Don Philips recent bad experience on LD train

[FormerOBS]

Railiner:

I finally got to read Mr. Phillips' column.

As for rant no. 2, No, you didn't mention anything about the changes and cutbacks. To ignore the role of these changes and cutbacks in this situation, is to be wilfully ignorant. Yes, employees should always strive to do their job well, and I don't claim they did in Phillips' case. But those employees are only human, and management is also paid to do their job well.

To carry Don Phillips' example to its logical conclusion, blaming the rank & file employees is like blaming the canary in the mine for dying.

End of MY rant no. 2.

 

[VentureForth]

Is it? The canary didn't willfully enter the mine. Amtrak employees do.

FWIW, somehow I keep getting last and final offers to subscribe to Trains... at least twice a week.

As for this particular article, of course it's sensationalized. Aren't most opinion pieces? Take a grain of the facts and exploit them to the benefit of your readers? Don't say Huffington doesn't do that....Or even Drudge.

If I were to write an objective piece, I would mention that the cuts to service put a load on the crew. For some crew, they take it in stride and to remain in employment, they do the best they can with what they have. Others can't bear the strain. With customers griping on one side and management cutting from the other, morale takes a huge hit and some will likely just do what they can to get by until they are replaced or conditions are so bad they quit.

But that's not very interesting, and it won't bring people to my website or magazine.

 

[FormerOBS]

Amtrak employees, for the most part, were hired long before any of these changes were instituted. Previously, management placed a high value on service. Service quality has been drummed into their heads. What is happening now is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Yes, the canary willingly went into the cage. That's because the cage looked like a good place to be at the time. Employees could do work that engendered pride. Employees developed their skills at work, They bought homes and started families. They felt that they had careers they could be proud of. Then management changed the rules and lowered the cage into the toxic fumes.

It's rather disingenuous to imply that employees who don't like the new situation should "just do what they can to get by until they are replaced or conditions are so bad they quit." That echoes the comments of at least one supervisor who told a large group of employees that if they didn't like it they could just hit the highway. Wonderful diplomacy. A wonderful way to encourage employee morale and loyalty.

Quit? Have you looked at the job market lately? We're talking about human beings here, and they deserve better than to be considered "the help". They are not a disposable commodity.

 

[Bob Dylan]

"Let them eat cake!"

What is a cretin like that doing in Amtrak Management! Its not 1930 any more and the Amtrak employees deserve better than this! Where's the Union on this?

This "Manager"needs to find another job ASAP!!!

 

[jis]

It almost seems like one has to pass a special "Insensitive Idiot" test before being accepted into line management position. Unfortunately that is not particularly different from many of the much vaunted large private sector companies these days either


Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Ind Ben]

Right after taking over Boardman rode the SWC from la to K.C. but never saw him or his asst talking to passengers.

 

[VentureForth]

Amtrak employees, for the most part, were hired long before any of these changes were instituted. Previously, management placed a high value on service. Service quality has been drummed into their heads. What is happening now is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Yes, the canary willingly went into the cage. That's because the cage looked like a good place to be at the time. Employees could do work that engendered pride. Employees developed their skills at work, They bought homes and started families. They felt that they had careers they could be proud of. Then management changed the rules and lowered the cage into the toxic fumes.

It's rather disingenuous to imply that employees who don't like the new situation should "just do what they can to get by until they are replaced or conditions are so bad they quit." That echoes the comments of at least one supervisor who told a large group of employees that if they didn't like it they could just hit the highway. Wonderful diplomacy. A wonderful way to encourage employee morale and loyalty.

Quit? Have you looked at the job market lately? We're talking about human beings here, and they deserve better than to be considered "the help". They are not a disposable commodity.

I didn't imply anything of the sort. In fact, I was agreeing with what most are saying here. Mangagement does change the rules, and the employees hang on as long as possible. Some can do it and still smile, others can't. Others still can't do their job with a smile no matter how well they are paid.

That's my sympathetic side. The next statement is from a practical side.

No company has cared about me as a human. I AM a commodity. I am what they call a "resource". I do what I can to continue to bring value to my employer. If my contribution doesn't help the bottom line of the company, they will let me go. And there's not a thing I can do about it. I have been let go, and forced to relocate my family twice in 15 years - a total of 3,500 miles. I have also stayed when others were let go. It's not a good feeling, but it's a necessity.

I grew up in a culture where employment was for "life". It was nearly impossible to get fired or laid off. Not that it didn't happen, but there was much angst anytime it did. Nowadays, Japan is more like the US - companies can only afford to keep employees so long as they turn a profit. I get just as upset as the next guy when folks are let go at Christmas and the managers are rewarded half of the salaries they saved. I get angry at HUGE bonuses for executives, but I'm not agains bonuses as incentives. They are the producers. I get really upset - and there is really no reason for this at all - when high level execs get golden parachutes for LEAVING a company.

But to state that we aren't a commodity is just - from a love of human life point of view - is unfortunately not true. We are all at the mercy of our employers. And if we are at the top of our HR ladder, we're at the mercy of stock/stakeholders. And if were a private firm and we answer to no one, we still answer to our customer. And if we don't supply what our customers demand, our customers will demand it no longer. And that is the trouble with crappy service on Amtrak whenever it occurs for any reason whatsoever. Passengers don't have a demand for crappy service - regardless of what Management wants the "team" to do. And they will go elsewhere. And when the demand is no longer, why do we continue to pay these employees?

Excellenct service yeilds excellent experience. Excellent experience yeilds excellent repeat business. Excellent repeat business yeilds increase in customer base.

Ask Walt.

Either one - Walter White or Walt Disney.

 

[Steve4031]

I just read the article. This kind of attitude on the Capitol limited and other Chicago based trains is typical and was occurring before these cuts.

How long have these cuts been in effect? I have not noticed much discussion of slower dining car service. Just a change in the menus.

 

[FormerOBS]

Steve --

I'm embarrassed to say the Capitol is crewed out of Washington --- not Chicago.

Venture ---

There's a lot of merit to what you say. I'm not condoning bad service; just looking at the root causes of some (not all) bad service. Excellent service yields excellent experience,......." etc.

We could add that excellent management (yes, there really is such a thing) yields excellent productivity levels, and excellent employee attitudes, and excellent customer experience.

Ind Ben ---

Interesting observation about Mr. Boardman on the SWC. In his defense, it's possible that he had other important matters to deal with. But I also know of other managers who have ridden the trains without any interaction with the passengers, and have always wondered about that. I witnessed Presidents W. Graham Claytor and David Gunn interacting with passengers. Vice President Emmett Fremaux was another one who interacted (If I remember correctly, I believe he was V.P. of passenger services). In regard to more recent management, I've seen very little of them, whether interacting or not.

 

[Steve4031]

Oops. That explains the slow dinner service out if Chicago. They are usually tired.

 

[PaulM]

I suspect that the problem is a lack of managerial oversight while on the road and the fact that managers are taken from the union rank and file to begin with, so there's a hesitancy to discipline (and probably very bad training in managing as well).

I agree. I've said this before, but think of a manufacturing plant with out a plant manager or foremen (forepersons) and whose customers handle the quality assurance function.

 

[VentureForth]

Steve --

I'm embarrassed to say the Capitol is crewed out of Washington --- not Chicago.

Venture ---

There's a lot of merit to what you say. I'm not condoning bad service; just looking at the root causes of some (not all) bad service. Excellent service yields excellent experience,......." etc.

We could add that excellent management (yes, there really is such a thing) yields excellent productivity levels, and excellent employee attitudes, and excellent customer experience.

Ind Ben ---

Interesting observation about Mr. Boardman on the SWC. In his defense, it's possible that he had other important matters to deal with. But I also know of other managers who have ridden the trains without any interaction with the passengers, and have always wondered about that. I witnessed Presidents W. Graham Claytor and David Gunn interacting with passengers. Vice President Emmett Fremaux was another one who interacted (If I remember correctly, I believe he was V.P. of passenger services). In regard to more recent management, I've seen very little of them, whether interacting or not.

I completely agree with you. There is certainly a right way and a wrong way for management to handle bad news.

 

[PaulM]

Amtrak is in serious trouble, and the passenger train system now appears to be in a free fall. I will be writing about Amtrak's financial, operating, and leadership problems this month an in the next two columns, but you'll see that it's Amtrak's money problems that are the most severe.

Yes folks, the first year where Amtrak spent the opening quarter making a profit is a severe financial crisis for Amtrak.

And the column is spent mainly complaining about a bad diner experience and how he had to spend half an hour waiting for a second cup of coffee (clearly the fault of cutbacks to dining crew staff) which somehow shows financial issues at hand for Amtrak. I don't quite get his logic. I do think he should switch to decaf though.

I finally got a chance to read the article. My take on it was that it really wasn't about coffee, but about the melt down, if not nervous breakdown, of a dining car waitress. He seemed to imply that the root cause was Amtrak's financial problems. Given the opening quarter profit (I'm just quoting here), talking about a financial crisis might seem strange. But what would you call skimping on the extra board so that trains don't get out on time, not having sufficient maintenance resources to get trains ready on time, cutting dining car and other train staff, VL II order being grossly late, all the amenities' cutting, Autotrain lounge disappearances, etc? I call it a financial problem.

Every one knows that a business can increase profit (I never thought I'd use the term in connection with Amtrak) in the short run by cutting costs, at least those costs that are immediate and easy to calculate. But the positive effect is usually short lived because the long term and difficult to calculate costs were never considered. I think the crack about suits putting on jeans meant that upper management should get out and see first hand the effect the cost cutting might have on Amtrak's long term future.

Disclosure: I don't know Don Phillips from Adam and have no idea whether he is a foamer or any other type of bad person. But even if he is, that doesn't make his observations invalid. Argumentum ad hominem, anyone!.

 

[Trogdor]

Amtrak doesn't have a financial problem so much as a politicians micromanaging every damn aspect of their service while avoiding admitting their real goal (totally dismantling the system) problem. It's been fairly well noted on here that most of these changes are to attempt to keep these politicians at bay and avoid legislating further mandated cuts. If you look at the financial situation separate from the political situation, Amtrak is probably in the strongest shape it has ever been. Throw in the political crap, and they're no better off than at almost any other time in history, at least with respect to LD trains.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Excellent posts that pretty much nail the problem @ Amtrak:

Micro Managing from Congress and Fund Starvation while Amtrak Management tries to appease these insatiable meddlers and self appointed transportation and food service experts with nickel and dime cuts and weasely promises without considering their customers or their employees that are the face of Amtrak and do the real work!

 

[oldtimer]

A lot of you that I spent a career with Amtrak, 40 years on the roster. and I can tell you that the morale is very low. The good employee gets rewarded with more work. The forces are cut to the bone. One of the most popular sayings around the Chicago terminal is "The beatings will continue until the morale improves!"

 

[jis]

Ironically, that is exactly what is said in many large corporations too.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[PaulM]

Amtrak doesn't have a financial problem so much as a politicians micromanaging every damn aspect of their service while avoiding admitting their real goal (totally dismantling the system) problem. I

You won't get an argument from me. But I think it is ironic that once upon a time, after doing things such as Amtrak is doing, and I'm sure much more, the railroads would wail "Mr. ICC, nobody's ride the you name it train, so let me discontinue it?" Now I worry that it will be politicians who say "Mr. Amtrak, nobody rides LD trains anymore, so get rid of them".

Do you think that Amtrak management will recognize the point at which appeasement has gone too far? And that they have nothing to lose by defying the politicians? Or are they worried that what they have to lose is the NEC?

Another irony is that there is a faction that claims that Amtrak's problems are due to its all powerful unions. But it appears the they are a powerful as a private sectorl union whose company is about to ship their jobs to Bangladesh.