Armageddon!
Yes, that alleged mythical great battle from the Bible between the forces of good and evil! Or in the instant case, the name given some three years ago in the El Paso Express to the National Agreement Sacrosanct Charlie would deliver unto his flock at the last supper before handsome, debonair, who needs eloquence, Sac-C rides off into the sunset to his million dollar Austin home with more "trip rates" in a Swiss bank account than any of us will make in our career! Opps, excuuuuuuuusssseeeee me, I didn't mean to imply he was retiring. Hell, he's already retired to Austin on full pay and per diem, ain't he?
Questions on National Agreement
1. Assume that a pool exists between Bess and Cloy, with Bess as the home terminal, and Cloy as the away from home terminal:
Bess_____________________________________________________Cloy
Would a start, as used in the Agreement, involve a trip from Bess to Cloy, or would it involve a trip from Bess to Cloy and the return trip from Cloy to Bess?
What rate of compensation, if any, would be applicable to service performed by crews at the away from home terminal, at Cloy?
2. Assume that yard engines are assigned and on duty around the clock at both Bess and Cloy.
Would a road crew, as part of the "trip rate" as used in the Agreement, be required to perform yard switching at either Bess or Cloy, without additional compensation? Could a road crew, while at Cloy be called to perform yard service?
If the answer is in the affirmative, what safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure the preservation of the yard engine assignments?
3. No specific mention is made in the "Agreement" to held away from home terminal payments.
Would HAHT payments still be in place and payable, in the same manner/s, as existed prior to the date of the Agreement?
4. The historical precedents which involved the payment/s of arbitraries, specifically for purposes of this question, initial and final terminal delay, had origin in providing incentives for the RR to move the freight in a timely manner consistent with the public interest.
What safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure that the RR carriers will not utilize the "trip rate" to disregard the timely movement of trains? Please answer in light of the mega-mergers which now place many shippers in the position of "captive shippers"?
5. What safeguards, if any, are in place, in the specific language of the "Agreement" to ensure expedited movement/s of crew which tie up under the Hours of Service, enroute.
6. Will the "trip rates" as anticipated in the "Agreement" have any impact on existing "TPA’s" in place on any railroad as a consequence of prior mergers, changes in I.D. service, etc? Specifically, since the "TPA’s" were established and based on monthly rates of pay, would they remain in place and only be adjusted consistent with the pay and COLA increases of the "Agreement"?
7. Does this Agreement provide the Carrier any right to require a certain number of trips per half, month, or year in order to receive the full trip rate compensation?
Assuming the answer is No, what will prevent the Carrier from taking the position that since the trip rate was derived by using a one year test period and dividing all earnings identified by the total through freight starts that any employee must make the average number of starts per year in order to qualify for the full trip rate?
8. If a dual pay scale was unfair in the past to new hire employees, why is it now acceptble for those hired after January 1, 2003 and why does the carrier get to determine the scale?
Fraternally,
Lance E. Ruck
Local Chairman
UTU Local #1571
This letter was of course addressed to my General Chairman, Mr. Jim Huston, consistent with the practice of allowing the General Chairmen to present questions for the Q&A portion of the National Agreement.
Obviously, there are former Express readers wondering why is Ruck asking questions, could he posssibly be considering supporting this Agreement depending upon the answers he receives? PLEEEEEAASSSSSSSSEE, OF COURSE NOT - I EXPECTED A SELLOUT BUT NEVER IN MY WILDEST DREAMS DID I EXPECT SOMETHING AS NEBULOUS AND DAMAGING AS THIS PIECE OF FECES - Ah, Shit for you switchman ("others in the industry'?).
Indeed, does any Q and A mean anything to me no matter what it states? NO, for several reasons. First, Q & A's in recent agreements were quite clear yet the Carrier consistently turns down good claims based upon those Q & A's - particularly during the last "RUCKING TEST PERIOD YEAR"!!! Second, I spent 4 years on the International Board of Appeals hearing many, many Article 90 equity disputes. One thing that struck a nerve with me in most of these proceedings was the suspect records the Carrier's provided to the unions as a basis for equity, i.e., they could basically fabricate or change anything they had to get the desired result depending on who they want to screw. Third and just simple common sense to me, you don't change a pay system in effect for decades with a new approach with rates to be named later by the Carrier's records? Are you fucking kidding me Sac-C and "little bb", are you guys that gullible or just that corrupt? Ah, well based upon my experience with the Smoot Case, it would be the latter, OF COURSE!
Now one might reasonalby ask why are the International Officers and General Chairmen in favor of this agreement? Well, real rucking simple, THEY DON'T GET TRIP RATES! They get a cumulative total raise of 18 or 20% for less work (claims handling and all associated proceedings involving them will be cut by probably more than 75 %). On the other hand, when the Carrier is through playing their games with the figues and finding alternate pay for our raises, the MEMBERSHIP will be working more for less! Let's see if we grasp the concerpt - Members work more for less and Union heirarchy works less for more? By Jove, I think youv'e got it.
Of course, the sad part of the story has also been stated by me for several years - Doesn't make any difference how you vote because this is your agreement! I understand Sac-C dodged the question "if the agreement is turned down will it go to binding arbitration" in the General Chairmen meeting in California with some bullshit about going to court? Yea, right Monty - Ah, and I bet it will be to "fight the good fight"? For those of you unfamiliar with the Smoot Case, fighting the good fight from Sac-C, "little bb", and Monty means you go to court to appear that you are fighting for the member's rights when in actuallity you are there to lose to the Carrier's position and solidify their case with NO alternatives left!
Wait a minute Ruck - we gots us a "disputes committee" that's final and binding? Yea, and I say we hire "fighting bob earley" as a consultant to chair that committee. Now we have the ability to agree with the Carrier without having to try to convince a neutral in ''EXECUTIVE SESSION"! Unfortunately you reap what you sow, i.e., I have no faith in the Carriers to play fair in the implementation of the trip rates, etc. and even less faith in the union heirarchy based upon sound past practice and personal experience.
I regret I can not delve into this subject in greater detail right now as I must travel to Belen for the Sac-P meeting tomorrow. I have a Safety meeting Friday! I just got back from a Corporate Diversity Meeting in Kansas City for three days and one half day union business to visit the office of the General Chairman. Am I a company whore? Hardly, they have cancelled 10 or 10 "attendance guidlines" notices. Indeed, I see more clearly everyday and I received several "revelations" at this Diversity meeting that made it all well worthwhile for the members I respresent. I shall address those issues in the near future and have a great deal more to say about this agreement - not it's content or the fact that Sac-C and/or congress will shove it down our throats (makes no difference if it's Bore or Shrub!) after we turn it down in record numbers - but more appropriately what we may actually have to consider to get our fair share of the pie!
I am receiving a lot of email with questions that have been submitted, etc. and I shall throw all that stuff on here for those who may be interested and may not have received it personally.
I talked with Jack Arnold last night and he wanted me to tell everyone the following: 1. I told you so! 2. We are going to march on Cleveland. 3. He has written a letter to the esteemed Mr. Little and I shall share that with you as soon as he forwards it to me! I have also had some email with Roger - ah, the other candidate (Mr. Griffeth) and it seems he is getting a lot of email that says "I made a mistake". I guess my only question is has he got any yet that say "if I could give back that hotel reimbusment, I'd vote for you now"! (haha)
In closing, allow me to share a letter from a dear friend to Mr. Griffeth. Many if not all the union (both BLE and UTU) heirarchy and upper management UP/SP are familiar with this individual and are extremely overjoyed he is out of the industry. He has had an influx of email and calls from all over the country wanting his opinion. Sadly, his health does not allow him the luxuory of continuing to participate in the everyday union forum. He is still actice in the Smoot Case and does "consulting" for FELA lawyers in a few cases. I suspect I am one of a few who still enjoys the ability to converse regularly with him and seek his opinion.
Mr. Griffeth:
As it is common knowledge that you are an engineer, I would propose the following:
Since the proposed ( soon to be implemented ) UTU National Agreement,
addresses the issue/s that the rates of pay, etc., would apply to
engineers, in the event that the BLE is unable to reach an agreement
with the NCC, and opts for a strike as was done in 1985, is it possible
or probable that BLE would end up with the same agreement?
In the alternative, could UTU adoption of this agreement have any effect
on the so-called "single craft" issue?
Since Charlie says this agreement does everything the members requested, would it be fair
to say that if I agreed to take you to dinner at the Waldorf Astoria, that I could take
you there and have a big Mac in my briefcase to give you to eat when we arrived, and then
proclaim that I had complied with my obligation to take you to dinner at the Waldorf?
Is it possible that all the salaried UTU elected officers are so "in
favor" of the agreement since from their point of view it only
represents a pay raise and reduction in duties?
After the adoption of this agreement, what would the General Chairmen
and VP's have to do? It is clear that time claims will no longer be an
issue, and that represents a significant part of the duties of both, so
how could their positions and pay be justified? It would appear that
technology and productivity issues would be in place to attrite some, if
not all of their jobs, so would they go the route of the arbitraries,
i.e. non-essential?
Just wondering!!!
RAC, Jr.
Thanks Bob, while you don't have the stamina you use to have and your mental capacity seems to have regressed 20 or 30%, you are still twice a smart as those Railroad and Union leaders! 5 times smarter that most of them damn "lawyers"! Well, let my qualify that as I'm not talking about the "real" lawyers like Ari Jaffe, Steve Felson, or the older well-established guy who is about to take Smoot's case against UTU and CSXT for "malicious prosecution". No, I'm talking those "fake lawyers" who will do anything for money. I would name Clinton "monty hall" Miller, Dion "slime time" Hayes, John "Rambo" Edmonds, and Merritt "sumary bench trial" Green, III but I would probably be sued? Oh, well, pro se one more time and publish every filing they ever made (matters of public record - opps, in Green's case all the ones he forgot to file {haha} ) and let the world determine for themselves! Hell, at least I didn't mention the suspect judges, did I Peter? Everyone hang in there and have a nice day!
Question?
I don't mean to be disrespectful here, but What If?
What if under Article V - Pay System Simplification Section 9(h) the Carriers never
even bother to serve the General Chairman with a notice for trip rates? So employees
go 2 and one half years under the current pay scale with a 2 and a half % raise in July of
2001, a 3% raise on July 1 of 2002, and another whooping 2 and a half % raise on July 1,
2003. The next day trip rates have not been implemented anywhere and Sac-C announces from
his palace in Austin that pursuant to Article V Section 5(b), the parties (i.e.,
Charlie Little, single spokesperson) has mutually agreed to withdraw (modify?) all pay
elements under Section 5 pursuant to the language of 9(h) and 5(b) for Post October 31,
1985 employees consistent with the language of the Agreement. Do you think you could
sue and prevail? Inquiring minds want to know?