Amtrak Announces Management/Non-Agreement Buyout

Per a post on today's trainorders (10/26)Amtrak is accepting Voluntary applications for Buyouts from Management and Non-Agreement employees due to Excessive manpower in these positions.

Employees with over a Years service will be eligible for lump sum buyouts based on their years of service starting @ $15,000 up to 26 weeks of Base Salary.

If not enough applicants are received in-voluntary RIFs will begin in Jan. 2018!!

This is usually a good way to lose your most capable people, unless you simultaneously provide incentives to those that you want to keep.

I was thinking the same thing. The only thing that sometimes helps is that the lesser lights don't have anyone surrounding them to actually do what needs to be done, and their inadequacies become all the more obvious. Of course, some are protected for a host of reasons most of which exist in one form or another in any company large or small, public or private.

I dunno. I got the impression that Amtrak was top-heavy. Am I wrong?

Also, yes I am aware that buyouts favor experienced people and those whose competence makes it easy to find alternative work.

VSP's always appeal to the best and most experienced because they can collect the deal and easily get hired at another company. The deadwood never takes the deal. I suspect that since Amtrak is accepting applications, this gives them the opportunity to refuse an application. Though, if someone that is good applies, they are tainted generally for future advancement if they stay. If you want to get rid of the deadwood you have to do a RIF. At least that is my experience dealing with several VSP and RIF over the years.

The problem with RIF's is the wrong people go anyway. The bosses son never gets RIF'd. (and many other examples in different environments) Plus, the people who get to make the decisions might be the ones who should be axed. That happens in many businesses. Cut the least useful 10% in your department. Ok, I'm firing myself. Not happening.

I'm wondering what prompted this action and why now? The short timetable suggests it's a sheer act of desperation.

jb

Yep, once upon a time in my Post Civil Service Career, when working for a for profit Contractor that took over a Government funded program ( Job Corps), I was told that in order to keep my Middle Management Position I was to prioritize Job #1 which was to get rid of everyone who made more than $10 an hour.

I declined and resigned!

I'm in agreement with all concepts expressed. In similar conditions during my 45 year career, we always found that those employees with "Get Up And Go" did, and in a New York Second. (For those unfamiliar with that term, a New York Second is the infinitesimal amount of time between the light turning green and the cabbie behind you honking his horn. Less than one nanosecond if I remember correctly.)

John Bobinyec said:

I'm wondering what prompted this action and why now? The short timetable suggests it's a sheer act of desperation.

jb

Click to expand...

What exactly would be the 'desperation'? I would rather submit that 'thinning the ranks' of Amtrak management is long overdue (though as already pointed out, lack of control over who takes the buyout is a problem).

A Voice said:

John Bobinyec said:

I'm wondering what prompted this action and why now? The short timetable suggests it's a sheer act of desperation.

jb

Click to expand...

What exactly would be the 'desperation'? I would rather submit that 'thinning the ranks' of Amtrak management is long overdue (though as already pointed out, lack of control over who takes the buyout is a problem).

Click to expand...

The lack of control indicates that this will be done, no matter the cost or consequences. That indicates to me a very urgent need to reduce payroll no matter what. Doesn't that suggest desperation?

The consensus here seems to be that the better way would be to thin out the ranks over time, carefully selecting to keep those who are pulling their own weight. So why didn't management do that? What was the urgency?

jb

VSPs generally result from the management’s inability to selectively carry out personnel management. There is no reason to believe that the current management will be able to carry out tomorrow what they have failed to do so far. Hence VSP. Now the issue will be can they manage the VSP constructively? Some can, some can’t or won’t. We’ll have to wait and see.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

Going into what will likely be a tough budget battle, you are taken much more seriously when it looks like you are taking the proper steps to reign in costs. Perception and reality are often different.

"The consensus here seems to be that the better way would be to thin out the ranks over time, carefully selecting to keep those who are pulling their own weight." (Quote, John Bobinyec)

This implies that management also must do the opposite, selectively dismiss those that are not pulling their weight. Unfortunately, this cannot be done in today's work environment. You cannot dismiss an employee unless that employee has broken one or more policies defined in the company employment manual. Even then these infractions must have been documented extensively for many months. If an employee is dismissed merely for poor performance, the company could be subject to costly lawsuits. On the other hand, management could suggest informally that an employee might be happier in another organization or line of work. This suggestion might also be accompanied by the concept that future raises and promotions could be sparse or none at all.

Of course, this requires sensitive and imaginative management capabilities.

Selective work force readjustments work just fine in private industry as long as they can document convincingly that none of the prohibited criteria were applied. Poor performance is not a prohibited criterion by itself.

It is a different matter with union contracts and such involved, or if it is a government related outfit, that is a different matter, I suppose.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

Wonder if the VSP could be intended to eliminate a certain number of the old guard and create vacancies to be filled by new employees with airline experience? Fresh management could help if top management wants to make changes from the old ways of doing things?

Pure speculation, of course.

Speculation ------- 5 years ago Amtrak had big plans for service expansion with the CAF order and option. Also the Nippon (NS) orders were thought soon to come. Those orders + the possibility of even more single level and bi-level cars being ordered was Amtrak's plan. That may have led Amtrak to postpone any paring of personnel that would be needed for a 300-- 600 additional car fleet. Now With the present political climate a reality check has sunk in and now it may be time to get rid of the excess personnel .

Look to the top. Amtrak is now run by a former airline CEO. Airline companies are run differently and notorious for continual cuts in personnel , service and amenities. Higher profits are the goal. Perhaps this mentality is being applied to Amtrak. If in fact making Amtrak profitable is the plan; look for greatly reduced service, cuts in salaries/benefits and sharper increases in ticket prices. This is how Wall Street demands it; profit first, workers and customers dead last!.

It would be idiotic to reduce service, as that reduces the number of customers. Increases in ticket prices have been quite effective for years on Amtrak.

Some of us will hear the plan from the proverbial horse’s mouth in a few days at the NARP Meeting in Chicago where Anderson is a featured speaker.

It is always a good time to rid of the bloated managerial ranks that has been discussed often in the AU Forum. You don’t require a zillion additional management people to make good use of a few hundred additional cars anyway, so that would have been a lame excuse for keeping additional staff around in that scale.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

Non-represented does not just mean "management." It also includes professional staff such as engineering, real estate, marketing, IT and legal. There is a management philosophy that says skills like that can be bought as needed, so in-house expertise is not needed. They might be right, but sometimes insider "tribal knowledge: can have value that senior management does not recognize.

I found that when the companies I worked for got heavy with management, it was easy to dilute the blame with heavy CYA. When there was a lean management structure, there was no way to deflect the blame, it hit on you. I also found management git heavy when those thought were to retire didn't, there ended up being multiple people for the same positions, though everyone had to have different titles. You can not insist someone retire, but many times corporations move up a lower manager to get ready to assume the position upon the others retirement. This method was originally used to maintain continuity without the learning curve, but with people working longer, fluctuation of 401Ks, the retirement timing has become an unknown.

PRR 60 said:

Non-represented does not just mean "management." It also includes professional staff such as engineering, real estate, marketing, IT and legal. There is a management philosophy that says skills like that can be bought as needed, so in-house expertise is not needed. They might be right, but sometimes insider "tribal knowledge: can have value that senior management does not recognize.

Click to expand...

OTOH, it is also incredibly easy to collect an incredible amount of dead wood in those areas too. Entire projects worth in fact, for those zombie one ones that for whatever reason no one dared to or bothered to put out of their misery in a timely fashion. [emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

John Bobinyec said:

A Voice said:

John Bobinyec said:

I'm wondering what prompted this action and why now? The short timetable suggests it's a sheer act of desperation.

jb

Click to expand...

What exactly would be the 'desperation'? I would rather submit that 'thinning the ranks' of Amtrak management is long overdue (though as already pointed out, lack of control over who takes the buyout is a problem).

Click to expand...

The lack of control indicates that this will be done, no matter the cost or consequences. That indicates to me a very urgent need to reduce payroll no matter what. Doesn't that suggest desperation?

The consensus here seems to be that the better way would be to thin out the ranks over time, carefully selecting to keep those who are pulling their own weight. So why didn't management do that? What was the urgency?

jb

Click to expand...

What it suggests is the fiscal year just started and the reorganization is almost completed. Now is the time let people know of your plans. As departments are merged, divisions realigned, technologies advanced (blah, blah, yak yak,) the time is ripe for paring down employees and the associated management.