EL PASO EXPRESS

New Reno Edition                                          June 2000

http://home.elp.rr.com/elpasoexpress

Note: Aprroximately 200 copies of the "new reno" edition were passed out at the recent Reno Regional meeting.   Below is the content of that newsletter, about 50 of which were handed out immediately before Sac-C's "historic (?)" speech.  You can read it on the UTU's web site now and I was unable to see it on the web site?  Of course, I saw it live and can't imagine it could be any worse on the web?  The only thing "historic" about it was the hundreds of thousands of dollars the UTU heirarachy wasted to virtually say absolutely nothing?  Nothing about the harassment the employees endure daily, the rejected claims, the long hours of work,  shortages on pay checks, the lawsuit against the UP switchmen in LA, or anything of real substance.   Indeed, If one didn't know any better, the only enemy is the "three letter union" and everything is just fine.  Sac-C did "let the cat out of the bag" if you know how to look for it:  We will have an agreement before November and you will get it in arbitration when we vote it down.  Remember, this newsletter was circulated before Sac-C spoke. Oh, and it has now been confirmed by two "truthful" members of the Board of Directors that they did pass a resolution allowing Charlie to live in Austin.  Rest assured he is receiving $113 a day per diem to be in semi-retirement.

WELCOME! You have accessed the latest edition of the El Paso Express, either by use of the above internet address or you have received a copy in the mail or personally at the Reno Regional Meeting. In any event, rumors that the "new" Express is a kinder, gentler newsletter may or may not be confirmed in this latest edition - "U" be the judge. The focus of the Express has been and continues to be Union Corruption, i.e., crticism of those "union leaders" who go the extra mile to take care of themselves rather than those they allegedly represent.

When what you’re saying makes so much sense? To who Charlie? The National Carriers Conference, the American Association of Railroads, Dick Davidson, Rob Krebs, those who share your vision of the "unity initiative", those who stand up an applaud on que because they are Speical Reps, Field Supervisors or supportive high paid Union Officers all on the same page now with the exit of "Except One"? Did it ever occur to you to say something that makes sense to the working members down in the trenches? You know, the ones who have to work 70 to 90 hour weeks while you pat yourself on the back for developing the "Work Rest Guideline"; the ones losing their seniority to junior men because you took away their rightful vote and concentrated it in the hands of a few; the ones working with an inferior contract because you had the "courage" to ignore their vote; the ones who had to pay for the folley of "Your War Chest" only to see you fall flat on your face (how’s that Reconsideration going? Ha Ha); the ones who live with short pay checks, declined good claims, and constant harassment while you tell us everything is coming up roses? So tell me Sac-C, are you the "leadership" referred to in this quote:

"8. Plaintiff (UPRR) has been informed by the leaderhip of the UTU that any slowdown, work stoppage or strike at West Colton Hump Yard by Local 1813 or individual switchpersons represented by Local 1813 is not sanctioned or ratified by the UTU, is unlawful, and is not in accordance with the agreements entered into pursuant to the RLA."

This from the pitiful, shameless "First Amended Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and for Declaratory Judgment and Damage" against various switchman and local officers in the Roseville/Los Angeles hubs! Say what, you haven’t heard about this - "U" don’t read the UTU News or keep up to date on the UTU Website? Oppps, sorry, it’s not mentioned in either of those places; that is for real important stuff like letters from members explaining how the union is doing the best it can, scholarships, RRB information of the Surplus give back to the carriers, and berating the BLE! So the railroad is suing a few members, can’t effect us can it?

Yes, Houston Texas members were some of the first to experience the damage Sac-C had wrought with his "Committment Letter", and his position, recevied with the help of Yost and Boyd, that the Carrier gets to select the agreement for each hub, thereby also selecting which General Chairman Sac-C wanted running the show and controlling the Miami Convention. Early in this Debacle (no pun intended), Little showed how the UTU Constitution was Sacrosanct, he detemined that getting rid of everyone’s system seniority and placing them in "little" hubs was not a system agreement and therefore only needed the concurrence of a majority of the local chairman in these so called "implementing agreements".

While it never made sense to me, nor the average member, the Board of Directors clearly knew Sac-C was right as usual and the membership was stuck at the mercy of a majority of the local chairman for their seniority, working conditions, etc. in each hub after the UPRR selected the agreement Charlie wanted (or they got by piting General Chairman against each other as to who would modify their agreement best for UPRR wherein your agreement will be selected and you get to keep those high paying Committee positions while those that couldn’t adapt went back to working on the railroad). Sound familiar? Now the botched Houston Hub Seniority as a result of falsified records for equity was eventually corrected with the Carvatta Award (or so I’m told?). Indeed, one of the few times the Union and Carrier conspired to fix something with Arbitration (better than the lawsuit they UPRR/UTU were going to lose) rather than sell out the members with it like O’brien, Yost, Smoot, National Agreement, etc.

Gee, If I was "UTU leadership" I would have been inclined to say: Look Dick (Davidson), there is no slowdown out there. Your lower level managers are giving discipline all over the system and the employees have had to begin 100% rules compliance only to protect themselves. Sure, there is going to be attendent loss of production and you’re not going to be able to maintain the production levels of the past, but look at the bright side, less injuries. In fact, Dick, I don’t understand why you went back to getting on and off moving equipment - it’s just dangerous and causes to much stress on the body. Hell, Dick, the BNSF doesn’t do it and they don’t seem to be experiencing any problems; in fact, I talked with Rob yesterday and he said business has never been better and safety is improving dramatically. So stop being such a dickhead and treat the employees right, stop those trainmasters from hiding in the weeds, and everything will take care of itself!

So what is the "problem" in LA (and/or Roseville)? Is it those skewed seniority rosters? Allegedly it is not if you can believe "discussion boards"? Maybe, just maybe it is a combination of seniority and the April 10, 2000 change in the LA Hub implementing agreement agreed to by the General Chairman and forced upon the yardmen? Inquiring minds have always wanted to know how a General Chairman can change implementing agreements or New York Dock protection, without consulting with the membership? Kinda like local chairman having the authority to change everyones seniority dates without asking the affected employees? To quote Judge Economus: sounds "improper, if not illegal"!

How about it Clint? You gonna represent these employees are will you go behind closed doors and suggest that if the judge gives a good judment against the employees, we can use it as leaverage against having to fix the seniority? Hey, ANYBODY out there want to acknowledge they are the one that came up with the "template", brakeman hire date for Conductor date, brakeman’s dual seniority date for yardmen’s date? Did you come up with that skewed system Futhey? I mean, think about it folks, we had all these hubs before us that use various systems of equity, dovetail, etc. and some genius in the LA hub came up with something "completely different? Something so unfair and detrimental to the sacred right of "seniority" that it must be fixed or go to the courthouse! I am reminded of the case the Board of Appeals heard wherein a roster was created to use the Brakeman’s hire out date rather than the actual Conductors date. I always believed the General Chairman did agree to it, he just forgot to get any input from his Conductors. Suffice to say the Conductors date is being used as it should have been. Ultimately, that will be the case here also, it just remains to be seen if UTU can run up the kind to legal bill they did in Volkman to pretend they were right?

So what is Sac-C going to say that is so worthwhile that we have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to be "the first union" to broadcast live on the interactive net? We have no law suits pending; we are in great financial shape; we expect to win our motion for reconsideration; we are winning the battle with the BLE for members, we are very close to a great National Agreement? If he says any of those things I hope he prefaces each statement with "Trust Me" because then you will know, as I know already, that he is lying again (how did we pay for that damn bus, anyway?)!

Is it all just more smoke and mirrors; wine and dine em and get them all on your side - the elite union heirarchy who are fat, dumb, happy and either don’t have a clue how mad the dues paying working members are or perhaps don’t care? If the shoe fits, wear it; my point is that the shoe does fit on Mr. Little, despite how much us members may have to pay for wonderful speeches. Looking presidential and saying the words doesn’t mean you believe in them! Let’s examine some of the "little Legacy" to date.

He took over 3 or 4 months early by buying out Tom Dubose and promising him future wages until he hit retirement age. While DuBose received about 95 G’s in 1996, he performed no functions that I know of? Did the Department of Labor stop these payments? Don’t know, I just know we have "TOO MANY SECRETS"! Hell, if they did stop them, did Sac-C find away around the decision by paying him "appearance fees" to attend Regional Meetings and give speeches touting his good friend Charlie Little and what a great job he was doing?

Immediately he took 7 million dollars out of the Job Benefit Fund, allegedly to save us money? I assure you it was "improper, if not illegal" (my guess is illegal if the DOL ever makes a ruling or the matter goes to court), it played a role in the breakdown of the formulation of the "new union" between BLE and UTU (our finances really were and still are very, very suspect - particularly if the "loans" from the JB Fund had to be repaid in a lump sum), and allegedly another high priced Washington Law Firm is working on the case?

Next, he reversed the position of Tom DuBose and decided his good friend Robert W. Earley should be paid his legal fees. His counsel then did what he does best, i.e., "keep us in the game until I can cut a deal", and Articles 25, 27, 44, and 75 I became meaningless in one fell swoop called the "Settlement Agreement and Release"! Yes, indeed, before "Sacrosanct Charlie" should have ever served his first day as President on January 1, 1996, he had set the tone for his administration that has not changed to this date and he has never looked back! The future is where it’s at, Right Charlie - The new mellenium and the Power of One!

Arbitration by "executive session" wherein we cheat members out of their entitlement, their collective bargaining agreement, their seniority, and their right to vote are all part of the "little Legacy"! Millions and millions for the so called "unity initiative" to take over the BLE and make all of us "train and engine service employees" just like on the short lines! The petition was specious (read the Washington Edition - I shall bring 40 or 50 with me for anyone who would like to know why this switchman always knew the decision before it was made) and had no chance of being approved short of outright bribery! How will Sac-C (excuse me, ah, Mr. Edloe) put a positive spin on this? How will he put a positive spin on the Smoot issue? Probably be my guess he won’t mention it at all or we will hear more lies! How do you put a positive spin on the fact that the members already know the new National Agreement will again be cosumated in Arbitration after we have turned it down in record numbers? Inquiring minds want to know?

Yes, the Express has gone interactive also - no we don’t have the coin to have spiffy speech writers of webcasts. We do it with this cheap ass questionairre that each dues paying member can ask the members of the Board of Directors if they passed a resolution allowing Sac-C to live in Austin, i.e. you are interacting with the union heirarchy and always remember if they wont answer, they work for you (your dues pay their salaries), not vice versa. Did you pass said resolution and please comment if yes on whether Sac-C gets per diem while living at home.

Name                  YES              NO              NO COMMENT

Boyd

Thompson

Bunkenhoefer

Patsouras                 X

Wigent                     X

Secord

McNellis

Scarrow

Futhey

Marceau

Gotta run - short edition of Express do to time. Hang in there, have a nice day, and come meet me in Reno?