Passenger Trains > Subway pulls out of Amtrak

Subway pulls out of Amtrak
Planned four-month trial of food service ends after less than a week

By ERIC ANDERSON, Deputy business editor
First published: Tuesday, November 29, 2005

RENSSELAER -- The trial was to have lasted four months. But Subway food service on Amtrak trains between Rensselaer and New York City was gone in less than a week.
Amtrak officials on Monday confirmed that Subway "has temporarily suspended its participation" in a pilot program that restored food service on trains running exclusively between here and New York City. But a spokesman for the passenger rail company added that "Amtrak is committed to continuing the food service pilot in order to enhance overall customer service."

Advertisement

Amtrak officials wouldn't comment on the reasons for the sudden termination, and Subway officials could not be reached for comment.

The service started Nov. 17 and ended Nov. 23, said Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black.

He declined to say whether Amtrak is seeking another operator to replace Subway. The food service was provided by local franchisees, which he didn't identify.

Subway workers operated from the train's cafe car and also walked through the train offering at-seat order-taking and delivery. Food items included Subway's sandwiches plus breakfast items, soups, pizza, salads and beverages.

Under the agreement, Subway was to have paid Amtrak a portion of gross receipts, the railroad said. If the project succeeded, Amtrak had said it planned to seek competitive bids next year to make the service permanent.

Amtrak officials were working to get the necessary permits so that Subway could serve beer and wine on the trains as well.

Black also declined to say whether union members had objected to the subcontracting of work that formerly was provided by unionized employees.

Efforts to reach union officials for comment were unsuccessful Monday.

Amtrak ended its own food service aboard the trains in July, estimating it would save $1 million a year.

Bruce Becker, president of the Empire State Passengers Association, said the rail advocacy group was disappointed by Subway's suspension. "We certainly hope Subway and Amtrak will work out any concerns and that the trial will continue," he said.

Did they figure out that it is impossible to make a profit trying to sell food on a train?

Independent reports, including some from passengers and from Subway
representatives who will not be named, say that the reason was
unreasonable intimidation of the Subway employees by Amtrak employees,
both on and off duty, including mention of risks to the personal safety
of both those employees and to passengers. Amtrak's spokesman declined
to comment.

I find it hard to believe that Subway, a huge company with thousands of outlets around the world, would be scared away by a few union employees.
In my opinion, it's an excuse to get out of something thats not going to work and be profitable. This was a pilot program that could have spread to all of Amtrak. As much as some would like to think that union solidarity was a factor, if Subway smelled success nothing would have stopped them.

< As much as some would like to think that union solidarity was a factor, if Subway smelled success nothing would have stopped them. >

Risk of harassment and workmans comp lawsuits are enough to stop them.

they sent out the unionthugs...typical.

>>Independent reports, including some from passengers and from Subway
representatives who will not be named, say that the reason was
unreasonable intimidation of the Subway employees by Amtrak employees,
both on and off duty, including mention of risks to the personal safety
of both those employees and to passengers. Amtrak's spokesman declined
to comment.

puckeringswine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find it hard to believe that Subway, a huge
> company with thousands of outlets around the
> world, would be scared away by a few union
> employees.
>


Sure, Subway could "make a stand", but at what cost ? If their employees documented previous threats..and then said employees were kept in the same position -- the company then might possibly be held liable for not protecting the employees should further actions occur. (Yes, AMTRAK would be liable also, but Subway has to think about protecting ITSELF.) And, why fight a battle with (so much) risk when there is plenty of business to pursue elsewhere ??


I'm guessing the isolated nature of the train led to this swift decision. In theory, IF one of the Subway employees WAS being harassed and needed assistance, how would they summon it ? Ask a (possibly uncooperative) fellow AMTRAK employee ?? Call the local police (who would that be ?) and explain they were on a train traveling 80 MPH and would like an officer to meet them ? For folks who dont typically travel by train, -- trying to identify their location is a huge barrier. Sounds like the Amtrak union are the victors in this round.

It's too bad. This will provide even more ammunition for Amtrak's enemies to make a case that Amtrak is poor on customer-service, and resistant to change. The best lies have * some * truth to them. So the mere fact that the Subway employees say they were intimidated off the train is enough to start building a "horror story".

Even if it isnt the whole story, the average listener will likely come away with the opinion that some Amtrak employees care more about their own interests than customers.


Nickatnight

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Independent reports, including some from
> passengers and from Subway
> representatives who will not be named, say that
> the reason was
> unreasonable intimidation of the Subway employees
> by Amtrak employees,
> both on and off duty, including mention of risks
> to the personal safety
> of both those employees and to passengers.
> Amtrak's spokesman declined
> to comment.

I still find it hard to believe, that this would be the ONLY reason for Subway ending the trial service. I don't condone the tactics that may have been used and if there was proof that an Amtrak employee engaged in that kind of behavior, law enforcement should be involved. They are willing to throw this tid bit out to the media but unwilling to expose the people who engaged in a criminal act?
I'm sorry, until they name names and spell it out, it just sounds like a cop out to me.

Hi!

> I still find it hard to believe, that this would
> be the ONLY reason for Subway ending the trial
> service.

Cops have Union thugs too.

TB

puckeringswine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I still find it hard to believe, that this would
> be the ONLY reason for Subway ending the trial
> service. I don't condone the tactics that may have
> been used and if there was proof that an Amtrak
> employee engaged in that kind of behavior, law
> enforcement should be involved.
> I'm sorry, if they don't name names and spell it
> out, it just sounds like a cop out to me.
>


I don't find it hard to believe at all. Maybe this wouldn't happen in California, but on the East Coast it seems common. A good friend of mine left Amtrak a decade ago when his fellow union members made similar threats over his exposing to management extensive waste and corruption in the Communications and Signals Dept. In the late '80s the Boston Globe ran an investigation into waste and featherbedding at the MBTA Riverside shops during which the reporters and their sources where threatened and even assaulted by union members.

I favor labor unions and fair wage laws. Unions exist because employers - railroads among them - showed that they couldn't be trusted protect workers' rights. However, many unions in the transportation industry have evolved in to something very close to a protection racket that enriches a few corrupt individuals instead of ensuring decent jobs and working conditions for the maximum number of members.

Dave

Subway workers are often 18-20 year old kids. Coupla people bump them, spill an order, tell them they oughta find a new line of work. Do that a few times and they will find a new line of work.

Who's gonna risk injury for a job that pays $7 an hour? Not me, and not them.

DavidP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I favor labor unions and fair wage laws. Unions
> exist because employers - railroads among them -
> showed that they couldn't be trusted protect
> workers' rights. However, many unions in the
> transportation industry have evolved in to
> something very close to a protection racket that
> enriches a few corrupt individuals instead of
> ensuring decent jobs and working conditions for
> the maximum number of members.
>


Couldn't agree more. And that's why many people (myself included), while favoring the CONCEPT of unions and fair wage laws, are extremely unhappy with unions as they exist right now.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Subway workers are often 18-20 year old kids.

What's the point? One is an adult at age 18, which means they generally have a responsibility of earning an income to support their lives. If that means working a fast-food joint, so be it.

I know plenty of 40-year-olds and 50-year-olds working at fast food restaurants for whatever reason. If you don't want 18 year old "kids" working on trains, I hope you have a better thing for them to be doing. I'd rather they earn an income rather than living off government assistance.

One of the press releases said this was a franchisee doing this project. If it is, then he will not have the pockets that Subway corportate would have. I can tell you as a small business owner, I would not take the chance with my employees. A lucrative contract with Amtrak is not worth having an employees sue me for everything I have... insurance only covers so much and then they go after assets. Yes, my insurance will cover up to a million, but I would not risk it. If I thought that was even a chance of a problem, then I would pull my employees too.

wigwagfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Subway workers are often 18-20 year old
> kids.
>
> What's the point? One is an adult at age 18,
> which means they generally have a responsibility
> of earning an income to support their lives. If
> that means working a fast-food joint, so be it.
>
> I know plenty of 40-year-olds and 50-year-olds
> working at fast food restaurants for whatever
> reason. If you don't want 18 year old "kids"
> working on trains, I hope you have a better thing
> for them to be doing. I'd rather they earn an
> income rather than living off government
> assistance.


The point is that at that age, they likely do not have the experience and tenacity to stand up for themselves against older, burly union goons, especially when they'd be fighting for a low wage. Nor should they have to.

nickatnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even if it isnt the whole story, the average
> listener will likely come away with the opinion
> that some Amtrak employees care more about their
> own interests than customers.
>
>
> Nickatnight

This may be true, but still you can't expect career Amtrak railroaders to just "roll over" and give their jobs over to fast food kids, with probably not much concept of safety, emergency evacuation procedures, ability to work 18 hour days (which are typical for an Amtrak LSA) *Lead Service Attendant.* I sure don't approve of pro- or anti- union thuggery. However, using low wage fast food kids would be rife with problems I believe. Most know that turnover is really high in those jobs; there probably would be a lot of them who wouldn't even show up for work on time or at all, then you'd have an unstaffed train anyway. And working on high speed moving equipment has its own unique requirements, such as don't spill the hot coffee on the customers. Some contract employees on private varnish, like the American Orient Express, have also had to go through this same learning curve. No matter what, I think you get better people if you pay them more-- thanks for allowing me to vent a bit here.

OldPorter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> This may be true, but still you can't expect
> career Amtrak railroaders to just "roll over" and
> give their jobs over to fast food kids, with
> probably not much concept of safety, emergency
> evacuation procedures, ability to work 18 hour
> days (which are typical for an Amtrak LSA) *Lead
> Service Attendant.* I sure don't approve of pro-
> or anti- union thuggery....

Maybe the deal wasn't completely thought out. However if the idea gets out that Amtrak personnel sabotaged it, that perception won't be good for Amtrak's future. I believe the recent appropriation for Amtrak included mandates to improve the financial results for food service on trains. If food service goes by the wayside on the long distance trains, so too go the LDT's.

Good point regarding the prospects of having random fast-food workers do food service on the train, but my expectation would be that the franchisee took these factors into consideration when putting employees on the train.

If it were me, I would likely offer higher wages for Subway positions on the Amtrak contract, enact stiffer penalties for late or no-shows and only offer the position to experienced people I trust (assuming this unnamed franchisee already has enough Subway stores to pick from).

On the union front, I think this may be an example of where unions are a bad influence. If they are really using their pressure to prevent this pilot from happening, it is disappointing that they are putting Amtrak in a position to have to resist innovations that could make for a better company with happier passengers.

This pullout is unfortunate; I hope the causes can be remedied and the approach retried. I don't think the employee issue is a significant barrier, but the union resistance may well make this venture unfeasible.

-B

One can blame Union all they want, its Amtrak breaking the Labor contract.
If you got a labor contract that is valid for X amount of years it can not be broken by bringing in outside sources.
The Railway labor act specificaly states no changes in contract and no section six notices till 6 months before contract expires.
If no new contract is signed a status quo holds the old contract as governing document.
Amtrak was about to be getting a rude awakening, not by union workers but by courts for having managers with no brains.

I'm with Mr. Jaap on this issue.

It would appear the employees and their representatives can sort of claim victory in that the oustide contractor is off the property, however it could well be a "Phyrric Victory', or sometimes expressed as "the battle was won but the war was lost'.

Let us be mindful that the only trains on which Amtrak is obligated to offer Food & Beverage are those sponsored by local jurisdictions where the sponsors call for F&B to be provided. Otherwise, even though the Amtrak enabling legislation, the RPSA '70, called for F&B on all trains with runs over 125 miles, later legislation, namely ARAA '97, repealed any such requirement. Therefore at present and away from local sponsorship, Amtrak has the perogative of choice whether or not to offer F&B on any train.

At present, both the Bush administration, with its de facto operational control of Amtrak, and now even the Congress, who holds the purse strings, wish to see contracting out initiatives move forth. I think the representatives, in this case the Amtrak Service Workers Council of the Transport Workers Union. must see the "writing on the wall" and 'come to the table' to collectively bargain, under the Railway Labor Act, the conditions under which Amtrak may contract out F&B and other on-Board services. Failing that, the traveling public will end up the loosers as F&B, and even Sleeping Car services, are "reviewed' systemwide.