Passenger Trains > Amtrak reduces lost-earnings pay for attending meetings

Amtrak has made a unilateral decision to reduce compensation for
earnings lost by agreement employees while attending
labor/management, safety and/or company business meetings or
initiatives.

This appears to be a clear violation of over 30 years of established
past practice.  It is being recommended that all employees affected
should submit a penalty time card for "actual lost earnings for
violation of Rule 2, 20, 21 and established past practice."  After
Amtrak denies or only partially pays the claim, the union will proceed
with resolution procedures.

This does NOT affect rules class, block training, Safe-2-Safer or
Close Call, but union officials advise that all employees make sure
the carrier pays ALL lost earnings for these days.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amtrak has made a unilateral decision to reduce
> compensation for
> earnings lost by agreement employees while
> attending
> labor/management, safety and/or company business
> meetings or
> initiatives.

These sort of union work rules, pay rules, and also the craft distinctions are why Amtrak will never, ever, ever make money.  Its the ossified thinking that bankrupted 1/3 of the railroads in the 1970's.  To many workers not doing anything productive, called to duty at times when they can't work, and incentivized to look for any pay claim or overtime by failing to pay the workers with base pay that is at market rates for their skills and jobs.  That management and labor is wasting time over such rubbish is indicative of exactly what is wrong with the pay and assignment structure of the agreement labor.  Its the opposite of workforce dynamism you see exemplied at the best railroads today.

The company is definitely asking for trouble.

This might be in reaction to a recent court case involving Amazon.  In that case, the court held that the company was not obliged to pay overtime or straight time for employees who had to wait for mandatory screening after they completed their shift, clocked out, but  prior to leaving the job site.

What surprised many observers, including me, was many employees had to wait an hour or more to approach the screening stations. For people working split shifts, part time, etc that's a huge amount of unpaid, mandatory time.  Several states are already looking to address that pay issue through the state hours laws.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The company is definitely asking for trouble.
>
> This might be in reaction to a recent court case
> involving Amazon.  In that case, the court held
> that the company was not obliged to pay overtime
> or straight time for employees who had to wait for
> mandatory screening after they completed their
> shift, clocked out, but  prior to leaving the job
> site.
>
> What surprised many observers, including me, was
> many employees had to wait an hour or more to
> approach the screening stations. For people
> working split shifts, part time, etc that's a huge
> amount of unpaid, mandatory time.  Several states
> are already looking to address that pay issue
> through the state hours laws.

This was the last straw for me with the Milwaukee. In order to keep their railroad running, I was violating hours of service every night, fixing the timeslips so that it didn't show, making sure that I was there whenever I was needed (because the agent refused to be there outside of his 8a-12a 1p-5p by even one second), working as a trainman, carman, gandy, whatever it took, as did a lot of MILW employees. Then they decided that they wouldn't pay me outside of my assigned hours. The agent said that it was just a new policy; all I had to do was file a claim and the union would deal with it. That was the answer when I challenged the first wire from the Chief declining my timeslips. The excuse the second time was the same. My response was you didn't need to go through the union to get me down here to run your train, I don't go through the union to get my pay, after which I sat at the teletype and sent a wire to the Chief with my 30 day notice.

I typically agree with abyler, but this is not a case of union work rules that have outlived their usefulness, this is a case of if the employer wants the services of a person, they pay for it. BN tried to do that to me a couple of times: calls at home to ask about what happened during 3rd trick, little meetings off the clock because it wasn't really work, it was just a meeting, and so on. The answer to that was complete and utter stupidity about anything railroad, and especially about anything that I did during my time on duty. I don't have a clue what you are talking about was my common response. Several of my colleagues started doing the same. If an employer wants 24x7 availability of employees, they can pay a salary commensurate with 24x7 availability.

Amazon is asking for a union. Back when I was reading a lot of such stuff, I read a book by a famous management consultant, maybe Drucker, who said that a union is a sign of bad management. Having spent three decades as labor in one form or another (train dispatchers were actually management, originally, and formed a union in 1917 because, effectively, they were tired of being treated like labor), I fully agree with him.

TAW

Some good thoughts here. Such a success story with Milwaukee's cost saving measures!

I think that Amtrak wants to foment some labor troubles. Strikes save them money and they can blame disruptions, poor service, service cuts, etc. on the unions. Heck, they may even sneak the Southwest Chief discontinuance in while the company is in lock down.

Legal Disclaimer: All the preceding is a joke and intended as entertainment. None of my comments are to be construed as factual or based on actual companies or persons, living or deceased.

Bob



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/15 18:43 by bnsfbob.

Let's see, the employee doesn't decide when, where, or how often to schedule a "meeting" so the railroad can also decide wheatear or not to pay the employees for time they are required to be at work. It would be like the railroad deciding not to pay a crew for repositioning a train because the railroad wasn't making any money. The railroad is the ones who decide how they want an employee to spend his/her time at work. They should be paid for their time. Any time you have a system that pays other than by the hour, these abuses are just too tempting for the bean counters. Your at work you should get paid. Hours work for an hours pay, period!

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These sort of union work rules, pay rules, and
> also the craft distinctions are why Amtrak will
> never, ever, ever make money.  Its the ossified
> thinking that bankrupted 1/3 of the railroads in
> the 1970's. 

Over-regulation is what bankrupted 1/3 of the railroads in the 1970s.  The proof in the pudding is how the railroads have blossomed since the Staggers de-regulation act.

But, of course, it's so much easier to blame everything on organized labor.

> Its the opposite of workforce dynamism you see exemplied
> at the best railroads today.

Those "best railroads" that you're making reference to are all heavily unionized.  Explain THAT for us if you will.

NEXT!

> Those "best railroads" that you're making
> reference to are all heavily unionized.  Explain
> THAT for us if you will.
>
> NEXT!

Mr. Byler also conveniently overlooked the fact that the "best railroads" pay under the same work rules that Amtrak is trying to violate, and make a very healthy profit. Maybe, instead of blaming the unions, he should explore other factors that make one unionized sector (freight) very profitable, while another (passenger) isn't. Same work rules, same unionized workforce. So where is the real blame?

Posted from Android

Plenty of strong, well managed firms are unionized. NS, UP, BNSF, UPS, much of General Electric, Lockheed Martin, etc. But they're also extremely well managed, and not afraid to heave entire businesses that aren't meeting their capital requirements or likely to be in the company's future plans . And, they compete against other companies which are a mix of union and non-union, well managed and not so well managed.  Competition has a great way of separating the good from the not so good.

Wait....  If this issue is resolved Amtrak will be profitable?!  (I wondered what was holding things up)
SR

Labor won't lift a finger to help!
labor wants to ride on taxpayer shoulders

Charles Rice
Saint Louis, MO

Labor operates on a contract.  If management doesn't like something, they CANNOT arbitrarily change things without negotiations.  How would you like your bank to change the terms of your mortgage / car loan / etc?  It's called a contract for a reason.  Both parties AGREED and signed it.

The union seems pretty confident that this is a CONTRACT violation.  

Cry all you want about unions "bleeding" the company - you need to mention top brass' salaries in the same breath.

Most likely, the unions will win! Under the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) between Amtrak and its respective unions requires that those instructed/ordered to attend a "company" sponsored function will be paid their "lost earnings" for any or all work lost. In other words, lets say an employee was held from their normal assignment and that assignment normally worked (bulletined) "X" amount of hours and for some unusual reason that assignment exceeded those normal hours . . . The regular employee assigned that job is entitled to their lost earnings including any additional hours of pay on the days the employee was withheld from their regular assignment.

There is no mediation board that will honor an "arbitrary" change in the work rules agreed upon under a CBA . . . Unfortunately, it is a lengthy process to get to that point and will cost Amtrak a needless waste of funds to only lose. . . 

Though I am not a strong supporter of unions, I am however a very strong proponent of honoring a contract. Some  . . . if not most of these types of actions is what I like to call management through "arrogance!"

Two things to remember . . . Safety and leadership has no ego! Those that practice safety through ego hurt themselves and / or others . . .  and those that lead through ego ultimately fail!

MoPac1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Labor won't lift a finger to help!
> labor wants to ride on taxpayer shoulders

Oh, please ... get a clue. I suppose you would be fine with your employer instructing you to forego your regular duties for a day, to attend a meeting that they scheduled, but then wanted to pay you only part of your regular hourly wage?

Posted from Android

What I said about getting paid for every hour you work or eventually you're gonna get screwed??? I rest my case!!!

Generally speaking the kinds of meetings mentioned forfeiting the lost earnings are of the voluntary nature. They will still pay the individual's advertised wages. So if you miss two days pay to attend the meeting you will be paid two days pay. If your crew made any overtime on that trip, you won't get the OT.

Mandatory meetings will still pay lost wages.

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abyler Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > These sort of union work rules, pay rules, and
> > also the craft distinctions are why Amtrak will
> > never, ever, ever make money.  Its the
> ossified
> > thinking that bankrupted 1/3 of the railroads
> in
> > the 1970's. 
>
> Over-regulation is what bankrupted 1/3 of the
> railroads in the 1970s.  The proof in the pudding
> is how the railroads have blossomed since the
> Staggers de-regulation act.

Nope.  The railroads had higher revenue in the 60's than the 70's, and in the 70's than the 80's and in the 80's than the 90's.  The "health" of the railroads under Staggers came from titanic cost-cutting from mechanizing MOW and going from 5 man crews to 2 man crews and shedding passenger trains, not from gaining business or being able to negotiate secret contracts.  The railroads consistently lost total business volume up into the 2000's and made up for it by squeezing costs.  They continue to lose shorthaul loose car traffic by not making sales calls and paper it over with ever longer unit train hauls.

Deregulated railroads that were still running road trains with 5 man crews today would probably still be bankrupt.

> But, of course, it's so much easier to blame
> everything on organized labor.

I never said it was labor's fault.  Its a lack of joint vision in the industry on the part of management and labor on how much larger the industry could be if they weren't spending so much time squabbling over slivers of portions of a shrinking pie.

> > Its the opposite of workforce dynamism you see
> exemplied
> > at the best railroads today.
>
> Those "best railroads" that you're making
> reference to are all heavily unionized.  Explain
> THAT for us if you will.

I was referring to the more dynamic shortlines which have found ways to grow business 10 and 50 fold and to cut costs through labor work assignment flexibility.   None the Class I's can hold a candle to that record - I feel embarassed for them every time they sell off some 500 car per year branchline and an entrepreneur comes in and turns it into 10,000 cars per year in 5 years.  And especially Amtrak and the Commuter lines.  Population has double since the 60's, but not passenger rail ridership or passenger-miles.  And don't start about how there isn't enough capital (despite many billions being funneled into Amtrak for capital projects over the years).  The reason there isn't enough capital is the embarassing cost structure for projects and operations.  No one will invest in non-remunerative projects voluntarily.

bioyans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MoPac1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Labor won't lift a finger to help!
> > labor wants to ride on taxpayer shoulders
>
> Oh, please ... get a clue. I suppose you would be
> fine with your employer instructing you to forego
> your regular duties for a day, to attend a meeting
> that they scheduled, but then wanted to pay you
> only part of your regular hourly wage?

Actually that does happen in the real world.  I'm expected to attend the AREMA conference every year.  This involves travel on Saturday and conference work on Sunday for which we aren't paid.  We also regularly get inolved in non-billable marketing work that is expected to be completed with a minimum of work bill to overhead.  If it takes evening hours to complete, oh well.  If you don't like it, there are plenty of lowering pay jobs without such expectations and demands.  This goes back to what I said - if Amtrak labor was compensated fairly in base wages instead of the bizarre and arcane jungle of work rules and penalty pay and overtime, these types of distractions would be non-issues.

abyler Wrote:

> Actually that does happen in the real world.  I'm
> expected to attend the AREMA conference every
> year.  This involves travel on Saturday and
> conference work on Sunday for which we aren't
> paid.  We also regularly get inolved in
> non-billable marketing work that is expected to be
> completed with a minimum of work bill to
> overhead.  If it takes evening hours to complete,
> oh well.  If you don't like it, there are plenty
> of lowering pay jobs

Ah, yes ... the "real world" and "if you don't like it, get another job somewhere else" straw man arguments.

Hate to break it to you, but unionized jobs are just as "real world" as anything else. We get paid in real dollars, and our employer makes real profits. The only reason why companies get away with not paying you for the things you mentioned above, is because you LET them get away with it. Too many people in this country don't have the courage to stand up for themselves, and won't demand that they be treated fairly. They fall for the big lie, that if they keep sacrificing and giving in on one concession after another, that there will be this magical pot of gold waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. All they end up doing, is lower the bar for everyone else.

Posted from Android

>These sort of union work rules, pay rules, and also the craft distinctions are why Amtrak will never, ever, ever make money. 

The concept that Atk will make money (or is supposed to) went away a LONG time ago. Get with the program.

>Its the ossified thinking that bankrupted 1/3 of the railroads in the 1970's.

Let's see now, , , pay the managers but not the employees. Just whose thinking is ossified here?

>The company is definitely asking for trouble.

You becha, particularly in the instances where the Agreements specify paying lost earnings.

>This might be in reaction to a recent court case involving Amazon.

Which is not railroad labor law.

>I think that Amtrak wants to foment some labor troubles.

Having worked for ATk for 25 years, cross out "labor troubles" and insert "stupidity". Seen this over they years more times than I care to count. Besides the VP-Labor relations who stonewalled the union negotiations between 1998 and 2008 wound up losing his job after the PEB slapped Atk's hand over his shenanigans..

>Any time you have a system that pays other than by the hour, these abuses are just too tempting for the bean counters.

Hold on here, all Atk's union agreements are paid on a time basis (i.e. "hourly").

>Mr. Byler also conveniently overlooked the fact that the "best railroads" pay under the same work rules that Amtrak is trying to violate,

Those "best railroads" have completely different union agreements than Atk's (different medical bennies too).

>Most likely, the unions will win!

It's not so much a question of "winning" as enforcing existing contractural provisions.

> I was referring to the more dynamic shortlines which have found ways to grow business 10 and 50 fold and to cut costs through labor work assignment flexibility

Like the one which gave us Lac Megantic? There have been a lot of other incidents and close calls which have never made the news.

>Actually that does happen in the real world.  I'm expected to attend the AREMA conference every year.  This involves travel on Saturday -- yadda yadda yadda yadda

First off don't compare apples to oranges. What you describe is expected of management, not agreement covered employees. Was attending these w/out pay conditions of your employment? Were you paid a salary basis or on a wage basis? Or would you have been given a terminal case of stink-eye if you didn't? It's the terminal stink-eye which gives rise to unions. Did 100 years ago and is doing the same today.