El PASO EXPRESS

COVENTION SPECIAL         NOVEMBER 1999

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

God only knows what ASac-C@ will do with his alleged Amandate@ gained by a 5 to 1 margin of victory for the office of President of the United Transportation Union at the Eight Quadrennial Convention held in Miami, Florida during the last week of August (23 - 27)!

While I only persoanlly know of one delegate who was instructed to vote againt Sac-C and any dues increase but supported both, I think there are quite a few out there, particularly as regards the dues increase.

By far the most disconcerting breach of the members faith was the manner in which Sac-C and Alittle bb@ got the $5 dues increase. One of the delegates who made numerous dues proposals (without the knowledge of his local?), rose to go to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of addressing Article 12 first (and then others articles in turn starting from where we left off the previous day).

I knew what he was going to do and I was at Mike 2 to amend the motion to require a roll call vote (members would actually be able to see how their delegate voted on any dues increase proposals). Naturally, I was ruled out of order by Sac-C and I quickly appealed the decision of the Chair and pointed out that I wanted to speak on the issue if I got 5 seconds. Numerous seconds raised their hands throughout the hall and I gave the first of my Alittle@ speeches on Aaccountability@, i.e., that the members back home deserved to know how their delegate voted on any dues increase.

By now Byron had taken over the podium from Sac-C and eventually called for a vote on whether the body wanted a recorded vote for any dues increase. From my vantage point looking back, about 60% of the delegates supported this, but Byron immediately stated the vote fails for lack of a majority (only a majority was needed not 2/3 ) and in a true display of Ademocray@, turned off all the mikes so the numerous crys of Adivision of the house@ couldn=t be heard or acted upon.

The rest is history, the heirarchy was rewarded for lying about our true financial position, and anywhere from 50 to possibly 150 delegates got to go home and tell the big lie - AI voted against the dues increase@! It will be interesting to see if the heirarchy publishes the names of all those delegates who put a slip in the box saying they voted against the dues increase as I think that figure may exceed one third of the delegation wherein we shall know there are liars amonst us! Well hell, with President=s Clinton and Little as our role models, who=s going to complain about Alittle white lies@ like AI did not have sex with that woman@, AWe are in the best financial shape ever@, and Athe job benefit fund did not pay for the bus@!

But of course I do distinguish between Clinton and Little. Clinton was tried and found not guilty. Sac-C prevented Bob Earley from ever being tried and wasted a half million dollars (so far - tip of the iceberg) maintaining this sham upon the members and their constitutional rights. Clinton provided the country with major surpluses in the budget rather than sacked the treasury for his cronies and re-election. But no big deal either, us members can afford an extra 5 bucks a month to have a Awar chest@ for a vote that may never come or even worse (we lose), being as how $1 goes to continuing education (of who - the same old local officers who regularly attend the region meetings to be wined a dined by the heirarchy and become a member of the elite), and being as how $1 goes for the Convention Fund, wherein delegates earn about $100 an hour for their rigorous 9am to 2pm work schedule. I am even told that some delegates had their room bills picked up by designated counsel? That wouldn=t apply to anyone who announced they were voting for Roger would it? Ah, probably nothing wrong with that, hell the International officers allegedly got their $250 a day suites put on the UTU Corporate credit card, wherein the $113 per day per diem was just a windfall. Having your room paid for by the union was a great deal if you could get it, even though probably not legal. Legal, Smeagel, when you have the connections we do with the Clinton Administration, the DOL can overlook these Alittle@ minor breaches in decorum. Hell, I mean, it=s not like we got to a federal judge for a completely ludicrous decision that ignors common sense, fact, reason, and well established law? (ALL THREE OF THOSE WILL BE PUBLISHED SOON IN THEIR ENTIRETY ON THE WEB SITE)! It remains to be seen whether I will be filing a complaint to the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Oh, and don=t email me with your sentiments that the $113 does not count as wages and therefore my $100 per hour is inaccurate (bullshit), lest you consider that it is an average and Friday, Aug. 25 we worked 34 minutes for our VP=s pay. Of course, that=s 34 more minutes than 95% of all VP=s ever put in on a Saturday or Sunday for earning the same daily VP rate each and every weekend! Frankly, every railroader is familar with an Aearly quit@ wherein you get full pay for less than a full days work. Indeed, our whole society is familar with it and its generally called Atgif@ - thank god it=s Friday and let=s all sneak out a little early - management and labor. But very few of us earn over $300 every Saturday and Sunday but generally have to perform no work whatsoever?

Don=t go off half cocked and pissed off just yet. If you voted for the dues increase and lied about it to your local, if you got your room paid for in exchange for supporting Sac-C and the team, or if you voted for someone your local instructed you not to vote for without telling them when you returned, you are a piece of shit and you know it. If your local knew it, you wouldn=t be a delegate again! But I don=t know how many of you are in that position, seeing as how the dues increase only passed by 30 votes (did require a 2/3 d vote), maybe those that fall into the above category is rather small?

Nor do I expect anyone to feel guilty about accepting their pay to perform the functions of delegate because we have not seen fit as a body to work longer hours. Hell, that may not change in the future either? And of course, at least 25% to sometimes 50% of the delegates participated in the Caucus process which often lasted several hours. If you were one who skipped the process and went right to the bar or the beach with your family because you only had to be told who to vote for by the team rather than make your own decision based upon reasonable inquiry and listening to the candidates, so be it. Many took their responsibilities seriously and the proof of that is that 4 or 5 Ateam candidates@ were defeated, some by over 100 votes.

Overall, I thought the delegation did a relatively good job and certainly outperformed their Hawaii and Chicago counterparts vis-a-vis the Constitution, albeit Roger=s withdrawal of all of his proposals made that considerably easier even though there were many, incuding myself, who thought there were proposals that might have passed had he not withdrawn them. Suffice to say I understand his decision. It is rather disappointing to view the amount of proposed changes to the Constitution if you eliminate Roger=s in comparison the past conventions but that may have occurred because Roger addressed so many different issues, i.e., others didn=t think they needed to?

I shall not iritate the Delegation with specific grades as I did after Chicago but rather give the Delegation an overall rating of B+ and state this from the bottom of my heart: If every delegate knew all the facts about this union=s malicious prosecution of Ken Smoot and his family (or was in his place over the last 6 years), the vote would have been reversed - Roger would have won by a 5 to 1 margin. I suspect this statement will be borne out when UTU members learn the true cost of the union=s actions and I hope that will be completely known by the next Convention. Hope because I have personally witnessed the inordinate delays in bringing justice when dealing with the unified defense of UTU and CSXT and the unbelieveable abuse of process they have been able to accomplish by use of their political and financial power. I still believe justice will be served but I sincerely doubt that the disbarrments, impeachments, and jail time due some of the participants will occur. In any event, they will be able to see it all in the true Acourt of last resort@, i.e., public opinion!

In essence, I will not criticise delegates who were not bribed to vote for Chalie, but rather voted for him because they believe him, think he is doing a great job, and refuse to believe there is any financial wrongdoing or substance to the AEarley Debacle@! No one wants to believe their leaders are corrupt (worse yet, the whole system is corrupt) and railroaders who average 60 and 70 hour work weeks certainly don=t want to spend what little free time they do have pouring over thousands of pages of documents to get to the Atruth@. The delegates and members can simply ignore all this with a grain of salt because it is my position that ultimately they will get hit right in the face with it in the form of judicial decisions which hit them right in the pocketbook. When that happens, they will know the El Paso Express was right all along. If it never happens, you can email me and say haha I told you so! Before you do that, however, wait and see if the Armageddon Agreement comes about through arbitration and against your vote!

Vice President Robert W. Earley announced his retirement effective December 31, 1999 as a result of Amedical reasons@? Yet two Ateam@ members indicated to me that was not the reason, that he was physically fit? He looked fit to me and certainly had that Afight=in bob@ cockiness when he yelled to me as Smoot and I were descending the escalator, Ahey, Lance, I understand you=re doing a good job campaigning for me again@! This obviously a reference to my speeches to two caucuses running against him for his incumbent VP position and that my Anegative campaigning@ would benefit him again as it did in Chicago - where delegates couldn=t distinguish between the truth and negative campaigning.

No, Bob had every intention of running that day and David Hakey came to the BNSF Caucus to announce and seek support for the second alternate VP West? Next moring Bob ain=t running and Hakey is now running for his vacant VP slot? You don=t have to be a political pundit to figure out what happened here - ole fight=in bob had to take one for the team! Yes, I was going to give a similar speech to the one I gave in the caucuses. But another four years had passed where many now knew the truth and had even viewed it on one of those renegade websites - wherein everyone was complaining about it but no one was saying it=s not accurate - no one was suing to make it disappear - no one was refuting the documents on my website! While the delegates might be pissed at me for telling the truth again, they now knew it wasn=t negative campaigning but the truth. They weren=t going to vote for Bob and they weren=t going to vote for me - Don Hollis would be the beneficiary and get elected. I knew that would be the case and it is what I wanted as I knew Don to be a very capable and crafty General Chairman. The Ateam@ couldn=t lose that spot so they made Bob an offer he couldn=t refuse! It was brillant on their part and finally rewarded David for what he does best - politic!

So why is it only a Minor Victory? And now the rest of the Story! Clint is partial to ATheory@ over actual law when actual law does not fit his purpose. And lately it seems some federal judges have written memorandum opinions based upon Atheories@ that seem to be opposite well established legal precedent. If one didn=t know better, one might think Clint and some of these ARambo@ outside attornies he hires are actually writing opinions for federal judges! Of course, that would be Aimproper if not illegal@? But I try to pay attention to these legal titans and learn the Atricks of the trade@ whenever possible.

Accordingly, my Atheory@ is that effective January 1, 2000, Robert W. Earley will be the newest Aconsultant@ for UTU. While his workload will diminish significantly, his pay will probably not. No, you will not see him in any payroll records available by accessing the LMN-2 or 990 reports. My Atheory@, and remember this is only a Atheory@, is that his fees will be hidden in that dubious category called:

95 - 1 mil., 96 - 1.6 mil., 97 - 1.6 mil., 98 - 1.7 mil., 99 - ? Well, the Express will report the figure when it is available and the Express will take whatever actions necessary to get a complete breakdown of these fees. Certainly I expect the 99 figure to rise again (probably over 2 mil.?) as professional fees for this year will include the fees to the ARambo Washington Law Firm@ which I estimated at around $200,000 for the prosecution of Smoot and attempt to collect the specious judgment granted by Peter C. Economus.

Indeed, this list should be an interesting one as regards Aconsultants@. Although I have no bone to pick with Larry Davis, I suspect he will be receiving consulting fees during 2000 as our resident expert on ANAFTA@? Of course, I was present in the hotel room in El Paso several years ago when Robert A. Cushing, Jr. gave Larry Davis and Dan Johnson a four hour crash course on Nafta and numerous documents. Suffice to say Cushing knows more about NAFTA than all our leaders put togerther. However, it is highly doubtful the union would attempt to use his expertise since it was one of those Alittle commitments@ between Charlie and UP that got him out of the industry in the first place and there is no love lost between Charlie and Bob as result of Charlie=s persecution of Smoot and his family.

AMajor Victory@!

Jack Shaver immediately went to Mike 2 to explain that our International Board of Directors were all men of honor and integrity and didn=t need accountability. I was overwhelmed by the chorus of boos he received and realized right then this was going to finally pass (it was attempted at the last two conventions unsuccessfully). Karen Belcher went to Mike 1 and ripped Athe State Director from Colorado@ for his comments. The proposal passed by 95 or 96% and those on the Board of Directors were not smiling. This will finally bring accountability to the Board of Directors and the Express will monitor that the proposal if being complied with as soon as we see the issues handled by the October 1999 BoD meeting! Thanks, Delegates - Au@ really did good here and it will make a difference when it comes to accountability and how we vote for incumbent VP=s in the future!

Several were very disappointed that I wouldn=t run for the Board of Appeals again. Three reasons: 1. I told Dale Welch I wasn=t going to run (yard position), 2. I don=t want to be away from my family that long anymore, 3. There is nothing wrong with the job the current Board does, i.e., they still rule in favor of members in some cases (Ask David Arterburn of Amarillo). The problem is winning doesn=t get you anything but a decision (Ask David Arteburn of Amarillo). In that particular case, the former General Chairman (defeated by a 3 to 1 margin even though Sac-C, little bb, and 4 or 5 Vps spent several days at his GCA Committee Meeting) got the BNSF to sign a letter they would be bound by the decision of the Board of Appeals? Unheard of! When they lost, they simply served a new notice rather than be bound by the decision, i.e., they lied!

Is this the same BNSF that refuses to be bound by the work/rest guidelines with their Ainfamous@ Availibility Policy? Hey, Robbie, who was the genius who figured out this ill fated stupidity? The Flepter? I mean, unlike the UP/SP abortion, the merger has gone smoot (oops - freudian slip - smooth) in comparison, and BNSF was actually making real headway convincing the employees they were all part of the Afamily@ and BNSF cared. Hell, even I began participating in Sac-P and the Diversity Council after years of refusing to participate in the Asafety committees@, even when Joe Bailey was signing people up right there in the SRB sales pitch at your Lenexa Training Facility!

Of course, as most already know, I march to a different drummer and therefore I have not heeded the instructions from my Union to quit all company sponsored programs, i.e., I am still in Sac-P and the Diversity Council. Click here to see more information on this issue (Note to Aothers in the industry@ - formerly switchman: go to the web site to click, don=t attempt it on the hard copy)!

AAVAILABILITY POLICY@

In my view, Amuch ado about nothing@! I knew the moment the camera=s started flashing in the BNSF Caucus in Miami, with handsome Sac-C on the cell phone announcing the favorable court decision and even going out of his way to indicate General Counsel Miller will fax that March 98 AHouston Agreement@ I have wanted for so long tomorrow? Nope, never got it in Miami the next two days; received it mailed that day to my home address. See AYe Shall Strike No More@ for information on this subject.

As usual, UTU blames the BLE and GC Mullen=s alleged ASmoking Gun@ letter? What bullshit! Mullen had the 7 day jobs which the Carrier changed to the same as unassigned service, 75% availibility rather than the original 2 days off per month. If this means 25% Aunavailibility@, then he did a good job. Of course, I don=t think this is a Anon availibility@ policy but I shall see and file claims accordingly, i.e., I am on the extra board and I have been marked up for 21 days, I want my 7 days off - two weekend days and 5 weekdays! Think about it, the crew clerk is going to say, yea, you are right, you have been marked up for 21 days, you got 7 off! Nope - ain=t going to happen. This is an AAvailibility Policy@ wherein you are disciplined if you don=t meet the availibility requirements, doesn=t in any way mean they are going to lay you off consistent with the policy.

But the award in its current form gives me everything I need to make this policy so expensive the Carrier they will wish they never came up with it, i.e., it didn=t rule on reasonableness but rather suggested the Aprotracted cleansing period@ is unreasonable. Hey, you=re right, it is currently known as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Policy for Employee Performance Accountability (commonly called the Aunilateral discipline policy@) and they plan to handle this (you=re unavailibility) under the non aggravated minor offenses portion, i.e., warning, one, two, three strikes you=re out!

I love this policy; not because it is so unreasonable (it=s not IF they give you the non-available time [they won=t and have no intention of it] in most instances - 6 day assignments are still far from reasonalble), but because it will be so easily defeated! Hey, I=m an experienced local chairman; I don=t need Sac-P or anyone to huff a puff for me, I can handle my own business in the best interests of my members (See my letter to the Superintendent under Availibility Policy). As stated in that letter, here is the ARUCK POLICY FOR AVAILIBILITY@

1. The Superintendent=s office will counsel no member unless I am present to enter the accurate facts into the record as the first line of defense. (Obviously the availibility programmer has a lot of work to do to get the bugs out)?

While the BNSF agreed to delay the implementation of the policy until November 1, 1999, it seems their computer program was already in effect so they sent out Apractice warning letters@ to those who violated the policy when it wasn=t acutally in effect? Bravo, thanks for showing us how ill prepared you are to implement and enforce this stupid policy! Example: A senior 59 year old employee on a 5 day yard job lays off one day sick and the next day company business (to do a safety audit) and is in violation of the policy (1.5 days off when only entitled to 1). He works every other day approximately 12 hours per day wherein his weekly work average, counting the two days off, exceeds 50 + hours per week but he is in violation of the policy? How about it Mr. Kasher? We need to railroad this derelict bastard out of the industry, don=t we? So what if he is now on leave of absence for protrate cancer operation, did his layoff sickness have anything to do with that? Did he provide Apractice@ proof to the medical officer to be Apractice@ excused?

On a more serious note, what about the continuing bullshit from Sac-C and little bb that the BNSF could(?) require an employee to work 360 hours a month? Sure, if you work 12 hours a day 30 days a month and the carrier won=t let you off, you could work 360 hours! Who is that dumb? BNSF may be dumb, but not that dumb. Require a man to work 360 hours! Rediculous!

Look at what is out there now, particularly as direct resulf of Apilot progams@ from the Work/Rest Guidelines, i.e., 11 and 4! I wouldn=t put it out because of the double penalty if you lay off, but BLE has it in El Paso. So you work 11, 4 off, 11, 4 off and you have worked 22 days in a 30 day month and had 8 off. Unassigned Pool freight is on 75% availability - 75% of 30 equals 22.75 days available and 7.25 days none available. Opps, our computes says you were off 8 days - YOU=RE IN VIOLATION!

Hey Robbie, Flepter, am I making fun of your APolicy@? You bet your sweet ass I am! And you kwow what, you=re computer ain=t going to fix it! You ain=t got a programmer who can fix this piece of shit!

Will HB 3091 cure the problem? No, a union pipe dream at best. If you think this bill can be passed by Congress, you probably also think we actually have the right to strike and we hold the fate of the railroads in our hands! A simple request, give me 3 days off for every 7 days I am available? Lets put this in perspective again: 7 on, 3 off, 7 on, 3 off, 7 on, and 3 off - As SAC-C likes to say AIT=S THE LAW@! And it would be if HR 3091 were passed by the House and Senate (Pipe Dream!). Not that much different from 11 and 4 or is it? 11 and 4 is a guaranteed rate in which your bi-monthly paycheck is secure provided you met the 11 days worked (it suffers greatly if you miss a day because of the double penalty the Carrier insisted upon to make it Aavailable@ to the unions).

A good paycheck with 22 days worked and 8 off per a guaranteed pay rate. So how will 3091 work? I get guarantee under current agreement provisions and adversely effect that guarantee when I take my Avoluntary 3 days off@! In essence, If I opt for my Aentitlement@ , I now get 9 days off out of every 21 worked but lose a Grand or more? Hey, what=s a couple thou for an extra day off? AYou get the picture@? AYes, we see@! Don=t follow the leader of the pack here - HR 3091 has no chance and if it was to be passed into law, it will endanger your security and the well being of your employer - the railroad!

I should not need to advise you that if your railroad and their shareholders do not make money, you job is in danger. Your job depends upon a profitable operation. HR 3091 is innocuous if you assume few employees would opt for the unpaid time off? It becomes a dagger in the heart of the railroad if you assume local union members would use such a law to its full extent! What would happen if, after being available for 7 straight days the entire extra board takes their 3 days off? Each pool crew having been available for 7 days lays off 3 days when they come in? Each assigned job lays off after 7 days? Absent overloading extra boards with a 30 or 40% increase in the number of employees, they couldn=t operate their trains! Does anyone think congress will pass a regulation that could jeopardize the movement of commerce in this country? Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

Don=t be duped by Sac-C and his Agame@. He is thick as thieves with the Carrier=s he purports to fight, and he will deliver an alternative which will not be in your best interest!

Ultimitely, the scam here is rather simple; the perceived fight until the Carrier=s Conference and the Unions mutally agree to Avoluntarily@ address rest/work cycles (yes, mutaully agreed to Aavailability policies) wherein an employee can work his 360 hours a month voluntarily without the need of FRA (government) intervention. Sac-C would have us believe it is a travesty to require an employee to work 360 hours a month by force, but OK if he does it on a voluntary basis? Does an employee become safer and less fatigued because he works 12 every day voluntarily rather than by force?

WE (railroad union members) need National Legislation prohiting railroad employees from working over 50 hours per week if we truly wish to address safety and fatigue in the industry, not to mention quality of life issues! Along with that we need raises in line with our productivity and the Carrier=s profits! I don=t expect these issues to be addressed anytime soon by the current administration but rather to continue to waste the member=s money with frivilous legislation, frivilous litigation (Smoot), the war of words with the BLE, and their never ending damage control.

CONTRIBUTIONS

My sincere thanks to those of you who made contributions to the Express while I was in Miami:

John Risch ($50), Pat Del Vecchio ($50 or $75?), Mike Buzzell ($20) Anonymous Oakland $40, Anonymous by request from three or four others totalling $105 for a total at Miami of $265. Since Miami I have received the following: Daniel T. Colgan ($20), D. L. Sintas ($100), Albert Kelly ($40), and from UTU Local 1739 ($300). Thank you very kindly as the above donations almost completely supported the current Convention Special. If I have forgotten anyone, please let me know and accept my apology; I am not always totally organized. These contributions will also appear on the web site and should be there as you read this hard copy.

AI am writing to you to request to be a regular subscriber of the El Paso Express. Enclosed is my contribution to help defray your costs.

As a first time delegate to the past UTU convention held in Miami, I was impressed with your attempts to have the current administration toe the line. Keep up the good work.@ Dan Colgan, Local Chariman UTU 911.

Ed: Thanks Dan, sadly you hit the key word on the head - Aattempts@! I wish I had been more successful, particularly with regard to the roll call vote; I don=t think they would have gotten their dues increase if that had passed!

AThank you for your help and support in my race for reelection to the UTU Executive Board.

The election was exciting, and I=m honored that the delegates chose to reelect me.

In solidarity, @ John Risch.

Ed: For those who weren=t in Miami, ATeam Charlie@ put on a disgusting display by leting their supportors in the side doors to stack the mikes in order to have three rounds of speeches and seconds for thier choosen candidates before the incumbents and/or other challengers could make a nomination. I walked the voting lines with a hand written sign saying THE ATEAM@ WANTS RISCH AND BELCHER DEFEATED? WHY? The Ateam@ got a well deserved stinging rebuke for their sleazy behavior when John and Karen won handily! Yes, John, the were some moments when the delegates really shined brightly. And I know the two candidates well and have the utmost respect for both of them. Suffice to say they did what the team asked of them and I feel safe in saying neither knew they were running when they arrived in Miami!

THANKS ROGER & JACK!

I personally want to thank Roger D. Griffith and Jack Arnold for trying to open up the political process and give the membership a choice. I think if this had been a referendum vote of the members, the count would have been quite different. But if we learned anything , we learned you can=t defeat a political machine that has unlimited funds, little integrity, and no respect for federal labor laws.

The personal attack on Roger at the Washington, DC Regional meeting by Assistant President Boyd was one of the low points of my union career. I don=t think I have ever been more ashamed of my union and it=s leadership, other than the on-going persecution of Smoot and his family.

Of course, I did want to puke on Day Five when Jack Shaver began reading his resolution. AWHEREAS, Brother Griffeth holds the interests of the UTU and the membership in the highest regard; and . . .@ Ah, Jack, is this the same Brother Griffeth Byron catigated a month earlier, called him a traitor, and said he was trying to destroy the UTU? God, what hypocrisy! Unless I miss my guess, Roger did have the highest regard for the membership, he was questioning whether the current administration held the interest of UTU and the membership in highest regard. Because of the Earley Debacle, Smoot Prosecution/Persecution, all the financial impropriety, and the corrupt arbitration system so revered by our leadership, I concluded long ago the answer to that question is a resounding NO!

I would have preferred you said AWHEREAS we know it is illegal to pay someone to leave office early (President DuBose) and WHEREAS we want to make it extremely difficult for Brother Griffeth to file election complaints with the DOL and WHEREAS if there is any wrong doing, it will be approved by the Delegates, THEREFORE, So be it resolved that to shut Brother Griffeth up, he be paid his full salary and health and welfare benefits for the remainder of his elected term through December 31, 1999!

Smoot - the tide crests!

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse for poor Smoot and his family, it did, i.e., another specious memorandum opinion and judgment from the bankruptcy court in Virginia. As alluded to earlier you may find all three specious ruling with accompanying documents on my web site under "This is the Law"? A "little" takeoff on Sac-C's favorite hypocrisy "It's the law"!

Real lawyers look at this shit and just shake their heads in disbelief! This can't happen in our system they say! It is happening and it has happened long enough without being brought to the attention of the Public. Thus the posting of these specious ruling on the El Paso Express Website. More is coming and the site will keep you aware of whether justice and the members win, or whether corruption and the hierarchy win!!!!

Litigation?

Don=t look for Sac-C to proudly announce at this summers Region Meetings that UTU has no lawsuits pending! Seems they have their hands full in the area of litigation and given how they conduct their Arepresentation@, look for that to continue to increase dramatically.

One of interest comes from a former General Chairman and many of his UP members as a result of the AHouston Hub@. Seems these disgruntled employees have such a aggressive lawyer, than Sac-C and Monty have had to call in the AA-Team@, yes the famous ARambo Washington Law Firm@ (obviously the heir apparent to Highsaw & Mahoney). Those avid Express readers may recall an article entitled AHouston, We Have a Problem@ in the July/August 1998 Houston-Reno Edition concerning my inability to make the Houston Regional Meeting and/or an Article from the Atlanta Edition in August of 1997 called AHubbub Philosophy@ which dealt specifially with some of the problems in the Houston Hub.

For some information on this lawsuit, see my website under Houston, We have a Problem! Rumor has it that soon to be UTU Vice President Hakey has not implemented the Carvatta Award yet in his capacity as General Chairman? This could result in some embarassment for Sac-C or even worse, a real lawsuit from the former SP employees, wherein the Carvetta (Carvatta?) award was the vehicle of choice by the UP and Union to correct the the fabricated equity figures Sac-C supported to give the IGN and HBT a Alittle@ superseniority! Stay tuned, this one could really get interesting. Hey damnit, we cheated you fair and square with the help of the President, no meaningless award can take that away from us! This UTU is a regular Alittle@ Peyton Place, ain=t it? Hey, speaking of the Rumor Mill, how does a General Chairman get defeated, then decline to go back to the railroad but opt for Occupational Disability under RRB and then pay just $100 a month for his Health and Welfare benefits while us members pick up the remaining $8 or $900 a month? I understand that if he had sought occupational disability before he got defeated he may be entitled to it, but not after he is defeated. How about it Mr. General Secretary and Treasurer Thompson, us members paying for former General Chairman Manning=s H&W benefits?

While we=re at the Rumor Mill in that area, any truth that the BLE circulated A Cards on the TEX-MEX for all UTU-E engineers, 98% have been returned, but no totals have been determined yet? I mean, that sounds like something which would be on either the UTU or BLE site? Did I just miss it or something? Anyone has any information on this, please contact me at leruck@elp.rr.com ? Inquiring minds want to know? Hell, If we are really spending $440 an hour for another Washinton Firm to make our case that the JBI is not an ERISA fund, where is it (the filing) and will UTU proudly put our argument on the UTU Web site? Has it been presented to the DOL yet? This millennium or next? How bout that NMB decision, those other mean labor unions still holding up the nomination of UTU=s main squeeze - Linda Morgan?

Say by the way Sac-C, I have been handed your immediate fax (See Dear Eli) to Mr. Graham answering his list of questions upon your return to Cleveland for the famous El Paso Shootout. Shame you didn=t provide what I wanted as quickly or by fax as you stated you would in the BNSF caucus. When may I expect the rest of the agreement and the signature pages? Is is true Mr. Graham and numerous other members of UTU locals 18 and 1918 have defected to the BLE? Do you still expect to get their vote if and when NMB allows? Maybe you should have paid them to visit the bus like you promised?

Oh, excuuuuuse me, I meant like your Special Rep promised or was it your Field Supervisor? Hey, Hakey, did you know that payment was suppose to be from the General Committee funds? Yea, see Dear Eli on my web site. Don=t fret David, I have looked into my crystal ball and I see very good news for you at the end of the year - Yes, you will be assigned to work out of - - of - - - Yes, Beaumont, Texas. Well, what a coincidence, thats pretty close to where you live. Hell, that=s why I didn=t run for VP, I heard if I won I was going to be stationed in Ambrose, North Dakota (great airport).

The Future of the Express?

You will notice the National and Local cartoons are gone from the site. Seems I got a call out of the blue from some Virginia based firm, a Mr. Kelly I think but don=t remember, that I am in violation of copywrite laws with respect to these cartoons. He was actually quite polite and even seemed sympathetic to my plight against union corruption. I agreed to get them off within 7 to 10 days. I suspect I was probably turned in by ASlime Time@ but it doesn=t make any difference.

The cartoons will be replaced in the future with web clip art, etc. that I have paid for but never really used. So, look for changes in the web site when you go to it. We went over 2000 just recently and I suspect better days are yet to come. I mean, hell, it=s not like Sac-C and the boys are going to straighten out a fly right wherein there would be nothing to write about. Always remember, Sac-C has one more National Agreement to shove down our throats before he rides off into the sunset with a smile on his face from the satisfaction of a job well paid for! The Armageddon Agreement! You can vote against it, but you can=t stop it! Why, our president has COURAGE!

Express Yourself!

Letters to the Editor are encouraged and welcome, whether critical or not. Just remember, this ain=t the UTU news, you=re dealing with someone whose wit is even sharper than his pen. I=m modest too! Of course, the cartoon character from Shoe can=t say that anymore, I have to do it! Oh, and contributions to Lance E. Ruck are always welcome and greatly appreciated. But rather than a contribution, I would rather have those that receive this hard copy, pass it along and post it at your workplace - let the members decide if it=s a dispicable rag or professional journalism at its best. Speaking of the UTU News, Wild Bill either has a ghost writer or has been back to school? Opps, I forgot, Bill opted off the mailing list - Nevermind!

NEW YEARS WISH

Oh, and the book becomes a best seller! As always,

HANG IN THERE AND HAVE A NICE DAY!