Union Work Rules

[haolerider]

My original intention in beginning this thread was to learn what "work rules" had been identified as anachronistic and were legitimate issues to resolve. The tired excuses of the problems being either all management or all union really are not assisting me in understanding what work rules are anachronistic. The problems in the workplace are caused by BOTH management and union and will continue to be so until the human element is eliminated from both. There are certainly egregious examples of union extremism focusing solely on job protection and management extremism focusing solely on the bottom line (or profit) but there must be examples of absurd work rules that a dispassionate observation would identify as something that needs to be addressed. Would anyone be willing to identify some issues that either have been addressed or things that need to be addressed that would fit under the "work rules" category without bringing in the emotional union/management baggage?

Good Point!

I think one of the major changes would have to do with the ability of on-board staff to work all crafts as needed. The Auto Train is the best example of this, with all their on-board staff cross-trained to handle all jobs and cover the various crafts on as as-needed basis. At the present time on all other trains, the staff is not supposed to "help-out" in the dining car or anywhere else unless that is their assigned task. On many trains, the staff ignore this rule and you will see coach attendants and sleeping car attendants helping out in the dining car, but it is against the union work rules. This is only one example, but I am sure there are many others.

 

[MikefromCrete]

My original intention in beginning this thread was to learn what "work rules" had been identified as anachronistic and were legitimate issues to resolve. The tired excuses of the problems being either all management or all union really are not assisting me in understanding what work rules are anachronistic. The problems in the workplace are caused by BOTH management and union and will continue to be so until the human element is eliminated from both. There are certainly egregious examples of union extremism focusing solely on job protection and management extremism focusing solely on the bottom line (or profit) but there must be examples of absurd work rules that a dispassionate observation would identify as something that needs to be addressed. Would anyone be willing to identify some issues that either have been addressed or things that need to be addressed that would fit under the "work rules" category without bringing in the emotional union/management baggage?

I'm not sure of what can of antiquated work rules you're talking about. The old days of five man crews, 100-mile work days, firemen on diesel engines, etc., are long gone. Having the on-board crew able to work a number of jobs, i.e. sleeping car attendants helping out in the dining car, might be useful, but are hardly critical issues.

 

[PaulM]

Having the on-board crew able to work a number of jobs, i.e. sleeping car attendants helping out in the dining car, might be useful, but are hardly critical issues.

I would tend to think it would be at least somewhat critical (and not just because this is the only example anyone can come up with). Think of a banking office. If people born on Sun or Mon had to go to one line, Tue or Wed to another, etc. do you think it would take more or fewer tellers to provide the same level of service?

A more familiar analogy. It is conventional wisdom here that the fewer different models of engines, dining cars, etc. that Amtrak has in its fleet, the less expensive it is to stock spare parts.

The math gets more complicated if the tasks really were different, i.e., if it took a masters degree and 5 years experience to convert a SCA to a dining car waiter.

Earlier, someone mentioned the extra board as if flexibility = extra board. Recently, I was very impressed by a SCA on the southbound SM. On the return trip, the same guy was the cafe car attendant. I commented about it; and he said he was on the extra board and I might see him in coach next week. Now I'm sure being on the extra board required him to be flexible; not the other way around. In fact, flexibility would reduce the size of the extra board required to provide the same level of service. There's the problem from the union standpoint. Nor does flexibility, in itself, go against the concept of seniority.

Of course, this all assumes the pay is the same for each task. After all, why should you expect someone to accept a drop in pay for being flexible.

 

[AlanB]

My original intention in beginning this thread was to learn what "work rules" had been identified as anachronistic and were legitimate issues to resolve. The tired excuses of the problems being either all management or all union really are not assisting me in understanding what work rules are anachronistic. The problems in the workplace are caused by BOTH management and union and will continue to be so until the human element is eliminated from both. There are certainly egregious examples of union extremism focusing solely on job protection and management extremism focusing solely on the bottom line (or profit) but there must be examples of absurd work rules that a dispassionate observation would identify as something that needs to be addressed. Would anyone be willing to identify some issues that either have been addressed or things that need to be addressed that would fit under the "work rules" category without bringing in the emotional union/management baggage?

Good Point!

I think one of the major changes would have to do with the ability of on-board staff to work all crafts as needed. The Auto Train is the best example of this, with all their on-board staff cross-trained to handle all jobs and cover the various crafts on as as-needed basis. At the present time on all other trains, the staff is not supposed to "help-out" in the dining car or anywhere else unless that is their assigned task. On many trains, the staff ignore this rule and you will see coach attendants and sleeping car attendants helping out in the dining car, but it is against the union work rules. This is only one example, but I am sure there are many others.

Which of course is what I said back on page #1 of this topic.

Although you did explain it better than I did, Haolerider, with better examples.

 

[EB_OBS]

On many trains, the staff ignore this rule and you will see coach attendants and sleeping car attendants helping out in the dining car, but it is against the union work rules.

Actually, with regards to train attendants, TAs and service attendants, SAs, Amtrak combined the crafts somewhere around 2003 I think. It was a bit before I came to Amtrak but I believe I'm close on the time frame. All TAs and SAs are cross qualified to work in both coach or sleeper and the dining car. As a result Amtrak also combined the extra-board for TA/SA into one board.

Your example though are still absolutely correct with regards to crafts which maintain a separate seniority roster and extra-board, such as food specialist vs. TA/SA and/or LSA v. Chef. It is possible for OBS employees to be cross qualified in multiple crafts but not hold seniority in all crafts. The only caveat for Amtrak is that if crew management calls a qualified person to work out of craft, that person is not obligated to take the job. That's against union rules as the contract stipulates a staffed and separate board for each craft. Amtrak can't force you to work out of craft.

 

[National Limited]

Can someone define "extra-board?"

 

[Trogdor]

Can someone define "extra-board?"

A group of workers without a regular assignment. They basically serve as fill-ins when a regular is sick, on vacation, off for other reasons, etc. In general, they don't know too far in advance what they're going to be doing.

 

[National Limited]

Can someone define "extra-board?"

A group of workers without a regular assignment. They basically serve as fill-ins when a regular is sick, on vacation, off for other reasons, etc. In general, they don't know too far in advance what they're going to be doing.

So this person would be trained to serve in several different capacities?

In reference to the Auto Train attendants, do they serve in several capacities on one trip or serve in only one capacity per trip?

 

[EB_OBS]

Can someone define "extra-board?"

A group of workers without a regular assignment. They basically serve as fill-ins when a regular is sick, on vacation, off for other reasons, etc. In general, they don't know too far in advance what they're going to be doing.

So this person would be trained to serve in several different capacities?

In reference to the Auto Train attendants, do they serve in several capacities on one trip or serve in only one capacity per trip?

Typically, Auto Train attendants would work in one craft for an entire trip.

 

[girly25]

Can someone define "extra-board?"

A group of workers without a regular assignment. They basically serve as fill-ins when a regular is sick, on vacation, off for other reasons, etc. In general, they don't know too far in advance what they're going to be doing.

So this person would be trained to serve in several different capacities?

In reference to the Auto Train attendants, do they serve in several capacities on one trip or serve in only one capacity per trip?

not really. i hired as t.a. but can work in several and did crafts including chef and lsa.

 

[RRrich]

Earlier, someone mentioned the extra board as if flexibility = extra board. Recently, I was very impressed by a SCA on the southbound SM. On the return trip, the same guy was the cafe car attendant. I commented about it; and he said he was on the extra board and I might see him in coach next week. Now I'm sure being on the extra board required him to be flexible; not the other way around. In fact, flexibility would reduce the size of the extra board required to provide the same level of service. There's the problem from the union standpoint. Nor does flexibility, in itself, go against the concept of seniority.
Of course, this all assumes the pay is the same for each task. After all, why should you expect someone to accept a drop in pay for being flexible.

If the only job available involved a temporary drop in pay, it might well be accepted - a drop in pay might be preferable to no pay.

 

[National Limited]

Can someone define "extra-board?"

A group of workers without a regular assignment. They basically serve as fill-ins when a regular is sick, on vacation, off for other reasons, etc. In general, they don't know too far in advance what they're going to be doing.

So this person would be trained to serve in several different capacities?

In reference to the Auto Train attendants, do they serve in several capacities on one trip or serve in only one capacity per trip?

not really. i hired as t.a. but can work in several and did crafts including chef and lsa.

I would assume, thought, that you were properly trained to fulfill the duties of the various positions you covered? I would hope so, at least.

This interchangeability of jobs is intriguing to me. I could see how a coach attendant and a sleeping car attendant could be very easily cross trained and, for that matter, an attendant in the cafe car. I am suspicious of these people being easily crossed trained to be a chef in the dining car or even a member of the wait staff (can't seem to pull the proper title out of my head at the moment . . .). Are the jobs really that interchangeable? I would assume that this diversity in ability would be a win-win since it allows the employer the flexibility to staff more efficiently and ensures the union that their members are more valuable to the organization and thus would be called upon more readily. How do unions and management look at this arrangement?

 

[girly25]

Can someone define "extra-board?"

A group of workers without a regular assignment. They basically serve as fill-ins when a regular is sick, on vacation, off for other reasons, etc. In general, they don't know too far in advance what they're going to be doing.

So this person would be trained to serve in several different capacities?

In reference to the Auto Train attendants, do they serve in several capacities on one trip or serve in only one capacity per trip?

not really. i hired as t.a. but can work in several and did crafts including chef and lsa.

I would assume, thought, that you were properly trained to fulfill the duties of the various positions you covered? I would hope so, at least.

This interchangeability of jobs is intriguing to me. I could see how a coach attendant and a sleeping car attendant could be very easily cross trained and, for that matter, an attendant in the cafe car. I am suspicious of these people being easily crossed trained to be a chef in the dining car or even a member of the wait staff (can't seem to pull the proper title out of my head at the moment . . .). Are the jobs really that interchangeable? I would assume that this diversity in ability would be a win-win since it allows the employer the flexibility to staff more efficiently and ensures the union that their members are more valuable to the organization and thus would be called upon more readily. How do unions and management look at this arrangement?

when i first start i was t.a. then i got layoff and transfer to new york and wanna to make more money so i started be train as service attendant. got layoff again and then went to work out of dc and they ask me if i wanted 2 be lsa and i say yes. so i was train as lsa to work the cafe and diner and all in between. in the mean time i was getting my self qualify to work in the kitchen as food specialist and then as chef. most empolyees are cross train by choice some arent. it really a choice. more crafts u are train more likely you will be working more and getting more jobs. they more acceptable to this because it works in their favor in terms of filling jobs at the last minute.

 

[acelafan]

I have heard many comments regarding the need to change union work rules. I've never seen a list of what rules are archaic and need to be changed. In a perfect world what union work rules would change on Amtrak and why would they need to be changed?

I am not anti-union, but believe that some of the work rules (scope of duties) need to be more flexible and that the embedded costs above wages, taxes and benefits, need to be better measured vs. the non-union sector.

Found this post to be interesting:

The Amtrak Service Workers Council (ASWC) recently reached a tentative five-year agreement...The contract includes a 15 percent general wage increase, five-year freeze on insurance and drug co-pays and deductibles, and limits on health insurance contributions.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news...le.asp?id=23337

A 15% increase in pay (over 5 years) isn't too shabby...not to mention a freeze on health co-pays. I wonder what the odds are of that actually becoming a reality.

 

[GG-1]

A 15% increase in pay (over 5 years) isn't too shabby...not to mention a freeze on health co-pays. I wonder what the odds are of that actually becoming a reality.

Aloha

If you really think about it, it isn't that much. I think there was no change in Pay for 8 years, then with the freeze on Health payments, and what is expected in the next few years of health cost increases. The workers may only see 1 or 2 % in their pockets. Amtrak gains by now knowing their cost in that period.

 

[tp49]

I have heard many comments regarding the need to change union work rules. I've never seen a list of what rules are archaic and need to be changed. In a perfect world what union work rules would change on Amtrak and why would they need to be changed?

I am not anti-union, but believe that some of the work rules (scope of duties) need to be more flexible and that the embedded costs above wages, taxes and benefits, need to be better measured vs. the non-union sector.

Found this post to be interesting:

The Amtrak Service Workers Council (ASWC) recently reached a tentative five-year agreement...The contract includes a 15 percent general wage increase, five-year freeze on insurance and drug co-pays and deductibles, and limits on health insurance contributions.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/news...le.asp?id=23337

A 15% increase in pay (over 5 years) isn't too shabby...not to mention a freeze on health co-pays. I wonder what the odds are of that actually becoming a reality.

I don't think a 3% increase per year is unreasonable. Actually, considering the economy should improve in the next year or so to lock in at 3% per year over the next five years is probably a very good deal for Amtrak in that it saves them money over the long term.

 

[Palmland]

A 3% annual wage increase seems reasonable. But, no health cost increases is way out of line. Don't know about anyone else, but it's been a while since my company sponsored health care contributions were less than double digit annual increases.

 

[had8ley]

I'm going to bite the bullet on this one especially after carrying a union card since 1964. I've seen too much LSA "bullying" where the LSA hands out sleeper checks and then cell phones his honey or whomever and leaves ALL the work to the lone SA. There ought to be a method that this over worked SA can turn in the lazy LSA for being just that. I know of no union that can justify, nor defend, someone "dumping" all the work on a co-worker. The last LSA that I know of that was called up on charges for this didn't even bother to show up for the investigation. Guilty conscience maybe ???

 

[volkris]

A 3% annual wage increase seems reasonable. But, no health cost increases is way out of line. Don't know about anyone else, but it's been a while since my company sponsored health care contributions were less than double digit annual increases.

Well, as long as you don't mind paying higher ticket prices to pay for the increased compensation...

 

[Green Maned Lion]

A 3% annual wage increase seems reasonable. But, no health cost increases is way out of line. Don't know about anyone else, but it's been a while since my company sponsored health care contributions were less than double digit annual increases.

Well, as long as you don't mind paying higher ticket prices to pay for the increased compensation...

Your lack of respect for the working man disgusts me.

 

[Ryan]

A 3% annual wage increase seems reasonable. But, no health cost increases is way out of line. Don't know about anyone else, but it's been a while since my company sponsored health care contributions were less than double digit annual increases.

Well, as long as you don't mind paying higher ticket prices to pay for the increased compensation...

Nope, you'll be paying for it out of Amtrak's subsidy. Quick, get the pichforks and torches, this is an unacceptable assault on your wallet, and I'm not going to stand for it!!! Why the heck should you have to pay for the health care costs of a government worker?
I guess I'm in the minority though, by company sponsored plan hasn't changed in price in the 3 years that I've been there.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Here's an idea, lets stop all raises, take away all benefits, outlaw Unions and then well be competetive with the low wage/slave states that are taking all our jobs! This would not include capital gains or stock options and bonuses for fat cats and Wall Street swindlers, just wage slaves! People need to wake up and realize that these greedheads that are taking 63% of our GDP (6 largest banks, you can look it up!)are getting braindead "dittoheads" to carry the water for them! I guess having health benefits beat being layed off or losing your job, and a 3% raise is pretty good in this day and age for a worker who actualkly does real work! Of course it would be tip money for the flim flam artists that make billions stealing and manipulating money in the casinos, er stock markets of the world! *Disclaimer: Life member of two Unions, retired Govt. worker and Social Security and Medicare user* One thing that politicians and T-Party no nothings love to do is bash government employees, remember the brilliant signs saying such things as: "Government hands off my Social Security and Medicare" "No Socialized Medicine long as I haved my Medicare and VA benefits" ad naseum!

Here in Texas most of the protestors @ the T-Party rallies are retired military or civil service employees with full GOVERNMENT benefits! Go figure!

Since Amtrak employees have such cushy jobs lets pay them mininum wage and take away their benefits, that way Amtrak can Not cut prices, make a profit and there are millions of people desperate for work who will take these jobs if these ingrates want to quit! Right out of Rush and Company Economics Textbook!

 

[JayPea]

I guess I'm one of the lucky ones too. My health care has gone up, but not by that much over the past few years. Just by a few dollars/month. And I certainly can't complain about wages: mine have gone up 47% in the last 2 1/2 years. The caveat is that once an employee gets to a certain wage class at my place of employment, they don't get any more raises save for a yearly cost-of-living raise.

And I certainly think that what Amtrak's union is asking for is certainly fair. Amtrak employees deserve to make a good wage along with all the benefits that go with it. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. Oh, and for the record: I don't belong to a union, have only done so with one job I've ever had, and overwhelmingly vote Republican and listen to Rush and profess to have some sympathy toward the Tea Partiers, especially their right to assemble peacefully. So there!!!! :lol:

 

[sunchaser]

*Disclaimer: Life member of two Unions, retired Govt. worker and Social Security and Medicare user* One thing that politicians and T-Party no nothings love to do is bash government employees, remember the brilliant signs saying such things as: "Government hands off my Social Security and Medicare" "No Socialized Medicine long as I haved my Medicare and VA benefits" ad naseum!Here in Texas most of the protesters @ the T-Party rallies are retired military or civil service employees with full GOVERNMENT benefits! Go figure!

Since Amtrak employees have such cushy jobs lets pay them minimum wage and take away their benefits, that way Amtrak can Not cut prices, make a profit and there are millions of people desperate for work who will take these jobs if these ingrates want to quit! Right out of Rush and Company Economics Textbook!

For those that may not be aware, Social Security was never designed as a replacement for company retirement benefits. it was designed as an insurance to provide for those who had no other retirement in place. Since it is based on the income you made while working, it can be a little, or a lot. I have relatives that this is their only source of income, and survive on less than 1600 a month. I have relatives that have SSI & union benefits, and brings in much much more. Because you pay into it, I would not call it an entitlement.

As for VA benefits, we as a country have always provided for the Military Retirees & Wounded. I have a relative who is 100% disabled -service connected. All his medical, dental, & vision is covered. He earned it-he deserves it. His family has less coverage. VA coverage is good, but the delivery system-socialized medicine-is very dangerous. More than once, they have delayed critical life saving testing because of costs & availability of staff. The Doctors, Nurses, and other staff are great, but are limited by the Government in delivery of services. This is what we all have to look forward to.

Fed benefits are far away the very best of all benefits. Everything is covered.

I do not have any problem with someone not wanting to lose benefits they have earned.

I do think that Amtrak employees should have federal benefits *gasp* because they actually do work for the government.

We do need to figure out a way that we as a country quit spending money we don't have on things we don't absolutely need. Amtrak is a need.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

We do need to figure out a way that we as a country quit spending money we don't have on things we don't absolutely need. Amtrak is a need.

Amtrak isn't a need, per se. We survived for quite some time moving back and forth using horse drawn wagons. Hell, we don't even need the interstates, or streets, or any of that.

Heres the problem with the idea of cutting government spending: In general, the definition of a Pork Barrel project is one that doesn't serve the person deeming it so. Even that vaunted bridge to nowhere everyone was talking about being so stupid had value, to whatever nitwits lived within its benefit zone, and to the workers that would be employed building the boondoggle.

I can think of a lot of projects I think are a complete waste of money. Most of them involve road construction in some form or other. And its a total coincidence that I'm a strong advocate of public transit. I swear.

I have not heard of a government project that has no useful purpose. The useful purpose is varying in import, but it's always there. The problem isn't the spending, because you can't cut that. Too many people would scream. You should watch how much the NJ commuters, NJ students, parents of NJ students, and a wide variety of other people who have had something important to them Christied want to hang our governor right now.

There's a local group who are going to rallying in Trenton over the loss of music programs in schools as a result of education cuts. The usefulness of a music program in school is somewhat debatable (I'm personally in favor, by the way). Yet people want it.

The people have spoken. They want a hell of a lot of service, if you consider what they ask for. But they don't want to pay for it. Well, the service makes sense to me.

Personally, I think we all need to be willing to pay for it. Our problem isn't on the spending half. What we have is generally reasonable and useful. Its on the income half. We need more income.