NEW YORK - The presidents of 12 of the nation's largest labor unions called Wednesday for reuniting the American labor movement, which split apart three and a half years ago when seven unions left the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and formed a rival federation, the New York Times reports.
The union presidents issued their joint call after the transition team for President-elect Barack Obama signaled that it would prefer dealing with a united movement, rather than a fractured one that often had two competing voices.
David E. Bonior, a member of Mr. Obama's economic transition team who withdrew from consideration as labor secretary, helped arrange and oversee a meeting of the union presidents on Wednesday in Washington.
The leaders are hoping, by April 15, to approve a plan to reunify, one union official said. But some officials said they might fail to reach agreement.
Mr. Bonior, a former House majority whip, said he would organize meetings with labor leaders over the next few weeks in the hope of hammering out details about what form a reunified labor federation would take.
The 12 union presidents issued a statement, saying: "The goal of the meeting is to create a unified labor movement that can speak and act nationally on the critical issues facing working Americans. While we represent the largest labor unions, we recognize that unity requires broad participation."
The call for reunification was something of an about-face for the presidents of the Service Employees International Union, the Teamsters and several other unions that quit the A.F.L.-C.I.O., asserting that the federation was stodgy and had not done enough to reverse organized labor's long decline. The breakaway unions formed a federation called Change to Win.
"There was a real sense of commitment to unifying our movement again," Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said Wednesday. "It was clear that many of us felt that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and we really want to do things to help American workers get their rightful place in society."
To bring about reunification, several labor leaders have called for revamping and modernizing the A.F.L.-C.I.O., traditionally the nation's main federation, currently with 56 member unions. But several labor leaders have called for replacing the A.F.L.-C.I.O. with a new, more dynamic group.
There was general agreement that any future federation should focus on political and legislative matters, while also serving to encourage individual unions to do more to organize workers.
The leaders of several breakaway unions have called for changing the name of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. because they had vowed never to return to the same federation.
But many A.F.L.-C.I.O. officials argue that it would be silly to alter the name of such a well-known organization and replace it with a name that few Americans are familiar with.
Labor officials said they did not discuss on Wednesday who would succeed John J. Sweeney, 74, who is scheduled to step down this year after heading the A.F.L.-C.I.O. for 13 years.
Richard Trumka, the federation's secretary-treasurer and former president of the United Mine Workers, has been lobbying among union presidents to succeed Mr. Sweeney. But some union leaders, especially those in the rival labor federation, say they want a fresh voice leading organized labor.
The reorganizing proposals that unions president have floated in recent days include a rotating presidency for the A.F.L.-C.I.O. or its successor federation, with the presidents of individual unions serving two-year terms as head of the parent federation.
One A.F.L.-C.I.O. official described that plan this way: "The dukes want to replace the king."
But many officials oppose a rotating presidency, saying the parent federation needs a strong, visible president who, by dint of serving for several years, is recognized by Congress and the news media as the undisputed voice for labor.
Several presidents have also called for creating a strong executive directors position, partly in the hope that the parent federation would have two strong voices rather than one.
Those at Wednesday's meeting included Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees union, who led the walkout in 2005; as well as the presidents of the Teamsters, the United Steelworkers, United Auto Workers, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
One somewhat surprising attendee was Dennis Van Roekel, president of the National Education Association, which, with 3.2 million members, is the nations largest labor union, but has traditionally remained outside any larger labor federations.
Officials from several Change to Win unions have said in recent months that they were seeing little advantage in maintaining a separate labor federation.
(This item appeared Jan. 8, 2009, in the New York Times.)
Wonder if utu is gonna haffta pay the fines for raiding the BLE?? That is, if We really do reunite. Or, maybe utu will just disaffiliate again??
UTU responds to unprovoked BLE&T raid
The UTU "will do everything necessary" to protect itself and its members from "aggression by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen," UTU International President Paul Thompson told BLE&T President Don Hahs in a letter dated July 14.
The letter followed a plea by Hahs and Teamsters President James Hoffa to BLE&T officers and members to engage in a nationwide raid on the UTU intended to destroy the UTU as an organization. Railroad employees "need to be part of the Teamsters Rail Conference," Hahs and Hoffa said, telling BLE&T represented locomotive engineers that they are in "a unique position" in the cab to recruit UTU members into the Teamsters-dominated BLE&T.
Thompson responded to Hahs that "since being elevated to International president of the UTU, I have reached out to you repeatedly and done all I could to make peace with the BLE&T. I even suggested we review the original merger documents and try to address what concerns you had with those documents. You have responded that peace is impossible unless the UTU joins you in an affiliation with the Teamsters Union.
"Now you have dropped a bomb on the UTU with a new raid on our members," Thompson said, adding:
The BLE&T has turned to being dominated by a non-railroad union, having admitted its failure at effectively representing its membership.
The BLE&T claims its affiliation with the Teamsters provides a new-found strength through the power of one million Teamsters who supposedly will stand behind the efforts of rail workers to obtain higher pay and more secure jobs.
What the BLE&T fails to say is that the Teamsters' National Master Freight Agreement with trucking companies contains a no-strike clause and requires a reduction in the number of highway trailers that may move by rail.
Moreover, railroad labor negotiations still are governed by the Railway Labor Act, which is designed specifically to prevent interruptions to interstate commerce. Rail work stoppages typically result in government intervention, such as the 1982 Van Wart Study Commission, which produced devastating results.
The Van Wart Study Commission came about after the BLE took its engineers out on strike in hopes it could make the locomotive engineer the highest paid crew member. That failed strike led to creation of the Van Wart Study Commission by the White House and Congress. The Van Wart Study Commission recommended a two-tier pay system, an increase in the basic day and no additional pay for the engineer.
The best contracts -- in the future, as in the past -- are those voluntarily negotiated and ratified by the membership. This has been the successful strategy of the UTU, which during the latest round of bargaining secured for its members across the board wage increases and obtained pay parity that resulted in huge increases for post-1985 employees. Additionally, with regard to health care, the UTU was the only organization that retained a zero-cost option for members, health care choices not available to other organizations and improved health care benefits.
The fact is that the Teamsters Union hasn't organized a major trucking company in almost 25 years.
Teamsters President Jim Hoffa promised when he took office that he would organize non-union Overnite Transportation, then owned by Union Pacific. The Teamsters abandoned attempts to organize Overnite and admitted failure of the colossally ignorant strike they called, which was the biggest flop since PATCO.
Some 12,000 flight attendants from Northwest Airlines recently disaffiliated with the Teamsters, saying the truck-driver dominated union had no interest in other crafts and disrespected them.
The Teamsters Central States Pension Plan is nearly bankrupt, and there is speculation that one aim of the Teamsters is to gain a sufficient number of railroad employees that they can make a grab for funds in the financially healthy Railroad Retirement fund -- a grab that would put current and future rail workers' pensions in jeopardy. I find it strange that the Teamsters contend that the reason the Central States Pension Plan is nearly bankrupt is due to the stock market. By contrast, the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund has earned approximately $7 billion over the past 30 months.
Separately, Thompson told UTU officers and members attending a regional meeting in Boston that, "Not in my administration will we ever become a member of the Teamsters organization."
CLEVELAND -- United Transportation Union President Paul Thompson has told his counterpart at the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen that the UTU will continue to speak the truth forcefully about the BLET and the Teamsters Union, which controls the BLET.
"At a time when all of labor should be working to defeat George W. Bush, you have chosen to continue to try and divide these two unions," Thompson wrote BLET President Don Hahs. The unprovoked attacks by the BLET and the Teamsters on the UTU began more than a year ago when Teamsters President Jim Hoffa encouraged BLET members and officers in a speech to "kick UTU's ass."
More recently, the BLET and Teamsters initiated a raid on UTU members principally by offering cut-rate scab dues and, in some cases, by waiving payment of dues in exchange for UTU members signing up with the BLET.
"You and I both know what is behind your efforts," Thompson wrote Hahs. "BLE has failed over the years to obtain crew consist agreements and protection for locomotive engineers as compared with the protection UTU has accomplished for our membership. With the face of new technology such as positive train control and the carriers' desire for one-man crews, the only way the BLET/Teamsters can begin to protect locomotive engineer positions is by taking control of UTU train service agreements so that those agreements can be exchanged for benefits in favor of locomotive engineers.
"Your organization has a proven record of doing just this on Montana Rail Link, I&M Rail Link and VIA Rail," Thompson said, providing three recent examples of the BLET selling-out trainmen after gaining control of the trainmen contract. Thompson reminded Hahs that the BLE "testified under oath" in a court cases that its promises to trainmen were nothing more than campaign rhetoric.
Thompson issued Hahs four challenges.
"The first challenge is for you to produce any evidence that UTU has ever instructed our membership to become scabs," Thompson wrote. "I can produce numerous proofs that the BLET has a history of such action" such as ordering its members to cross UTU picket lines on two occasions.
"The second challenge is to produce one piece of evidence where the AFL-CIO has ever denounced and censured UTU leadership for anti-union like activities," Thompson said. To the contrary, evidence exists of the AFL-CIO censuring the BLE.
"The third challenge is for you to explain to your membership why you and the BLET turned down the opportunity to have one-half of the remote control positions offered to you by UTU," Thompson wrote. "If you will recall, you wanted two engineers on each assignment and you were told we would give you half, but not all, of the remote control assignments.
"The fourth challenge is to explain to your membership why, after passing up the opportunity to gain one-half of the remote control assignments, you passed up a second opportunity for protection for engineers," Thompson wrote. "UTU was successful in negotiating up to one-half of the protection slots for engineers regardless of union affiliation."
Following is the full text of the Thompson letter to Hahs:
September 23, 2004
Mr. D. M. Hahs, President Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen 1370 Ontario Street Mezzanine Cleveland, Ohio 4413-1702
Dear Mr. Hahs:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated September 16, 2004, wherein you take exception to articles we have posted on the UTU website. You then state, "you have chosen to attack this organization and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters."
You and your organization never cease to amaze me as to how you twist the facts to your choosing. Let's set the record straight as to who started attacking whom. First and foremost, you are well aware that subsequent to my becoming UTU President, I contacted you to have lunch with me to discuss working together and trying, once again, to put these two organizations together. You insisted that this could be done only under the umbrella of the Teamsters Union. You were informed that UTU had no interest in becoming part of the Teamsters and I accepted your position.
Assistant President Rick Marceau and I then met with you and First Vice President Ed Rodzwicz in Las Vegas and we further discussed the advantages of putting these two organizations together. Again, we were informed that it had to be accomplished within the Teamsters Organization. At no time did I attack your decision regarding the Teamsters. I accepted your point of view and hoped that we could have a relationship that would benefit members of both our organizations.
In addition to that set forth above, I also called a meeting of all Rail Labor Presidents and/or their representatives at our Washington, D.C. Office to commit UTU to work more closely with the rest of Rail Labor and hopefully bring peace to Rail Labor Organizations once and for all. All Rail Labor was present at this meeting with the exception of the BLET/Teamsters. I still made no comment or took issue with the fact that you and your organization were not present.
During the time UTU was attempting to bring peace to all of Rail Labor, you and the BLET/Teamsters initiated an organizing drive against our membership. In early July, while I was attending our Regional Meeting in Boston, I received information that the BLET/Teamsters were putting an all out effort on attacking and organizing UTU train service members. You mailed applications and pamphlets explaining how much the BLET/Teamsters could do for train service members if they would drop their membership from UTU. I immediately wrote to you expressing my shock at the manner in which you intended to continue promoting the hatred between our two organizations.
I advised you that I would confront your attack full force by informing UTU members of the reasons behind the latest BLET/Teamsters all-out attack on our membership.
You and I both know what is behind your efforts. BLE has failed over the years to obtain crew consist agreements and protection for locomotive engineers as compared with the protection UTU has accomplished for our membership. With the face of new technology such as Positive Train Control and the Carriers' desire for one (1) man crews, the only way the BLET/Teamsters can begin to protect locomotive engineer positions is by taking control of UTU train service Agreements so that those Agreements can be exchanged for benefits in favor of locomotive engineers.
Your organization has a proven record of doing just this on Montana Rail Link, I & M Rail Link and VIA Rail. In fact, during the court case on VIA Rail regarding the promise made to Conductors during a representation election, your organization under oath, testified that those promises were nothing more than organizing promises.
You are correct that you have been accepting applications of former UTU members who are joining the BLET. What you have failed to mention is that the real reason you are obtaining these applications is because the BLET/Teamsters are offering free or extremely reduced dues to UTU members. Most of these individuals know little about the BLE's past history, so they join on unfounded promises and scab dues. You fail to mention that an equivalent number of BLET members are joining the UTU, but, in this case, for reasons of representation rather than lower dues.
It takes a lot of gall to say UTU has chosen to attack your organization and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I have a video tape of a BLE/Teamsters meeting on June 30, 2003, in which Jimmy Hoffa promises to "kick UTU's ass." That is the most undignified comment that I have heard coming from any true Labor Organization. I can fully understand why you do not want to respond to any of the articles on our UTU website.
Rest assured that I will continue advising our UTU membership of the factual history of the BLE. I am posting a copy of this letter on our website along with 12 Irrefutable Truths concerning both of these organizations.
I will offer you several challenges. The first challenge is for you to produce any evidence that UTU has ever instructed our membership to become scabs. We never have nor will we ever instruct our membership to become scabs. I can produce numerous proofs that the BLET has a history of such action.
The second challenge is to produce one piece of evidence where the AFL-CIO has ever denounced and censured UTU Leadership for anti-union like activities. I can produce such evidence on the part of the BLET.
The third challenge is for you to explain to your membership why you and the BLET turned down the opportunity to have one-half of the remote control positions offered to you by UTU. If you will recall, you wanted two (2) engineers on each assignment and you were told we would give you half but not all of the remote control assignments.
The fourth challenge is to explain to your membership why after passing up the opportunity to gain one-half of the remote control assignments, you passed up a second opportunity for protection for engineers. UTU was successful in negotiating up to one-half of the protection slots for engineers regardless of union affiliation.
The record speaks for itself when it comes to representing our membership. We even looked out for the locomotive engineers affected by remote control and you and your organization denied your membership this protection that UTU was willing to share with the engineers represented by your organization. Why?
I am sorry that you have forced me to write this letter. After all, it was you and your organization that started this latest attack. At a time when all of Labor should be working to defeat George W. Bush, you have chosen to continue to try and divide these two unions.
Sincerely,
Paul C. Thompson International President
cc: R. L. Marceau, Assistant President D. E. Johnson, General Secretary & Treasurer D. L. Hakey, Vice President-Administration All UTU International Officers All U. S. Rail General Chairpersons All State Legislative Directors
Following is the full text of the Hahs letter to Thompson:
September 16, 2004
P.C. Thompson President, UTU 14600 Detroit Avenue Cleveland, OH 44107
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This letter is in response to your recent articles on the UTU website. Once again, you have chosen to attack this organization and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The articles are full of the same old rhetoric you have used in previous articles posted on the UTU website. It is unfortunate for your members that you choose to spend your time and the resources of the UTU in attacking other labor organizations. I believe labor organizations exist to represent their members. Apparently, you believe the UTU exists to attempt to destroy or discredit other labor organizations. No one should wonder why the UTU is no longer an affiliate of the AFL-CIO.
As usual, these most recent articles are once again full of inaccurate and untrue statements. I will not even give such articles the respect of responding to all of the false statements and allegations contained therein. You may refer to my letter dated July 16, 2004, addressed to you and posted on our website for my position as to your rhetoric.
The UTU has many good members and they are deserving of a leadership that focuses on representing them. Why don't you get back to doing your job and providing representation for UTU members? In the meantime, if you choose not to do so, we will continue accepting the applications of former UTU members who are joining the BLET. Keep it up; our total membership is growing on a steady basis due to the UTU's lack of leadership and total nonsense letter writing campaign.
The BLET has an outright fabrication on its website, with an equally dishonest headline: "UTU seeks sell-out of BNSF engineers."
The BLET wrongly charges that UTU proposes to eliminate locomotive engineer jobs on the BNSF in Washington and Oregon.
The truth is that BNSF Railway is seeking to eliminate -- with the assistance of their lapdog union, the BLET -- job protections that the UTU painstakingly achieved for its members.
We smell a pair of skunks -- and their names are BNSF Railway and BLET.
Here is what the BNSF, with the assistance of its lapdog BLET, is seeking to eliminate:
A crew consist agreement requiring two UTU-represented employees -- a switch foreman and a switchman -- on each crew;
A rule granting UTU-represented employees the exclusive right to operate remotely controlled locomotives;
A rule granting UTU employees the exclusive right to perform all ground service work;
Rules stipulating that a UTU-represented employee (conductor or foreman) is the employee in charge of the crew.
What is going on here is that the BLET has no job protection for its own members, and is trying to sell out the job protections the UTU has achieved for its members.
Fact: The BLET has no rule requiring BNSF to use a BLET-represented employee on any crew.
Fact: The BLET has no rule requiring BNSF to use a BLET-represented employee to operate RCL locomotives.
Fact: The BLET has no rule entitling a BLET-represented employee to perform switchman's work.
Fact: The BLET has no rule stipulating that an engineer will be the employee in charge of a crew.
Fact: The BLET could have had a guarantee of 50 percent of all remote control assignments. That guarantee was offered by the UTU if the BLE merged with the UTU. Instead, the BLE chose to merge with a truck driver's union.
So what has BLET General Chairman Dennis R. Pierce done to remedy the failure of BLET to protect its own members? Pierce climbed in bed with BNSF management and proposed eliminating a UTU-represented remote control position and replacing that position with a locomotive engineer.
Pierce's screw-another-craft proposal came after the BNSF threatened to sell off various yards to short-line operators, who would not be required to honor existing labor agreements. The BNSF said it would relent if the BLET and UTU agreed to concessions to reduce labor costs by 25 percent.
The UTU, knowing the BNSF is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut, said, "Hell, no. We won't be intimidated." The UTU knows how the BNSF operates -- such as the BN's failed attempt years ago to use its subsidiary, Winona Bridge, to beat UTU crew-consist agreements.
But the BNSF is a crafty devil, ready to exploit differences between the UTU and the BLET through a divide-and-conquer strategy.
This is just as BN did by selling off Montana Rail Link years ago -- with the BLET jumping into bed with the carrier and freezing the UTU out of representation. Of course, the UTU struck the BN and made it stick in court, eventually winning a good measure of labor protection for trainmen who lost their jobs on BN.
But when BNSF tried its scam again -- by threatening to sell yards to short-line operators -- the BLET again took the bait while the UTU again told the carrier to pound salt.
That bait was taken -- hook, line and sinker -- by the BLET's Pierce, who made what he calls a "compromise." The BLET, said Pierce, "suggested that the carrier operate with two-man crews in the yard -- one BLET-represented locomotive engineer and one UTU-represented remote control operator."
These yard assignments currently consist of one locomotive engineer and two yardmen, or two remote control yardmen assignments.
If you reduce the crew to two -- an engineer and a UTU-represented remote control operator -- where is Pierce's compromise?
The compromise is a BLET sell-out of one UTU-represented train service position while preserving the engineer on the assignment.
And, on a two-person remote control assignment, with two UTU-represented RCL operators, where is Pierce's compromise?
Again, the compromise is a BLET sell-out of another craft, leaving one engineer and one UTU-represented RCL operator.
Disgracefully, the BLET's so-called compromise eliminates UTU positions protected by crew-consist agreements and remote control agreements in favor of the engineer.
Those being the facts, the BLET is now trying to blame the UTU.
It was only after the UTU became aware of the BLET's attempt to sell-out a UTU-represented employee that the UTU made its own proposal to the BNSF.
The UTU proposed two RCL operators, with one RCL operator being a conductor qualified as an engineer.
This would have satisfied UTU's crew-consist agreements, protected UTU-represented employees and addressed BNSF's concerns.
The BNSF turned down the UTU proposal in favor of the BLET's because the BNSF is attempting to open up crew consist -- and the BLET is an all-too-willing partner in this carrier treachery.
What we have is another tawdry example of how the BLET operates -- disguising its own ineptness in failing to protect engineers by seeking to sell-out another craft -- and then blaming the UTU. It's like the child who murdered his parents and then who pleads for mercy on account of his being an orphan.
As with the Lake Erie Plan, as with its capitulation in the Montana Rail Link deal, as with the sell-out of conductors on VIA Rail, as with its collaboration with carriers in helping to eliminate the fireman's craft in the 1960s, as with its scabbing when attempts were made to restore firemen, and as with its scabbing against the UTU on the Soo Line in the 1990s, the BLET is back to its foul ways.
Had the BLE and UTU come together under the UTU's craft-autonomy protection, carriers would not be able to play the two organizations against one another. Instead, the BLE chose to align itself with a truck drivers' union.
The BLET is just unable to stop selling out other crafts. The leopard can't change its spots. What a shame, because all of rail labor is the loser as a result.
I have received a considerable number of letters, telephone calls and e-mail messages from you asking if the current United Transportation Union leadership believes our union should be affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Your calls, letters and expressions of opinion are valued and greatly appreciated.
It is apparent, and your messages clearly indicate, that the men and women of the United Transportation Union want to depart from the previous administration's policies and reaffiliate with the AFL-CIO. To be sure, your officers, in fact, have been acting to become affiliated with the federation.
I personally met on your behalf with AFL-CIO President John Sweeney in June and requested that he favorably consider our union's application for membership in the AFL-CIO. You have my assurances that Brother Sweeney is processing our application, and reports indicate that a majority of the federation's members are enthusiastic regarding the prospects of UTU's affiliation with the House of Labor.
Be that as it may, many of your communications ask the question, and you are entitled to know, why UTU's application is taking such a long time to process.
To answer your questions, the Teamsters organization, together with its recent merger partners, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes (BMWE), are working hard to prevent the UTU from reaffiliating with the AFL-CIO. You should be aware of a video showing Teamsters President Jim Hoffa speaking at a BLE regional conference in Baltimore, Md., where Mr. Hoffa declared their intention to "kick UTU's ass" when and if BLE agreed to join Teamsters.
Everyone has a right to defend themselves against attack. Yet the Teamsters are demanding that the UTU not be permitted to reaffiliate with the AFL-CIO because of UTU actions taken in defense of our labor organization - a conclusion apparent in view of the Teamsters' president's latest letter asking other labor organizations to withdraw their expressions of support in behalf of UTU's request to reaffiliate with the federation.
I know you would like the UTU to work within the AFL-CIO on what is really important today, which is organizing the unorganized and improving the wages, benefits and working conditions of all union members. However, beginning with the Teamsters' president's promise to "kick UTU's ass", the Teamsters and BLET apparently adopted a different agenda -- one intended to destroy the UTU.
Since its merger with the Teamsters, the BLET has embarked on a policy of offering UTU members lower dues, and, in some cases, zero dues to satisfy any union-shop obligations. This effort clearly is intended to entice railroad workers to quit the UTU and join the BLET.
Recently, the BLET and BMWE unsuccessfully sought to strip the UTU of its weighted voting rights within the Cooperating Rail Labor Organizations (CRLO), which deals with health-care issues involving the major railroads. A strong majority of other rail labor organizations voted against that attack on the UTU, and the BLET and BMWE were not successful. UTU members are extremely appreciative of this support and they are communicating their appreciation in the meeting halls and workplace.
Meanwhile, the BMWE, in an attempt to convey misinformation harmful to the UTU, has wrongly accused a UTU spokesperson of calling other rail labor leaders "fools." This incorrect accusation was made after the UTU elected not to give power of attorney to a newly formed coordinated bargaining coalition led by the Teamsters. Given the attacks launched against the UTU by the Teamsters and its affiliates, the BLET and BMWE, our spokesperson quite accurately told a newspaper reporter, "Only a fool would open the hen house door and provide a power of attorney and surrender negotiating authority to someone who might not have the best interests of UTU at heart." The term "fool" referred to the UTU and it would indeed have been foolish for UTU to grant power of attorney to a Teamster-led bargaining coalition. Moreover, the UTU Constitution does not permit this.
I have since communicated with BMWE President Freddie Simpson by letter and also provided him a detailed history of BLET (former BLE) scab actions, including crossing picket lines lawfully established by UTU and its predecessors, seeking to bargain away UTU jobs and eliminating craft protections, together with evidence of other disturbing behavior, such as opposing both the establishment of public law boards and a reduction of the maximum hours a railroad operating employee can be forced to work under the Hours of Service law.
You may recall that the BLET also opposed Railroad Retirement reform. This opposition resulted in a one-year delay in lowering the retirement age for full Railroad Retirement benefits to age 60. The BLET's opposition also delayed an increase of benefits for certain survivors of rail employees.
The UTU letter to BMWE President Simpson also explained how the UTU offered the BLET half of all remote control positions, but the BLET declined that offer because BLET President Hahs instead demanded two BLET-represented engineer positions on each remote control assignment, thereby eliminating the jobs of conductors. In spite of that position, the UTU agreed to reserve up to one-half its remote control benefits for locomotive engineers, and again the BLET refused to accept the offer simply because the benefits package was negotiated by UTU.
I know that each of you share my belief that all labor organizations should today be working within the framework of the AFL-CIO for the benefit of American working families, and I want you to be aware that I personally informed AFL-CIO President John Sweeney that when the UTU is readmitted to the AFL-CIO, we intend to abide by all articles of the AFL-CIO Constitution.
With best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season to all of you and your families, I remain,
