Amtrak Staff Drink, Smoke and Snort Too Much

The train service's record of drug test failures trumps what's found elsewhere in the industry

Hear that? That's the sound of the men and women working on Amtrak trains pissing away their livelihoods.

CNN informs us that Amtrak staff are a whopping 51% more likely than their peers elsewhere in the rail industry to fail a test for alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. According to Amtrak's Office of Inspector General in a new report, substance abuse among Amtrak employees has been on the rise since 2006. This at a time when ridership for the service has also increased, notes CNN.

From the report: "Amtrak's current senior management's lack of knowledge about the extent of drug and alcohol use...raises serious questions about Amtrak's commitment to controlling drug and alcohol use."

To avoid any bad press of this magnitude in the future, the report recommends Amtrak "increase the frequency of drug and alcohol testing, review results and compare them to industry averages," and "demonstrate that drug and alcohol control is a priority for Amtrak senior management."

Via CNN.

What should be down about drug abuse among the nation's rail workers?

[Sonny]

Amtrak management needs to enforce no tolerance rules against drug abuse by its employees. If an employee is found to be a drug user, and does not get treatment ---then that employee should be fired....The traveling public's lives are at stake here...So NO Excuses!

[CanisCanemEdit]

Why in the world do we still have taxpayer support for this form of transportation?

[Sonny]

Because not everyone wants to turn everything over to "private sector mercenaries".....Intercit y travel of any kind has enormous fixed costs—purchasing or seizing land for airports or rights-of-way; building highways and railroad tracks; buying, fuelling and operating planes and trains. That’s why governments have traditionally played a large role in air, rail and road travel.

[CanisCanemEdit]

@Sonny - True enough.

However when we get repeated stories about a government funded form of transportation losing $800 million in food and beverages over a 10 year period through employee theft...it doesn't make good financial sense to keep the program.

When we sell Hamburgers on Amtrack for 9.50 but our cost to make them is $16.15 then something is wrong.

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-repor...

The problems arise when the red-tape to fire someone from a government job gets so binding that it can only be done on rare occasions.

[MrGrey]

@CanisCanemEdit you speak not of there being a problem with the fact that government regulates amtrack, but rather with how government manages amtrack.

Am track will work better when we automate more of the human jobs involved in the buissness and let machines run it

[CanisCanemEdit]

@MrGrey - Regulation is the role of government...unfortunately.

I can find nothing, anywhere where anything the government has run as a service to the public where it was run efficiently or at a break even...let alone a profit.

[dances-weebles]

because rail is still the most comfortable, and the most elegant form of transportation in the world... and the most fun.

[Thunderchicken]

The government should stop funding Amtrak. Not over this but because Amtrak is colossal waste of tax payer money.

[Rose-from-NoHo]

I disagree, traveling by train is an adventure. Making a profit isn't the only thing in life.

[Thunderchicken]

@Rose-from-NoHo

I like train travel too but in these tight ecnomic times the taxpayer shouldn't subsidize it. If Amtrak were to not exist, I'm sure that passenger and freight trains would be combined just as they once were. Probably with better service and cheaper fares. FWIW, it's cheaper to fly from St. Louis to Albuquerque than to take a train.(At least it was when I checked.)

[Rose-from-NoHo]

@Thunderchicken I know train travel isn't cheap. And people who ride the trains are taxpayers.

[ibcingu]

Haven't you ever noticed who mostly uses the Amtrak's trains on the east coast? I'll give ya a clue -- their supposed to make & pass laws for this country, but they're a bunch of worthless AH's.

[Thunderchicken]

@Rose-from-NoHo

Following that logic, the government should subsidize everything.

[Politicskid]

We need to stop subsidizing AmTrak. They have no motivation to provide good service because of it.

[DARSB]

By this logic no one who receives federal subsidies would do a good job. Therefore wealthy tax-filers who receive a subsidy via tax loopholes and "deferred compensation" dodges would not exert themselves. You may have just produced the principle that prevents tax cuts for the wealthy from creating new jobs. ;-)

[bsking]

they need to unfund amtrak anyway, now they can use the old "public safety issues" as an excuse . Amtrak has never turned a profit.

[thylacine]

Better, than never having turned a page of something other than Ayn Rand....

[CharlieRosencr]

I wonder if the increase in patronage is a result of the staff's elevated moods. If so, then bring on the party!!

[Thunderchicken]

I was surprised to see that ridership is up. When I checked ticket prices a few years ago, it was much cheaper to fly.

[GunPolitics]

@Thunderchicken think about how many folks don't want to deal w/ TSA at the airport and it might make more sense

[Thunderchicken]

@GunPolitics

Yeah I hadn't thought of that. When I travel, I just drive.

[mimi57]

So that's the reason those trains are always jumping the track!!! Drinking,
drugging...and engineering a passenger train! I say no more funding. Period.

[DARSB]

The thing about passenger rail service: it's pretty tough to hijack a train.

[CanisCanemEdit]

Video: New York train hijacked by man wielding screwdriver

http://www.thejournal.ie/video-new-york-train...

[dances-weebles]

@CanisCanemEdit did he make it to cuba?

[marine1]

What this reall is, is another prime example of goverment SHOULD NOT manage anything. The fewer employees and the smaller we can keep federal goverment the better off we will al be. The bureaucracy is so vast and overwelming that never will they be able to keep tabs on everything that they should. Add to that the patronage employment is most often exempt from appropriate discipline anyway. It will always be a lose, lose,lose situation.

[marine1]

does anyone know how much goverment subsidy is given for each ticket sold? Would rail exist if there were no goverment subsidy? Why should goverment subsidize personal transportation? How about a little subsidy for four dollar gas?

[dances-weebles]

@marine1 today my wife paid around $5 a litre for gasoline. $4 a gallon is cheap.

[Rose-from-NoHo]

I don't think drug tests should be allowed. If a person comes to work too inebriated to do their job properly, punish them. But it's not the employer's business if the person had a hit off of the bong a few days earlier.

[Thunderchicken]

I agree but as long as drugs are illegal, there will be drug tests. That having been said, if someone shows up for a job such as an engineer, I don't want that person to have anything in they're system.

[Rose-from-NoHo]

@Thunderchicken marijuana can show up even if you haven't smoked for days. Don't know about alcohol or coke.

[Thunderchicken]

@Rose-from-NoHo

I'm sure that if drugs become legal, they'll be levels and time limits just as with alcohol.

[Rose-from-NoHo]

@Thunderchicken makes sense.

[ir0nw0lfe]

Why would this surprise anyone in a culture that wants to legalize all vices ?

[Decent-Dissent]

Sex drugs and rock n roll! Its the American dream.

[CATTLEPROD]

Unionized government workers. We dont care, we dont have to.

[stepped_in_it]

Ok, grammar police.."What should be DOWN??? Shouldn't that be DONE??
Now, rather than talk about unfunding it and all that, I think I'll just answer the question with a question.
If this was a private industry, what would happen? Most likely random drug/alcohol tests and "house cleaning" of staff. Why is the government funded industry being treated different? Because the government does not believe it has to answer to it's "shareholders"....an d that would be US...the taxpayer!!

[Lpguy]

The government should not be funding this garbage. Furthermore, If any employee is found drunk or under the influence of something while on duty they should be fired immediately. If they are drinking or smoking up off duty, it should have no bearing on employment (unless it is effecting job performance - this should go without saying)

[tomincali]

seems to me all who test dirty for any kind of dope or booze should lose the job on the spot,from the president down to the dog catcher.
zero tolerance should be the rule of thumb no excuses.

[Jeff_Woehrle]

Hey, three cheers for government management! This type of stellar handling is what Obumble wants for our health care.

Brilliant!

[Keyjo]

The trouble with drug testing is that marijuana shows up for a long time after being smoked.
Alcohol and other drugs can be washed away in a couple of days. Of course, there is nothing wrong with an employee having a couple of beers or drinks or a bowl after work and on days off.

[CommonSense]

This is true. What we really need is a test for recent use.

[Keyjo]

I'm surprised that there isn't a higher incidence of meth use.
I know that in a effort to keep us driving longer and sleeping less, many capitalist managers, owners, bosses encourage cab, truck and bus drivers to use meth.
I refuse to drive my cab more than 10 hours per day and I have had management suggest that perhaps I should start tweeking!
Sorry, I need my 4 hours of sleep per day.

[Jack-Black]

This is what happens when a company is supported by tax payer money. Same stuff happens with GM workers and post office workers. SMH!

[Decent-Dissent]

I mean... That things on rails right? It isnt like they have to steer.