focus and put the structure (like bringing back an onboard supervisor of some sort), and program to do it. Thus far Anderson has shown much more passion about trying to gut service than improve it.

 

[cpotisch]

Wow. There is a lot to say here.

While I have seldom encountered an SCA who was overtly surly, I have encountered many SCAs that exhibit some of the following habits, none of which are customer friendly. I ride quite a bit and feel I have gotten pretty much the whole gamut of SCAs.

1. Just not being around and available. Seldom or never checking, and call button not answered. SCA often seen hanging around the dining car (not at meal times) chatting with other staff.

2. Drill sergeant that runs the car to their schedule. Announces when they are going to take the beds down, they do not ask.

I do notice that there is some tendency to be good or bad depending on the crew base. I have had generally better luck with Seattle and Los Angeles based crews, generally worse luck with Chicago. That is far from an absolute, have had fantastic SCAs and LSAs from Chicago and the two of the worst cafe LSAs were out of LA.

The most common is somewhere on the 1 continuum, just not being around. The best SCAs, and I have had quite a few really good ones, tend to check in every few hours if your door is open. They announce when they are leaving the car, how long they expect to be gone, and also announce that they are back.

I have thought for a long time that the wildly varying customer service is Amtrak's single biggest problem that is wholly within its control. And I lay that squarely on the shoulders of Amtrak management, not the unions. There are more processes and procedures to discipline an employee working under a union contract, but they are there, and it is up to management to know them and use them appropriately, not ignore it and throw up their hands. Amtrak management has not shown any consistent interest or focus on customer service consistency, let alone improvement. My recollection is when the chiefs of onboard service were on the trains, service was somewhat better. One of the big issues is there is no effective supervision of the onboard staff. The conductor has titular authority, but they mostly don't exercise it, and they are on and off the train and in a different reporting structure anyway. If the dining car LSA (steward) has supervisory authority over the OBS crew, which I have heard postulated, I've never seen them exercise it.

If Amtrak is serious about it, they need to make it an explicit management focus and put the structure (like bringing back an onboard supervisor of some sort), and program to do it. Thus far Anderson has shown much more passion about trying to gut service than improve it.

Dead on! And this particularly resonates with me:

I have thought for a long time that the wildly varying customer service is Amtrak's single biggest problem that is wholly within its control.

I do find it especially frustrating that poor service, one of the biggest issues I've found when taking Amtrak, is something that with proper initiative, they could pretty easily prevent.

 

[bratkinson]

I’m not jealous. I am empowered. If so don’t like the conditions I agreed to, I have the ability to look for work elsewhere. Unemployment is at record lows. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head making anyone work. If you aren’t getting what was agreed to, that is a problem. If you are getting what you agreed to and it is no longer adequate, feel free to look for work elsewhere.

I couldn't agree more! If one doesn't feel adequately compensated, there's the door.

In the world of business, it's all about controlling, ie, minimizing, costs. Keeping labor costs down is almost always the first choice of management to keep steady profits. Look around at newer or refurbed McDonalds. Inside customers order and pay for their food at a kiosk...no cashier needed! However, there is one or two real people to help customers figure it out, pay cash, etc. That alone eliminated the cost of 2 employees during rush periods. If there's not enough people willing to work for $10/hr, then it's time to raise the pay to $10.50. It is not, nor should it be, the concern of management if the amount of pay will 'support' a household. If there's a line of ready and waiting people willing to work for $10/hr, as soon as someone wants $11/hr, they'll end up going elsewhere only to be replaced by another $10/hr worker. THAT'S how business works!

In the world I grew up in 60+ years ago, part time jobs were largely for kids living at home, or as a second income when necessary to be 'on their own' to pay rent, bills, etc. I had a paper route at 12, mowed & shoveled neighbors yards at 14, and pumped gas at 16 to supply my 'needs' such as gas and insurance for my 15 yo car, 15-cent McDonalds burgers and 39-cent Whoppers, etc. Mom & Dad paid for everything else. That was back when TV was free and Ma Bell charged $8-15/month for phone service. These days, it seems like everyone feels 'entitled to' and MUST HAVE super-duper cable packages, $1000 cell phones, $100/mo phone plans, and Starbucks Lattes every day even before they think about rent or food. Surprise, surprise! Even $15/hour won't make ends meet with those kinds of expenses! And of course, the economic 'rule of thumb' is that if wages go up, so must the cost of goods and services produced. So, there will likely be fewer part time slots at McDonalds and everyone pays $2.50 for a cheeseburger. In effect, the sudden jump in income will ultimately end up having everything costing proportionately more than they did 5 years earlier!

 

[NSC1109]

Certainly a lot of blame to go around.

If morale is low, then it is primarily the responsibility of management to fix it. That's what I was taught in my Organizational Behavior course. Management has to figure out how to fix these issues. That being said, I've been on three long-distance routes, all of them out west, and I never came across a rude or unpleasant SCA, LSA, or DCA. I didn't have a lot of interaction with the A/C or Conductor, but as far as I could tell they were also good people. The only Amtrak employees I have had issues with were both Conductors on the Michigan Line. One was from well over ten years ago when we tried to pick up some food from the Cafe car about 15 or 20 minutes out of Chicago. Conductor wouldn't let us pass him until we got our tickets checked, which he supposedly could've done right there (we had them). This is mostly second-hand info from family, so the accuracy is up for debate. The second time was a few weeks ago, when 364 arrived in Kalamazoo. The trailing engine had an open door, and when I notified the Conductor, he became very rude and told me to "get the hell away from the train".

Amtrak needs a lot of work in both management and efficiency if they hope to remain relevant. They also need to market their advantages of taking the train over driving or flying, or how comfortable taking the train is. There were a lot of commercials describing that between 1980s and 2009, which featured the "Enjoy the Journey" slogan.

I certainly agree with the variations in standards depending on the crew base. I've only experienced a couple Chicago-based train service crews (trains 3 and 8) and they were nice, but the Seattle based SCA took the cake. Former UP manager who wanted to spend more time on the rails and with people than sitting in a cubicle. I know Amtrak has a service standards manual (saw it for sale on eBay), and it seems it needs to be more strictly enforced. Part of the duties of Trainmasters and Road Foremen is that they do operational audits of crews to ensure they are compliant. It would be foolish if OBS managers didn't do the same thing.

 

[seat38a]

Have we already forgotten about this case??? https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/crime/2017/11/27/woman-suing-amtrak-montana-hi-line-rape-case/892758001/

Management fired him and Unions fought and brought him back. If firing is pretty much useless endeavor, who in management is going to do anything about the bad employees?

 

[cpotisch]

Amtrak needs a lot of work in both management and efficiency if they hope to remain relevant. They also need to market their advantages of taking the train over driving or flying, or how comfortable taking the train is. There were a lot of commercials describing that between 1980s and 2009, which featured the "Enjoy the Journey" slogan.

They also had the "Getting there is half the fun" marketing scheme in the '90s.

I really don't think that Amtrak does a good job at communicating the benefits or advantages of train travel. When most people take a look at Amtrak, the first thing they see is that it takes ten times as long as flying, so they often abandon the mere concept off taking the train, right off the bat. Speed is basically the one thing that Amtrak really can't change, so they need to focus on what they can change and improve.

 

[NSC1109]

Amtrak needs a lot of work in both management and efficiency if they hope to remain relevant. They also need to market their advantages of taking the train over driving or flying, or how comfortable taking the train is. There were a lot of commercials describing that between 1980s and 2009, which featured the "Enjoy the Journey" slogan.

They also had the "Getting there is half the fun" marketing scheme in the '90s.
I really don't think that Amtrak does a good job at communicating the benefits or advantages of train travel. When most people take a look at Amtrak, the first thing they see is that it takes ten times as long as flying, so they often abandon the mere concept off taking the train, right off the bat. Speed is basically the one thing that Amtrak really can't change, so they need to focus on what they can change and improve.

Exactly. All of the commercials I saw from the 80s displayed the comfort and amenities of train travel. That needs to be revived, but there also has to be the funding to make it the best it can be too. One commercial stated that Amtrak’s Superliner and Amfleet were “some of the best in the world”, or something to that effect. Now, they’re 40ish years old.

“There’s something about a train that’s magical”. It’s still a true statement...but a lot has to be done to make the general public believe in it.

 

[Dakota 400]

Amtrak needs a lot of work in both management and efficiency if they hope to remain relevant. They also need to market their advantages of taking the train over driving or flying, or how comfortable taking the train is. There were a lot of commercials describing that between 1980s and 2009, which featured the "Enjoy the Journey" slogan.

They also had the "Getting there is half the fun" marketing scheme in the '90s.

I really don't think that Amtrak does a good job at communicating the benefits or advantages of train travel. When most people take a look at Amtrak, the first thing they see is that it takes ten times as long as flying, so they often abandon the mere concept off taking the train, right off the bat. Speed is basically the one thing that Amtrak really can't change, so they need to focus on what they can change and improve.

I beg to differ as to your comment about Amtrak's slogan of "Getting there is half the fun". That was the slogan of the Cunard Line for many years, i.e. R.M.S. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Media, Parthia, Brittanic, et al, circa 1950's-1960's. I do not recall that Amtrak adopted this marketing slogan.

I 100% agree with your comment that Amtrak does a poor job of communicating the benefits and advantages of train travel. That is why, I think, it would benefit their bottom line if quality, pleasant, customer service with quality food and beverage service and an emphasis on the hassle security-free on check-in and no checked luggage fees (for those trains that have such a desired service) would be a winner. The ground-level scenery is a bonus, yet nothing is said about this in Amtrak's marketing.

There is much potential that has yet to be realized and that is not new to anyone on this Forum.

 

[cpotisch]

Amtrak needs a lot of work in both management and efficiency if they hope to remain relevant. They also need to market their advantages of taking the train over driving or flying, or how comfortable taking the train is. There were a lot of commercials describing that between 1980s and 2009, which featured the "Enjoy the Journey" slogan.

They also had the "Getting there is half the fun" marketing scheme in the '90s.

I really don't think that Amtrak does a good job at communicating the benefits or advantages of train travel. When most people take a look at Amtrak, the first thing they see is that it takes ten times as long as flying, so they often abandon the mere concept off taking the train, right off the bat. Speed is basically the one thing that Amtrak really can't change, so they need to focus on what they can change and improve.

I beg to differ as to your comment about Amtrak's slogan of "Getting there is half the fun". That was the slogan of the Cunard Line for many years, i.e. R.M.S. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Media, Parthia, Brittanic, et al, circa 1950's-1960's. I do not recall that Amtrak adopted this marketing slogan.

Ah, my bad. I was thinking of this thread, and got it mixed up in my head.

 

[me_little_me]

Amtrak needs a lot of work in both management and efficiency if they hope to remain relevant. They also need to market their advantages of taking the train over driving or flying, or how comfortable taking the train is. There were a lot of commercials describing that between 1980s and 2009, which featured the "Enjoy the Journey" slogan.

They also had the "Getting there is half the fun" marketing scheme in the '90s.

I really don't think that Amtrak does a good job at communicating the benefits or advantages of train travel. When most people take a look at Amtrak, the first thing they see is that it takes ten times as long as flying, so they often abandon the mere concept off taking the train, right off the bat. Speed is basically the one thing that Amtrak really can't change, so they need to focus on what they can change and improve.

I beg to differ as to your comment about Amtrak's slogan of "Getting there is half the fun". That was the slogan of the Cunard Line for many years, i.e. R.M.S. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Media, Parthia, Brittanic, et al, circa 1950's-1960's. I do not recall that Amtrak adopted this marketing slogan.

I 100% agree with your comment that Amtrak does a poor job of communicating the benefits and advantages of train travel. That is why, I think, it would benefit their bottom line if quality, pleasant, customer service with quality food and beverage service and an emphasis on the hassle security-free on check-in and no checked luggage fees (for those trains that have such a desired service) would be a winner. The ground-level scenery is a bonus, yet nothing is said about this in Amtrak's marketing.

There is much potential that has yet to be realized and that is not new to anyone on this Forum.

Possibly, NSC1109 actually meant that Amtrak was saying "it's half the fun it used to be!"

 

[Dakota 400]

Amtrak needs a lot of work in both management and efficiency if they hope to remain relevant. They also need to market their advantages of taking the train over driving or flying, or how comfortable taking the train is. There were a lot of commercials describing that between 1980s and 2009, which featured the "Enjoy the Journey" slogan.

They also had the "Getting there is half the fun" marketing scheme in the '90s.

I really don't think that Amtrak does a good job at communicating the benefits or advantages of train travel. When most people take a look at Amtrak, the first thing they see is that it takes ten times as long as flying, so they often abandon the mere concept off taking the train, right off the bat. Speed is basically the one thing that Amtrak really can't change, so they need to focus on what they can change and improve.

I beg to differ as to your comment about Amtrak's slogan of "Getting there is half the fun". That was the slogan of the Cunard Line for many years, i.e. R.M.S. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Media, Parthia, Brittanic, et al, circa 1950's-1960's. I do not recall that Amtrak adopted this marketing slogan.

Ah, my bad. I was thinking of this thread, and got it mixed up in my head.

You're forgiven. I have had that same thing happen as well.

 

[NSC1109]

Amtrak needs a lot of work in both management and efficiency if they hope to remain relevant. They also need to market their advantages of taking the train over driving or flying, or how comfortable taking the train is. There were a lot of commercials describing that between 1980s and 2009, which featured the "Enjoy the Journey" slogan.

They also had the "Getting there is half the fun" marketing scheme in the '90s.

I really don't think that Amtrak does a good job at communicating the benefits or advantages of train travel. When most people take a look at Amtrak, the first thing they see is that it takes ten times as long as flying, so they often abandon the mere concept off taking the train, right off the bat. Speed is basically the one thing that Amtrak really can't change, so they need to focus on what they can change and improve.

I beg to differ as to your comment about Amtrak's slogan of "Getting there is half the fun". That was the slogan of the Cunard Line for many years, i.e. R.M.S. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Media, Parthia, Brittanic, et al, circa 1950's-1960's. I do not recall that Amtrak adopted this marketing slogan.

I 100% agree with your comment that Amtrak does a poor job of communicating the benefits and advantages of train travel. That is why, I think, it would benefit their bottom line if quality, pleasant, customer service with quality food and beverage service and an emphasis on the hassle security-free on check-in and no checked luggage fees (for those trains that have such a desired service) would be a winner. The ground-level scenery is a bonus, yet nothing is said about this in Amtrak's marketing.

There is much potential that has yet to be realized and that is not new to anyone on this Forum.

Possibly, NSC1109 actually meant that Amtrak was saying "it's half the fun it used to be!"

I didn't say "getting there is half the fun"...?

 

[cpotisch]

Amtrak needs a lot of work in both management and efficiency if they hope to remain relevant. They also need to market their advantages of taking the train over driving or flying, or how comfortable taking the train is. There were a lot of commercials describing that between 1980s and 2009, which featured the "Enjoy the Journey" slogan.

They also had the "Getting there is half the fun" marketing scheme in the '90s.

I really don't think that Amtrak does a good job at communicating the benefits or advantages of train travel. When most people take a look at Amtrak, the first thing they see is that it takes ten times as long as flying, so they often abandon the mere concept off taking the train, right off the bat. Speed is basically the one thing that Amtrak really can't change, so they need to focus on what they can change and improve.

I beg to differ as to your comment about Amtrak's slogan of "Getting there is half the fun". That was the slogan of the Cunard Line for many years, i.e. R.M.S. Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Media, Parthia, Brittanic, et al, circa 1950's-1960's. I do not recall that Amtrak adopted this marketing slogan.

I 100% agree with your comment that Amtrak does a poor job of communicating the benefits and advantages of train travel. That is why, I think, it would benefit their bottom line if quality, pleasant, customer service with quality food and beverage service and an emphasis on the hassle security-free on check-in and no checked luggage fees (for those trains that have such a desired service) would be a winner. The ground-level scenery is a bonus, yet nothing is said about this in Amtrak's marketing.

There is much potential that has yet to be realized and that is not new to anyone on this Forum.

Possibly, NSC1109 actually meant that Amtrak was saying "it's half the fun it used to be!"

I didn't say "getting there is half the fun"...?

Yep, I said it, having gotten a thread title and Cunard Cruise slogan mixed up with Amtrak in my head.

 

[BuffaloBoy]

I apologise for my typo... I think I will leave you folks to sort out your trains, and just have a rest in a dark room for a while...

Ed.

Relax, go have some dinn-dinn!

 

[Manny T]

http://oceanlinersmagazine.com/2014/10/10/getting-half-fun/

 

[railiner]

http://oceanlinersmagazine.com/2014/10/10/getting-half-fun/

Great link....

I have adopted that Cunard slogan, and add: "Getting back, is the other half"....in other works, the trip itself is all of the fun...forget about the destination...

 

[Skyline]

I have to wonder if Amtrak could operate more efficiently - and have more ability to dismiss employees with attitude problems (for example, some members of the dining car wait staffs that moist of us long-distance passengers have experienced all too often) if they could jettison all of their contracts with organized labor.

If employees of a privately owned business want to organized into a union for some reason, I suppose that's OK (but I have to believe top performers in any line of work don't need unions) but government employees should be not be unionized at all. I don't know what percentage of Amtrak's expenses are for labor - if it's anything like the US Postal Service I'm sure it's too high - but between artificially high (above-market) wages, and restrictive work rules, I'm not sure the unions do much to enhance the Amtrak customer experience, or to help keep fares and sleeper changes as reasonable as they could otherwise be.

How soon we forget that organized labor brought us things like an 8 hour work day and 40 hour work week amongst other employee benefits.
An Amtrak OBS employee is not like your typical restaurant employee who works an ~8 hour shift then goes home. On the long distance trains, they can be away from home for almost a week, working +16 hour days.

It’s been a while since I’ve worked a 40 hour work week.
But more to the point, they choose the job knowing they will be away from family. It isn’t sprung on them.

Bucket of crabs, anyone?
Yes, those workers were well aware that those were the terms of employment. But they accepted those terms with the understanding that they would be justly compensated for the unorthodox working conditions as well as for their labor.

Your proof that they aren’t getting the wages they agreed to, please.
Was someone promised a condition of employment they aren’t getting?

No longer being happy with the wages or working conditions you chose to accept means you need a new job, not that you are being treated unfairly.

I really don't know where you're coming from on this one.
At no point did I state, or even imply, that the OBS weren't getting their agreed upon compensation, or that the rate was somehow unfair. I merely responded to your insulting comment that OBS don't seem to possess the capacity to understand the demands of their job when they sign on to work for Amtrak. I believe they understand the terms quite clearly, and those terms include being paid a wage that reflects the unusual demands that the job entails.

With your preface that you no longer work a 40-hour week, your comment takes on an added whiff of jealousy, which prompted my "bucket of crabs" comment. If you believe you aren't being fairly compensated for your work, the remedy does not lie in denying fair pay to others.

I’m not jealous. I am empowered. If so don’t like the conditions I agreed to, I have the ability to look for work elsewhere. Unemployment is at record lows. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head making anyone work. If you aren’t getting what was agreed to, that is a problem. If you are getting what you agreed to and it is no longer adequate, feel free to look for work elsewhere.

If you find having the ability to walk away from unacceptable circumstances insulting, I have nothing else for you. ‍

"If so don’t like the conditions I agreed to, I have the ability to look for work elsewhere."

Are you suggesting that, in all cases, if someone accepts a position at a particular wage that they should never ask for a raise, regardless of tenure or performance? I'm not talking about the Amtrak OBS, whose wages are set by a contract, the result of collective bargaining, but a typical, everyday employee, the vast majority of whom are not in unions.

Do you believe that employees shouldn't have the right to collectively bargain? Just trying to get a fix on where you are, because empowered people don't readily give up the right to sit at the negotiating table as equals of management and capital.

I'm not sure that collective bargaining turns a labor pool into a truly equal partner with management. Being a major investor in a company would do that.

But collective bargaining does put labor in a better position, often but not always, than having no seat at the table whatsoever.

Having been part of a labor force, and later, the owner of a company with fewer than 50 employees, I've seen how it works from both sides. I've seen abuses on both sides. Even made a few mistakes myself while on either side. And I've come to the conclusion that the workplace is not a true democracy no matter how much one might wish it to be, but it goes better for everyone when all parties share some common goals. That requires give-and-take. That is usually better served through structured collective bargaining.

As an employer, I've learned to embrace reasonably-minded union personnel with fair-minded union leadership.

Amtrak could learn from small- and medium-sized businesses that enjoy a good relationship with its labor force. But where to begin? More difficult because the ultimate leaders are Congressional demagogues who use Amtrak to make political talking points too often, and have even less of a clue how to run a railroad than the top brass they've put in charge.

 

[Dakota 400]

http://oceanlinersmagazine.com/2014/10/10/getting-half-fun/

My parents subscribed to the no longer published Holiday magazine. As a teen-ager, I "devoured" the stories, photos, and ads in that magazine. Cunard's ads were among many others that helped to cause my travel/cruise addiction of today.

 

[Asher]

Sorry, I forgot your name. But Im glad you clarified what your job entailed, I was afraid you were going to give the impression it was a tough task. Thanks for transitioning us through a delightful playday.

 

[NativeSon5859]

During my stint as an Amtrak SCA, the typical day went something like this on 58.

1100 - report to work; briefings, etc

1130 - crew van takes us out to the train in the yard

1135 to 1400 (train departed at 1345)- help load supplies on board, starting unpacking the crates full condiments, start getting the tables set up, etc

1400 to 1630 - they’d generally let us go in our room until we had to report back to the diner before dinner.

1700 to 2030 (or so): dinner service, sometimes not constantly busy, sometimes so busy you can barely keep up. The random broken dumb waiters on certain cars made it all the more interesting.

2030 to 2130 - post meal cleanup, prep tables etc for breakfast

2130 to 0500 - sleep time

0530 - report back to diner

0600-0745 - breakfast

0745- 0900 - start cleaning and packing up all items in the diner, *had* to be ready to unload everything once you got to

Chicago. Upon arrival help chef unload items.

0930 - with any luck you’d be able to catch a van around 930 or 10 to the crew hotel.

1000-1730 - layover at hotel

1800 - back to station to report to work

And of course there was no alternate crew if the train was running hours later. If you get to Chicago so late whereas you’d only have a three hour layover, so be it, you’d just hang in the crew lounge, pound energy drinks, and go right back that night.

 

[NSC1109]

During my stint as an Amtrak SCA, the typical day went something like this on 58.

1100 - report to work; briefings, etc

1130 - crew van takes us out to the train in the yard

1135 to 1400 (train departed at 1345)- help load supplies on board, starting unpacking the crates full condiments, start getting the tables set up, etc

1400 to 1630 - they’d generally let us go in our room until we had to report back to the diner before dinner.

1700 to 2030 (or so): dinner service, sometimes not constantly busy, sometimes so busy you can barely keep up. The random broken dumb waiters on certain cars made it all the more interesting.

2030 to 2130 - post meal cleanup, prep tables etc for breakfast

2130 to 0500 - sleep time

0530 - report back to diner

0600-0745 - breakfast

0745- 0900 - start cleaning and packing up all items in the diner, *had* to be ready to unload everything once you got to

Chicago. Upon arrival help chef unload items.

0930 - with any luck you’d be able to catch a van around 930 or 10 to the crew hotel.

1000-1730 - layover at hotel

1800 - back to station to report to work

And of course there was no alternate crew if the train was running hours later. If you get to Chicago so late whereas you’d only have a three hour layover, so be it, you’d just hang in the crew lounge, pound energy drinks, and go right back that night.

No alternate crew? Combine that with the frequent delays for LD service and it’s a small wonder why some of them are grumpy.