Wick Moorman CEO of Amtrak

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I just read in the Trains article about 20th Century Limited that he personally owns one of the few remaining round end observations for that train. That can only be good as regards his attitude toward passenger rail.

And, I'm sure other will chime in here, but IMO NS has a better attitude toward Amtrak than just about any other RR.

Hopefully this will lead to smoother negotiations between Amtrak and Norfolk Southern to increase/improve service along NS routes (especially one of them).

 

[BCL]

Another bonus for trains that use NS he still has powerful influence over that company. I've been on NS steam trips working after he retired from them and you better believe every NS employee went up and spoke with him. And treated him with upmost respect. Then he ran the engine

Lets not get ahead of ourselves too quickly. The company he has gained powerful influence over is Amtrak. The company he has a strong identity with and affinity toward is Norfolk Southern. Until his loyalties and influence are tested I wouldn't read too much into any this.

Amtrak's press release hints that he still owns stock in NS and they'll have to handle that conflict of interest.

 

[NE933]

How did he get the nickname 'Wick'?

 

[AmtrakBlue]

How did he get the nickname 'Wick'?

Maybe he absorbs information like a candle wick?

 

[dlagrua]

I view Wick Moorman's appointment as Amtrak CEO as a positive move. Amtrak was created as an independent for profit corporation but it has always been run by people who have connections to the political class and not railroading.

I envision Moorman making positive changes while he travels the country in his own private railroad car at his own expense. Amtrak is a bigger challenge than running a freight railroad but I never thought that it was well run. Moorman has first hand experience at all levels on a railroad and should be able to make a positive difference. Maybe he can break the stalemate with congress and establish new routes by subcontracting them out. My prediction, look for private industry to be brought into the fold.

 

[pennyk]

How did he get the nickname 'Wick'?

Possibly from his middle name "Wilson."

 

[john small berries]

How did he get the nickname 'Wick'?

Sometimes Southern nicknames are not tied to any reality that anyone outside the family can understand.

Trust me on this.

 

[jis]

Clearly we are in the euphoria stage as is usual when someone with a relatively good reputation is selected. As for what he will be able to do in the new environment, that is a different issue.

He has the luxury of not being beholden to any of the current occupants in the management chain, which suggest that he would not have the chains on his feet implicit in a deeply embedded group of cronies. Also the obvious conflict of interest that has existed at Amtrak with many management positions occupied by union members on sabbatical from the union may get fixed.

Now if only he can wrangle Congress like Claytor could.

Keep in mind that the revered W. Graham Claytor Jr., was a lawyer to begin with on the Southern...not an up-from-the-ranks operating employee....and he was also a political appointee...served as Secretary of the Navy (he did have a distinguished Naval career), and Assistant Secretary of Defense....

I can also think of plenty of people who rose through the ranks and passed their level of incompetence somewhere on the way and became pretty hopeless executives. So it can go many ways.

It is more important to focus on the individual and his record and capabilities rather than trying to apply over-generalized correlations. It is also not self-evident that a railfan would necessarily make a great executive. I can think of many that won't. Just look around you on this board.

My take is: What Moorman has going for him is his track record in operations at is good, tarnished only by the NS meltdown on the Water Level Route due to an obvious managerial faux pas regarding the use of dispatch automation system. I am sure he has learned from that experience and won't repeat it. Otherwise we could see the mother of all meltdowns on the NEC. He evidently has little first hand experience in running a customer facing hotel system such as Amtrak LD is. But he can overcome that by appointing experts in the field to advise him. The Hotel part of Amtrak as we know has been one of its weakest points partly by omission and partly by commission. He has significant experience in managing Telecommunication, IT and Personnel and HR Departments, which will all come in very handy. From what we hear from the NS folks his relation with labor has been good at NS (Correct me if I am wrong) BTW, is it he that finally got NS to put toilets in locomotives to replace the old "pail for toilet" approach that NS stuck with longer than anyone else?

If he is able to disentangle the mess that 14th St. in Chicago is and Sunnyside in New York is, that in itself will be an achievement beyond Graham Claytor. So we'll see how that goes. Unless he is able to tackle things like those at Amtrak it is not clear how he can get things like RCM instituted for all locomotives and rolling stock, if he wants to go there that is.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves too quickly. The company he has gained powerful influence over is Amtrak. The company he has a strong identity with and affinity toward is Norfolk Southern. Until his loyalties and influence are tested I wouldn't read too much into any this.

Amtrak's press release hints that he still owns stock in NS and they'll have to handle that conflict of interest.

Just owning a bunch of stock per se is not a problem. That is why blind trusts were invented. Theoretically being a member of the Board of another corporation could be construed to be a conflict of interest too. But in reality the test that is applied is whether such membrship is in a corporation that substantially competes with the primary relationship the executive has with the corporation that employs him. For example, I don;t think his Board membership of Chevron will be viewed as a conflict. NS did not view it as such either.

Anyway, to get a better feel for who he is and what he is about, here is an interview with him when he received the Railroader of the Year Award: http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/rarroty_jan2011.pdf

 

[BCL]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves too quickly. The company he has gained powerful influence over is Amtrak. The company he has a strong identity with and affinity toward is Norfolk Southern. Until his loyalties and influence are tested I wouldn't read too much into any this.

Amtrak's press release hints that he still owns stock in NS and they'll have to handle that conflict of interest.

Just owning a bunch of stock per se is not a problem. That is why blind trusts were invented. Theoretically being a member of the Board of another corporation could be construed to be a conflict of interest too. But in reality the test that is applied is whether such membrship is in a corporation that substantially competes with the primary relationship the executive has with the corporation that employs him. For example, I don;t think his Board membership of Chevron will be viewed as a conflict. NS did not view it as such either.

Anyway, to get a better feel for who he is and what he is about, here is an interview with him when he received the Railroader of the Year Award: http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/rarroty_jan2011.pdf

This is what it said:

http://media.amtrak.com/2016/08/amtrak-names-industry-veteran-wick-moorman-president-and-chief-executive-officer/

Moorman currently holds securities of a rail carrier. Amtrak will ensure that any conflict will be avoided as is required by federal law.

I suppose this could mean all sorts of things, but lots of public information says that his NS compensation over the years was primarily in stock options and awards.

 

[Hal]

He has the luxury of not being beholden to any of the current occupants in the management chain, which suggest that he would not have the chains on his feet implicit in a deeply embedded group of cronies. Also the obvious conflict of interest that has existed at Amtrak with many management positions occupied by union members on sabbatical from the union may get fixed.

Unlikely that will change. Amtrak managment has always insisted that union members that take mangement positions be able to retain their union seniority.

 

[jis]

This is what it said:

http://media.amtrak.com/2016/08/amtrak-names-industry-veteran-wick-moorman-president-and-chief-executive-officer/

Moorman currently holds securities of a rail carrier. Amtrak will ensure that any conflict will be avoided as is required by federal law.

I suppose this could mean all sorts of things, but lots of public information says that his NS compensation over the years was primarily in stock options and awards.

What I meant is that that sort of conflict is mitigated by putting all the holdings in question in a blind trust and having the owner release all control of the blind trust to an independent trustee for the period of the conflict. this is done all the time when an executive moves from one company to another. it is not something that is extremely out of the ordinary. For example when Mark hurd moved from NCR to HP he had to do so with his NCR holdings from what I have heard.

 

[jis]

He has the luxury of not being beholden to any of the current occupants in the management chain, which suggest that he would not have the chains on his feet implicit in a deeply embedded group of cronies. Also the obvious conflict of interest that has existed at Amtrak with many management positions occupied by union members on sabbatical from the union may get fixed.

Unlikely that will change. Amtrak managment has always insisted that union members that take mangement positions be able to retain their union seniority.

However if management employees that are hired are not union members then the question would become moot. We were talking conflict of interest, and if this is not a huge conflict of interest I don;t know what is.

 

[Hal]

He has the luxury of not being beholden to any of the current occupants in the management chain, which suggest that he would not have the chains on his feet implicit in a deeply embedded group of cronies. Also the obvious conflict of interest that has existed at Amtrak with many management positions occupied by union members on sabbatical from the union may get fixed.

Unlikely that will change. Amtrak management has always insisted that union members that take mangement positions be able to retain their union seniority.

However if management employees that are hired are not union members then the question would become moot. We were talking conflict of interest, and if this is not a huge conflict of interest I don;t know what is.

The managers who have been union members that they co opt to management, are the managers who have railroad experience. You want more managers who don't have a clue about railroad operations?

 

[Bob Dylan]

I too think this policy is unwise,it is like the Fox guarding the Hen House and is what led to the Chief of On Board Service Position being unwworkable, and I can think of no Private Company where Executives are members of the Union that their employees belong too. ( although having a Union Repl on the Board of Directors happens in some companies)

When I was a Firefighter while in College (Lifetime Member of the IAFF)my fellow Executive Committee Member was Promoted to Chief of Department and was therefore a Member of Management and an "Exempt" Employee as required by State Civil Service Law. ( Texas is a Right to Work State).

Perhaps Hal meant to say that the Union is the one that demands this provision, not Amtrak Executives???

 

[John Bobinyec]

He has the luxury of not being beholden to any of the current occupants in the management chain, which suggest that he would not have the chains on his feet implicit in a deeply embedded group of cronies. Also the obvious conflict of interest that has existed at Amtrak with many management positions occupied by union members on sabbatical from the union may get fixed.

Unlikely that will change. Amtrak managment has always insisted that union members that take mangement positions be able to retain their union seniority.

However if management employees that are hired are not union members then the question would become moot. We were talking conflict of interest, and if this is not a huge conflict of interest I don;t know what is.

If union members were not allowed to retain their union rights when they take management positions in the same company, then no one would.

jb

 

[Hal]

Perhaps Hal meant to say that the Union is the one that demands this provision, not Amtrak Executives???

No, that is not what I meant. It is not the unions that demand the provision. Railroad executives are the ones who demand it. Management would not agree to a union contract that took that provision out. Management wants to be able to co opt union members to management. Union members would not take management jobs if they gave up their seniority.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Thanks for the clarification Hal, I understand the Suits wanting to co-opt the Union Members, but still think about the example of the Chief of on Board Services and why it was doomed to failure from the get go, although it is a concept that works very well in other counties including Canada!

 

[jis]

The managers who have been union members that they co opt to management, are the managers who have railroad experience. You want more managers who don't have a clue about railroad operations?

If just matters of convenience were always enough to verlook conflicts of interest then perhaps there should be no conflict of interest considerations at all. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

 

[Thirdrail7]

The managers who have been union members that they co opt to management, are the managers who have railroad experience. You want more managers who don't have a clue about railroad operations?

If just matters of convenience were always enough to verlook conflicts of interest then perhaps there should be no conflict of interest considerations at all. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

So far, only you and bob Dylan mentioned conflicts of interest. Perhaps you can give us examples...because it almost seems as if you two are saying that people can't possibly manage their respective crafts (and others) and I'm almost taking it as you're insulting the integrity of those in the positions that maintain a roster affiliation.

Using your logic, this man can't possibly be a good CEO of Amtrak since he comes from freight...which hasn't been particularly cooperative to Amtrak. Therefore, his appointment is obviously a plot to undermine Amtrak and shut it down.

Turning back to the topic, while it may be nice to have an operations man at the the helm, the learning curve is still steep. Passenger operations are a different beast. Freight hauls things for their customers while passengers transport the actual customer. Additionally, you are no longer beholden to the stockholders as you are still intertwined with the various politicians that have their hands in the operation.

Can he and more importantly, will he be able to walk that line? Will someone that made millions work for peanuts while being trapped within the framework of those who fund the operation?

It almost makes you wonder why he's even putting himself in this position. Hmmmmm...I guess we'll just have to "keep our eye" on things!

 

[jis]

Conflict of interest rules are always about not putting people in a position where they have divided loyalties. It is not about questioning anyone's integrity.

In this specific case it would depend on what it means to keep roster seniority. As long as they are free to act against the interest of the union involved and not favor union members over non union members in areas where membership of union is irrelevant without losing said seniority, it should be OK. A problem would arise if the union is able to exert control, even covertly, over their action by holding an implicit threat of retaliation.

So as long as there are clear contractual demarcation of action and non-interference, it is fine. Usually in conflict of interest cases that we deal with in private industry much of it is about appearance of conflict rather than actual conflict unfortunately, and that is why great care is taken in exhibiting clearly why even when there appears to be a conflict there actually is no conflict.

From what you are saying, perhaps all that is necessary is to shed some light on the nature of the lack of conflict and that should take care of that. I have not seen much of that, but that may just be my ignorance.

Hope that clarifies my position on this matter.

BTW, the example of Moorman moving from freight railroad to passenger railroad is more or less irrelevant and a contrived example, because at any given point in time he has no divided loyalties (except for the issue of stock holdings that was mentioned). He has specific performance related pay package at Amtrak which clearly sets up his loyalties at this point, and NS has no leverage over him to influence his actions at Amtrak.

 

[John Bobinyec]

I can only speak for the long-gone Erie Lackawanna. There, when you moved from union ranks to first-line management, the first thing that happened was you were moved to a division which was not your home division. This was specifically to avoid your having a conflict of interest with all of those people whom you knew there.

jb

 

[Hal]

Conflict of interest rules are always about not putting people in a position where they have divided loyalties. It is not about questioning anyone's integrity.

In this specific case it would depend on what it means to keep roster seniority. As long as they are free to act against the interest of the union involved and not favor union members over non union members in areas where membership of union is irrelevant without losing said seniority, it should be OK. A problem would arise if the union is able to exert control, even covertly, over their action by holding an implicit threat of retaliation.

So as long as there are clear contractual demarcation of action and non-interference, it is fine. Usually in conflict of interest cases that we deal with in private industry much of it is about appearance of conflict rather than actual conflict unfortunately, and that is why great care is taken in exhibiting clearly why even when there appears to be a conflict there actually is no conflict.

Keeping roster seniority means just that. They can return to their craft at the same roster position. Nothing more. They don't participate in the union they were in. When they take a managment position they are free to act against the interests of the union, and they often do. They carry out the interests of management. The union can't exert any control, and a far as threats of retaliation it is management that holds all the retaliation cards, not the unions.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Conflict of interest rules are always about not putting people in a position where they have divided loyalties. It is not about questioning anyone's integrity.

In this specific case it would depend on what it means to keep roster seniority. As long as they are free to act against the interest of the union involved and not favor union members over non union members in areas where membership of union is irrelevant without losing said seniority, it should be OK. A problem would arise if the union is able to exert control, even covertly, over their action by holding an implicit threat of retaliation.

So as long as there are clear contractual demarcation of action and non-interference, it is fine. Usually in conflict of interest cases that we deal with in private industry much of it is about appearance of conflict rather than actual conflict unfortunately, and that is why great care is taken in exhibiting clearly why even when there appears to be a conflict there actually is no conflict.

From what you are saying, perhaps all that is necessary is to shed some light on the nature of the lack of conflict and that should take care of that. I have not seen much of that, but that may just be my ignorance.

Hope that clarifies my position on this matter.

Nope....let's get back to your statement.

He has the luxury of not being beholden to any of the current occupants in the management chain, which suggest that he would not have the chains on his feet implicit in a deeply embedded group of cronies. Also the obvious conflict of interest that has existed at Amtrak with many management positions occupied by union members on sabbatical from the union may get fixed.

Your statement (please note it was not posed as a question) states there is an obvious conflict of interest. I'm asking you to post examples of the conflict of interest since you feel they obviously exist in some form.

You further state that this must be a problem because you said the "problem may get fixed."

Can you give us examples of how this "problem" as you mentioned it has detrimentally impacted the current operation? Additionally, out of Amtrak's (in my opinion) burgeoning management during the Boardman era, how many of them actually are associated with an actual roster? Are the problems caused by the union affiliated managers or the off the street managers, piggybacking on their politically connected appointees?

Please enlighten us.

BTW, the example of Moorman moving from freight railroad to passenger railroad is more or less irrelevant and a contrived example, because at any given point in time he has no divided loyalties (except for the issue of stock holdings that was mentioned). He has specific performance related pay package at Amtrak which clearly sets up his loyalties at this point, and NS has no leverage over him based on his actions at Amtrak.

It is about as contrived as you stating there is an obvious conflict of interest just because a manager may be affiliated with a union...a union that may have nothing to do with what they are ultimately in charge of.

Your statement neglects the fact that a proper manager is their to manage....not dictate and they may use their knowledge of the craft to bolster the craft. They can use their experience to steer people towards the proper way to do the job since they (hopefully) have knowledge of the position. They can make the position stronger through education, knowledge and more importantly, empathy. Your goals become achievable and realistic.

When that is your position, there are no divided loyalties.

PS: he currently owns stock in NS. A person with such a skeptical view of what amounts to potential of conflict of interest may think that a decision that may help Amtrak but could possibly (not definitely) impact said stock portfolio may not even be broached.

 

[jis]

Conflict of interest rules are always about not putting people in a position where they have divided loyalties. It is not about questioning anyone's integrity.

In this specific case it would depend on what it means to keep roster seniority. As long as they are free to act against the interest of the union involved and not favor union members over non union members in areas where membership of union is irrelevant without losing said seniority, it should be OK. A problem would arise if the union is able to exert control, even covertly, over their action by holding an implicit threat of retaliation.

So as long as there are clear contractual demarcation of action and non-interference, it is fine. Usually in conflict of interest cases that we deal with in private industry much of it is about appearance of conflict rather than actual conflict unfortunately, and that is why great care is taken in exhibiting clearly why even when there appears to be a conflict there actually is no conflict.

Keeping roster seniority means just that. They can return to their craft at the same roster position. Nothing more. When they take a managment position they are free to act against the interests of the union, and they often do. They carry out the interests of management. The union can't exert any control, and a far as threats of retaliation it is management that holds all the retaliation cards, not the unions.

Well, so that clarifies that. I am glad that we were able to address, at least in my view, what the core issues are, and come to a conclusion. Clearly it was my ignorance of the actual nature of the relationship that caused me to have the perception. Thank you.

Incidentally, I am particularly sensitive to this because I have to deal with such issues in my day to day work with regard to loyalties of people to the multiple roles that they play in conjunction with working as delegates to other organizations. We have to go through refresher training twice a year. This stuff is taken pretty seriously. Typically one starts with any possible perception of conflicts and then goes about documenting exactly why the perception arises and how it is to be mitigated should someone raise an issue. And in today's lawyer infested society there are plenty of opportunities for such to occur.

As the cause of my statement was my perception I am not going to argue further the minutia of this with Thirdrail since it is unlikely to make any material improvement to the understanding of the situation, at least for me.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Keeping roster seniority means just that. They can return to their craft at the same roster position. Nothing more. They don't participate in the union they were in. When they take a managment position they are free to act against the interests of the union, and they often do. They carry out the interests of management. The union can't exert any control, and a far as threats of retaliation it is management that holds all the retaliation cards, not the unions.

Additionally, managers can't even vote for things that would affect them if they returned to the craft. They can not participate in elections, vote for contracts, receive and loses any outstanding entitlements due before they went to management (e.g.. if you went 7 years without a contract and back pay was awarded, you don't receive it if you transferred even if you weren't a manager during the period.)

There is no conflict if you are a true manager.