Rail Labor blasts biased Amtrak Reform Council report

The Rail Labor Division of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, issued a blistering dissent to the Amtrak Reform Council and its first annual report, "A Preliminary Assessment of Amtrak," for its biased view, fiscal irresponsibility and misleading statements.

"We believe the Report reflects an aggressive anti-Amtrak and pro-privatization agenda; that it is replete with statements which are misleading, inaccurate and unsubstantiated; and that it is the culmination of the very fiscal irresponsibility that it claims to address," stated Rail Labor's dissenting opinion of the report, which was submitted by ARC member Clarence V. Monin on labor's behalf.

The Amtrak Reform Council was formed in 1997 for the purpose of evaluating Amtrak's performance and making recommendations for achieving further cost containment, productivity improvements and financial reforms.

"The law that created the ARC is the Amtrak Reform Act, not the Amtrak Termination Act," Rail Labor's dissent stated. "Yet, instead of making positive recommendations to improve Amtrak, the ARC and this Report demonstrate a definite bias in favor of the elimination of Amtrak."

Since issuing its report to Congress, the ARC has been attacked by a firestorm of criticism from Rail Labor and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

"I am concerned that the (ARC) report... has mischaracterized the intent of this administration and Congress regarding the definition of operating self-sufficiency that has been used in Amtrak's planning and in the inspector general's reviews," Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater said. "Further, the ARC report was issued without adequate time for review, discussion of its findings or of Amtrak's concerns in a public meeting."

TTD President Sonny Hall said the ARC report was a slap in the face to all Amtrak employees.

"The report also represents yet another insult to the 20,000 Amtrak workers who have repeatedly sacrificed to ensure that Americans continue to have intercity passenger rail service as a transportation option," Hall said. "From the outset of the ARC, Amtrak's dedicated workers and their unions have been given short shrift by most members of the Council with little or no attention being paid to the people who make the system work and who in turn have much to offer in terms of making Amtrak operationally and financially secure for the long haul."

In its seven page dissenting opinion, Rail Labor criticized the biased view of the pro-Republican, pro-privatization Council.

"At least two members of the Council have written extensively about the need to liquidate Amtrak and to end all Federal funding for America's railroad," the dissent stated. In a November 14, 1998, newspaper report, ARC Member Joseph Vranich stated, "we should learn from many countries and denationalize rail services through privatization"

In addition, ARC Member Wendell Cox was quoted in a different newspaper article in which he said, "I have no doubt that the Amtrak service could be operated commercially if it were provided by an entrepreneurial company driven by a commitment to serve customers and operated with a market rate labor contract."

Rail Labor's dissent also accused ARC members of fiscal irresponsibility, questioning an expensive trip to London.

"Coupled with this is the fact that chairman of the Council himself is a privatizer and the ARC Executive Director previously worked in Europe, where he spent a number of years promoting privatization of rail lines," the dissent stated. "The Report notes various meetings held throughout the United States as well as a trip to London. What the ARC has learned from these various sessions is unclear... What is clear about these meetings, however, is that they must have cost the American taxpayers thousands of dollars."

The dissent also accused the Board of making misleading, inaccurate and unsubstantiated statements.

In its final report, the Council states that it " began to carry out its mandate through a broad program of research and analysis by the ARC staff, which has worked closely with the railway labor organizations"

Rail Labor's dissent, however, states "Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts are that the ARC has deliberately distanced itself from rail labor; not making material available to it when requested; not meeting with rail labor staff when requested; not allowing input from rail labor; and not permitting rail labor's representative on the ARC to discuss with labor the very issues affecting it."

The Council criticized Amtrak's cost savings goals, and faulted it for losing a maintenance contract with MBTA. Ironically, Council Chairman Gilbert E. Carmichael is a top executive of a parent company of the subcontractor that took the equipment maintenance contract away from MBTA.

"Based on the Council's regional outreach meetings, as well as direct communications with state departments of transportation, Amtrak risks losing a significant amount of commuter and subsidized Intercity passenger business unless it is able to get its unit cost structure more competitive with private sector companies. Market forces evident in Boston (Amtrak's loss of the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) equipment maintenance contract) are indicative of overall resistance to increasing Amtrak charges to the states and local commuter authorities for passenger rail services provided by Amtrak," the report stated. "Amtrak management has to act more like a private, for-profit corporation and less like a government-owned agency providing rail service on a cost-plus basis, if Amtrak is to participate in the anticipated increase in passenger rail service along developing high speed corridors."

© 2000 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers