# Union Work Rules



## National Limited (Mar 13, 2010)

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?


----------



## jmbgeg (Mar 13, 2010)

National Limited said:


> 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.


----------



## GG-1 (Mar 13, 2010)

jmbgeg said:


> National Limited said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


Aloha

While I am Pro-Union, It is not fare to compare, or measure, with the "non-union sector". What needs to change is Management needs to be forthright with their needs in the negotiations, and the Union must really look at the benefits/cost of compromising. In an honest negotiations session it is a two way affair among equals. In my opinion way to often one side dominates the other and also the attitude that Employees are a "Liability" needs to change to an "Asset"


----------



## jmbgeg (Mar 13, 2010)

GG-1 said:


> jmbgeg said:
> 
> 
> > National Limited said:
> ...


Noted.


----------



## Mark (Mar 13, 2010)

What exactly should they change? Less pay? Less crew members on each train? Remember the "get rid of the Assistant Conductor move" played by management not too long ago. I can remember when every coach had its own Attendant, (now some are responsible for two or even three coaches), and the Diners were fully staffed. I have seen Sleeping Car Attendants already helping out in the Diners when the trains are full.

It has been my experience that Railroad management, (Amtrak appears to be no exception), typically has little or no idea what the people actually doing the work at track level go through day to day and for the most part do not care. Contract negotiations break down just about every time because the Management wants everything for nothing. Even when times are good. The Unions, (in Railroading), have been fighting a delaying action since the early 90s. They have been just trying to keep what was negotiated for and that's all. Usually it goes like this: A little bit more pay, (hopefully in line with inflation), here versus one big perk gone there. Freight trains used to have 5 people operating them now they have 2. "So sorry, technology ok, but that's not enough we want 1 person or better yet we want nobody up there operating 10,000 ft and millions of tons of train. By the way we still show huge profits but you guys have to pay for health care now." Don't get hurt, the latest game is to fire first and ask questions later. It is truly an unbelievable industry. So again what exactly should change?


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Mar 13, 2010)

how about the ability for Amtrak to fire employees who do nothing but spend the whole trip doing nothing but sitting around with their thumb up their ass(sleeping car attendants are famous for this along with some dining car staff). also get ride of a-hole employees who treat you like its your fault the train is 5 minutes late or its your fault that they actually have to lift a finger and work for their supper.


----------



## GG-1 (Mar 13, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> how about the ability for Amtrak to fire employees who do nothing but spend the whole trip doing nothing but sitting around with their thumb up their ass(sleeping car attendants are famous for this along with some dining car staff). also get ride of a-hole employees who treat you like its your fault the train is 5 minutes late or its your fault that they actually have to lift a finger and work for there supper.


Aloha amtrakwolverine

I think you are being a bit hard here. If proper documentation of this kind of performance takes place, The union would concur with management. Way to often the fair procedure is not followed. This is also why most of us here encourage riders to report both the bad, and good workers by writing Amtrak Customer Service


----------



## Mark (Mar 13, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> how about the ability for Amtrak to fire employees who do nothing but spend the whole trip doing nothing but sitting around with there thumb up there ass(sleeping car attendants are famous for this along with some dining car staff). also get ride of a-hole employees who treat you like its your fault the train is 5 minutes late or its your fault that they actually have to lift a finger and work for there supper.


Agreed, shouldn't be a problem _if_ Amtrak Management got off their buts and actually rode the trains they are supposedly in-charge of. Document, document, document and anybody, Union or not can be fired. Problem is most management isn't willing to invest the time or effort as long as _their_ paycheck keeps rolling in. Unions aren't these impenetrable fortresses that many people believe they are. It takes work, (and nobody likes being the bad guy or gal), to get a so called "dirt-bag" fired and all organizations have them both at the high and low ends. Believe me there are _Union members_ who have cheered, (covertly), when certain individuals were fired.


----------



## MikeM (Mar 13, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> how about the ability for Amtrak to fire employees who do nothing but spend the whole trip doing nothing but sitting around with their thumb up their ass(sleeping car attendants are famous for this along with some dining car staff). also get ride of a-hole employees who treat you like its your fault the train is 5 minutes late or its your fault that they actually have to lift a finger and work for their supper.


I actually have some pity for sleeping car attendants. Consider what it must be like to have to make up umpteen beds every morning and evening, keep the shower and bathrooms clean, and help folks get their luggage up and down stairs. I've seen a few who deserve to be tied to the tracks, but many more who are really trying hard to make things right for the passengers.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 13, 2010)

Mark said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > how about the ability for Amtrak to fire employees who do nothing but spend the whole trip doing nothing but sitting around with there thumb up there ass(sleeping car attendants are famous for this along with some dining car staff). also get ride of a-hole employees who treat you like its your fault the train is 5 minutes late or its your fault that they actually have to lift a finger and work for there supper.
> ...


I'm not going to tell people who it is, so please don't bother asking or sending me your guesses, as I won't respond.

However, one of our long time members here who has for years given freely of his own personal time, was for a number of years one of those managers that you speak of. We know that he gave freely of his own time, as we can track when he posts from home vs. his office at Amtrak. He's now retired from Amtrak, something that I and those few who do know who he is consider to be a great loss to Amtrak.

His heart must sink so low everytime he reads comments like the above. 

This is a man who was indeed out doing his job, which at one point did require him to ride those trains. Later he was responsible for several managers whose jobs were to be the riders on those trains. I've no doubt that he made quite sure that they were taking those rides. Prior to his recent retirement he was a Senior Director at Amtrak, reporting directly to a VP that I have the utmost respect for as his accomplishments during his tenure at Amtrak have been major.

This man came here to help answer questions that other's couldn't answer on his own time; not on Amtrak's dime. That's how dedicated to trying to put out a good product he was. Yes, I'm sure if I asked him to do so, he could name a few managers that need to be fired. But to lump him and other hard working managers all into one group has to be hurtful to him.

So I ask all to remember that be they managers or union workers, that there are both good and bad people in both groups and that we please avoid broad, sweeping comments.

Thanks!


----------



## AlanB (Mar 13, 2010)

One contract change that I know would help Amtrak tremendously would be to get the rest of the company on a similar contract to the Auto Train. One reason that the Auto Train does better in the numbers is that craft lines don't exist, or at least don't exist to the level that they do at the rest of Amtrak. This requires many extras to be hired and paid, so as to cover all jobs.

On the AT, an employee could be working today's run south and tomorrow's north as a sleeping car attendant. On Tuesday they could be working in the dining car as a waiter. Amtrak does not have this flexibility any place else and could really use it. It's not a change that would unduly hurt or penalize the workers if phased in slowly, and yet it would save Amtrak some big bucks.


----------



## Mark (Mar 13, 2010)

AlanB said:


> One contract change that I know would help Amtrak tremendously would be to get the rest of the company on a similar contract to the Auto Train. One reason that the Auto Train does better in the numbers is that craft lines don't exist, or at least don't exist to the level that they do at the rest of Amtrak. This requires many extras to be hired and paid, so as to cover all jobs.
> On the AT, an employee could be working today's run south and tomorrow's north as a sleeping car attendant. On Tuesday they could be working in the dining car as a waiter. Amtrak does not have this flexibility any place else and could really use it. It's not a change that would unduly hurt or penalize the workers if phased in slowly, and yet it would save Amtrak some big bucks.


I certainly don't mean to offend in anyway anybody who participates in this forum. I am so very glad I found this site, the information to be found here is simply priceless. I am also, as many of us are, a huge Amtrak fan and have logged many, many miles but the title to the thread is _Union Work Rules_. Why is does this country's problems always seem to land in the unions lap? I agree that there are good and bad on both sides and believe I alluded to that fact so-

I would be interested to know how the employees on the AT feel about this system as compared to how the rest of the system. Why is it just that train? Do they get incentive pay to essentially be an Auto Train Extra Board? One of the few remaining perks of being a Union Employee is seniority. Being able to hold what job you want based on how long one has (hopefully), faithfully served a given organization Amtrak or otherwise. If someone with high seniority prefers to be a Sleeping Car Attendant for whatever reason then I feel that they should be entitled to do so. That is railroading. The good goes to the old and the young get well, the crap.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Mar 14, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> > amtrakwolverine said:
> ...


1. I have no problem with sleeper attendants who are doing their best and just cannot keep up with demand etc due to someone called in sick and they have to work two cars or they had to do a double shift or overly demanding passengers fine. as long as they're trying their best. What i or anyone don't like are those sleeper attendants or LSA's who do nothing but sit around with there thumb stuck up their butt. Like dining cars that are full and you got one person taking the food bringing the food greeting the pax in the diner seating them while the LSA or whoever sits around and does nothing to help cause they're too busy sitting around reading a magazine or surfing the web.

2. while reporting helps amtrak needs to re-start having managers ride the trains undercover and report what goes on. once employees start getting fired or suspended then other employees might take notice that if they don't shape up they could be the next to get canned union or not. I want to enjoy the trip not be at the mercy of some A-hole conductor who thinks the train should be run like a prison or just cause he's got power means he/she gets to abuse the passengers.

while i may have been harsh its not far from the truth about some employees. why else do we have a trip from hell thread that keeps getting bumped up.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 14, 2010)

Mark said:


> I would be interested to know how the employees on the AT feel about this system as compared to how the rest of the system. Why is it just that train? Do they get incentive pay to essentially be an Auto Train Extra Board? One of the few remaining perks of being a Union Employee is seniority. Being able to hold what job you want based on how long one has (hopefully), faithfully served a given organization Amtrak or otherwise. If someone with high seniority prefers to be a Sleeping Car Attendant for whatever reason then I feel that they should be entitled to do so. That is railroading. The good goes to the old and the young get well, the crap.


Mark,

While I freely admit that it is more of a guess on my part, I have little actual knowledge, I'd say that most of the employees like it. Some of the best workers to be found at Amtrak, work the Auto Train. Happy workers provide better customer service. I know that jobs on the AT are in demand, so again there must be a draw for them. Perhaps that draw is that they work pretty regular and don't find themselves sitting at home by the phone waiting for the call to come to work.

As for why it is just that train, the Auto Train was not part of the original Amtrak system. It was run privately for many years and continued being privately run for several years after the formation of Amtrak. When the company running the AT went belly up, Amtrak decided to try and run the train. Because of that, Amtrak was able to dictate better terms for Amtrak, failure to find enough employees to agree to those terms would have seen Amtrak simply not running the train. Amtrak was to an extent, in the driver's seat this time.


----------



## railiner (Mar 14, 2010)

Now if you want to see what real productivity can be like.... there is an airline (perhaps JetBlue?), that trains its terminal employees to be certified flight attendants. One day they may work a flight, next day sell tickets, next day load baggage, next day clean the aircraft. Only the highest specialized crafts (pilots and mechanics), are apart from this.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Mar 14, 2010)

railiner said:


> Now if you want to see what real productivity can be like.... there is an airline (perhaps JetBlue?), that trains its terminal employees to be certified flight attendants. One day they may work a flight, next day sell tickets, next day load baggage, next day clean the aircraft. Only the highest specialized crafts (pilots and mechanics), are apart from this.


It can be done on railroads too, its not union rules, but the contract the railroad and union negotiate.

contracts can be changed but only if other concesions are made.

to change a rule in contract will require to change something to compensate, another holiday, or more money, or other concesions.


----------



## rrdude (Mar 14, 2010)

Mark said:


> What exactly should they change? Less pay? Less crew members on each train? * Freight trains used to have 5 people operating them now they have 2.* "So sorry, technology ok, but that's not enough we want 1 person or better yet we want nobody up there operating 10,000 ft and millions of tons of train. By the way we still show huge profits but you guys have to pay for health care now." Don't get hurt, the latest game is to fire first and ask questions later. It is truly an unbelievable industry. So again what exactly should change?


So what are you advocating, that freight railroads still have five people? If companies don't embrace, and utilize technology, their competition (in this case trucking) will eat them alive.

It's a "pendulum thing" on my view. Unions are necessary, to keep check on management. And vice verca. UAW almost destroyed this country's main, big manufacturing base. Same for railroad unions. Then things change a little in favor of management, and the pendulum swings back towards the center.

Of course the best mix is having union representation, I mean REAL representation, on the board. But too many companies do that in "name only". Unless the US Govt is going to further regulate our many industries and companies, unions are necessary.

And I am about as "anti-union" as they come. As a kid, forced to join the "Dining Car, Something-Something" union while employed at Amtrak. Jobs at Ford Motor, forced to join the local UAW. Yuck. If the union and the company don't have the same goal of a profitable, growing company, then you have trouble.


----------



## daveyb99 (Mar 14, 2010)

As mentioned before, and despite the fact you describe these as "union work rules", AMTRAK management AGREED to these conditions.

So when you see someone 'just sitting around who should be fired', maybe you should think 'why did management agree to such lax work rules that would allow someone to just sit around'.

The other side of this issue is the fact that union AMTRAK employees went without a contract for 5-plus years. During that time, no raises, no improvement in conditions, increase health care costs, and overall increases in cost of living. That situation will sour anyone. An agreement was finalized a few years back, but only at the direction of the President of the United States.

For the record, I am a union member of 22+ years. I have negotiated agreements with management. I wanted the sky, they wanted to give zero --- but we came to an agreement we both could live with. Call it 'union work rules' if you must, but it is an agreement to working conditions that contains a signature of both parties.


----------



## AlanB (Mar 14, 2010)

daveyb99 said:


> As mentioned before, and despite the fact you describe these as "union work rules", AMTRAK management AGREED to these conditions.So when you see someone 'just sitting around who should be fired', maybe you should think 'why did management agree to such lax work rules that would allow someone to just sit around'.


Actually most of the more onerous rules that Amtrak would like to get rid of were rules that Amtrak inherited from the freight RR's and they've never been able to get those rules changed. And they have tried, but the one or two times that they tried, from what I know the union either refused to discuss them or the concessions that they wanted for the changes were worse than the status quo.



daveyb99 said:


> The other side of this issue is the fact that union AMTRAK employees went without a contract for 5-plus years. During that time, no raises, no improvement in conditions, increase health care costs, and overall increases in cost of living. That situation will sour anyone. An agreement was finalized a few years back, but only at the direction of the President of the United States.


To be fair, the workers did get small Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLA) increases to their salaries during that period. Additionally, one benefit that many didn't consider is the fact that most union workers have had to actually start contributing to their health plans & retirement plans over the past 5 years. Amtrak workers continued with out that issue, getting fully company paid benefits, which in and of itself could almost be considered a salary increase.

That said, I want to be clear that I'm not advocating that the workers should have gone 5 years, some actually went longer 8 IIRC, without a contract. That's not fair to anyone and it's not how the system is supposed to work.


----------



## EB_OBS (Mar 14, 2010)

I work the Empire Builder with both Seattle and Chicago crews. In the past three years, Seattle has fired about 15 employees and Chicago has fired 2 employees that used to work the EB. I've asked other employees who've been here much longer than me to name any number of employees they could recall who had been fired in the previous ten years before that. Most could only think of maybe one or two. So, in my observations and experience there has been some improvement in terminating unsatisfactory employees. I can also think of a 1/2 dozen or more employees who've been disqualified from crafts as well.


----------



## Big Iron (Mar 14, 2010)

Mark said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > how about the ability for Amtrak to fire employees who do nothing but spend the whole trip doing nothing but sitting around with there thumb up there ass(sleeping car attendants are famous for this along with some dining car staff). also get ride of a-hole employees who treat you like its your fault the train is 5 minutes late or its your fault that they actually have to lift a finger and work for there supper.
> ...


I'm in sales for a publically traded, non-union company. Personality aside, rude or otherwise, it takes 9 months to fire an under-performing sales rep. It's faily easy to document as we have sales goals, if you don't meet them over a 9 month period........goodbye. I know nothing of Amtrak's disciplinary procedures but I would expect many on this forum would agree that 9 months, union employee or not, is a long time.

I'd love to see the rude/lazy SCA, coach attendant, LSA, etc. summarily fired for poor service but all employees should be given the opportunity, and proper training from Management, to succeed.

Again, I know nothing of the details of Amtrak employees union contract, my "perception" is that it would be more costly to fire a longer term union employee due to negotiated severance and other benefits due upon dismissal than a non-union employee. This could lead to a bad employee being kept on for cost rather than performance reasons........but I may be completely wrong so I welcome any insight on the subject.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Mar 14, 2010)

ez223 said:


> I work the Empire Builder with both Seattle and Chicago crews. In the past three years, Seattle has fired about 15 employees and Chicago has fired 2 employees that used to work the EB. I've asked other employees who've been here much longer than me to name any number of employees they could recall who had been fired in the previous ten years before that. Most could only think of maybe one or two. So, in my observations and experience there has been some improvement in terminating unsatisfactory employees. I can also think of a 1/2 dozen or more employees who've been disqualified from crafts as well.


See this related article; Performance improvement program pays off, Amtrak says


----------



## Mark (Mar 14, 2010)

rrdude said:


> Mark said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly should they change? Less pay? Less crew members on each train? * Freight trains used to have 5 people operating them now they have 2.* "So sorry, technology ok, but that's not enough we want 1 person or better yet we want nobody up there operating 10,000 ft and millions of tons of train. By the way we still show huge profits but you guys have to pay for health care now." Don't get hurt, the latest game is to fire first and ask questions later. It is truly an unbelievable industry. So again what exactly should change?
> ...


Ahhhh no. I'm not advocating a return to five person crews but if you've never walked from the head end of a freight train with an 80 or so lb knuckle hoping that that is in fact the problem when the train went into emergency, well then you just haven't lived life to its fullest in railroading. The point is it would be nice to have someone on the hind end to walk the other half of that 100+ car train but "technology" replaced the guys in the caboose and for that matter the caboose. What technology did not replace is that when there is a problem en-route half the crew means double the time _just to find out_ what went wrong. Think about that the next time you're on Amtrak sitting behind that broken down freight in single track territory. The Freights saved a few bucks so you can sit while that _one_ guy walks.

I don't know anything about UAW, (I seriously doubt they almost destroyed our manufacturing base on their own), but I have sat on both sides of the fence so I do know a thing or two about Management _and_ Unions. I'm not really a fan of either if one comes right down to it but my experience has been that management typically plays dirtier pool. If management treated employees with respect and paid them what they are really worth the Unions would go away by themselves. I'm not suggesting that the Unions are the end all be all and I agree with most of your post but believe me the RRs would in fact cut their Unionized workers pay in half immediately, today if they thought they could get away with it. RR unions can't even strike legally, without some huge complicated process involving the Government, cooling off periods, etc. So how much power do they really have? Not all that much.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Mar 14, 2010)

rrdude said:


> UAW almost destroyed this country's main, big manufacturing base.


This is simply not true. The UAW played a part, sure. But look at some of the total garbage that came out of Detroit in the 70s and 80s. The Chevy Vega? With its rot-prone body (no galvanization at all is unheard of, even back then. The Soviet Lada was better assembled!) and its iron-head, aluminum block engine, it had engine problems up the wazoo. General automotive wisdom is if you have aluminum in the block, the head must be aluminum, too. Iron block with aluminum head is ok, the other way around is stupid. This was accepted wisdom when the Vega was introduced, and it was still introduced that way. The union had nothing to do with it.

They build crummy cars that often weren't exactly what customers wanted. Want a better example of just how crappy GM in particular was? GM engineered a front drive midsizer for the 1979 model year known as the X-car. It was... adequate for its time, to be fair. They re-engineered it for the mid 80s, and it was known as the A-body cars. Just so you know what I'm talking about, Chevy Celebrity, Pontiac 6000, Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, Buick Century. For the 1990 model year, GM lengthened the platform and put in a simple Strut independant rear suspension.

They were then known as the GM-10 platform cars. The A-body remained in production for five more years. The GM-10s were the Chevy Lumina, Pontiac Grand Prix, Oldsmobile Cutlass Surpreme, and Buick Regal. For 1998, some much needed structural bracing was added to the cars, but their general dimensions were unchanged and many compromises were made to adapt the now 19 year old platform to modern standards. It was rechristened once again with this modification, as the W-cars. They were the Pontiac Grand Prix, the Oldsmobile Intrigue, the Buick Century, and the Buick Regal. A long-wheelbase model was also produced for the 2000 model year as the Cheverolet Impala.

For the 2005 model year, the platform had what (I hope) is its last revision. The Grand Prix stayed on the old platform, and Oldsmobile (who, honestly, had the most promising version of the W-car) It required a massive re-engineering of sheetmetal stampings to produce modern sheetmetal that would fasten to the almost 30 year old platforms hardpoints. The cars produced were the Buick LaCrosse and a restyled Chevy Impala. The Impala is still in production.

When it is replaced for the 2012 model year, the platform will be 35 years old. And remember- until 2010 model year, the Buick used a V6 known by various names, lastmost the 3800. It was introduced in the Buick Special of _*1961*_. 48 years old.

Now lets compare this to Honda of the 80s and 90s. Their Accord, the car that could closest be compared to the GM mid-sizers mentioned above, was replaced, consistently, every 4 years. Completely new, from the ground up, with new engines, and ground breaking technology. And through all this, Honda managed to maintain amazingly high reliability ratings, as well as a perception amongst its customers that they were bullet proof. I assume they are. You find more Accords from the 80s then you do GM X/A/10 cars, and a lot more of them were produced.

The American automakers killed themselves with greed, cheapness, and general ineptitude as much as with bad unions.


----------



## National Limited (Mar 15, 2010)

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?


----------



## haolerider (Mar 15, 2010)

National Limited said:


> 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 (Mar 15, 2010)

National Limited said:


> 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 (Mar 15, 2010)

MikefromCrete said:


> 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 (Mar 15, 2010)

haolerider said:


> National Limited said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


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 (Mar 15, 2010)

> 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 (Mar 16, 2010)

Can someone define "extra-board?"


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 16, 2010)

National Limited said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2010)

rmadisonwi said:


> National Limited said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone define "extra-board?"
> ...


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 (Mar 17, 2010)

National Limited said:


> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> > National Limited said:
> ...


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


----------



## girly25 (Mar 17, 2010)

National Limited said:


> rmadisonwi said:
> 
> 
> > National Limited said:
> ...




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


----------



## RRrich (Mar 17, 2010)

PaulM said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2010)

girly25 said:


> National Limited said:
> 
> 
> > rmadisonwi said:
> ...


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 (Mar 17, 2010)

National Limited said:


> girly25 said:
> 
> 
> > National Limited said:
> ...




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 (May 18, 2010)

jmbgeg said:


> National Limited said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


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 (May 18, 2010)

acelafan said:


> 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 (May 18, 2010)

acelafan said:


> jmbgeg said:
> 
> 
> > National Limited said:
> ...


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 (May 18, 2010)

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 (May 18, 2010)

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 (May 19, 2010)

Palmland said:


> 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 (May 19, 2010)

volkris said:


> Palmland said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Your lack of respect for the working man disgusts me.


----------



## Ryan (May 19, 2010)

volkris said:


> Palmland said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (May 19, 2010)

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 (May 19, 2010)

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 (May 19, 2010)

jimhudson said:


> *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 (May 19, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> 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.


----------



## sunchaser (May 19, 2010)

If I could get away with it, I would be okay with a horse & buggy. I don't think hubby would approve, though. I don't think the city would like it either!

We definitely need to make more money as a country if we are going to continue to spend like we have an unlimited supply.

I am sure most on this board operate under some kind of budget-yet as a country we seem to not understand that when there is no more money, you must stop spending, or adjust what you are spending it on.

I too agree about not cutting music programs-I think they are a valuable asset for children. I certainly enjoyed my classes and still use what I learned every week.

We do however, also need to figure out why our students are doing so poorly. I don't think it has to do with funding. I think it has to do with the teachers & to some degree the parents. I had some great & not so great teachers. So did our kids & grandkids. We always encouraged the kids to do their very best & we helped as much as we could-and still do.


----------



## Trogdor (May 20, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> If I could get away with it, I would be okay with a horse & buggy. I don't think hubby would approve, though. I don't think the city would like it either!We definitely need to make more money as a country if we are going to continue to spend like we have an unlimited supply.
> 
> I am sure most on this board operate under some kind of budget-yet as a country we seem to not understand that when there is no more money, you must stop spending, or adjust what you are spending it on.
> 
> ...


Students are doing poorly because our priorities as a nation, frankly, suck.

Too many parents let TV raise their kids rather than spend the time to do so themselves. Many of them simply can't spare the time because they're busy working multiple jobs (if they are lucky enough to have jobs) at odd hours just to barely put food on the table.

Previous generations generally didn't have to deal with that. There was one member of the family that worked (generally the father), and the one job was enough to feed the family (thanks to unions, in many cases).

However, over time, companies figured out that being cheap and efficient was in their best interests, and this nation and society decided to go along with it ("free enterprise" and all that, because corporations are people too and whatnot). So, as a result, people have to do more work for less pay.

So, parents are gone just to make ends meet, so the kids are left to fend for themselves. They do not have a healthy home environment, and that has a direct impact on their academic performance. Schools dealing with budget crises and having to cut "nonessential" things like activities doesn't help the situation.

It's not just about how good the teacher is at teaching the material that determines whether or not a student will learn. Unfortunately, since very few people (particularly those in positions of decision-making ability) actually seem to understand this, the problem won't get any better.

As for "making more money as a country" (I assume you're referring to government budgets here, given the context of the last couple of messages), well, how about looking here, for starters.


----------



## sunchaser (May 20, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > If I could get away with it, I would be okay with a horse & buggy. I don't think hubby would approve, though. I don't think the city would like it either!We definitely need to make more money as a country if we are going to continue to spend like we have an unlimited supply.
> ...


We were not able to survive with one income. We both had to work. So did my parents. My mom finally retired at 75, & is alone.

I do not mean raising the taxes we all pay. Even if your income is really low & you don't pay income tax, they still tax you on food, gas, etc. I meant as a country, we do not export much anymore, except jobs. We import so much, including food. We need to be more self sufficient, providing for our own needs & exporting goods to other countries.

There has been talk of a VAT tax, which would be very bad. That means goods & services would be taxed many times over before you buy it. There has been talk of a Fair Tax, which I don't know much about. They have also been talking about a Flat tax, which would be the same percentage for everyone. If they did that tax, we would have plenty of funds & not need an income tax anymore.


----------



## volkris (May 20, 2010)

Note that I didn't say *I* wasn't willing to pay for the raise in the form of higher ticket prices.

I just wanted to make sure you, my fellow rail rider, were.

Where does the money for these raises would come from? The Amtrak money tree?

Maybe a more interesting question for rail fans is whether they'd rather give raises to Amtrak employees or use the money to buy a new car or two. Heck, maybe they could use the money to upgrade a track, thus improving travel time, thus improving Amtrak's value in the eyes of a few voters, and thereby getting it more government funding in the future.


----------



## Ryan (May 20, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> They have also been talking about a Flat tax, which would be the same percentage for everyone. If they did that tax, we would have plenty of funds & not need an income tax anymore.


That all depends on what the rate was set at. It would also be horribly regressive. I highly recommend looking into the fair tax, that one has some real promise.



volkris said:


> Note that I didn't say *I* wasn't willing to pay for the raise in the form of higher ticket prices.
> I just wanted to make sure you, my fellow rail rider, were.


I'm sure, that's all your ever concerned about. Whatsoever would we do without your noble concern for my wallet?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 20, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> We do however, also need to figure out why our students are doing so poorly. I don't think it has to do with funding. I think it has to do with the teachers & to some degree the parents. I had some great & not so great teachers. So did our kids & grandkids. We always encouraged the kids to do their very best & we helped as much as we could-and still do.


The problem with our education rests nowhere else but the very core of our education system. I went to school. I did... ok. I went to a decent college on a 1580 (800 math, 780 verbal) SAT score and once again did... ok. I didn't do well. I struggled through it because the sheer awfulness of most of my teachers and professors made listening to them terminally boring. Have you, Sunchaser, ever picked up the massive paper frauds perpetuated on the tax payers and college students of our great nation, referred to euphemistically as a "textbook."

These pieces of fecal matter in paper form have to be the most insulting, atrocious, and disgusting thing I have ever seen. I bought many of my high school books from my school at the end of the year. Why? Because I wanted the satisfaction of taking these things, making a bonfire, and showing them my opinion.

They are not so much instruments of learning as instruments for the writers to show how much more they know than the student reading them. They take the simplest of concepts and make them more complex then they really are. It is up to the teacher to take this garbage and feed it into the head of a student in such a way that he sifts out the trash and retrieves the valuable information buried in deep in it.

The intelligent students quickly become angry and disheartened by the simple fact that teachers fall into two main categories: those who are not capable of doing the above (it requires considerably more competence than the job should require!), and those who don't care enough to bother. The teachers that do care and have the competence are very rare and also usually fall afoul of the diplomatic politics that tend to infect school districts.

On top of that, the students that have the mental capability to understand the information presented to them in this convoluted form have to sit around and twiddle their thumbs while the teacher attempts to cram the other 95% of the students with the information they need to do well on "standardized tests". Because they have already assimilated the information and sit longing for the teacher to expound on it with something, anything.

Now, as I said, teachers exist who care and have the competence to help students. The problem is that by the time most students have reached a teacher who cares, the student has become completely turned off to school. Not because they are stupid. Not because they don't want to learn. Because they can't bring themselves to place importance on what is so obviously a gigantic farce.

As I said, I went to school, went to college, got my degrees. And I will tell you that almost everything I know is self taught. Because in order to learn, I had to ignore school. I became an educated person in spite of the school system I was in, not because of it.

No student left behind? The moment I heard that, I felt a dropping feeling in the pit of my stomach. Because at that moment, I realized that the American school system is doomed. A child must be individually evaluated. Each person has their own talents. They need to be taught to the full benefit of their particular strengths.

Dr. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, through his character, Sherlock Holmes, postulated that the head is like a closet, and if overcrowded it becomes cluttered. A more misunderstood principle is rare. Its not that the mind has limited capacity. Few people will ever reach even a hundredth of their minds capacity for thought, or knowledge. But, few people are ever capable of organizing what they know in such a way that heavy utilization of that mind can be done.

Someone whose strength is highly in one area is ruined when you force them to learn in great detail things that they will never be particularly good at. Oh, yes, every person needs to know the basics of history, simple arithmetic, how to read, write, and form language. It is for the historians to learn detailed history, the mathematicians to learn calculus, the writers to learn the greatest depths of language, poetry, and prose.

A carpenter, a master craftsman, does not need to know the details of Socrates or quantum physics. He doesn't need to know this information. Carrying it around is a burden he is better off without.

Of course, there are people who are very talented, who have exceptionally orderly minds. We call them gifted. They are the ones who would WANT to learn all of this extra information. And they can.

To use our students, our children, to the best of their ability, they need to be prompted to perform to the fullest extent in the area in which they excel. Attempting to turn every person into a Renaissance man is our greatest failure in logic. It leaves them lost and confused. They have to know information they don't understand, never will understand. It is not their calling to understand these things.

My gift has always been a very orderly mind. I can never dream of building a beautiful desk, of painting a beautiful picture, of using great gobs of physical strength. I can't well play sports, or socialize with people, or dance. I remain in my mind.

If we continue to believe that one basic curriculum is the guiding point for all of our students, our schools will continue to fail. Task them with the impossible, expect bad results.


----------



## Trainmans daughter (May 20, 2010)

Whew! GML, you're weird. That being said, I admit I agree with most of your opinions of the educational system. So what does that make me? Ha!


----------



## sunchaser (May 21, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > We do however, also need to figure out why our students are doing so poorly. I don't think it has to do with funding. I think it has to do with the teachers & to some degree the parents. I had some great & not so great teachers. So did our kids & grandkids. We always encouraged the kids to do their very best & we helped as much as we could-and still do.
> ...


Well said, GML. I have looked at the poor excuse for textbooks we are using, & I am appalled at the way they want to change them & make them worse.

One example is they want to remove all American history before President Polk.

They claim it isn't relevant anymore.

I too, had bad & good teachers, as did my children, & even now, my grandchildren.

I do think if a teacher is not teaching, they should be canned, period. Oh, wait, we can't do that, because they're in a union!

We have had to go & speak with teachers several times about the methods they were using were so wrong & illegal to get them back on track.

The public school system now is designed for the average student- not the gifted, or the one having trouble.

If you are not average you are singled out-for better or worse-because your teacher does not know how to teach you.

Couple that with the ability of teachers to pass children that have not completed the basics for that grade, shuffling the 'problem' off to someone else.

If the parents do not actively monitor & assist in the education of their children, you certainly cannot complain why your child cannot read, write, get or hold a decent job.


----------



## Sue in KY (May 21, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> Well said, GML. I have looked at the poor excuse for textbooks we are using, & I am appalled at the way they want to change them & make them worse. One example is they want to remove all American history before President Polk.
> 
> They claim it isn't relevant anymore.
> 
> ...


I was for part of my career a high-school English teacher, and I still keep an eye on the profession through the experiences of my children and grandchildren.

While I have seen a few teachers who for various reasons were unfit for teaching (haven't we all seen people like that, no matter their jobs?), the majority have been dedicated, hardworking folk facing a range of situations: from overcrowded classrooms to the necessity for acting as administrators, to the requirements of teaching to a particular set of standards ("No Child Left Behind," anyone?), to the insistence by some parents that their children must not be allowed to fail or be given less-than-stellar grades. And they do their jobs -- unless they burn out and turn to less emotionally exhausting, better-paying careers -- on salaries considerably less rewarding than those of other professionals required to have the same amounts of education.


----------



## sunchaser (May 21, 2010)

Sue in KY said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Well said, GML. I have looked at the poor excuse for textbooks we are using, & I am appalled at the way they want to change them & make them worse. One example is they want to remove all American history before President Polk.
> ...


Sue, I know that most teachers are great & love their jobs. I know there are some that should not be teaching as well. I agree, that it definitely a tough, demanding job, but even with that, the ones that love the kids & what they do seem to thrive in that environment. I agree that just like any job, there are those that should not have that job. At the beginning of each school year, we would go introduce ourselves to the teachers, & let them know we could be there at a moments notice if needed. Most appreciated this thought-some were offended!

I figure if I am going allow anyone to teach my children, they should be doing the best they can, & I supported them as much I could. Our kids were expected to do their best as well.

Children must meet the requirements to pass. Should we teach our children that it's okay if you don't do the job right, we will reward you anyway?


----------



## Sue in KY (May 21, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> Sue, I know that most teachers are great & love their jobs. I know there are some that should not be teaching as well. I agree, that it definitely a tough, demanding job, but even with that, the ones that love the kids & what they do seem to thrive in that environment. I agree that just like any job, there are those that should not have that job. At the beginning of each school year, we would go introduce ourselves to the teachers, & let them know we could be there at a moments notice if needed. Most appreciated this thought-some were offended!I figure if I am going allow anyone to teach my children, they should be doing the best they can, & I supported them as much I could. Our kids were expected to do their best as well.
> 
> Children must meet the requirements to pass. Should we teach our children that it's okay if you don't do the job right, we will reward you anyway?


That's good to know. I was (over?)reacting to what I perceived as a generalization. I agree that teachers and parents _*must*_ work together if children are to be educated.


----------



## sunchaser (May 21, 2010)

Sue in KY said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Sue, I know that most teachers are great & love their jobs. I know there are some that should not be teaching as well. I agree, that it definitely a tough, demanding job, but even with that, the ones that love the kids & what they do seem to thrive in that environment. I agree that just like any job, there are those that should not have that job. At the beginning of each school year, we would go introduce ourselves to the teachers, & let them know we could be there at a moments notice if needed. Most appreciated this thought-some were offended!I figure if I am going allow anyone to teach my children, they should be doing the best they can, & I supported them as much I could. Our kids were expected to do their best as well.
> ...


I'm sorry if it sounded that way. That was not my intent. Most of the best encouragement & real interest in my learning was from some of my teachers. I still hold them in respect & admiration, even though I'm sure most of them have passed away.

My kids are the same way, they still remember their best teachers with fondness & respect.

I also had more than one teacher that had no business teaching anyone, & have the scars to prove it.


----------

