Sometimes others say it better than we ever can, and
there is one quote that will live well after we are gone, simply stated, "Are you
better off today than you were four years ago?". It is a personal matter and it
addresses "you", not how somebody else perceives your situation, but how
"you" do.
Union, that's what we all belong to, not by choice, not
by chance, but because of the work of our forefathers in an attempt to provide us with a
safer work place. There was and is, strength in numbers, not strength in one person.
Unions were created to help each person,
"you", hence the "u" in "union". They were created to
bargain for each of "u". The union is here to work for "u",
"u" are not here to work for the "union".
It was, and can be a grand plan, a way of life for the
common good of "u", but unfortunately, it seems that something went wrong, and
terribly so.
A personal question to each of "u", have
things gotten better in the past four years? Should they have gotten better, probably so.
The stock market is at an all time record high, corporate profits for all rail carriers
are at record levels, the revenues that the rail companies make off the hard work of each
of "u" is at an all time high, we have a Democratic President, everything is
coming up roses? Right? Crew dispatching is better, payroll problems are non-existent, you
have no problem laying off, the carrier's honor your agreements, you feel secure in your
job, there is harmony and equality within the ranks, and lastly the rail carrier's treat
each of "u" like human beings?
In traveling around the country, it is interesting to
note that the rank and file seem to have lost interest and focus in the "union",
and if the truth were known, the majority of members of this "union" would
probably blame most of their problems on this "union". Is that a true belief? I
don't believe the institution of the "union" is to blame, just the directions we
have taken at the hands of our current President.
Love and hate are emotions at opposite ends of the
spectrum, but believe it or not, they are probably the most closely associated emotions.
Take the example of the dissolution of a marriage by divorce, here we have two people who
at one time truly loved each other. But for a variety of reasons, possibly infidelity,
possibly misuse of money, or whatever, they now hate each other. And the ensuing process
is messy, ugly and non-beneficial to either party, but there was a breach of faith and the
result will stand.
I believe that there has been a serious breach of faith
from our International President, which started immediately when he assumed office. Some
will and some won't remember that at the last convention in Chicago in 1995, one of the
key issues concerned the finances of this Union, and how much of a dues increase was
necessary. A small dues increase was levied, but was it enough? Had our newly elected
International President been honest with us?
In October of 1995, at the direction of the
International President a letter was drafted concerning the legality of removing money, in
excess of seven million dollars ($7,000,000), from the Job Benefit Trust Fund to pay off a
huge bank loan which had been secured to pay off a civil judgement. Supposedly, it was to
have been legal, maybe not moral, but theoretically legal.
In a nutshell, the Job Benefit Trust Fund was taking in
more money than was paid out to "u" the members, so there were three paths to go
down. The first was to do nothing and allow the fund to amass huge sums of money, the
second to use the money for something else, and the third to either increase the benefits
for "u" or reduce the amount that "u" paid per month. The decision was
not based on "u", but on the self serving political interests of the
International President.
However, it didn't stop there, our current International
President, then took an additional five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) from the Job
Benefit Fund and one hundred twenty five thousand dollars ($125,000) for the purchase of
and start up operations of the bus. Did this really benefit "u", or is this
merely an elegant mode of transportation for our International President and his cronies.
(This did allow our International President the right the lie to the members as to the
funding for the bus, depending on which regional meeting you attended last year we were
told three stories, one, the bus was paid for with the receipts of the UTU members credit
cards, two, the bus was paid for by the designated legal counsel, and last that it was not
paid for out of Union funds. Did these lies help "u"?)
The taking of the monies was interest free, when was the
last time "u" got an interest free loan? Did this benefit "u"? Most
recently, our Board of Directors approved the action of the our UTU International
President to not repay the money, and further to have the Job Benefit Fund made part of
the dues structure of the UTU. If you do not hold a Job Benefit policy, this may benefit
"u", but what about all the members that are paying the high premiums, does it
help "u" to know that "u're" money for Job Benefit is a secondary form
of dues?
It seems now that the BLE has hired attorneys and the
main reason for the breakdown in the negotiations concerning the "new union" was
because of this misuse of money by our International President (See BLE Letter received
anonymously postmarked from Annapolis, MD). So, what has our International President done,
hired a high dollar Washington, D.C. law firm, with your dues money, or maybe Job Benefit
Fund monies, to argue that our International President has the right to take the Job
Benefit money. Is that helping "u"? It is exactly this type of "paid
for" legal opinion that allowed these actions in the first place when the President
and the Board of Directors knew, or should have known, via the Yule lawsuit and decision,
that their actions were always illegal!
On a related note, the issue of the "cronies"
is very pertinent. The available records filed with the Department of Labor shows that in
1998, our UTU International President spent one million six hundred thousand dollars
($1,600,000) of "u're" dues on special representatives, mainly to promote his
reelection and forward his thoughts and philosophies. Did "u" see any benefit in
this expense, especially since my research of the records shows that this is
unprecedented? Did crew dispatching improve, did you get a pay raise, was "u're"
life made better?
The next major breach of faith came in the 1996 National
Agreement. Many of the delegates who waged the floor fights in a litany of conventions are
still around to hopefully reap the benefits of Amembership ratification". We have the
right to one man-one vote on agreements, and our International President negotiated what
he felt to be the best agreement for "u", and he gave "u" a vote on
it, but did the vote "u" cast count. Unfortunately not, since our International
President had already arranged to have his position enforced on "u", by placing
the matter to binding arbitration, not to reflect the position of "u", but his
position.
Was there anything that could have been done about his
actions, probably not, and consequently were "u" part of the union, I think not.
The issue of the "arbitration" that was held
in the matter of the 1996 National Agreement, is one area that demands tremendous
scrutiny. I was recently asked a question on my website from one of the members concerning
the "Smoot" issue, and I have been provided with all the court filings in the
matter and to steal a phrase from Brother Arnold, "What the hell is going on
here?".
Though this Smoot matter has become extremely complex,
there is a simple principle at the core, which is do "u" the member have the
right to be represented fairly by this Union? Seems that Brother Smoot made a claim for
thirty shares of stock on his railroad, and the carrier turned down the claim, and the
General Chairman refused to handle the claim. Brother Smoot appealed the decision of the
General Chairman to the UTU Board of Appeals, the place where "u" receive a
final and binding decision. The Board of Appeals ruled unanimously that Brother Smoot was
entitled to the thirty shares of stock. If "u" got that decision, "u"
should and would feel that you had won, and it would be a matter of time until
"u" got the stock.
Wrong. Seems that our Union took the matter to a form of
arbitration, i.e. a Public Law Board, and it also seems that one of our International Vice
Presidents went in and argued not only against the position of Smoot, but also the
position of the Union. Smoot was "u", and what happened then. Unknowingly Smoot
caught the whole matter on tape, and attempted to find justice in the halls of this Union.
After many years of legalistic maneuvering, our Union,
at the direction of our International President, decided to payoff the
"misbehaving" International Vice President, and agree that "u" would
never have a right to bring this man to justice. Is that the Union working for
"u"?
But wait, there's more, the Union then employed a high
priced Washington, D.C. law firm, paid for with "u're" dues money, to prosecute
Smoot for having the audacity to catch the actual sellout at this form of arbitration
panel. Last check of the Virginia Court docket, UTU is attempting to enforce a judgement
against Smoot, has filed suit against his wife, daughter, and son, and poor Smoot has
filed for bankruptcy. This could have been "u". (It is worth noting that our
International President, personally signed the one hundred thousand dollar ($100,000) bond
to execute a writ of attachment against Smoot, his wife and his children. This is money
which "u" the dues payers will have to pay when [not if] UTU loses the case.)
The question now for "u" is, "Why would
our International President go to all this trouble at the dues payers expense when one of
the International Vice Presidents is caught red-handed violating Federal Law in an
arbitration proceeding?" Could it be that he doesn't want "u" to know that
such actions are the way the process actually works? If that is the case, is the union
working for "u" in "arbitration"?
Interestingly, at the direction of the International
President, "u're" dues money has already paid some five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000) in legal fees and payments related to the actions of this International Vice
President. Was this to help "u", no, for the purpose of preserving a court
decision that would nullify "u're" rights in a court of law if the same thing
happened to "u". And as previously stated (See O For letter to Little), another
large amount of "u're" dues money is about to be paid the high priced
Washington, DC attorneys to argue against "u" in the Sixth Circuit.
There are other "arbitration" decisions where
"u" the member did not fare so well, the first to be discussed will be the
infamous "O'Brien Award". What happened, we all hear about it, but, what was
really the basis. Simplistically, the CSXT attempted to get the so-called "two bites
of the apple" with respect to New York Dock under a merger. Our Union ostensibly did
not feel they had the right to do this, so our Union played the popular "we'll teach
you a lesson Mr. Railroad". Problem is, "u" all know that no matter how
frivolous a charge is that a railroad makes, you had better be prepared to fight it. Well,
unfortunately for us our union did not fight the good fight. So did it benefit
"u"?
That wasn't really good enough for our International
President, and it was decided to "test" the O'Brien award in court. The matter
ended up in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and once again, we fought the good fight,
there was only one problem, on key issues that adversely affected the membership, we
agreed with the rail carrier. Did that benefit "u"? Hence the stage was set for
the next debacle of our current administration, the UP railroad.
It is worth noting, that our current International
President comes off what some have characterized as a "model railroad", it is
basically a terminal railroad that has no main line operations, and was owned and
controlled by the Union Pacific. Does that level of railroad background benefit
"u" as a member? Initially, the UTU was opposed to the UP/SP merger loudly
informing the membership that union opposition to a merger of Class I carriers had never
stopped a merger. A brief look at history shows that the UTU was opposed, from start to
finish, to the failed merger of the Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe. History benefitted
"u" as a member, but did our International President?
A peripheral though important aspect of the UP/SP merger
was the merging of the CN&W into the UP system. Seems that the UTU got a
"bad" arbitration decision from a very outstanding referee by the name of
Mikrut. Mr. Mikrut passed away shortly after issuing the award, however, he was an
otherwise middle aged healthy man. The walls were fixing to come crashing down on our
brothers on the CN&W, and the dates are very telling, since the date of the now
infamous Acommitment letter" which our International President entered into with UP
to give "u're" support to the UP/SP merger clearly coincides with the doom that
was fixing to come on the CN&W brothers. Coincidence, maybe?
At the time our International President signed the
"commitment letter", "u" were paying for the services of the premier
labor law firm in the United States in matters pertaining to the merger. When they were
made aware of the "commitment letter", they informed our International President
in writing that to sign the letter would adversely affect "u", since our Union
would give up the "sanctity of collective bargaining agreements". Did
"u" get represented, no, our International President fired the law firm and
signed the letter.
So began the ongoing debacle of the Union Pacific
Railroad, and if you are fortunate, or more properly unfortunate to be on the
UP/SP/CN&W/MKT, etc., did these actions of our International President benefit
"u"? There was one problem, some of our General Chairmen were quite aggravated
over the arrogant attitude of the Union Pacific waving the "commitment letter"
in front of them during negotiations. What did they do to hopefully save "u"
from the actions of our International President, they decided to take the matter of the
"commitment letter" to arbitration.
It is well known by most Union officers that our
International President prides himself on the fact that he believes that he has the
National Mediation Board (NMB) in his back pocket, and fancies himself as being able to
control the actions of the arbitrators. That should benefit "u", if true, but
the question is, has it?
The issue of the "commitment letter", was
placed before an unknown arbitrator, Mr. Yost, with a resume listing of higher education
as "the school of hard knocks", a matter in which openly or behind closed doors
the UTU International President had a hand. Did that benefit "u" as the member?
For those of "u" who may not know this fact,
one of the key issues behind any document is the so-called "intent of the
framers", which simply stated, allows that in the matter of a dispute over the
application of the document, and it is placed before a "disinterested third
party", the intent of the framers is a proper matter to be considered. The
"commitment letter" had two (2) signatures, one of our International President
and one of an agent of the Union Pacific. Did our International President come forward at
the Yost arbitration to represent "u" by telling the arbitrator that what the UP
was doing with seniority and collective bargaining agreements was not his intent? No.
Did Mr. Yost make a ruling on the "commitment
letter". Yes, he basically said it means what it says, the problem is nobody knows
what it means. It is worth noting that in the styled "executive session" held
after the Yost arbitration, a closed door proceeding which has no basis in law, our
Assistant President represented the position of the Union, but he wasn't even a party to
the proceeding. Did this benefit "u"?
The merger of the Union Pacific continues to unfold, as
will the Conrail breakup, matters which the International President that "u" pay
some quarter of a million dollars a year to agreed to. Did he really consider
"u". These mergers were beneficial to the rail carriers and the shareholders,
but do they really benefit "u", the dues paying member. Do "u" benefit
from the loss of your collective bargaining agreements, do "u" benefit from
massive losses of the exercise of seniority, do "u" benefit from new General
Committees, do "u" benefit from having your locals closed? Maybe "u"
benefitted from that guaranteed "certification" since that was the main reason
to support the acquisition? Maybe we shall hear for all the UP/SP employees who are having
no difficulty at all with the Carrier living up to their promises relative to
certification?
A very interesting aspect of these so-called
mega-mergers is the open allegations of our International President concerning the fact
that he has at least one member of the Surface Transportation Board in his "back
pocket". Clearly, when the UP was taking a pounding worse than Sadam Hussein in
Desert Storm, our International President utilized his pull with the STB to keep the dogs
off the UP. Negotiations and cooperative efforts usually are based in a "quid pro
quo" arrangement, meaning this for that, but it would seem that our International
President negotiates on a "quid pro nil" basis when it comes to "u",
i.e. helping the carriers utilizes a "quid pro nil" (something for nothing)
basis and "u" get nothing in return. Would be interesting to see what maybe was
given but "u" don't know about yet?.
But our International President has now come up with
something additional which the railroads always wanted, the so-called single spokesperson.
Clearly this decision flowed directly from his 1996 National Agreement, the one
"u" voted down. Part of that agreement dealt with this "Wage and Rule
Panel" which has been meeting in secret (hush, hush, CIA type stuff), so
"u" the payers of the bills don't really have a clue about it. But leaks abound,
and the most notable is the reference that part, if not all of it, was signed last year in
Houston. Did "u" get a vote on it?
Basically it would appear that "u" will be
going to salaries, assigned rest cycles, and be something known as a "train and
engine service employee". Let me know if "u" got a say so in this decision,
cause I haven't found one soul who got to be part of this decision making on the part of
our International President. Let me know if "u" will think you will benefit from
it?
Problem is that the decision of the International
President, in conjunction with the rail carriers, to bring the Wage and Rule panel to
fruition, cannot happen with two unions to represent operating employees. Did
"u" get a vote or say so in the decision of our International President to go to
the National Mediation Board and demand a representation vote? Are the actions of our
International President a violation of "u're" Constitution?
Needless to say, "u" are moving along at
breakneck speed to two decisions, which when put together will have an effect something
like this: To work for a railroad "u" will have to be a member of a specific
union, and "u" will be required to pay dues (regardless of how much they are to
pay for additional buses, maybe boats and planes), "u" will have a fixed salary
and "u" will have no say so in the matter. Sounds like a good deal for somebody,
but that somebody is probably not "u".
What "u" are moving toward is a somewhat
"utility company" type position, i.e. "u" are a dues/rate payer, and
unfortunately "u're" International President has set in motion the creation of a
monopoly to take "u're" dues money. Will "u" have any recourse, no
matter how many "by God's" "u" come up with in the shanty, I think
not. Because while all this has been going on, "u're" International President
has utilized "u're" dues money to pay the legal bills to deprive "u"
of "u're" rights. Seems to me there used to be a situation close to that, think
it was what was known as an indentured servant.
In closing, "u" should have seen the
handwriting on the wall, and it may have been in the shanty restroom, but since when does
the most anti-Union publication in the United States (possibly the world) with respect to
railroads, take the time to glorify one of "u're" leaders. Since that article,
Carrier publications regularly praise the International President and one high ranking
railroad officer just stated the failure of the new union might keep the nations railroads
from having two engineers on every train. If "u" are a pre-85 Conductor who
hasn't taken promotion to engineer, "u" should be concerned (I certainly am).
Does this mean that "u're" International
President is doing a good job for "u", or for those he is supposed to be
fighting? I know that during our revolutionary war, British press considered Benedict
Arnold to be a true hero, problem is we were at war with the British. There probably is no
correlation, but something for "u" to think about.
Of course, there are some of "u" out there
that can truly say, "I am better off now than I was four years ago. "U'RE called
Special Representatives! And "U" won't care when the rest of the "u's"
have to pay $20 or $30 more dollars a month in dues for the extravagance of this
President, as long as "U" are still on the payroll, i.e., feeding at the trough.
Congratulations, rumor has it that Gene Reynolds is the latest full time trough puppy?
Are "u" just occupying a deck chair on the
Titanic, probably, but "u" haven't really struck the iceberg yet, we can vote
and possibly avoid the iceberg, but the question is, how much of "u're" dues
payers and Job Benefit money will the current incumbent International President spend on
his cronies, under the guise of the "single craft vote on the UP", to insure his
position at the helm. Hell, it's only money, but then again its "u'res". Seems
like I read somewhere about Banana Republics, where they preach democracy, but it really
doesn't mean much. Not to worry, "u" are a member of a democratic union,
"u're" vote counts.
Obviously, "u" as presented in this editorial,
are not officers of this union but rather the hard working union members who pay the
freight for everything and daily work on the nations railroads to make a living for
yourself and/or your family. Isn't it time that "u" became "U" in this
Union and determined the course of our future? Ask "u're" delegate who he's
voting for and why. In the humble opinion of this writer, it's much to late to avoid the
dues increases we shall face if this union is to continue to function. However, it not too
late to elect someone who will not lie to "u" and place you in the same position
again four years from now? It's "u're" choice!
