Stupidest lie you've ever heard from an amtrak employee

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roaches on a Train! ( Would make a good Movie Title!)

Roaches along with Alligators, Crocks,Rats and Sharks are the survivors here on earth! Been around for Millions of years! ( 6,000 if your science advisor is Sarah Palin)

Anywhere there is heat and humidity/water you will find Roaches, ie the South and Southeast although I've seen some Giant ones in New York City!(some places call them Waterbugs!)

Mainly what they are doing when you see them inside, whether in a building or on a train, is looking for food! Lots of folks have phobias about bugs, snakes, animals etc but Roaches wont really hurt you, they're just hungry!

Flies are much dirtier!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden said:
Seniority systems make it hard to get rid of the worst, if the worst have managed to coast below the radar for a while. They're pernicious.
Click to expand...
It also makes it very hard to reward the truly exceptional. So in the end it guarantees mediocrity, since the best just pack up and leave for greener pastures. There are other places where methods have been devised by management and unions working together to address such issues. But unfortunately in the US for whatever reason the relationship between management and unions more often than not is so needlessly confrontational that there is little hope of creating a more conducive work environment in many cases.
 
Silver Star rider said:
I always love when people complain about unions, but grew up with strong unions protecting workers and jobs. Want to know about what life was like pre-unions? Triangle Shirt Factory fire. How many hundreds died because management could do whatever they wanted? When was the last time someone worked more than 40 hours a week? , didnt got vacation or sick days? medical insurance? Thank unions for all that. Do you think management gave those things out of the goodness of their heart?

Employers and employees will never be on equal terms, so I rather the pendulum be swinging on the employee than employer side.

How is this for a scenario?? I am a supervisor over a assembly line. Business is slow, so I have to let one worker go. Worker #1 just has been working for me for a year, wage and benefits cost me $25k a year. Worker #2 worked for me for 10 years, earns $50k a year. Well, you know what? I just don't get along with worker #2, haven't for years. He is a good worker, never had a issue with his work, but we just dont get along. So even though worker #2 has 10 years experience, I am going to make my life better and get rid of him, saving my company twice the money. Is that fair? Nope, but without a union contract protecting seniority, basing layoffs of last hired first fired, you will have management doing what is not fair in their favor.
Click to expand...
The historic labor unions of yore of which you speak have evolved into organizations far more concerned with politics and influencing public officials than they are about protecting their membership. Were unions necessary? Absolutely, but as their role changed their relevance has come into question. I think the vitriol expressed toward unions today would be less if they went back to their traditional role.

I also think your example is flawed and goes both ways. I have seen too many times layoff situations where a worker who is hard-working, punctual, goes the extra mile and is well liked and respected by his co-workers and management get laid off because they didn't meet the seniority bumper, while people with more seniority who are the poster child for mediocrity, inefficiency and do not have the respect of their peers or management stay on. So no, last in first out is not a fair system and is something that needs to change. I'd rather keep the best workers in my organization whether it is in my favor or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tp49 said:
Silver Star rider said:
I always love when people complain about unions, but grew up with strong unions protecting workers and jobs. Want to know about what life was like pre-unions? Triangle Shirt Factory fire. How many hundreds died because management could do whatever they wanted? When was the last time someone worked more than 40 hours a week? , didnt got vacation or sick days? medical insurance? Thank unions for all that. Do you think management gave those things out of the goodness of their heart?

Employers and employees will never be on equal terms, so I rather the pendulum be swinging on the employee than employer side.

How is this for a scenario?? I am a supervisor over a assembly line. Business is slow, so I have to let one worker go. Worker #1 just has been working for me for a year, wage and benefits cost me $25k a year. Worker #2 worked for me for 10 years, earns $50k a year. Well, you know what? I just don't get along with worker #2, haven't for years. He is a good worker, never had a issue with his work, but we just dont get along. So even though worker #2 has 10 years experience, I am going to make my life better and get rid of him, saving my company twice the money. Is that fair? Nope, but without a union contract protecting seniority, basing layoffs of last hired first fired, you will have management doing what is not fair in their favor.
Click to expand...
The historic labor unions of yore of which you speak have evolved into organizations far more concerned with politics and influencing public officials than they are about protecting their membership. Were unions necessary? Absolutely, but as their role changed their relevance has come into question. I think the vitriol expressed toward unions today would be less if they went back to their traditional role.

I also think your example is flawed and goes both ways. I have seen too many times layoff situations where a worker who is hard-working, punctual, goes the extra mile and is well liked and respected by his co-workers and management get laid off because they didn't meet the seniority bumper, while people with more seniority who are the poster child for mediocrity, inefficiency and do not have the respect of their peers or management stay on. So no, last in first out is not a fair system and is something that needs to change. I'd rather keep the best workers in my organization whether it is in my favor or not.
Click to expand...
Last in first out is still the best solution, not saying it is perfect. Management would rather get rid of the person making the most money if everything else is equal. And I have seen personality conflicts getting involved when they shouldn't. Yes, I have seen workers who figure they have seniority who do less work than others who don't, but I also known good workers who were let go because of personality issues with the manager.

And in non union work places I have seen workers who know how to work the system so they don't have to do their fair share of work and still keep their jobs.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this :)

Bruce-SSR
 
I have a real life example of one of the reasons why I do not like unions. My father was a 25 year highly skilled employee of a large aerospace company. When he became seriously ill and needed help for time off, the union he was a member of for that entire time, just turned a deaf ear. BTW, he died of that illness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess I am probably uniquely disqualified from joining this fray. Throughout my entire working life I have carefully avoided unionized jobs and have consistently campaigned against and voted against any attempt to unionize the workplace where I worked. It seemed to me that the straightjackets that go with unions would simply reduce my flexibility and ability to move to whatever job I want to do at whatever hour. So far it has worked out extremely well for me. I have been retirement eligible for about 12 years now and I am just having too much fun at work to even consider such. In all these years I have come close to getting laid off twice, and both times I managed to jump organizations in a timely fashion to move to one where there was growth instead of shrinkage. Of course each individual case is different and YMMV.

However, I have nothing against those that want to work in a unionized environment. Each to their own. Just don't force me into doing so. I will definitely move elsewhere if such seems to become unavoidable.
 
Silver Star rider said:
Now watch everyone tell me their favorite horror story of a union protecting this or that person. In all union contracts there are strict rules how management can discipline a worker, including termination.
Click to expand...
First blame for management failure always has to go to management of course. I've run into three teachers who should have been removed -- one for malfeasance, one for misfeasance, and one for non-feasance. So the tenure rules and union rules DO allow them to be removed, and it is strictly management's fault that they weren't removed. The union gets no credit for quality, because it defended them, but it is primarily management's fault that they weren't prosecuted in the first place.

But strict seniority contracts are not acceptable, and management should not tolerate them. It's all very well to use seniority when you have *no-fault layoffs*, but it's quite different when you have *firing for cause*. And here's the thing: any well-run organization should have firings for cause, fairly often. It's the only way to avoid getting terrible, terrible people embedded in the organization. And frankly, even personality conflicts are a legitimate reason for rearranging the organization; an organization with embedded personality conflicts in key places is a disaster. If your rules are too strict, if your union is too defensive of the bad guys, you can't keep a functioning organization.

The best unions embrace the "union quality" idea: the idea that union labor is *good* labor, that the union represents quality. They also have solidarity. They aren't going to defend the indefensible, but they are going to defend the defensible, whether it's the new guy or the old guy. I've seen examples of good union locals and bad union locals. I like the good ones, a lot. The bad ones... well, some of the worst have consistently been in the railroad industry, for some reason I can't fully explain, but it may have to do with the fights between different "craft unions" ("industrial unions" have more solidarity). The absolute worst locals have followed a policy of "screw the new guys, screw the customers, we got ours, and we don't need to do good work, either".

"Last in first out" is a terrible terrible policy for anything other than "no fault" layoffs. Which, frankly, should be avoided at any organization whenever possible. They're only necessary due to general sectoral downturns in demand. And they're awful for morale. "No fault" layoffs are a bad idea period. There is, for example, never any reason for Amtrak to have no-fault layoffs unless there's a massive Congressional budget cut, and arguably not even then (it may well make more sense to retain the workers who have been working the trains which are retained).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden said:
Seniority systems make it hard to get rid of the worst, if the worst have managed to coast below the radar for a while. They're pernicious.
Click to expand...
For reference, it's not just unions where seniority systems are pernicious. There are seniority systems in Congress and many state legislatures, and these are *incredibly* pernicious. My beef is really with seniority systems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyway, the stupidest lie I've ever heard was "No, we were answering the phone at that time". Um, no, you weren't, because I called, and you didn't pick up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I was on one of the largest unions in NYC, I know our contract had language that... trying to remember, a person over a period of time, not sure how much time, had three written offenses concerning how he handled his work, he can be terminated. Even if the union, when they seen the evidence, felt the termination was proper. still has to represent him in any matter concerning his employment. Just like any suspect arrested is allowed legal representative, even if their guilt is easy to see.

I know former co-workers, because of a personality conflict with his boss, had numerous written offenses. He challenged them according to the union contract and had the written reprimands removed from his file. That boss was ultimately let go because he had a personality conflict with his boss.

The reason unions nowadays don't do what they did when they were first formed is because the unions got political to pass laws protecting workers.

I also know bad workers can still keep their jobs, goof off most of the week, and keep their jobs, even without a union contract.

Bruce-SSR
 
"Waterbugs" is another "polite" name for cockroaches that I've heard 'round here. Or, to give voice to another lie: "Waterbugs and cockroaches are different; cockroaches breed in your house and waterbugs breed outside."

they're the same thing and AFAIK, they can't tell the difference between "inside" and "outside."

They're kind of a fact of life in the South. They used to freak me out badly but now I've become blase about them. They tend to inhabit my (detached, thankfully) garage.
 
To quote an expert entymologist at Orkin:

"

Although many people refer to various cockroach species as waterbugs, the true water bug is an aquatic insect classified under the order Hemiptera. Water boatmen and water scorpions are true bugs that live in water. Their legs are used as paddles to move through water. Members of the Gerridae family, such as water striders, pond skaters and water spiders, are also water bugs. However, instead of using their legs as paddles, they make use of surface tension to stay afloat.

Cockroaches are adaptable insects. Although they gather in warm, moist areas, they are not aquatic. Cockroaches are scavengers who consume any organic food source available to them. These insects normally are nocturnal and hide in crevices during the day. Cockroaches are capable of spreading human disease and triggering allergies and asthma. They are attracted to food sources indoors... ."
 
jis said:
I guess I am probably uniquely disqualified from joining this fray. Throughout my entire working life I have carefully avoided unionized jobs and have consistently campaigned against and voted against any attempt to unionize the workplace where I worked. It seemed to me that the straightjackets that go with unions would simply reduce my flexibility and ability to move to whatever job I want to do at whatever hour. So far it has worked out extremely well for me. I have been retirement eligible for about 12 years now and I am just having too much fun at work to even consider such. In all these years I have come close to getting laid off twice, and both times I managed to jump organizations in a timely fashion to move to one where there was growth instead of shrinkage. Of course each individual case is different and YMMV.

However, I have nothing against those that want to work in a unionized environment. Each to their own. Just don't force me into doing so. I will definitely move elsewhere if such seems to become unavoidable.
Click to expand...
Same here (though I'm a long way from being able to retire). Original unions were needed. Today's, not so much. Seems the unions are more for the "leaders" than for the employees.
 
Silver Star rider said:
I always love when people complain about unions, but grew up with strong unions protecting workers and jobs. Want to know about what life was like pre-unions? Triangle Shirt Factory fire. How many hundreds died because management could do whatever they wanted? When was the last time someone worked more than 40 hours a week? , didnt got vacation or sick days? medical insurance? Thank unions for all that. Do you think management gave those things out of the goodness of their heart?

Employers and employees will never be on equal terms, so I rather the pendulum be swinging on the employee than employer side.

How is this for a scenario?? I am a supervisor over a assembly line. Business is slow, so I have to let one worker go. Worker #1 just has been working for me for a year, wage and benefits cost me $25k a year. Worker #2 worked for me for 10 years, earns $50k a year. Well, you know what? I just don't get along with worker #2, haven't for years. He is a good worker, never had a issue with his work, but we just dont get along. So even though worker #2 has 10 years experience, I am going to make my life better and get rid of him, saving my company twice the money. Is that fair? Nope, but without a union contract protecting seniority, basing layoffs of last hired first fired, you will have management doing what is not fair in their favor.

If you are having someone build your house, would you rather have the Forman get someone off the street, give him a hammer and tell him, go build a house? Or get a professional who went through a apprenticeship in a union hall before being given a hammer?

Now watch everyone tell me their favorite horror story of a union protecting this or that person. In all union contracts there are strict rules how management can discipline a worker, including termination.

I am sure anyone who considers themselves management reading this tread, rather pay a worker 40 hours pay for 60+ hours work with no benefits.

Bruce-SSR
Click to expand...
Of course unions are the cure of all management evil (not). How many garment worker jobs are there left in the US? Also look at the history of Ford Motor Company, who adopted many progressive labor policies BEFORE UNIONS. Henry Ford believed a happy and well paid workforce would attract the highest quality workers and in the end make him more profit than lesser paid, lesser motivated workers.

In contrast look at the relations between the IBEW and the Electrical Contractors. In the 1930's they basically agreed on a partnership which benefits both parties with quality workers and working conditions. Win-Win-and Win for the user as most residential/commercial installation which could be a high hazard is in practice very safe.

Amtrak's problems likely are a combination of management lethargy (as noted... ride the rails), with the organic difficulties that behaviour may change when the supervisor is not riding (when the cats are away the mice play...), Amtrak not having a stable funding base so employment is ultimatly at the whim of Congress (including Union political support has been very important to keeping Amtrak), and the other dynamics of simply running a rail service over a huge area.

For the firefighting service the Triangle fire is considered a "landmark" and gave incentive for a lot of safety rules and features (adequate exits for example) that we take for granted today. For leisure here are links to wiki articles on the Triangle Fire and also a 1991 fire in a chicken processing plant. Both featured locked doors and multiple fire deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_chicken_processing_plant_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
 
AmtrakBlue said:
Same here (though I'm a long way from being able to retire). Original unions were needed. Today's, not so much. Seems the unions are more for the "leaders" than for the employees.
Click to expand...
the old school unions were about protecting the rights of the workers...

most of today's unions is about making sure you pay your dues on-time.

some unions are operated like business and will send your overdue union

due bills to collection agencies and ruin your credit score. :( don't worry,

they always pay the union leaders on-time every month.
 
Re the comments about Unions involvement in Politics! I would have no issue with Unions being prohibited from political activity IF Corporations and the Billionaires that are flooding the Political Process with money were also prohibited from doing so! Of course the Supremes have ruled that its a Freedom of Speech Right so what's sauce for the goose is true for the gander!

Disclaimer: I'm.a Life Member of two Unions, the IAFF and CWA, but worked for several years as a Contract Employee for a Consulting Firm after Retiring as a Civil Servant!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jimhudson said:
Re the comments about Unions involvement in Politics! I would have no issue with Unions being prohibited from political activity IF Corporations and the Billionaires that are flooding the Political Process with money were also prohibited from doing so! Of course the Supremes have ruled that its a Freedom of Speech Right so what's sauce for the goose is true for the gander!

Disclaimer: I'm.a Life Member of two Unions, the IAFF and CWA, but worked for several years as a Contract Employee for a Consulting Firm after Retiring as a Civil Servant!
Click to expand...
Now Jim, in fairness prior to that decision unions were not prohibited from contributing to political campaigns while corporations were. So in a sense Citizens United turned into a what's good for the goose is good for the gander situation. I'd be perfectly fine if both were prohibited from direct contributions to political campaigns but don't see that happening anytime in the foreseeable future. I also say this having been a member of four separate unions during the course of my career and having worked for a major labor union.
 
Corporations should be disallowed to cpntrobute to political campaigns. If we outlaw other forms of bribery why is this different?
 
Unions are needed today more than ever before. The American worker is under attack by corporations which are now "people" who now have the right to assert their "religious beliefs" in order to control their workers. The bankers are robbing the country blind. The jobs are being stolen and sent abroad to be done cheaply and with no environmental or worker protections. Did you see there was a Princeton study that showed the US is currently--at this moment--an oligarchy? What we need now are more unions, not fewer. When was the US in its best shape? When unions were strong, when the rich paid more. The anti-union rhetoric has turned the "have nots" against the "have even less". Stop fighting each other and organize to go up against the true enemies to progress!
 
The power of Amtrak's unions has been seriously exaggerated here and elsewhere. The ability of Amtrak management to determine who is a good employee and who is a bad one has also been seriously exaggerated here and elsewhere. In a disciplinary hearing, the Union serves as the employee's "lawyer". Sometimes he gets good representation & sometimes he gets bad representation. If the Company's Charging Officer can't make a case that the Hearing Officer accepts, then it either means that the employee was not guilty of the charges, or that the Company presented a poor case. And if that's what happened, whose fault is that?
 
FormerOBS said:
The power of Amtrak's unions has been seriously exaggerated here and elsewhere. The ability of Amtrak management to determine who is a good employee and who is a bad one has also been seriously exaggerated here and elsewhere. In a disciplinary hearing, the Union serves as the employee's "lawyer". Sometimes he gets good representation & sometimes he gets bad representation. If the Company's Charging Officer can't make a case that the Hearing Officer accepts, then it either means that the employee was not guilty of the charges, or that the Company presented a poor case. And if that's what happened, whose fault is that?
Click to expand...
It is still the best way to go. Nothing in life is 100% perfect. You settle for the best that is available.

Bruce-SSR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top