Snippy wrote:

---

And nobody celebrated,

And we all forgot.

Yesterday.

---

What You Always Wanted to Know About the UTU, but were afraid to ask!

By: Brother Rick Skidmore - LC BLET 782

Everything that is happening now is rooted in the past. The carrier's plan their contracts and develop strategies years in advance of actual implementation.

Take for example the elimination of so-called redundant crew members. The development of a reliable hot box detector was critical but what sealed the fate of trainmen was the elimination of the flagging rule. Carriers turned to their friends the FRA for this. Carriers argued that all that was needed was a continuous signal system or an absolute block behind a train in dark territory to protect against collisions. FRA agreed and removed the flagging rule. The next step was to move the trainmen to the head end and then make an agreement to remove the caboose.

The 1985 UTU agreed upon contract, the same agreement that BLE got shoved down their throats in Binding Arbitration, included a section on incidental work. All carrier had to do was developed the perimeters of incidental work through labor board decisions. To their joy, incidental work was ruled to encompass just about all work associated with a road crews own train.

Now that everyone was on the engine and there was virtually no contractual restrictions on the work each crew member could perform, except the operation of the engine, carrier could concentrate on reducing the work force. This was accomplished through crew consist agreements with the UTU that reduced the train crew size.

The agreements gave a small-reduced crew rate, and a buyout of excess trainmen. It's all about money.
While all this was going on, remote control technology was developing in Canada and small railroads around the U.S.A. This technology developed fast. With a labor board decision in Canada supporting UTU's position that a trainman controlling the remote control unit (black box) was not replacing the engineer, technology had actually replaced the engineer in the form of a computer on the engine.

The fate of engineers on switch engines was sealed. The trainmen was merely passing signals to the computer on the engine and the computer was controlling the engine, just as the trainman had passed signals to the engineer and the engineer controlled the engine.

Recent History Of The UTU A Predator Union

1976

· UTU agreed to the elimination of one brakeman on branch lines and way freights in return for $10.75 per day for the remaining two train service employees.

1978

· UTU agreed to give trainmen preference for fireman positions.

1982

· UTU agreed to arbitration on the elimination of cabooses.

1984

· Arbitration Award 419 eliminated cabooses.

1985

· UTU National Agreement, this was not a PEB or Arbitration Award. This was agreed upon.

· UTU agreed to the elimination of firemen through attrition. The original language of this section would have eliminated all firemen immediately. Only after the fireman voted the agreement down did the UTU International change the language to read attrition. These were dues paying members that UTU wanted to eliminate.

· UTU agreed to Road and Yard Incidental Work

· UTU agreed to have a road crew deliver their road train anywhere in terminal.

· UTU agreed to one additional pick up or set out at either the initial intermediate or final terminal, making two moves.

· UTU agreed to additional customer service language. We have not realized the full intent of this section yet.

· UTU agreed that engineers would now come from the ranks of train service employees. This is the start of the community of interest argument UTU is now offering in the single craft NMB cases.

· UTU agreed to substandard rate for engineer trainees.

. UTU agreed to substandard rate for conductor trainees.

· UTU agreed to elimination of duplicate time payments.

· UTU agreed to rate progressions for new hires, 75% entry rates.

· UTU agreed to lower deadhead rate for new hires.

· UTU agreed to eliminate initial and final terminal delay for new hires.

1988

· UTU agreed to the elimination of one brakeman on all jobs in return for $10.75 per day for the remaining two train service employee's, and $50,000 buy out of excess trainmen.

1992

· UTU agreed to the elimination of the last brakeman in return for $28.75 per day to the conductor in lieu of $10.75 and a $100,000 buy out for excess trainmen and $15,000 bonus for trainmen who remained.
· UTU agreed to the creation of Utility man position in yard service only.
· UTU agreed to one additional pick up or set out at either the initial intermediate or final terminal, making three moves.

1996

· UTU rank and file membership overwhelmingly voted down the National Agreement and the UTU President, takes the same contract to arbitration. He approves the identical agreement the membership voted down.

· UTU agreed to give up $28.75 for all new hires. In return for payment of all claims of record at the General Committee and allow Clinton Iowa to remain a terminal instead of moving to Omaha.

· UTU agreed to an engineer only agreement eliminating all conductors and trainmen positions on the Quebec, North Shore & Labrador Railroad (QNS&LR) in Canada leaving 49 conductors and trainmen jobless. This agreement permitted the railroad to operate trains with either one or two engineers and provided that engineers would assume the duties performed by conductors and trainmen.

1999

· AFL-CIO sanctions UTU for union raiding. In response UTU quits AFL-CIO

2000

· UTU tentative National Agreement embraces new technology, Black Box.

· UTU tentative National Agreement will eliminate the mileage component.

· UTU tentative National Agreement will create a pay rate based on a trip average for the train or division, salary.

· UTU tentative National Agreement will allow carrier to determine the earnings test period that will be used to establish the salary.

· UTU attempted a single craft vote on the UP but failed to convince the NMB that a single craft did exist on the UP.

· UTU successfully destroys the craft of conductor and engineer on the Tex Mex Railroad and creates a single craft. Give Hakey a hand or standing ovation for this debacle.

· UTU successfully destroys the craft of conductor and engineer on the Terminal Railroad Association of Saint Louis and creates a single craft.

· UTU successfully destroys the craft of conductor and engineer on the Manufacturers Railway and creates a single craft.

· UTU successfully destroys the craft of conductor and engineer on the Paducah & Louisville Railroad and creates a single craft.

2001

· Agreement with all class one railroads for the remote control on locomotives to be controlled by trainmen. Virtually eliminating all yard engineers.

· UTU circulated A-Cards on the KCS and petitioned the NMB for a single craft.

2002

· UTU brags on their web site that they will get rid of fifty yard engineers on the KCS. Through the trickle down effect trainmen will really be the ones eliminated.

· As a result of the UTU Black Box Agreement, UP advertises for trainmen to qualify on remote control operation of switch engines at Des Moines, thus eliminating engineers.

. 2003-04 Great loss on the representation election in Canada. Appealed and lost. Give Hakey another standing ovation.

How can anyone belong to a union that is doing everything in it's power to eliminate their craft and create a new single craft that would encompass all work on trains? UTU is practicing a form of self- predation. UTU feeds on them-selves.

The attempt of UTU to establish a single craft will do just that ESTABLISH A SINGLE CRAFT. By the time a representation vote is held, it's too late. The damage is already done. The single craft of Train and Engine Service Employee will have already been established by the NMB and the crafts of engineer and conductor will be gone forever.

All that remains is to decide who will represent the new craft in the formation of the new contract and lay off the junior employees.

In UTU's petition to the National Mediation Board for the UP single craft, they cited to the Florida East Coast Railway (FECRR). The FECRR has only one extra board that two men are called from to man the train. There is only one agreement.

Let's think about seniority for a moment. That's really all railroaders are concerned about beside their pay anyway. Generally speaking and as a rule of thumb, all recent mergers of seniority districts and crafts have gone with dovetail seniority lists using the earliest date of hire in the craft or crafts. UTU Vice President Guy Scarrow cited dovetailed seniority roster of engineers and conductors on the QNS&LR as a proper example of how seniority rosters should be handled when crafts are combined or eliminated.

That's right, engineers and conductors dovetailed together and all qualified for any service called for from that single list.

UTU may tell you that trainmen will have super seniority but make them show you what has been done recently on other railroads.

UTU may claim that there will still be two crafts. Let me ask you this. Why would a carrier make two separate agreements, one for trainmen and another for engineers when the NMB has agreed with UTU and ruled that there is only one new craft of train and engines service employees? Plain and simple the carriers won't.

This is just what the carriers want, one agreement for the entire system, one extra board per location, one general chairman and one local chairman to deal with. Not to mention reduced time claims, reduced labor costs and ultimately one more crew member reduced on freight trains. Yes that's right, the reduction of the last redundant crew member on a train.

One-man operation. One union, one craft, who's there to protect your interests? UTU, I think not. They have sold out every crew member they could, save one. Why will they stop now. Looking at the history of UTU agreements, it appears they are an extension of management and complying with the wishes of the AAR, NCCC think tank.

Why Are We Paying Dues to the BLE?

· For an Organization that represents trainman and engineers issues.

· For an Organization that believes in craft autonomy.

· For an Organization that is not an outcast in the organized labor community.

· For an Organization that is not attempting to eliminate the craft of either engineer or conductor.

· For an Organization that voted overwhelmingly not to merge with the UTU.

· For an Organization that will fight the UTU in it's attempt to eliminate the craft of engineer and conductor.