# Strike questions



## Steve Manfred (Jan 6, 2008)

Hi all.

I've had a round trip on a Southwest Chief roomette scheduled for mid-February for some months now. It's tied in to a specific event I'm attending, so I can't change the date, and am getting very concerned that there may not be a train for me to take come Feb. 12 due to strike action.

If a strike does happen, does anyone have any idea what Amtrak would do to compensate advance ticket holders? Would we get a full refund? Would we perhaps instead have substitute transportation booked and paid for for us? (In my case it'd have to be bus as I don't fly.)

Also, what odds would people here put on there being a strike?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 6, 2008)

Personaly I don't see strike happening, the president can not afford a economic disruption this close to presidential election.

A strike for two days would cost the USA more than just giving the unions what they wanted and what the Presidential emergency board recommended.


----------



## MrFSS (Jan 6, 2008)

Steve Manfred said:


> Hi all.
> I've had a round trip on a Southwest Chief roomette scheduled for mid-February for some months now. It's tied in to a specific event I'm attending, so I can't change the date, and am getting very concerned that there may not be a train for me to take come Feb. 12 due to strike action.
> 
> If a strike does happen, does anyone have any idea what Amtrak would do to compensate advance ticket holders? Would we get a full refund? Would we perhaps instead have substitute transportation booked and paid for for us? (In my case it'd have to be bus as I don't fly.)
> ...


Steve - I will be on the SWC leaving 2/12 from LAX to CHI. Which way are you going, first?


----------



## Steve Manfred (Jan 6, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> Steve - I will be on the SWC leaving 2/12 from LAX to CHI. Which way are you going, first?


The other way. I'm going from Fort Madison, IA to LA starting on 2/12.


----------



## MrFSS (Jan 6, 2008)

Steve Manfred said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > Steve - I will be on the SWC leaving 2/12 from LAX to CHI. Which way are you going, first?
> ...


Well - we can wave at each other along the way!


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 7, 2008)

According to this article, a strike could occur as early as 12:01 AM on Jan 30. Interestingly as we armchair quarterback the whole operation from our PCs, here are the two biggest sticking points:



> Amtrak and union leaders say the main sticking points are over retroactive wage hikes and work rule reform.


Personally, I think that retroactive wage hikes are silly. If they can't cope without a pay raise, then they ought to find other work. I've had several years without a wage increase (not even cost of living). And as fare as work rule reform goes, I don't know what all this means, but I'm afraid that it could mean that _some_ workers are going to have to get off their butts and work for their living.

Also, with regards to this quote:



> "I don't really think you can go on strike against the public good so I think it would absolutely ludicrous, in violation of the law, and they should all be locked up." -- Jack Sullivan, LIRR rider


I think that's a pretty wrong attitude for the public to take. Of course, this is the sort of inflamation that the media loves. We're not talking air traffic controllers here.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 7, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> > Amtrak and union leaders say the main sticking points are over retroactive wage hikes and work rule reform.
> 
> 
> Personally, I think that retroactive wage hikes are silly. If they can't cope without a pay raise, then they ought to find other work. I've had several years without a wage increase (not even cost of living). And as fare as work rule reform goes, I don't know what all this means, but I'm afraid that it could mean that _some_ workers are going to have to get off their butts and work for their living.


There are many different work rule changes that Amtrak is seeking and quite honestly I'm not sure what they all are. However, one example is that currently Amtrak cannot call a sleeping car attendant in to work for example in the dining car as a waiter/waitress. That's considered a different craft. This hurts flexibility in scheduling and forces Amtrak to hire more people just to cover the schedules.

Oddly enough, the Autotrain operates under a different contract and there they can and do regularly swap jobs between coach attendant, dining car attendant, sleeping car attendant, and cafe attendant. This is one reason, although not the only reason that the AT does rather well financially. It still doesn't turn a profit, but it does come much closer than most of the other LD's.



VentureForth said:


> > "I don't really think you can go on strike against the public good so I think it would absolutely ludicrous, in violation of the law, and they should all be locked up." -- Jack Sullivan, LIRR rider
> 
> 
> I think that's a pretty wrong attitude for the public to take. Of course, this is the sort of inflamation that the media loves. We're not talking air traffic controllers here.


Actually since the person being quoted is a New Yorker, it's not all that surprising of a statement. The reason being that here in NY, it is against State law for transit workers to strike. They actually can be arrested and fined for striking under the Taylor Act.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 7, 2008)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Personaly I don't see strike happening, the president can not afford a economic disruption this close to presidential election.A strike for two days would cost the USA more than just giving the unions what they wanted and what the Presidential emergency board recommended.


I would bet a case of good Louisiana hot sauce that this is exactly what will happen.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 7, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Actually since the person being quoted is a New Yorker, it's not all that surprising of a statement. The reason being that here in NY, it is against State law for transit workers to strike. They actually can be arrested and fined for striking under the Taylor Act.


I don't think that all the posters remember Ronald Reagan firing ALL the PATCO air traffic controllers who walked the picket lines. You would have thought it would have brought the nation to its knees but didn't. Under the Railway Labor Act unionists do have the right to strike after an exhaustive series of negotiations and mediation. What will probably come down is a PEB ; Presidential Emergency Board decision. A sideline that I did not know until a few years ago is that airline employees are also covered by the Railway Labor Act.


----------



## wayman (Jan 7, 2008)

had8ley said:


> A sideline that I did not know until a few years ago is that airline employees are also covered by the Railway Labor Act.


Airlines covered by the same laws as railroads... hmm... maybe *that*'s why flying takes so much longer than advertised: CSX and UP own the airspace :lol:


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 7, 2008)

had8ley said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Actually since the person being quoted is a New Yorker, it's not all that surprising of a statement. The reason being that here in NY, it is against State law for transit workers to strike. They actually can be arrested and fined for striking under the Taylor Act.
> ...



Your correct, the PATCO strike was a Illegal strike and therefore the president acted.

This strike would be 100% legal and since the PEB has made the recommendation its safe to assume that Kumante is making a lot of calls to Washington to get the extra money before they hand his ass to him.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 7, 2008)

AlanB said:


> There are many different work rule changes that Amtrak is seeking and quite honestly I'm not sure what they all are. However, one example is that currently Amtrak cannot call a sleeping car attendant in to work for example in the dining car as a waiter/waitress. That's considered a different craft. This hurts flexibility in scheduling and forces Amtrak to hire more people just to cover the schedules.


It would be interesting to know what the stand-still issues are. I believe that the jobs should be categorized high-tip, low/no tip, and operations. That way a sleeper attendant could work in the diner and vice versa (if so trained) because they rake in a similar amount of money. LSAs are rarely tipped and should stay where they are unless re-statused to the tipping world. Hopefully their base pay is a bit higher, even though the cash makes the difference for the other two jobs. Their job can interchange with snack car. Finally, conductors and engineers could swap if they were cross trained, otherwise they stay put where they serve.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 7, 2008)

Another point - there are 8 unions representing Amtrak employees. This has GOT to hurt them!! Is it one for every parent railroad? Is it one for every discipline (ie: train ops, service crew, shop, electric, plumbing ... I can't even think of three more)?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 7, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Another point - there are 8 unions representing Amtrak employees. This has GOT to hurt them!! Is it one for every parent railroad? Is it one for every discipline (ie: train ops, service crew, shop, electric, plumbing ... I can't even think of three more)?


There are probably 14 or so unions for different crafts , not all may be right.

Engineers - BLET

Conductors = UTU

Electricians IBEW

Carman =TWU

Coach cleaners =TWU

Dispatchers = ATDA

Shop supervisors= ARSA

Boiler makers - The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers

Machinist = IAMAW

Track workers = TWU

Clerks = TCU

Etc

Federal law says any group of workers can elect to be represented by any union of their chosing.

As for crossing crafts nobody has to work outside a craft their union contract does not cover


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 7, 2008)

Amtrak is a unique situation. They are technically a "private" company. They are a "private" company that is utterly dependant on public tax funding for over 40% of its total revenue. But Amtrak, a "private" company, also controls the ability of several much larger public agencies to use property owned by the public - the NEC (Amtrak owns the NEC and the US DOT owns Amtrak). As employees of a "private" corporation, the Railway Labor Act applies to Amtrak labor relations. Amtrak employees, like those at CSX and United Airlines, can strike following all the steps set forth by the RLA. But I cannot think of many instances where a strike by a private company would so directly and adversely affect public agencies and government operations as a strike at Amtrak. If all Amtrak impacted was Amtrak train operations, then a strike would be an annoyance, in some area a major annoyance, but probably no more so than CSX or United Airlines being on strike. But shutting down NJ Transit, large portions of SEPTA, MARC, VRE, and maybe even the LIRR would result in disruptions over an above the impact that Amtrak as an individual private entity should have. In other words, Amtrak the fly has the ability to cripple the elephant. It would be like FedEx going on strike and shuttling down the USPS and all mail service.

I think, given the affect on public agencies and the taxpayers, an Amtrak strike will be stopped by immediate federal legislation. A settlement would be imposed. You would be surprised how fast Congress can act when inspired, and believe me, they would be inspired. I think a strike would also risk the end of Amtrak's "ownership" and operation of the NEC. There is no reason for a private company to own and operate a public asset like the NEC with the ability to hold the public hostage to either its whims or the whims of labor. The NEC should be operated by the DOT just like the FAA operates the ATC system with Amtrak being one of the entities running trains. Either that, or reality should be recognized, and Amtrak reconstituted as an agency of the DOT with all the controls and oversights that being a government agency entails.

So, to the unions and to Amtrak. Strike at your own risk. I don't think either of you will like the outcome if you do.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 7, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> It would be interesting to know what the stand-still issues are. I believe that the jobs should be categorized high-tip, low/no tip, and operations. That way a sleeper attendant could work in the diner and vice versa (if so trained) because they rake in a similar amount of money. LSAs are rarely tipped and should stay where they are unless re-statused to the tipping world. Hopefully their base pay is a bit higher, even though the cash makes the difference for the other two jobs. Their job can interchange with snack car. Finally, conductors and engineers could swap if they were cross trained, otherwise they stay put where they serve.


Conductor and engineer strike me as rather different jobs. The conductor needs to be able to interact with the public in situations that are occasionally quite challenging on occasions where there are difficult passengers, and there are probably capable engineers who don't want to have those responsibilities. And I get the impression that the engineer probably needs to have a lot of technical knowlege about how the locomotive works that a conductor doesn't need; would Amtrak benefit from disqualifying someone who can deal well with difficult passengers from being a conductor just because they didn't have the right aptitude for understanding the machinery?


----------



## GG-1 (Jan 7, 2008)

had8ley said:


> I don't think that all the posters remember Ronald Reagan firing ALL the PATCO air traffic controllers who walked the picket lines. You would have thought it would have brought the nation to its knees but didn't.


Aloha

There is a reason PATCO failed, even though the negotiations had lasted over 2 years IIRC, they insisted their contract was still valid, tthis contract contained language baring picketing, therefore no other union could honor their picket lines. If they had just given proper notice that the contract was null void other unions could have respected the lines and then the President could not have used the provision he did. Unfortunately PATCO leadership was arrogant and harmed their members and the public.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 8, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > It would be interesting to know what the stand-still issues are. I believe that the jobs should be categorized high-tip, low/no tip, and operations. That way a sleeper attendant could work in the diner and vice versa (if so trained) because they rake in a similar amount of money. LSAs are rarely tipped and should stay where they are unless re-statused to the tipping world. Hopefully their base pay is a bit higher, even though the cash makes the difference for the other two jobs. Their job can interchange with snack car. Finally, conductors and engineers could swap if they were cross trained, otherwise they stay put where they serve.
> ...


Although I cannot answer for Amtrak I do know that most freight railroads have agreements that force conductors to take promotion to engineer after having served a certain amount of time on the ground. So, I guess it's best to have the knowledge of what's happening behind you before you start pulling.

P.S. I sure hope the people responsible for NOT updating the "Weekly" Hot Deals (the "Hot Deals" are so old they have mildew on them) and the dining car menus (still old SDS) on the Amtrak site forget to pick up their back time checks, if and when they arrive. They sure haven't been helping us out who are trying to add revenue to their bottom line. That's my two cents and I'm standing on it !#$%^&


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 8, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> But shutting down NJ Transit, large portions of SEPTA, MARC, VRE, and maybe even the LIRR would result in disruptions over an above the impact that Amtrak as an individual private entity should have.


Do Amtrak crews operate these trains, or are these merely systems that operate over Amtrak's tracks?

(I believe Amtrak crews run part of Shore Line East, or at least did in 2002 according to the trip report AlanB recently posted a link to elsewhere in which someone attempted to ride commuter trains over all the tracks shared between Amtrak and commuter railroads; and the MBTA trains to Providence operate over Amtrak's tracks in Rhode Island, and those might also be affected.)

If states have contracted with Amtrak to provide crews for their trains and they don't like some aspect of Amtrak (such as its labor relations) they're free to choose another contractor (as Massachusetts has), although this is not a process that happens overnight. The MBTA recently renewed the MBCR contract, in spite of dissatisfaction with MBCR's performance; there are claims that it takes at least two years to find a replacement company if they decide they want to do that. (Why that is, I don't quite understand, and I somehow have to suspect that if someone really wanted to shorten that interval considerably, and could get the state legislature to approve such a thing, I bet it could be done.)

As for track ownership, maybe there's an argument that some portition of Amtrak's taxpayer subsidy could be given to Amtrak not as a handout, but as the purchase price of the track Amtrak owns, and perhaps that track could be given to the states. That would probably also do some good for the MBTA's expansion to T F Green Airport Station in Rhode Island, where I seem to recall that Amtrak wanted to charge substantially more than the industry standard rate (I'm not sure how that negotiation is going, but I don't think that station is going to be finished until 2009 or something anyway). But that might cause a different set of problems; few commuter rail systems go long enough distances between stations to want to get up to 150mph, and there are two segments of track in the NEC not used by any commuter railroad, so there might be some risk of states not maintaining tracks to the standards Amtrak wants. Then again, there's some Massachusetts-owned track that does allow 150mph.

Depending on which of the unions choose to strike, it seems like it's possible that trains with Amtrak crews might stop, but trains with other crews passing over Amtrak's tracks might be able to continue to operate.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 8, 2008)

NJT does not use Amtrak operating crews, although MARC & VRE do, as well as Shore Line East. All four of them, as well as the LIRR, SEPTA, and the MBTA operate over at least some portion of Amtrak owned tracks. In addition, while the MBTA does own most of the corridor tracks within the State of Mass, Amtrak provides both the dispatching of the corridor and the maintenance of the corridor, which explains the 150 MPH track.

And then of course there are the METRA trains that use Amtrak's Chicago Union Station, and I believe that some California commuter RR is also operated by Amtrak.

While certain politicians from time to time may make some noise about wanting their state to own their portion of the NEC, none of the States along the NEC can really afford to take over the NEC without Federal dollars to help them. And that's without maintaing the corridor for Amtrak speeds, they can't afford the bill for commuter speeds. Delaware is already on record that they don't want to own their section and that they consider the entire idea of turning over the corridor to the states a folly.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jan 8, 2008)

I'm a little surprised that nobody has mentioned invocation of the Taft-Hartley act to stop a strike. Would it not be applicable in this situation? Please pardon my ignorance.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 8, 2008)

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> I'm a little surprised that nobody has mentioned invocation of the Taft-Hartley act to stop a strike. Would it not be applicable in this situation? Please pardon my ignorance.



The RLA far exceeds restrictions by Taft-Hartley act , and since they already fullfilled all requirements of RLA they are 100% legal to strike


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 8, 2008)

GG-1 said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that all the posters remember Ronald Reagan firing ALL the PATCO air traffic controllers who walked the picket lines. You would have thought it would have brought the nation to its knees but didn't.
> ...


PATCO members were employees of the federal government. As such, they were bared by law from striking. The strike by PATCO was illegal and that was the basis for President Reagan firing the strikers. They were violating federal law, not some technicality of labor contract protocol.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 8, 2008)

Problem is that if they don't watch it, they'll go the way of Eastern Airlines and won't need to be fired by the Prez because they'll all lose their jobs. I had a friend at American who, after 9/11 was wondering whether to strike or take concessions that would later be retroactively reimbursed. I told him that there were millions of people looking for a good $20/hr job and that to take a temporary pay cut to that would help ensure that he could keep that job rather than if they struck, the possibility of losing it all. They voted to hang in there and now he's making more than he ever has there.

So to Amtrak, live with the pay you've already got. Don't try to get some sort of windfall of back pay cash. You've made it here, you can get your simplified pay raise starting now, and continue on the job that you chose. Or fight and possibly lose it all.

Think we can't lose a national passenger rail system? I'm sure Mexicans thought that in 1991...


----------



## Everydaymatters (Jan 8, 2008)

Steve Manfred said:


> Hi all.
> I've had a round trip on a Southwest Chief roomette scheduled for mid-February for some months now. It's tied in to a specific event I'm attending, so I can't change the date, and am getting very concerned that there may not be a train for me to take come Feb. 12 due to strike action.
> 
> If a strike does happen, does anyone have any idea what Amtrak would do to compensate advance ticket holders? Would we get a full refund? Would we perhaps instead have substitute transportation booked and paid for for us? (In my case it'd have to be bus as I don't fly.)
> ...


Back a few years, I believe it was in the early 90's, I had a reservation from Chicago to Denver for myself and my granddaughter. I was going to my neice's wedding. The day I was supposed  to leave was the first day of a 2 day Amtrak strike. Amtrak didn't do anything for me. The day I was supposed to leave, I went to the travel agency, which had made the reservation, and they gave me a check. I went to the bank and cashed it and my dear daughter drove us to the wedding. We made it to Crested Butte on time, but it was really hectic.

I'm relatively certain Amtrak would give you a refund, but they sure won't do anything else for you. You're on your own.

Betty


----------



## wayman (Jan 8, 2008)

Everydaymatters said:


> Back a few years, I believe it was in the early 90's, I had a reservation from Chicago to Denver for myself and my granddaughter. I was going to my neice's wedding. The day I was supposed to leave was the first day of a 2 day Amtrak strike. Amtrak didn't do anything for me. The day I was supposed to leave, I went to the travel agency, which had made the reservation, and they gave me a check. I went to the bank and cashed it and my dear daughter drove us to the wedding. We made it to Crested Butte on time, but it was really hectic.


Wait a sec, the press release quoted in the other thread said "Amtrak has never had a strike in its 36-year history." I'm confused--there has never been a strike, but there was a strike?


----------



## MrFSS (Jan 8, 2008)

If they do strike, what is the specific date it would happen, if anyone knows, or is that arbitrary, too?


----------



## wayman (Jan 8, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> If they do strike, what is the specific date it would happen, if anyone knows, or is that arbitrary, too?


Pretty sure it would happen at 12:01 AM on February 1st, immediately after the "no-strike" period ends.


----------



## sportbiker (Jan 8, 2008)

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> I'm a little surprised that nobody has mentioned invocation of the Taft-Hartley act to stop a strike. Would it not be applicable in this situation? Please pardon my ignorance.


Since you're running for prez, you should know this stuff. Don't blow the election now!


----------



## Rafi (Jan 8, 2008)

wayman said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > If they do strike, what is the specific date it would happen, if anyone knows, or is that arbitrary, too?
> ...


So that begs the question, what happens to trains that are on the move at 12:01 AM? Grinding halt? Passengers stuck on the right of way until the strike's over? 

Rafi


----------



## had8ley (Jan 8, 2008)

Rafi said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > MrFSS said:
> ...


Rafi;

I can only relate what the freight railroads do as I never remember any Amtrak strikes per se. Picket lines go up at 12:01 a.m. and those working on the property HAVE to stay until the Hours of Service (hog law) catches them and then they are free to leave. I can remember one strike in 1970 that a switch foreman asked for a rib-eye and a box of cigars for his meal period as we were forbidden to leave the property to eat. Sure enough, here comes the trainmaster with the rib eye and the box of cigars. Stupid me, I just ordered a 49 cent hamburger not knowing that the company had to foot the bill.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 8, 2008)

wayman said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > If they do strike, what is the specific date it would happen, if anyone knows, or is that arbitrary, too?
> ...


The date is arbitrary. The first time a strike could be called is February 1, but that does not mean it will be called then. If they are good, card-carrying union leaders, they will want to use the element of surprise to their advantage. So look for the strike date to come and go with just threats.

I also do not think that a total, system-wide strike is a given. They could call sporadic one and two day strikes of parts of the system that would impact Amtrak (and Amtrak passengers) but would not impart the severe secondary harm that that would force a legislative remedy. The flight attendants union even trade-marked a name for this tactic: CHAOS; Create Havoc Around Our System. That would be an interesting turn. The workers are still paid, the system still runs, but no one knows where or when a local stoppage will occur. But given the unique situation involving Amtrak, maybe that is not the best route.

Unlike most companies that actually make money, Amtrak financially benefits from a strike. The revenue lost from ticket sales is more than offset by the savings realized by not paying the represented workers. Strictly on a financial basis, a strike is good for Amtrak, and a long strike is even better. Now, don't get me wrong, there are lots of reasons that a strike is bad for Amtrak, but the single incentive that forces most strikes to an end - immediate finances - is not present with an Amtrak strike on the management side of the table. The workers would be hurt, but Amtrak would see the bottom line improve each day the strike continues.

If a strike occurs, I think the only way it is settled is with legislative intervention. Then Congress is responsible for the settlement and will have to find a way to pay for it. Given that Amtrak has little reason to give the union anything, a big bad disruptive strike may be the way to go to force an imposed contract that would likely be better than what Amtrak would offer at the bargaining table.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 8, 2008)

Since the cooling off periond ends on January 30 the first day of strike could be January 31st.

Trains already on road would continou till next major station and stop.

Technically that is.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Jan 9, 2008)

wayman said:


> Wait a sec, the press release quoted in the other thread said "Amtrak has never had a strike in its 36-year history." I'm confused--there has never been a strike, but there was a strike?


As I recall, it was a "strike". I have since heard that it was the only strike in Amtrak's history. Maybe they are now calling it a walkout or something else so they don't have to use the "S" word???

I'll see if I can find out the date and get back to you'all.

Betty


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 9, 2008)

The more I read about the issues, the more I can't help but think that the unions are the ones that are going to kill Amtrak - not Bush, not Congress, not Management.

There are too many unions. There is a power struggle here, and it's not in Amtrak management or administration. All these unions want to protect to the bitter end their own brotherhood without regard to the betterment of the larger picture. Window washer can't vaccumm the floor because it would violate the window washer's union. Lathe operator can't change a lightbulb because of the machine shop union.

I don't think that this will ever change. I'm not anti-union. They serve a time and place, but I think that they have also had their fair share of destroying companies, too.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 9, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> The more I read about the issues, the more I can't help but think that the unions are the ones that are going to kill Amtrak - not Bush, not Congress, not Management.
> There are too many unions. There is a power struggle here, and it's not in Amtrak management or administration. All these unions want to protect to the bitter end their own brotherhood without regard to the betterment of the larger picture. Window washer can't vaccumm the floor because it would violate the window washer's union. Lathe operator can't change a lightbulb because of the machine shop union.
> 
> I don't think that this will ever change. I'm not anti-union. They serve a time and place, but I think that they have also had their fair share of destroying companies, too.


Well I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope you don't bring the chain saw. Having been a union member since 1965 it's very hard to see clearly through to management's positions. The only point I would like to make is these negotiations have been taking place since 2000, if memory serves me correctly. Would anyone want to wait eight years for a conclusion to a contract that ended eight years ago? I can't imagine a factory waiting that long for someone to sign a contract to produce goods. My point being the unionists (a very dirty word in some circles) have been delivering a service for eight years with no contract in hand. Would you want to be left hanging out to dry for that amount of time? No need to worry about the unions shutting down Amtrak; the president of our country will see to that. One question I will ask is; "Just how many managers at Amtrak make in excess of 100 grand a year?" And when was the last time THEY got a raise or bonus ???


----------



## haolerider (Jan 9, 2008)

had8ley said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > The more I read about the issues, the more I can't help but think that the unions are the ones that are going to kill Amtrak - not Bush, not Congress, not Management.
> ...


I don't know how many management staff make over $100k, but that really has nothing to do with raises. For the past 8 years, the only raises given to management, in general, have been COLA - anywhere from 2.2%-3.5% - and no bonuses.


----------



## Everydaymatters (Jan 9, 2008)

Everydaymatters said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > Wait a sec, the press release quoted in the other thread said "Amtrak has never had a strike in its 36-year history." I'm confused--there has never been a strike, but there was a strike?
> ...


I found it. I stand corrected - it was not a strike. It was a lockout:

"Following a 25-day cooling-off period that ended June 24, 1992, the Machinists struck csx, one of the major rail carriers. The strike resulted in the shutdown of the entire freight rail system when the remaining 39 carriers involved in the dispute locked out their employees, claiming they could not operate with the csx down."

The above is from "The Monthly Labor Review" Jan 1993


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2008)

As an airline employee, I can say that in other areas of the transportation industry there have been pay CUTS for both union and management employees.

Asking for back wages seems a little far-reaching.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 9, 2008)

had8ley said:


> Having been a union member since 1965 it's very hard to see clearly through to management's positions. The only point I would like to make is these negotiations have been taking place since 2000, if memory serves me correctly. Would anyone want to wait eight years for a conclusion to a contract that ended eight years ago? I can't imagine a factory waiting that long for someone to sign a contract to produce goods. My point being the unionists (a very dirty word in some circles) have been delivering a service for eight years with no contract in hand. Would you want to be left hanging out to dry for that amount of time? No need to worry about the unions shutting down Amtrak; the president of our country will see to that.


On this I agree with you Jay, it has taken far too long to get to this point. Since all of us are on the outside looking in the window, I'm not sure whose being too inflexible, Amtrak or the unions. Personally I suspect that both at one time or another have been too close minded, but again I have no proof.

Personally I'm of the mind that Amtrak needs to be given or find the money for the back pay, but at least some work rule concessions need to be given up by the unions to get that. The system only works when both sides give and take. The PEB is far too lopsided in my opinion, so I hope that either the unions and Amtrak can move past that or that any imposed solution is fairer.


----------



## GG-1 (Jan 9, 2008)

AlanB said:


> had8ley said:
> 
> 
> > Having been a union member since 1965 it's very hard to see clearly through to management's positions. The only point I would like to make is these negotiations have been taking place since 2000, if memory serves me correctly. Would anyone want to wait eight years for a conclusion to a contract that ended eight years ago?
> ...


Aloha

I have been a member of several different Unions since around 1962 when I first worked at Disneyland, Anaheim. I Currently completed my term as a senior officer in a theater union.

I Completely Agree with Alan Both Sides need to move, together, for everyone's progress. The lack of "togetherness" in my opinion is the major reason we have seen so many comments about bad workers, and management, with Amtrak. There just isn't anything that is one sided.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 9, 2008)

haolerider said:


> I don't know how many management staff make over $100k, but that really has nothing to do with raises. For the past 8 years, the only raises given to management, in general, have been COLA - anywhere from 2.2%-3.5% - and no bonuses.


Ah, there's the rub, mon ami. Management has EVERYTHING to do with raises. Just one simple question; Just who is going to have a harder time coping with $3 plus a gallon gasoline and $5 a gallon milk~ the $30,000-40,000 coach cleaner or the 100 K plus manager ???


----------



## had8ley (Jan 9, 2008)

GG-1 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > had8ley said:
> ...


I agree wholeheartedly with both you and Alan's analysis. Having sat at the table both sides get plenty dumb and outright stupid "just 'cause they can." But in defense of the unionist isn't a sign of good management the willingness to negotiate? Don't take this as one sided~ I know you could break bricks on my thick head BUT management poured the mold that made me that way.


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 9, 2008)

Not gonna get a lot of sympathy out of me. 10 years in engineering and I've had a whopping ZERO on more than one occassion and a couple of 1 - 2% raises. I think I met cost of living once. Had I stayed in one of those jobs, my net pay would be less today than it was when I started. My best raises came from changing companies.

I agree with Alan that I don't know the whole story. I'm sure everyone has their valid arguments. But for the sake of the company, get a contract, get a nice bonus, get a nice raise, and do your job as if it won't exist tomorrow, because that could happen. There will always be someone willing to do your job for less money. Work as hard as you can and prove your worth to the corporation as a whole.

I also believe that these talks have gone on for as long as they have because if they struck anytime between 2000 and now, there'd be no more Amtrak. I still think a strike now could hurt Amtrak severely. But, with ridership being up, a lot more folks on the outside are going to know their grievances.


----------



## had8ley (Jan 9, 2008)

VentureForth said:


> Not gonna get a lot of sympathy out of me. 10 years in engineering and I've had a whopping ZERO on more than one occassion and a couple of 1 - 2% raises. I think I met cost of living once. Had I stayed in one of those jobs, my net pay would be less today than it was when I started. My best raises came from changing companies.
> I agree with Alan that I don't know the whole story. I'm sure everyone has their valid arguments. But for the sake of the company, get a contract, get a nice bonus, get a nice raise, and do your job as if it won't exist tomorrow, because that could happen. There will always be someone willing to do your job for less money. Work as hard as you can and prove your worth to the corporation as a whole.
> 
> I also believe that these talks have gone on for as long as they have because if they struck anytime between 2000 and now, there'd be no more Amtrak. I still think a strike now could hurt Amtrak severely. But, with ridership being up, a lot more folks on the outside are going to know their grievances.


I think that's the problem with those looking in; they don't know the full story. I'm sure 99% of all Amtrak employees would say that they're not looking for sympathy, just a well deserved raise. You seem to have made your own bed in a different manner by job jumping. There just might be some people at Amtrak that realize they have a good job and want to keep it.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 9, 2008)

The Boston Globe has an article about the impact an Amtrak strike could have on the MBTA commuter rail system at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...e_would_rock_t/

Part of the article says:



> A strike would virtually shut down South Station, forcing rail passengers to transfer onto subway lines at the Back Bay, Braintree, and Forest Hills stations. The MBTA would also have to shut down the Providence/Stoughton Line in all likelihood, forcing about 17,000 additional daily commuters to drive into town or to take alternate rail lines. North Station schedules would not be altered, but riders might see picket lines.


I'm guessing they mean that Back Bay would only be usable by Worcester/Framingham trains, and the Needham Line would run to Forest Hills, and that the Fairmount, Franklin, and Providence/Stoughton trains would shut down completely, but I'm not sure. (In theory, Franklin trains might be able to get to the Fairmount Line without interacting with the Providence Line that Amtrak controls, but then there's really no good transfer point if they can't get into South Station. I guess they could maybe run buses between South Station and Uphams Corner or something.)

I'm also kind of surprised that Forest Hills would have a usable Commuter Rail platform that Amtrak doesn't control dispatching for.

And I wonder if they really mean Braintree. I would have expected that if Amtrak only controls the parts of the system used by the Northeast Corridor trains, that Quincy Center and/or JFK/Umass would be useable; and the Greenbush line branches off a bit north of the Braintree station on the Red Line, so if the Globe was researching this carefully and writing precisely, the strike might completely disrupt service on the Greenbush line.

However, given how full a Red Line train I rode to Quincy Center last month was sometime between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM on a weekday (I think the crew had to ask people to back away from the train if there wasn't space at both Downtown Crossing and South Station) without a strike, losing half the Commuter Rail lines might not be a terrible strategy for keeping the subway system almost useable.

And if the strike were to go on for long enough, is it possible that service on the north side of the system might eventually be disrupted by difficulties in getting locomotives and coaches to maintenance facilities?


----------



## Guest_Oldtimer2_* (Jan 9, 2008)

As of the date of the reccomendation of the PEB the difference between the reports wages and the offer of Amtrakis less than 2%, as to the issue of retroactive pay the PEB only recomends that current employees be paid in the past in the railroad industry those that had retired or were deceased in the time frame since the opening of negotiations and the settlements. This excludes a great number of employees. The PEB also allows Amtrak to pay only 40% this year and 60% next year. Amtrak had offered a lump sum of $4,500 this year. Some of the numbers being tossed about here are highly suspect as 30 year journeyman mechanics now make 41K a year. I doubt if the average retro will exceed 13K so 40% would be $5,200 or only $700 over Amtraks offer and if they are not able to carry over any monies from year to year they have a year to go to Congress and get the other amount needed to get to the remining retro just remember that they have $4,500 to offer in this years budget so if the have that in next years budget they only need to raise a smaller amount to cover the retro!


----------



## Guest_Oldtimer2_* (Jan 9, 2008)

As for the work rule changes right now the shop craft unions already have an incidental work rule, this allows any work belonging to anyother craft that is incidental to the major work to be done by the craft that the major work belongs to. They also have rules that allow simple tasks to be done by any craft. The PEB pointed out that Amtrak has these rules and does not use them so why the need for drastic rule changes.

It has been eight years of stalling by Amtrak labor relations hope that the political climate will change well it did and Amtrak is still here.

EIGHT IS ENOUGH


----------



## VentureForth (Jan 9, 2008)

Thanks for that insight, Oldtimer2. Very interesting and appropriate. After taxes, we're talking about three days wages difference between the first installment of backpay and the 'bonus'.

Had8ley - I know that you and I come from very very different employment background and culture than I. You're right - I did make my bed, and I'm happy lying in it. I may not ever understand all the intricacies of union life, but those that do swear by them.

So long as they get the job done and don't kill the company in the process, I firmly support them and would hope that they can git 'er done.

No doubt about it. Eight years is enough.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 9, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I'm guessing they mean that Back Bay would only be usable by Worcester/Framingham trains, and the Needham Line would run to Forest Hills, and that the Fairmount, Franklin, and Providence/Stoughton trains would shut down completely, but I'm not sure. (In theory, Franklin trains might be able to get to the Fairmount Line without interacting with the Providence Line that Amtrak controls, but then there's really no good transfer point if they can't get into South Station. I guess they could maybe run buses between South Station and Uphams Corner or something.)


It's not a theory, it is reality that Franklin line trains can get to the Fairmount line without touching the corridor. The connection is a bridge over the corridor. Even now under normal operations, at least one or two rush hour Franklin line trains actually operate over the Fairmount line, rather than the corridor. The only real question is, who controls the switch off of the Franklin line that determines if the train proceeds down to the corridor or across the bridge and onto the Fairmount line? If it's Amtrak, which seems unlikely but is not impossible, then they have a problem. If it's the T, then it poses less of a problem.

However, there is still a bit of problem, in that the Fairmount line can't handle the normal traffic load that it carries, plus the load from the Franklin line. And that's with an operational South Station. I'm not sure what they can handle if South Station and all of its tracks are off limits. After all, the Fairmount still feeds into the Old Colony corridor tracks, which in many places go down to a single track. That doesn't leave a whole lot of turning room, unless they send trains to the yard.

And that poses yet another question, can the T get it's trains out of the yard? I'm guessing that they can, but I'm not sure how they can get trains over to either the Needham or the Worcester line without crossing the corridor.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> I'm also kind of surprised that Forest Hills would have a usable Commuter Rail platform that Amtrak doesn't control dispatching for.


Well the Forest Hills station is on the west side of the corridor, so it is possible that at that point the T controls the track closest to the Orange line from that platform out to the branch off of the Needham line. The track on the other side of the platform though, that being the one closest to the two electrified tracks, is controlled by Amtrak. That I know for sure based upon a problem on a Franklin line train that I was riding last month.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> And I wonder if they really mean Braintree. I would have expected that if Amtrak only controls the parts of the system used by the Northeast Corridor trains, that Quincy Center and/or JFK/Umass would be useable; and the Greenbush line branches off a bit north of the Braintree station on the Red Line, so if the Globe was researching this carefully and writing precisely, the strike might completely disrupt service on the Greenbush line.


I don't believe that Amtrak controls that line, at least until it gets near the Amtrak and T yards, but I'm not positive.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> And if the strike were to go on for long enough, is it possible that service on the north side of the system might eventually be disrupted by difficulties in getting locomotives and coaches to maintenance facilities?


I'm not sure just how things break down regarding the T's yards, but I do know that they have a massive repair shop just north of North station. One can see it within minutes of departing from North station on the left side of the tracks, just after crossing the river.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 10, 2008)

AlanB said:


> However, there is still a bit of problem, in that the Fairmount line can't handle the normal traffic load that it carries, plus the load from the Franklin line. And that's with an operational South Station. I'm not sure what they can handle if South Station and all of its tracks are off limits. After all, the Fairmount still feeds into the Old Colony corridor tracks, which in many places go down to a single track. That doesn't leave a whole lot of turning room, unless they send trains to the yard.


I don't understand what ``turning room'' means in this context.

If they could simply reverse the direction of an inbound train once they reach Uphams Corner, there may be no reason to continue onto the tracks shared with the Old Colony Lines if South Station is closed, since South Station is the only stop inbound from Upham's Corner.



AlanB said:


> And that poses yet another question, can the T get it's trains out of the yard? I'm guessing that they can, but I'm not sure how they can get trains over to either the Needham or the Worcester line without crossing the corridor.


The Google Maps satellite imagery suggests there are overhead wires over a good part of the yard south of South Station, and I'd guess those overhead wires come with Amtrak control. But maybe some of the tracks in that general area are controlled by the MBTA.

The Worcester Line has a connection to the Grand Junction Railroad somewhere to the west of Back Bay, so a north side train could probably reach it with little difficulty if it turned out the south side yards didn't have a viable connection.

At Needham Junction, Google Maps suggests there's a track that branches off through Dover to Harding, and it looks like at Harding it joins another track that leads to Framingham. I don't get the impression that tracks that show up on Google Maps necessarily still exist, however, and the MBTA may not have rights to move trains over those tracks if they even still exist.


----------



## wayman (Jan 10, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> At Needham Junction, Google Maps suggests there's a track that branches off through Dover to Harding, and it looks like at Harding it joins another track that leads to Framingham. I don't get the impression that tracks that show up on Google Maps necessarily still exist, however, and the MBTA may not have rights to move trains over those tracks if they even still exist.


As a data point, I think much of the satellite map imagery is at least five years old but generally less than ten years old at this point.

This is judging from maps in my local area and the amount and progress of construction and development within the past decade shown (currently c.2000-03). But when satellite view was introduced (3 years ago?), maps of that same area were much older (c.1990-93), so they do get updated when more recent imagery becomes available. Age of maps around Boston may be different, of course, but 2000-2003 is probably a reasonable ballpark. Would those tracks have been ripped up that recently (ie, within the past decade or less)?


----------



## Steve Manfred (Jan 10, 2008)

The way this all reads to me is that the unions will not be backing down and will strike unless management gives them what the PEB recommended, but management can't do that without extra money from Congress. And it looks like that won't happen until the strike actually happens for at least a few days. Do I have this right?

And is management even talking with the unions at this point?

None of this looks very good for my trip on Feb. 12. I think I have to look at alternatives, which aren't very good when you don't fly like I do (or should that be don't?).


----------



## had8ley (Jan 10, 2008)

Steve Manfred said:


> The way this all reads to me is that the unions will not be backing down and will strike unless management gives them what the PEB recommended, but management can't do that without extra money from Congress. And it looks like that won't happen until the strike actually happens for at least a few days. Do I have this right? And is management even talking with the unions at this point?
> 
> None of this looks very good for my trip on Feb. 12. I think I have to look at alternatives, which aren't very good when you don't fly like I do (or should that be don't?).


In 37 years of railroading I never remember a strike that lasted longer than 3 days. I would almost book money that your date is safe unless the union leaders postpone the strike date.


----------



## Dakguy201 (Jan 10, 2008)

If there is a strike, and if it effects the various eastern commuter systems, Congress will be forced to impose a settlement. To not get people back working quickly has very negative political implications, even if this was not an election year.

Given how disfunctonal this Congress is (or the Congress and the Executive Branch if that is your preference), should they be trusted to impose an equitable settlement on a quick and dirty basis? I don't think so. It seems to me reaching a settlement before then is in the interest of everybody. If the problem is that a portion of the settlement would have to be financed in next years federal budget, I believe assurances could be obtained from certain Congressional leaders that it will be provided.


----------



## wayman (Jan 10, 2008)

Steve Manfred said:


> The way this all reads to me is that the unions will not be backing down and will strike unless management gives them what the PEB recommended, but management can't do that without extra money from Congress. And it looks like that won't happen until the strike actually happens for at least a few days. Do I have this right? And is management even talking with the unions at this point?


If it seems increasingly obvious to all, including Congress, that the strike is inevitable, would it not be in Congress's best interest to grant the extra money around the 29th of January?

The question of whether Congress would act in their best interest, of course, is up for grabs. But given that a strike would *cripple* rather a lot of Senators' and Representatives' districts--VA, MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, IL, and CA at least--I would think there's a reasonable chance intervention might actually happen pre-emptively.

Well, unless a Democratic Congress thinks it's instead in their best interest to *allow* the strike, for a day or two, just to demonstrate to a Republican administration that passenger rail actually *is* beneficial, with a "show; don't tell" mindset, briefly showing the mare's nest resulting from its absence before giving the money rather than just speechifying about it.

I'm extremely dubious that such a strategy would play well for *Amtrak* in the public's eye, though--I think the inconvenienced and irate commuters are more likely to blame the union/railroad than its lack of proper federal funding.


----------



## MrFSS (Jan 10, 2008)

I haven't looked back in the thread and don't remember - are the two sides in active negotiation at this time to try and resolve it before 2/1/08?


----------



## had8ley (Jan 10, 2008)

MrFSS said:


> I haven't looked back in the thread and don't remember - are the two sides in active negotiation at this time to try and resolve it before 2/1/08?


Tom;

I think Dutchrailnut said the deadline was January 30th.


----------



## gswager (Jan 10, 2008)

Which areas of track are controlled by Amtrak dispatchers? I generally know that there's some in NEC and some section in Michigan if I'm corrected.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 10, 2008)

gswager said:


> Which areas of track are controlled by Amtrak dispatchers? I generally know that there's some in NEC and some section in Michigan if I'm corrected.


Most of the NEC, with the exception of MN territory between New Rochelle, NY and New Haven, CT is dispatched by Amtrak, some 100 miles or so in Michigan west of Detroit is controlled by Amtrak, all of the tracks leading into Chicago's Union Station, and a very short stretch I believe of a freight connector in the Chicago area between BNSF and NS I think.

Perhaps someone who was with us on the yard tour remembers better just what they controlled, but I do recall the guide from the tower tour mentioning that Amtrak dispatched something for the freight Co's in that dispatch room on the third floor.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 10, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > However, there is still a bit of problem, in that the Fairmount line can't handle the normal traffic load that it carries, plus the load from the Franklin line. And that's with an operational South Station. I'm not sure what they can handle if South Station and all of its tracks are off limits. After all, the Fairmount still feeds into the Old Colony corridor tracks, which in many places go down to a single track. That doesn't leave a whole lot of turning room, unless they send trains to the yard.
> ...


Sorry, I wasn't really thinking about where the Fairmount line joins with the Old Colony lines, I just knew that they joined together at some point. Upon looking at the map though, I'm not real sure just what running a train down to Uphams Corner would accomplish, since I don't think that there are any stations that link to a subway.

As for turning room, regardless of where they turn the trains, one still has to have time and space for the engineer to walk from one end of the train to the other, perfrom a brake test and then head back in the other direction. Too many trains in too short of a period of time will pose a problem on any one or two track line, and I'm not sure how many tracks the Fairmount line has at Uphams.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 10, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Right, there's no easy transfer to any subway station anywhere on the Fairmount Line or on the Franklin Line, except at South Station. I believe one version of the plans for the Orange Line had contemplated the Orange Line having one branch continuing past Forest Hills to Readville, which would have provided such a connection, and I believe the bus that runs parallel to that route is one of the most popular in the system. (I think there's text in wikipedia claiming it's the most popular bus route, but then I think I've seen other text elsewhere claiming that the decades long temporary replacement bus for the E branch of the Green Line is the most popular bus route).

If the T wanted to run shuttle buses, though, Uphams Corner to South Station (or perhaps somewhere to the south of that on the Red Line) might be a relatively short route, and keeping the route short ought to increase the number of people per hour a single bus could carry.

Without shuttle buses from Uphams Corner, I'm not sure there'd be much point in running any Fairmount/Franklin trains if South Station and the NEC shut down.



AlanB said:


> As for turning room, regardless of where they turn the trains, one still has to have time and space for the engineer to walk from one end of the train to the other, perfrom a brake test and then head back in the other direction. Too many trains in too short of a period of time will pose a problem on any one or two track line, and I'm not sure how many tracks the Fairmount line has at Uphams.


Is there a good explaination of what's involved in a brake test somewhere? I keep coming across mention of this requirement, but without much explaination.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 10, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > As for turning room, regardless of where they turn the trains, one still has to have time and space for the engineer to walk from one end of the train to the other, perfrom a brake test and then head back in the other direction. Too many trains in too short of a period of time will pose a problem on any one or two track line, and I'm not sure how many tracks the Fairmount line has at Uphams.
> ...


Well I'm not the best expert at this, but I'll give it a stab. Other's who know better may chime in and add details, or even correct things that I'm saying.

When the train arrives at the point where an end change is required, the engineer of course first stops the train at the station or other point. The hand brake is typically set either by turning a wheel or pulling a lever that in turns pulls a chain that causes the brakes on the car to clamp down on the wheels. The engineer then drops the air (releases the air pressure needed to push the brakes away from the wheels on the cars and engine). He probably fiddles with a few other settings in the cab, be it the engine cab or the cab car, that starts the transfer of control to the other end of the train. He also has to pack up all of his belongings, including the rule books and other paperwork.

Then the engineer must walk from what was the front of the train to the other end, and the new front of the train. Upon reaching the new cab, he/she then gets all of his/her rule books and paperwork out again. They then flip whatever other switches might be needed to complete the transfer of control to the new head end. Then they charge up the air, bring the air pressure back up to a level that would allow the engineer to release the brakes. With a conductor at the other end of the train, the engineer applies the brakes so that they clamp down on the wheels. If the conductor observes that the brakes at the far end of the train do indeed clamp down, he/she then radios the engineer that the brakes were applied. At that point the engineer once again releases the brakes to ensure that the brakes release at the far end of the train.

At some point after that, the engineer either reapplies the brakes or perhaps uses the dynamic brakes on the engine to keep it from moving, while the conductor walks back to relase the hand brake that he set earlier.

At this point in time, the engineer would radio the dispatcher that the train is ready for departure and receive any last minute changes, speed restrictions, warnings about crews working on the tracks, and so forth. In the meantime, assuming that the train is in a station, passengers have been busy boarding and once the scheduled arrival time is met, the train would leave the station if the railroad is clear.


----------



## mags (Jan 11, 2008)

I am travelling from Australia to take the train around the US in February, something I have been wanting to do for 10 years. If a strike doesnt allow me to do this - will not be a happy camper. Here's hoping as discussed here that if there is a strike on the 30th Jan it only lasts a few days...


----------



## Falco (Jan 11, 2008)

Having little experience with work and such, I feel I have no right to comment on the vast majority of said topics.

However, I do request that all parties involved, be reminded that Passenger Rail Travel is not a reserved niche in this economy. Airlines and Auto-Manufacturers would be more than happy to pick up the slack if things gave way.

I feel I can say this: "We, as rail fans and rail travelers, have spread our dreams under your feet, tread softly, for you tread on our dreams."

_-Kudos to you who know where this came from_


----------



## MrFSS (Jan 16, 2008)

Well - the possible strike has made the national news.

Full story *HERE*.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 17, 2008)

Falco said:


> Having little experience with work and such, I feel I have no right to comment on the vast majority of said topics.However, I do request that all parties involved, be reminded that Passenger Rail Travel is not a reserved niche in this economy. Airlines and Auto-Manufacturers would be more than happy to pick up the slack if things gave way.
> 
> I feel I can say this: "We, as rail fans and rail travelers, have spread our dreams under your feet, tread softly, for you tread on our dreams."
> 
> _-Kudos to you who know where this came from_


They sure would- in the long term. In the short term, they couldn't. Period. Block off just one of the 4 main arteries running into New York City from New Jersey to the south on a weekday. What you will have is every single road going into the city grinding to a halt from all the traffic diverted off the road. Even if its the smallest road. (Say, Route 1 & 9) In two weeks time, traffic will start moving once again if the road stays closed. It will take time for people to merge, get used to the new route, replan their commutes around the changes, and so forth.

The Airlines would have the same problem. The system shuts down, and all of a sudden the traffic it once carried will have to be diverted elsewhere. Shutting down just Penn Station and the North Shore tunnels would be a nightmare in and of itself. You'd have just cut off 600,000 people going into and out of the city. These people will have to take airplanes and roads. Add about 20% more traffic onto the road grid and see what happens. Gridlock. Sure, in a few years, everything will sort out. New York City would be forced to build a new road into city, for one. The Port Authority or MTA would take over Penn Station and that section of the NEC would be manned by SOMEONE. Things would slowly get back to normal. But the effect of the lack of Amtrak would reverberate through Boston, NY, California, Washington, and Chicago in a way that would have Congress racing to get the system back up before it came to that.


----------



## John Bredin (Jan 17, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> But the effect of the lack of Amtrak would reverberate through Boston, NY, California, Washington, and Chicago in a way that would have Congress racing to get the system back up before it came to that.


Yes, and then a bunch of people in Congress who were on the fence on Amtrak, neither vehemently opposed to it nor a strong defender, come to the conclusion (right or wrong) that any dependence on Amtrak is dangerous, realize the union can't paralyze the nation again if Amtrak doesn't exist, and start voting with the kill-Amtrak faction.

Amtrak as a political entity is dependent on the goodwill of Congress, which has *some* linkage to the public's goodwill. Screw around with enough of the traveling or commuting public, and you get swarms of letters to the editor -- and to Congressmen -- calling for Amtrak's proverbial head on a platter. Get enough of those, and someone starts dancing the dance of the seven veils while a guard sharpens his sword.  Angry people often don't make distinctions between Amtrak, its unions, or the man in the moon: their commute or travel was goofed up "due to Amtrak" and someone's going to pay!

I see a lot of people on various web-boards who seem eager to "stick it to the Man!" utterly ignoring that Amtrak is hardly "the Man." Am I the only one who recalls the old saying about getting blood from turnips?!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 17, 2008)

Congress's usual solution to problems is to throw money at it. Solving the problem is never going to happen by dissolving a multi-billion dollar system serving millions of constituents. Its easier to stand at a podium, speak big words while waving your fist, and make a feeble "no-amtrak" vote motion than to actually do something. Amtrak ain't gonna disappear. Fade into oblivion over a period of years, possibly. Simply disappear? No.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL (Feb 3, 2008)

Would a short lived strike be all that bad? I mean after a day of the Northeast being thrown into turmoil because people can't get to work Amtrak would get alot more respect and Congress would think twice about cutting Amtrak funding.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Feb 3, 2008)

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> Would a short lived strike be all that bad? I mean after a day of the Northeast being thrown into turmoil because people can't get to work Amtrak would get alot more respect and Congress would think twice about cutting Amtrak funding.


Lets stop the would a, could a doomsday scenario, There will probably not be a strike but untill the rank and file votes, and results are tallied around March 10th we will not know.


----------



## MDRailfan (Feb 16, 2008)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Crescent ATN & TCL said:
> 
> 
> > Would a short lived strike be all that bad? I mean after a day of the Northeast being thrown into turmoil because people can't get to work Amtrak would get alot more respect and Congress would think twice about cutting Amtrak funding.
> ...


I read under NARP on their website tonight that a tenative agreement was signed by UTU conductors and asst conductors and needs to be ratified. Is this a different contract then the other being ratified? Does this prolong the two tallies way past March 10? I'm travelling on March 15 on the Autotrain. Do I need again to worry?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Feb 16, 2008)

The UTU deal has nothing to do with the 9 union vote and possible deal in March.

the UTU is in seperate negotiation and not even close to a strike.


----------

