Some Facts?

   A "FACT" is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "1. Something that actually exists; an aspect of reality <it is a fact that all people are mortal>.  Fortunately, everything claimed to be a "fact" is not actually a fact unless it can be prooven as factual.  Of course, when dealing with law and any other endeavor of the human environment, many things are claimed to be facts which are merely perceived as facts.  Facts, in order to actually be facts, must not be subject to interpretation but have actual proof of being a "fact".  For example, is it a fact that UTU owes $11 million to the JBI Fund as alleged by the BLE Committee for a Democratic Vote? Of course not since they provide no probative evidence to support their contention.  Is it a fact that they owed approximately $5.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2000 as I have stated?  Yes, based upon their own admission in the LM-2 report UTU filed with the U.S. Government.  If nothing else, we can assume they wouldn't lie to the U.S. Government and at least owe that much!

    How does the BLE hierarchy resolve these issues relative to the Morris et al. v. BLE and UTU lawsuit? They did it with a new vote (secret this time in accordance with the law), a minor change in Section 1 of the Unification Agreement, and a 12 page mailing, two of which were in opposition and formulated by the "BLE Committee For A Democratic Vote".   Key in this mailing to convince the BLE membership to vote for the UTU/BLE "new" union is a one page document with very large Bullet Points entitled "SOME FACTS ABOUT THE UNIFICATION"?

    So I guess the first question anyone in BLE ought to ask is: "Are these facts"?  And based upon the definition above, the answer is clearly NO - they are nothing more than catchy statement which are prevelant in all forms of advertising - particularly in sales, i.e.,  We had a 78% win ratio against the spread last year or our investors made 79%, 157%, and a whopping 389% return on their money on stocks X, Y, and Z!  So what is the basis for these rediculous claims? Nothing execpt they show you little "bullet points" confirming these facts.  What is the basis for the "Facts" on Unification?   Gee, the Q and A's from the "mutual" UTU/BLE Webpage!!!!  Anybody in BLE believe that anyone other than UTU controlled every question and answer on that forum?

    Let's ask it straight up: Anybody (voting BLE engineers) believe the UTU isn't the moving factor in the so-called merger? Anybody believe that the UAC is designed to give parity to the BLE during the first 10 years of this merger?  If you answered NO to both those questions then you should vote NO on the merger UNLESS you FEAR more for your future without the merger than with it, i.e., the bogus scam that you will be taken over by UTU one property at a time with the "A Card" Scam!!!

    Before I address "Some Facts about the Unification" point by point, let me just say, whether it pisses you off or not, that I think your current and past leadership has exhibited a true "lack of courage" in dealing with the attack of UTU, specifically taking the cowards way out by agreeing to more money and less responsibility rather than what is best for the membership.  This current UAC is a sweetheart deal for the hierarchies of UTU and BLE at the total expense of the memberships of both unions and "guarantees" nothing except higher dues and no accountability from the union leadership until at least 2006, if then, if ever!

    I support unionism and I have no quarrel with any engineers (See Original Editorial); I have a big problem with corrupt union officers who spend time and money cheating the members out of what they are entitled to rather than representing them.  I have a big problem with a "Company Union®" and I think the actions of UTU since 1985,  particularly since Sacrosanct Charlie/"little bb" took the reins of UTU in 1995, leave "little" doubt in my mind that UTU is more closely aligned with the NCCC than the membership!  View the "No Strike" agreement Sac-C made with Allen if you have any doubt?  Ah . . ., oh, I lost that and no one else has a copy, do they?   I guess when the Judge in the "Availability Policy" lawsuit required the parties to abide by it that wasn't actual proof that it existed - Not really a "Fact"!  Don't misinterpret my distaste for UTU's misguided polycies as any support for the BLE hierarchy as I view them as a "me too" union that has already accepted the "trick rates" if they can just sell this MERGER!!

Some Facts About the Unification

Preserves craft autonomy

   Sounds great but is it just "consitutional rhetoric"!  The only thing that perserves craft autonomy is Article 80 of the UTU Constitution.  Indeed, in the FEC, the neutral uphelp the historic crafts but UTU reopened it so they could grant the FEC a single craft and class of "train and engine service employee"! Read 21NMB35 sometime and gain some "real" facts about how this all started - by the UTU for the same purpose as now - get dues paying members at whatever cost!   I am remined of something I wrote previously, to wit:

"Specifically, would switchmen on UP/SP vote as the craft of switchman for any vote allowed by NMB between UTU and BLE? Would they vote at all? While I am familiar with President Little’s February 4 Article entitled "UTU will continue to protect historical craft autonomy for all railroad operating employees", it appears to be nothing more than damage control to the questions concerning Article 80 brought up by several UTU members. Indeed, that "UTU provides double protection to guarantee historical craft autonomy and preservation" won’t really mean much if a government agency redefines the crafts consistent with the specious averments of President Little’s agent, General Council Miller. That argument has been adequately addressed in Local 1918 member Robert A. Cushing, Jr.’s letter to President Little of February 6, 1998 which is herewith attached as Exhibit 1 to this appeal.

Craft autonomy is the basis of the Unification Agreement and the cornerstone of the UTU Constitution. Accordingly, the Board of Directors should hear this appeal at the regularly scheduled April meeting to insure that Article 80 will be preserved in its entirety, rather than risk its abolishment by NMB pursuant to the request of the International President through his agent, the General Counsel."

   See my Petition to the NMB ( and associated letters) in opposition to Sac-C's attempt to allege a dispute on the UP when this ploy first surfaced!

Improves bargaining power

   Whoa . . . , sounds great - were do I sign up?  Ah . . ., but how does it improve bargaining power; is it just a given since we are united now?  If I am not mistaken, BLE participated in the "panel" that addressed various issues from the 1996 agreement.  That UTU has initialed what is commonly referred to as the "trick (trip) rate" agreement, i.e., sign here and the Carrier will use their records to tell you YOUR pay AFTER you agree, does not change the fact the the BLE hierarchy has not negotiated any other "national agreement", intended to "me too" this one, and WILL if they get a UTU/BLE "new" union!   You BLE engineers want more than "trick rates" (perhaps at least know what they are before you vote?), Vote NO on this agreement or trick rates are Your "me too" agreement again!!!

Eliminates carrier's ability to divide and conquer operating employees

   How?  Let's see now . . ., they played us off against each other in the past in the "Race to the Bottom", i.e., first to capitulate for the least amount of money gets the prize unless the other shuns "me too" and will work for less?  Who will do the "belt pack" for the least money?  While sad, it is at least "laughable"!

    We've allegedly cut each others throats for decades to "perserve" our own jobs but now the "new" union  will negotiate from a "power of one" wherein "none of us will do it for less", i.e., we demand X amount and we demand it now!   Carrier: so who will operate the black box and what will you take as the lowest "trick rate" wherein we will sign rather than go to PEB? Gosh, I don't know the answer to that question but I pray it won't be answered by a "Company Union®"?

Unifies efforts to preserve jobs in th face of technological change

Really?  How so?  I don't mean to appear ignorant, but this is a moot issue to me since most "belt pack" operations are limited to hump yards and most other yards couldn't effectively use this technology without such loss of productivity and safety that it would be a disaster to the shareholders!

   But, assuming they are the wave of the future and significant jobs (engineer's jobs) will be lost to this technology, can anyone in BLE tell me how they could overturn a "determination" that UTU ground service employees or "Conductors" will operate the "black box" could be overturned by the "Executive Council" of the "new" union? Not trying to throw sand in your face, just want you to know that when push comes to shove, the "majority" rules!

Combines resources to effectively represent the members

    "Allright, we be talk'in some shit now, huh? UTU just signed another 10 year lease in their building that is too small for both unions to move into?   "Little kickback" can rectify that, right; us UTU guys just move Uptown like the Jeffersons ("mov'in on up" . . . sing it members!)? The BLE has a couple floors in your building available, right?  Ah . . . , "Executive Council" says YES! 

    Did I tell you how much money we will save if some poor unfortunate bastard dies (not necessarily by natural causes), retires (nevermind), resigns (nevermind), permanent illness (like cancer - no, they still can work or at least "be paid" not to work), or removal for cause (hahaha)?

    I think there is not doubt that after the 2016 Convention, we may save some significant money through "attrition"!

Retains current division officers

   Whoopie! Did they get any "3 year term" extension like UTU International Officers?

Guarantees separate craft ratification on agreements

    Really?  Damn, seems like I addressed this before?  Maybe in my article about Merger Meeting, to wit:

"some of the explanations and answers didn't sound to good to the membership. While engaged in a "guarantee" of craft autonomy under Article 70 for voting National Agreements, I asked Brother Hakey which took precedence, the Constitution or the Unification Agreement?  He responded something to the effect (I'm not going to look for it on the tape but I did tape the whole meeting and so advised after David gave me a "personal guarantee" on another  issue of concern) what specifically are you talking about?  I then read Unification Agreement 18.2 in it's entirety and David agreed the UA takes precedence over the Constitution if there is a conflict! I then read Section 7.1, specifically, "If more than one craft is directly affected by any change in working conditions, e.g. seniority, that change shall be determined by a separate majority vote of each and every directly affected craft . . . " (emphasis mine) and I asked if the current National Agreement changes anyone's seniority?  He said No!  So I said why would be have to have a vote along craft lines then?  He seemed somewhat confused as if I had concocted something from nothing. "

Protects the right of members to approve proffers of arbitration

    Damn, I guess the BLE must have that right already, huh?  I know no one in UTU has it; at least it wasn't evident in the 1996 agreement that was voted down by the members and quickly approved in "Arbitration"!  "U" haven't been to arbitration until you go "UTU Style", i.e., the UTU officers agree with the Carrier's position and beg the Arbitrator to rule in favor of the Carrier! 

    The "BIGGEST" problem we have in the Railroad industry is the corruption of the Arbitration process.     When you go to arbitration, you expect there is a "dispute" and that your representative will represent your side of the argument!  Not so with UTU and they have prooven it repeatedly (See information in putting "U" back in the union); Mikrut, O'brien, Yost, Smoot, the 1996 National Agreement are the "norm" for UTU, not "exceptions"!  These boys and CSXT didn't spend a million dollars + to crush Smoot, they did it to protect the corrupt "Railroad Arbitration System"! 

    Don't any of you BLE guys get a big head because your union knows how to play the game also and has many times. 

Retains General Committee's right to opt out of national contract negotiations

    Yep, and if you do you can go to court to do it like 3 BN GC's are doing now and what you will find is the UTU won't help you one bit; in fact they are their usual "behind closed doors" negotiators because they don't want these GC's to win - they want to be the "Single Spokesperson" for all General Chairman under National Negotiations!  What else would you expect from the "Company Union®"?  See this site for some accurate information on these matters including the actual "legal filings" if still present? http://jaysworks.com/1637/

Incorporates democratic principals found in the current BLE constitution

    Gosh, I hope someone in the BLE heirarchy will elaborate on this?   I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with the "Recall" Provision? Ah . . . , maybe makes BLE Officers votes meaningless since they don't have a "majority" on the Executvie Council?  I don't have a clue what they are talking about and the Q & A's reinterated from the UTU/BLE (read UTU here) Spin Doctor site don't really clarify the issue for me in any way!  I guess as a "bullet point" it sounds great but remains one of life's "mysteries"?

Preserves the Board of Appeals for engineers

    Whoopiedoo!  I served on the UTU Board of Appeals from 1991 to 1995!   The only function it served was to make a member exhaust internal remedy before you can go to court!  Every losing member that ever went to court quickly lost his suit through summary judgment! Now, those that won against the President of the Union or their General Chairman, didn't fair quit as well, i.e., they never got shit because the UTU never supports the winners and even argues that a VP (read Bob Earley here) can argue against the "final and binding" decision of the Board of Appeals as if he is "independent" at the Public Law Board!  UTU did it and I have the filings which are a matter of Public Record! 

    See following articles to fully understand the absolute reasons that both UTU and BLE members will be decimated if the current UAC and Byron Boyd gain their so-called "new union"!

Creates financial benefits

    Most "voluntary" corporate mergers significantly reduce cost immediately by combination of facilities/assets/duplicate functions and severace of duplicate management officers!  Not so with this merger as a "bloated hierarchy" will continue in effect until at least 2016.  Of course, this is not a "voluntary" corporate merger unless the BLE members are dumb enough to believe their own hierarchy; truth is this is a hostile takeover and all UTU had to do was give more money to the BLE Officres and fewer responsibilities!

    If you believe you are going to save $4.50 a month in dues, you must be from a state that already has a legislative department.  If you believe that dues increase in February or March of 2002 won't be double or triple that amount, you must be in a state of denial and believe both UTU and BLE are "strong and stable" financially!  That would also be a good indication that you prefer "fiction" (the habitual lies of the UTU with regard to their financial condition) over "fact" (the LM-2 Reports of both BLE and UTU available to every member should he/she desire them).

Indeed, the only logical reason for this merger would seem to be that "legal costs" will be eliminated if you believe that we can bargain as one and from strength?  I don't believe that but of course, as many concerned "anonymous" UTU members (read special reps here) have stated, I am ANTI-EVERYTHING, i.e., anti-UTU on every issue! Anyone who knows me, including the two BLE delegates from El Paso and numerous BLE brothers, knows that is a blantant lie. How does having one union reduce legal costs and eliminate costly representation battles if the one union refuses to tell you what "the plan" is?  Anyone believe that the BLE members and/or hierarchy won't be able to sue if the UTU/BLE Executive Council decides to give the "black box" to yardmen, conductors, UTU-E engineers, etc.?

My point?  If the new union is to come about, it can't be with a UAC that is unfair to the memberships; it can't be with a "bloated hierarchy" that exists for 15 years; it can't be without "principals" that will express how we will deal with the Pre-85 employees who didn't take promotion to engineer or who will operate the "black box"; it can't be provisions that limit who can run for any office after the "first convention"; it can't be with "unequal" representation; it can't be a union wherein the leaders can never be held accountable for their actions; it can't be a union wherein the hierarchy can raise the dues in any substantial amount without vote of the membership; it can't be a union created out of the threat of a hostile takeover; and it can't be a union that gives 3 extra years of office to leadership that has no INTEGRITY and couldn't be re-elected in 2003 anyway!

Forgert dues maintenance fees; I didn't know we had any since it takes BLE demanding "exclusivity" in order to open themselves up to Paul Thompson's brainchild, i.e., "dues maintenance"!  If there are those out there that are having to pay dues to UTU and BLE (I didn't think there were other than those that chose to belong to both unions voluntarily?), then this is a real reason we should deny "one union", i.e., they have forced us into multiple payments (bankruptcy) because they lacked the leadership to "get along"!   These are essentially two unions who have bankrupted each other at their members expense that now want to reward the two hierarchies for their folley by combining into one "new" union but want us members to foot the bill and give up our hard earned rights at numerous conventions?  I got to tell you from my perspective, it's a no brainer  .   .   .

Vote NO!!!