Race to the Bottom!

Yes, Byron Boyd has finally won the "Race to the Bottom" by delivering to the Carrier’s the best agreement they have ever had! Of course, the "bottom" is for all rail operating employees, makes no difference which union you are in - these "trick rates" will be for both the BLE and UTU (Remember BLE was part of the "Panel" too)!

Don’t worry about the idle threat to give the RCO to the BLE if we don’t ratify this wonderful agreement, we haven’t ratified the last two agreements (three if you count turning down the 1985 agreement the first time) and we got them verbatim anyway! Nothing has changed but the Hierarachy, who lose nothing and insure their decadent ways, would dearly love this to pass so that there can be no repercussions in the form of investigations, protests, etc. The Carrier isn’t about to throw out those that already trained and qualified in RCO operations - they have their "license" now just like Engineer’s have a certificate to run an engine. They don’t place bids for a "BLE Engineer" because they can’t deny you your seniority no matter which union you are in! Same holds true for those who have qualified for RCO and remember that all engineers have a ground service date and the older ones have a 1985 date.

If any of you "junion" men hired after 1985 think you are going to end up in one of these "protected" slots, I’d say you are dreaming. Byron Boyd and the NCCC WANT to get rid of all Pre-85 employees and they now have two avenues to speed that process, i.e., the recent RRB Act and the RCO "buyouts"! Of course, that bullshit about how  all you post 85ers are going to get a 27% increase immediately is just that - BULLSHIT! In fact, this new proposal is significantly more "Carrier Friendly" than the last one! Specifically, if you are still on a wage scale, Q & A #2 on page 6 makes it abundatly clear you will get your Percentage of the "Trick Rate" (Whoopeedo)! And if you think there are no new entry rates for those hired tomorrow or after June 30, 2004 better read real careful again. Indeed, Byron’s excuse that the Carrier denying the original date to bring employees up to 100% was all just bullshit. Close examination of Article VI shows Article Article IV, Section 5 of the 1991 Agreement is still in full effect, i.e., 75% starting with a 5% increase per year. So basically after June 30, 2004, it will be a real cost savings for the carrier to replace employees on full "Trick Rates" with new hires that will get a % of "Trick Rates" for 5 years (ah - don’t screw up with that belt pac since we now know all belt pac accidents are caused by human error - thanks to the Company Union).

Are any of us guaranteed the 3 (4%, 2.5%, and 3%) pay raises in Article 1! NOPE - not if your General Chairman decides to opt for some "alternative compensation program" instead. The only real question is can he do this without a vote? I believe, based upon the language of Art. II, Section 2(a)(2) ["The proposed arrangements may be implements only by mutual agreement of the carrier and the appropriate organization representative(s); "], that he could and I also believe if members were allowed to vote under "internal union proceedures" and voted it down, the Carriers could successfully challenge it in the courts and implement the agreement anyway, just like they will with this agreement once it fails to ratify (just as they did in 1991 and 1996) Remember, your union leaders, the Carrier, and the Courts only care about the language of the Railway Labor Act, not the union’s internal constitution! Anybody for some junk bonds in lieu of your pay raises? Ah, . . . , say, didn’t the raises total 11% in the last proposal intead of 9.5%???? Hmmm . . . , I guess the only ones "guaranteed" these raises are the union hierarchy (good job guys)!

"Trick Rates" got markedly worse because the last proposal required the review year to be prior to the intialing of the proposal. That restriction has now been removed so we know now why there has been significant efforts to deny and/or hold down arbitraries, HAFH, inital, final, etc. for the last few years - to generate favorable figues for the "Trick Rates"! When there is no financial penalty for poor handling of train crews (initial, final, runarounds, etc. See Art. V, Section 5(a) for the current 9 items and throw in HAFH in under (b) ), what happens when you wait 30 hours at the away from home terminal, 7 hours to get out, 5 hours for the taxi to pick you up when you go dead and end up with a turnaround trip that last 4 days? NOTHING - you get your "Trick Rate"! Hell, that in itself ought to adequately explain why it is all a vicious "trick"!

Did we avoid the unfavorable payments for H&W like the BMWE? NOPE - we just get them after we sign the agreement rather than before - probably retroactive and in final and binding arbitration so our beloved union hierarchy can say "We Fought the Good Fight - damn Republicans"! Perhaps they will hire an outside expert to handle the Arbitration rather than one of our overworked VP’s - "Fight’in Bob Earley"????

Does anybody now see the total significance of the 8 year battle over Smoot? This Union and CSXT spent over a Million Dollars to insure the continued existence of a corrupt arbitration system and now have a court case that allows the union to agree with the Carrier’s position in Arbitration. And, of Course, they are not likely to get caught in Executive Session any more with a tape recording! This union showed it’s true colors in the first Board of Directors meeting after the Smoot matter came to light when they required everyone to take their bags with them each time the Board of Directors went into Executive Session. The message was clear; we are not going to change our corrupt ways, we are going to insure we don’t get caught again!! Bravo UTU - you truly are The Company Union and this "fill in the blanks" travesty is all the proof anyone should need to realize that fact. Disputes Committee - bullshit. Make work for the UTU VP’s so they can go behind closed doors and give the Carrier everything Byron promised them! I’m getting sick - I need a break.