BLE/UTU Compared?

If you ever saw the movie ADeliverance@, you are familiar with the catchy tune of Adueling banjos@. As enjoyable as those sounds were to the ear, our sight and mind were disturbed with the dramatic hillbilly rape scene! Every once in a while I still visit the UURR site and read a smattering of posts just to see if the site is still dominated by Special Reps of UTU and BLE, posturing for their union to be the great savior (or survivor) of the Rail Labor Movement.

Several recent posts caught my eye and it seems that some BLE members view the upcoming merger of BLE and Teamsters as their Adeliverance@? Indeed, they say they have a National Agreement and H&W that is far superior to either the UTU members have gotten or will receive (the vote on H&W with UTU will pass or be forced upon them in it=s current form or worse if the UTU heirarchy goes behind closed doors to retaliate for a ratification failure - don=t look for more than 10 to 15% of ballots to be returned). Of course, IF that is true (and we will see copies of everything the

BLE allegedly got sooner or later), it bodes well for BLE is their death struggle with the UTU hierarchy who determined to merge with them OR put them out of business! Team Charlie called it the AUnity Initiative@and once the patently absurd heirarchy friendly Implementing Agreement was defeated in the Court and the panel refused to allow an AA-Card@ on UP, the idea became Alittle@ more than are serious monetary drain on the treasuries of both Unions.

And of course, IF it is true, perhaps the BLE has emerged from the ARace to The Bottom@ with an agreement(s) that does not give concessions as the UTU National Agreement and H&W obviously did/do! Perhaps it is the strength of the IBT or perhaps the NCCC has a pre-determined vested interest in making the BLE look more Aproductive@ right now? Knowing the Carriers as I do, my bet is on the latter.

The other item that caught my eye was a BLEGO member bragging about how a Aproper@ union is run using the 2002 LM-2 as his support? Having reviewed both documents now, it seems like ADueling LM-2's@ only shows that no deliverance is forthcoming from either organization, but rather the memberships are being raped as the Hierarchies enjoy tremendous benefits and salaries far beyond that they are providing for the memberships through negotiations! However, I would point out that while the BLE hierarchy is mildly bloated, the UterUs is disgracful in comparison.

Unit                     Compensation       Members       %Off/emp

BLE Officers (13)    $1,579, 536             56,246         42% - 58%

BLE Employees        $2,216,707            

UTU Officers (22)*    $2,806,941             67,901         33% - 67%

UTU Employees        $5,775,846

Compensation is salary + expenses less deductions. Members is from page 2 of the LM-2. The % of compensation of officers to employees for UTU is deceptive since about $1,000,000 went to Special Representatives who are not in the UTU employees union or have seniority. As there is no designation of ASpecial Representative@ duties and much of UTU=s is for political purposes at the whim of the President, the ratio of UTU is more appoximately 44% - 56% Officers/Employees for 2002!

* UTU also has 11 Alternate officers and 14 Board Members

The bottom line is both unions are extremely top heavy in compensation of officers as compared to employees/staff who do much of the day to day business of the unions. Gross Salary for regular VP=s in UTU was $125 G=s compared to $110 in BLE! Boyd made a total gross salary + expenses of $272 G=s in 2002 compared to Hahs $196; the disparity between Thompson and Rodwick was $207 G to 179; and the disparity for GS&T between Johnson and Walpert was 280 G=s to 153. Johnson=s 133 G=s in expenses almost exceeded his salary! Of course, you can view all that information yourself if you wish at http://union-reports.dol.gov/olmsWeb/docs/pdf/LM2_000101_20021231_0.pdf and at http://union-reports.dol.gov/olmsWeb/docs/pdf/LM2_000314_20021231_0.pdf

So, which union is in better financial shape? BLE claims to have Net Assets of about $6.85 Mil at the end of 2002, up from $5 mil the end of 2001. I suspect that is due to the significant dues increase that now shows BLE members paying $27 per month at the end of 2002 (anybody know if it was raised again in 2003 - IMWTK?). I would assume ANet Assets@ includes everything including the $13 Mil Building. If thats included, they are bankrupt? If not, they have total assets of $6.85 + $13 - $.5 Mil loan on the building for a total of approximately $19+ Mil.

In comparison, UTU claims to have Net Assets of $24.7 Mil at the end of 2002, down from $32.2 Mil at the end of 2001 (UTU didn=t dare increase International dues [$20.50] after the Awritten in stone@ lovefest of the Awarchest@ in Miami in 1999)! However, disbusements for 2002 exceeded receipts in UTU by $3.2 Mil while they were only $95 G=s in BLE. Does there seem to be a pattern developing here; one is which BLE members are willing to pay anything to stay out of the UTU while the hierarchy of UTU can=t get a dime out of UTU members because of their failed policies, concessionary agreements, and corruption? IF, in fact, the BLE has negotiated a superior National Agreement, including no givebacks in H&W, the BLE has the UTU reeling on the ropes! I will wait to view the actual documents of the alleged BLE success before I make any determination on that issue.

Even if true, I would caution the members of both unions to remember the famous Ali ARope a Dope@ stategy and what I believe to be two hierarchies that care more about their own compensation and benefits than they do about yours! Always remember, a wounded animal is the MOST Dangerous! Personally, I don=t worry about RCO; if and when it is operated with strict rules by adequately trained professionals (I don=t care whether they are engineers or ground service employees), the loss of productivity to the Carriers will be staggering; so much so that it will be detrimental to their true bottom line, i.e., profits! But any BLE member out there that Aassumes@ that the last person on the train, if any (?), will be an engineer rather than a conductor monitoring a computer, has a lot more faith in common sense than I believe the NCCC and the UTU hierarchy require for their ultimate purpose!