RENO EDITION

Pierce Letter

El Paso Express

Special One Page Houston Edition - Reno              July/August 1998

EARLEY PERJURY, AGAIN?

Yes, every bodies favorite "misbehaving" union officer is at it again - telling those "little" white lies under oath! But what was Bob to do? There was Smoot on the witness stand under oath saying he never used or disclosed the transcript or the tape after the Smalkin TRO was issued! How could the CSXT and UTU get punitive damages from their victim if they couldn't prove his actions were "wanton, reckless, and malicious as evidenced by his continued conduct" i.e., his release at the Atlanta Region Meeting of the transcript to "anyone who wanted it"! Only three things wrong with this: 1) Ken Smoot didn't pass out anything at the Atlanta Meeting EXCEPT the Atlanta Edition of the El Paso Express; 2) The Permanent Injunction was vacated during this time; and 3) When pressed for a name, "Fighting Bob" threw out the name Byron Boyd - the Assistant President.

What's wrong? 1) I, Lance E. Ruck, stated flat out in the Atlanta Edition on page 4: AYes, I will have four or five copies of the Evidence with me in Atlanta and if you are one of the first four or five who have the "courage" to request it in violation of the alleged, illegal "Settlement Agreement and Release" (haha), it is yours!!

What, Me Worry? It is noted only one person asked for it, he returned it the next evening, and I believe he stated something to the effect - "Pitiful, he should be shot"! Hmm, some of these union guys really are smart! 2) Nothing prohibited Smoot from giving it out if he desired since the injunction was vacated with the consent of UTU and Earley (part of the SAR scam to keep them out of court with a jury and pay his legal fees). 3) Byron Boyd confirmed at the Board of Directors Meeting in April in front of one Mr. Sammy Ray Spears that he only received a copy of the El Paso Express, not the transcript! In fact, he became somewhat indignant when I asked if he would tell the truth under oath! I know he won't lie, and if he does I'll just pull out the tape and transcript! Hey, Byron, I recommend the world's greatest labor lawyer! If he has the audacity to hire four Washington, DC attorneys to prosecute Smoot for something he knows is not a violation of the law, he could probably argue I had a tortuous purpose for my taping, i.e., get the truth and prevent the rapist from collecting money from his victim!

Houston, we have a problem!

Because of the financial outlay in attempting to get justice from the Supreme Court (denied of course), the CEO of the Express will be unable to attend the Houston Region Meeting as he has been working 56 to 58 hour work weeks on the 11:59 PM yard job in El Paso. However, things are looking up (financially) and I shall attend the Reno Meeting in order to ask Byron Boyd in front of the largest audience available: Did Ken Smoot give you a copy of the Executive Session Transcript at the Atlanta Region Meeting?

I regret not seeing the many friends I have recently talked with who will be in Houston. Al, sorry I couldn't make it, was really looking forward to talking with you concerning our recent communications. That's Chesser, not Lankford. Lankford, a most capable UTU VP, who was the only victim of the Executive Board in the history of UTU to be removed from office, who had the greatest lawsuit imaginable against UTU, and who received help from some friends to get legal counsel to correct his situation, has again disappeared, allegedly disguised as a switchman in Kansas City? He doesn't contact his friends and it appears he has somehow resolved his differences with His Eminence. I guess the only question now is - how much did it cost the UTU membership? We still love ya, Al!

A special thanks for the contributions of some union members without whose support this update would not have been possible: Mr. G. L. Chip, Local 1571 - $300, Mr. R. Navarro, Local 1571 - $750, and Mr. G. France, BLE Div ? (el paso) - $600. It is noted that this union representative, while not the Local Chairman and not obligated to represent anyone in investigation, has never refused his services to someone in need nor has he ever asked for anything in return. All contributions from those I have successfully represented were only accepted if I could show them as donations to the El Paso Express. I truly appreciate the generous contributions.

I will be in Reno and probably writing Janet too! I promise my many supporters, my many CSXT distractors whom still believe the sun rises and sets on "Fighting Bob", and those few "Wild Bills" out there whom I seem to rub the wrong way with my insidious quest for truth and justice, that I will have a full edition of the Express for the Reno Meeting and an updated Website for the El Paso Express ( I am considering outsourcing for 20 or 30 G's a month like UTU?)! In order to keep up with the competition, the Express has ordered a custom made bus which will only cost $594,020 with an annual upkeep of about $200,000. It shall be named "Freedom of Speech I" and I shall drive it myself to all the Region meetings in order to train union members about their rights to free speech within the union! If nobody shows up, I will use it to politic, take all my friends to the golf outings, and Party! Mr. Clinton has expressed interest in the latter three!

Favorite Selected Readings

"23. In this case, an award of punitive damages is appropriate. Smoot used the contents of the Executive Session to damage Robert Earley's reputation within the UTU and to threaten Earley's position with the UTU. Smoot also used the contents of the Executive Session to institute a civil action against the UTU, CSXT, and the Public Law Board and to damage the public reputation of these entities. Finally, Smoot willfully distributed copies of the Executive Session transcript at a UTU convention in August of 1997, despite the fact that three federal court judges had previously issued preliminary or permanent injunctions based upon finding that Smoot most likely or did in fact illegally intercept the communications made during the Executive Session. . . ." (UTU filing dated April 27, 1998 from John Edmond and Anthony Sgambati). OK boys and girls, can you say Amalicious prosecution@? "Abuse of Process", "Malpractice", or "knew or should have known"??????? Yea, Clint sicKed high dollar Washington, DC attorneys on poor Smoot and they have already run up $48,239.43 in fees. Anybody want to bet every dime is paid to them by the members, not Smoot? If Economus does grant UTU and CSXT's specious claims for damages, Dateline will accept our story then!

#1: while preparing to attend my first convention as local delegate in 1995, I received a letter from Mr. Earley dated June 26, 1995 telling me that he was suing "individuals" and "not our union" (2d P). Now I learn that he has been paid legal expenses by those individuals"? No, "our" union. How many members got to vote on that expenditure?

#2: Again, citing the mailing which I received from Mr. Earley and referred to as "correct record", I find on page 3 of the "memorandum opinion" a comment by U.S. District Judge Smalkin that the "plaintiff's standing in the UTU, and perhaps his entire career, are in peril should the tape or transcript of the Plb proceedings be utilized . . . ." This excerpt tells me that SOMETHING took place behind closed doors that would be most embarrassing to this union officer if known.

Forget the "El Paso Express". This excerpt comes from a mailing from Mr. Earley!!

. . . . My Local Chairman gave me a cap last month that states: "UTU, and proud". Right now, SOMETHING won't let me wear it. (November 5, 1997 letter to Charles Little from S/T and Delegate of Local 338, Tommy D. Pierce.)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Your irreverent attitude towards your Union Leaders, the Church, and Government Authority indicates to this reader that you are ill bred, uneducated, and defiant?

(Name withheld by request)

Ed: Why, thank you! You are perceptive beyond your years. 12, 24, 26, 31, 43, 50. Do you like Chinese Food?

It is noted that the above was the special one page Houston Edition of the Express. Approximately 300 copies were distributed by some friends who believe in free speech. George Chip, a member of Local 1571, had his Registration bag stolen with 750 more copies of the Express by someone who doesn't believe in free speech? I understand Bud Davis took his copy right to Byron Boyd? Hey Bud, no need to do that unless you just wasn't the Brownie points, I send all Intl Officers their copy directly to their mailing address as listed in the Directory! Gosh, I guess we still have Fireman's General Chairman but no fireman?

"QUOTES CONTINUED"

"Having so concluded, the Board is entitled, indeed required, to look to extrinsic evidence to discover the true intentions of the parties. In this case the Board is presented with the almost unprecedented situation of having before it the actual drafter and negotiators of the language in question, who are in agreement as to its intended meaning. Both Mr. Elswick, the UTU General Chairman on the property, and Mr. H. S. Emerick, Carrier's Senior Director, Labor Relations, who negotiated the October 25, 1989 Memorandum Agreement, stated to the Board that it was their intention in the language used in A(2) and (3) of the Agreement that an employee had to be eligible on November 30, that is an employee subject on that date to the collective bargaining agreement between the Carrier and the UTU, in order to receive the stock contribution provided in A(3). In addition, Mr. Robert W. Earley, UTU Vice President, who negotiated agreements on behalf of UTU with CSX covering the former B&O in 1989, which preceded and contain exactly the same disputed language as in the agreement before us covering the former C&O, stated to the Board that the meaning intended in those agreements is the same as the meaning ascribed by Mr. Elswick and Mr. Emerick to the agreement before the Board in this Case." (PLB 3882, Award 155)

Even new employees hired on UP/SP and BNSF who have read the complete award always come to the same quick conclusion, i.e., the union reps sold out the member - they had no dispute and agreed with the Carrier's position in arbitration! Yet Bob Earley couldn't be accountable because of an alleged illegal wiretap of the Executive Board Sellout? Who needs it, read the Award!

"This Court did find the trial testimony of Howard Emerick, Robert Earley, and Kim Thompson credible. Accordingly, all conflicting testimony is resolved against Smoot." (Footnote 2, Page 9 of UTU's findings of fact and conclusions of law dated April 27, 1998 from John Edmond and Anthony Sgambati). Why is Bob Earley credible? Because he commits perjury again? Perjury No. 1: "Q: (By Ruck) Okay. During that meeting, did you admit to the Board of Appeals members that you had a conflict of interest in Public Law Board 3882? A: (By Earley) No." (Earley deposition under oath 2/10/95). Each member of the Board of Appeals (Ruck, Shelton, Carney, Fitzgerald, and Banks) can verify he did admit to the conflict of interest and stated if it ever happened again, he would withdraw himself from the proceedings! Perjury No. 2: "Q: (By Smoot's attorney) Who did you see him distribute it to? A: (By Earley) Various members of the membership throughout that was going into the conference room. Q: Who, Mr. Earley? A: One in particular was the assistant president, Byron Boyt (Phonetic spelling)."

Of course, this second perjury (a felony) is much more vicious than the first because the purpose of this perjury was to possibly open Smoot up to another $10,000 in statutory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. In plain English, UTU and CSXT want to split $110,000 because Bob Earley committed perjury!!! And they want it from the UTU member who they sold out in PLB 3882, Award 155 in violation of 29 U.S.C. ' 401(b) & (c)! And it is truly ASININE because the permanent injunction was vacated during this time!

"However, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim against CSXT and the UTU regarding the finding of the PLB on the grounds that Plaintiff's dispute with the CSXT is "minor" . . . Plaintiff's claim for a bonus in the form in the form (sic) of stock is "minor" See Hudie v. Aliquippa & Southern Railroad Co., 249 F.Supp 210 (19__). (Plaintiff's claim for a recalculation of bonus payments under a collective bargaining agreement involved a "minor" dispute over which the National Railroad Adjustment Board has primary jurisdiction exclusive of any court.): See also Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 373 U.S. 33 (1963). Plaintiff's dispute was not satisfactorily resolved by the PLB. Rather than petitioning this Court to vacate the finding of the PLB, he should have pursued his claim with the National Railroad Adjustment Board, following its procedures, as it is, with a few exceptions, the exclusive arbiter of these claims. In sum, CSXT and UTU should be awarded summary judgment because this Court does not have jurisdiction over the claims." (Judgment granting UTU and CSXT's Motions for Summary Judgment in Smoot's hybrid action (1:94CV0485) pursuant to DFR and 45 U.S.C. ' 153 First (q)).

Yes, No Federal Judge who knew anything about the RLA could make such a absolutely stupid ruling. Hell, a first year law student could research this and tell you its totally wrong. But it is vintage Clint, ergo the cartoon on page 2! The real problem will be if they get away with this bad law, all UTU members will be adversely affected. In essence, if you follow this line of logic, the railroad could deny reinstating an employee with his back wages pursuant to a winning PLB Award and the union would be A. Relegated to going back to the NRAB or B. File in the District Court pursuant to ' 153(p)? Alright, the talley is in: 69, 999 chose B and 1 chose A (Sorry Clint!). Judge Economus also chose A but his vote was voided as he is not a dues paying member! Amazingly, all designated counsel who returned ballots chose B? We shall not identify them lest they be summarily undesignated! Hey, good year for the designated counsel, only one deletion and 3 additions, total now 48. But remember, his right to can you is SACROSANCT! Hey, any of you guys contribute to this bogus Earley Defense Fund?

INCOHERENT ON B&O

The El Paso Express received a rambling, profane, vicious, and ignorant letter from a B&O member. Ignorant is probably not strong enough, this letter made "Wild Bill" look like a Rhodes Scholar! And while this individual did not request anonymity (... I dare you to print this you expletive deleted expletive deleted), the express will not release his name on the hopes he may have sobered up by now and regret his actions. However, I could glean two points from his letter which bear addressing: "Why do you keep honding (sic) Mr. Early (sic) for one mistake?", ". . . and nobody cares about this anymore ever since that expletive deleted little expletive deleted BLE slime was found guilty!"

Ed: Pick up your letter and read it out loud. Now write on the blackboard 100 times "This is my brain on drugs"! Your are not the first to raise the one "little" mistake issue; in fact I had a long conversation with a very articulate B&O member after the near altercation at the Atlanta Meeting. Let me tell you basically what I told him, i.e., Nobody's career should be ruined for one little mistake. Unfortunately, this involves much more than one mistake. Bob Earley did the right thing in this matter once: he admitted to the Board of Appeals members in Portland that he had a conflict of interest and that if a situation like that occurred again, he would remove himself. Had Bob not fought the Executive Board Trial in violation of Article 28, but rather admitted to them what he admitted to the Board members, he would have received a slap on the wrist and everybody would have gone about their business. There is no doubt in my mind he would have received nothing more than a verbal reprimand. Bob compounded his problems when he admitted the transcript was accurate with minor exceptions and disclosed it himself. He then compounded his problems by filing suits against his union, individual members, and perjuring himself. He then compounded his problems by lying in writing to 700 delegates in the "Correct Record". While I could go on and on, his last perjury is the worst because it shows his cavalier attitude that the end justifies the means and he wants damages (for UTU and CSXT) from the member he sold out!

But the union hierarchy are equally responsible because they determined to protect Earley rather than risk liability in 0485 if the Executive Board disciplined Earley. However, they should have determined he acted outside the scope of his authority, admitted wrongdoing on his part, prosecuted him internally, and then gone to the bonding company for any restitution, which I believe would have been minimal had Earley thrown himself upon the mercy of the Executive Board!

Your second point, while not too articulate, is a point of common misconception that needs to be clarified because of its absolute importance to the members of this Union. But first, I must tell you that Smoot has never been a member of BLE, those rumors were started by some B&O members without any documentation to discredit Smoot and portray him as the enemy. That this issue is of no concern to the membership because Smoot has been found in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act is totally incorrect and deserving of a new Article Heading, to wit:

WHY EARLEY CAN'T DIE!

Because he is the Devil's Advocate? No! Because he sued Ruck and Ruck is a vindictive person who is obsessed with a personal vendetta? NO! Because the Earley case has created bad law which not only challenges the sancity of the UTU Constitution, but the sancity of the United States Constitution? YESSSSSSSS!!!! Ala Marv Albert, whom, despite his transgressions, i.e., kinky sex and Tysone Syndrome ("Bite Me"), has recently been given a second chance in the sports broadcasting business doing Knicks basketball radio play by play!

Yea, I can hear my supporters out there thinking, yessss, here comes the Ruckster with that off the wall shit we love so much. That "biting" irreverence (no pun intended) that entertains as well as challenges our minds! Ah, he calls that ah, ah, oh yea he calls it something; ah, is it A: Aggression B. Transgression C. Defecation D. Digression E. Insemination or F. All of the above?

A hint, I digress, Marv, unlike Earley in the initial stage, denied everything! Marv, unlike Earley, had to go before a jury. Marv, when faced with the truth coming out, pleaded "Nolo contendere" (I will not contest it), i.e., similar to pleading guilty but with Monty's favorite twist; "lets cut a deal"? Marv made his deal and as they often say "has served his time" and it is time for society to accept him again? Hey, who wants to argue with that philosophy? Well, usually parents in a neighborhood where a released child molester moves but that's beside the point?

Why can't Earley go to trial? Well, because of the famous "Settlement Agreement and Release"! (God, I hope it's on my website now but I'm pressed for time to keep my promise to get out this edition and upgrade my site - surprisingly, the 20 to 30 G's a month donations for outsourcing the Express have not materialized, yet?). Lets see, Earley can't be tried in 0674 (his frivolous action against Smoot and Ruck) because he voluntarily dismissed those cases without prejudice to his right to refile, i.e., he withdrew his frivolous suits rather than get his ass kicked in court (the judge's decision to allow this violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by denying Ruck and Smoot's counterclaims to be heard). He can't be tried in 0597 (his frivolous action against the Executive Board) because he voluntarily dismissed that case with prejudice (he was guilty) pursuant to the deal he cut with Sacrosanct Charlie and Monty in order to rip the Union off for his alleged expenses and attorney's fees! He can't be tried in 0485 because the Judge issued a summary judgment for CSXT and UTU that is so specious even the 6th Circuit doesn't know what to do with this case!

But Smoot, the victim of his sellout, was tried, without a jury, and found guilty of violations of the Federal Wiretap Act in the counterclaims of UTU and CSXT (all based upon a vacated permanent injunction which said the evidence was improper, if not illegal?). How could this happen? Unfortunately, because Smoot's legal case has been handled in the identical way his PLB was; behind closed doors with his representative (attorney) agreeing with the other side to sell him out. I don't know whether is was simply bribes, intimidation, or power that has lawyers (honest lawyers) abandon their client and cooperate with the opposition to the detriment of their client?

Confused yet? Hell, you should be, this is confusing for legal experts much less the common union member. Bernie McNelis had an interesting article in the UTU news entitled "For the Children" wherein he rightfully pointed out the abuse of Children in the new World Order of economics. He then stated Ken Starr has spent $35 million investigating President Clinton which could have been better spent investigating and reporting which businesses are profiting from child labor. I don't disagree but I'd like to put everything in perspective here, i.e., Marv, Earley, Clinton, Tripp, Lewinsky, Starr, etc. , as relates to the purpose of my explanation - why the UTU Members should be concerned with the Earley Debacle!

What is Clinton being investigated for? Perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice. In laymen terms, lying under oath, procuring another to lie under oath, and attempting to prevent the execution of lawful process. Now the expenditure of 35 million dollars would seem somewhat extreme because this is all "politically motivated"? Hmm, seems Mr. Earley made that same argument in the "Correct Record"? Well, Starr's contention is that he (Clinton) got Lewinsky to lie under oath and that Clinton himself also lied under oath (the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit) when he denied a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. All of this would be obstruction of justice now that Monica has decided to "tell the truth" in return for immunity? I am reminded of a movie I once saw with Tyrone Power and Charles Laughten (? - you know Captain Blye (?)) where he says " . . .are you lying now or were you lying then" and then something to the effect that "Madam, are you not a habitual liar?" Well, I guess it is fortunate that Monica had the foresight to save a DNA stained dress for a year and a half? Is it phone sex or is it real? Hey, OJ, give us a little insight into the accuracy of the DNA testing, would you?

Two distinctions: Criminal versus Civil and Privacy within the meaning of the Federal Wiretap Act. Criminal v. Civil - Simple as evidenced by the OJ travesty - criminal requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt (nay, that DNA stuff don't mean shit), while civil only requires a preponderance of evidence (Juice, yo be guilty mofo - pay em!). Got to give those jurists credit, the black jury found him innocent and avoided a full scale riot and the white jury found him guilty and avoided a full scale riot!

Privacy within the meaning of the Federal Wiretap Act? Complex? Ohhhh, really complex? Only "Officers of the Court" can understand this concept, right? Nope, its all there for the simplest mind to understand: Kratz v. Kratz provides the distinction between "wire" and "oral" communications ( a third party interception of a phone conversation is a wiretap per se while an interception of a oral communication is only a violation if a person can demonstrate an expectation of privacy under circumstances justifying such expectation) and Fultz outlines the Privacy issue, i.e. "One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public." (Assuming a violation of the Wiretap Act has occurred and been determined pursuant to the requirements of federal law - it has yet to happen in this case because only a jury can determine intent!).

Okay, lets clarify, If I have intercepted an ORAL communication to which I was not a party (not participating in the communication) or even if I was a party, and intend to use this for the purpose of committing any criminal act or tortuous act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United states or of any state, the standard for privacy would be Fultz. Another words, it would only be a violation if we meet (a) and (b) above. Quiz: If publicized, would the following be highly offensive to a reasonable person and would the Public not have a legitimate concern to know: A. That a certain person bites his sexual partners while wearing womens clothing. B. That a certain person masturbates on women's dresses while having phone sex with the women who sent him the dress (please return it for my turn on). C. That a certain person sodomizes his girlfriend and/or wife. D. That a certain person has committed adultery. Answer: YES, and that is the purpose of the Federal Wiretap Act, to protect the personal privacy of individuals from the release of personal information that is of no concern to the public and that a reasonable person would find offensive if released!!!!!!

Next Question: Does a reasonable person find it offensive that an advocate (Doctor, Lawyer, Union Representative, etc. ) would go behind closed doors to sell out his client in violation of federal law? Answer:YES! Is it a legitimate concern of the Public when such a person frustrates the intent of RLA, federal law, and moral ethical standards? Answer: YES! In fact, does anyone out there, other than the UTU hierarchy, the CSXT, their lawyers, and Judge Economus, believe a person in an advocacy position is entitled to privacy from their employer and their client in order to violate federal law? I SUBMIT TO YOU THE ANSWER IS AN UNEQUIVOCAL NO!!!

A primary concern of the members now should be "How much is this going to cost US (the UTU membership) before its over? Don't believe Sacrosanct Charlie's spiel we are in great financial shape. The only reason UTU has been making ends meet (particularly with Charlie's extravagance and putting everyone on the dole) is because he uses the Job Benefit Fund like a slush fund in violation of federal trust law! Remember, Clint previously estimated in writing that Smoot's case, even if we lost, wouldn't cost more than $10 G's? These cases (The Trilogy) have cost UTU members a quarter of a million dollars so far and the end is nowhere in sight since their brilliant move to attempt to get damages from their victim. If they continue to outsource, the briefs to the 6th Circuit will cost them 20 or 30 G's and they are going to be facing 0485 before a jury within the next year. If this Judge is dumb enough to give UTU and CSXT damages, the case will end up costing UTU members more than Volkman. As always (Blankenbaker, Sears, Volkman, etc.), the Carrier, CSXT in this instance, will run for cover immediately and leave UTU Afighting the good fight"!

The UTU Constitution isn't Sacrosanct, its non-existent. It means nothing and the whole purpose of this continuing Abuse of Process and malicious prosecution of Smoot is to keep the corrupt Arbitration system in tact so they can jam the Armageddon Agreement down your throat after you vote it down just like they did the Sorry Charlie Agreement! UTU advertises they support the law - IT'S THE LAW! - on their website but their actions speak louder than words. Do UTU members realize their General Counsel, Mr. Clinton J. Miller, III. argued before the Supreme Court that a union member was not entitled to a Jury trial in a Duty of Fair Representation Case? How'd you do on that one Clint? Let's see - Members 1, Clint 0!

Don't ever lose sight of what really happened here: A member won 30 shares of stock worth $2300 before the final and binding Board of Appeals, Earley shit canned the victory behind closed doors by agreeing with the Carrier's position (they had no dispute) and the Referee memorialized his sellout in the language of the Award. Earley freely admitted the transcript was accurate, gave it out himself, and awaited evidence of any impropriety on his part. But as soon as the Executive Board determined they should have a trial, Earley launched his frivolous lawsuits against the UTU and UTU members claiming he is protected by the Federal Wiretap Act! DuBose won't give Earley the time of day, but a soon as his buddy Sacrosanct Charlie takes over, Earley is paid off for his misbehaving through the self-serving, illegal Settlement Agreement and Release!. The members rights have been completely lost and the members get to keep on paying to lose them!

ARMAGEDDON

Hey, check out the UTU News, something good has already come out of the National Wage and Rules Panel, i.e., the "revolutionary new beginning" discipline policy! Whether its as good as it sounds is doubtful to this reader but I'm wondering if the members, or even General Chairmen had any input? Or was it just Sacrosanct Charlie, Fight'in Bob, and the General Chairman East of the Mississippi?

It appears that the Hierarchy want the Armageddon Agreement done before the Section Six notices have to be filed in January 1999. And as stated in a previous Express, this will only work if the UTU and BLE come together (and of course the UTU news tells you the members of both organizations are "enthusiastic" about the "new" organization - TUNA - Transportation Union of North America! Hmm, sounds a "little" fishy to me?

Here are some of the things to expect: Arbitraries eliminated in favor of a salary, elimination of yard jobs and starting times, Quality time, i.e., 3 days off after you've worked 10 to 12 hours a day for 12 days, elimination of the new hire wage scale, and Yessssss, a $10,000 signing bonus so you'll have $6600 after taxes just in time for Christmas!!! Hmm, let me see here, 12 on, 3 off, 12 on, 3 off and I've worked 24 days out of 30 with 6 days off. Assuming I only work 10 hours a day instead of 12, that would be a 60 hour work week each half with 3 days off, right? So let's use my previous figure of $60.000, nah, hell, let's use $80,000 cause Sacrosanct Charlie can deliver that right, YOU DA MAN, BABE, YOU CAN AJUST DO IT!

Let's see here, where's that 99 calendar. Lets do first Quarter - ah, 90 days exactly in it, I work 72 days and have 18 off. $80,000 X .25% ' $20,000 for 720 hours ' $27.77 per hour. If I had to work 12 hours a day instead of 10 then that would be 20,000 for 864 hours ' $23.15 per hour. Hmm, where's that pay printout of mine for pay period 13 (1st half July) - yea, 12 hours as a helper is $143.06 for 8 hours and 4 hours OT is $107.30, air pay is $6.60, ETD pay is $13.01, TM - special local air is $13.01 and Code 33 (dogcatch train) is $72.87, ah, nah lets don't count that cause we only get it once or twice a week if we're lucky - So total normal pay in el paso yard for a helper working 12 hours is $282.98 or $23.58 per hour. Let's just see here, ah, 282.98 times 72 ' $20, 374.56. Hmm, I now work 5 days, 60 hours, with two days off ever week and they want me to work for about the same amount but give up one day off every two weeks? Nah, I don't think so! Let see, I got to go to my daughter's graduation but it doesn't fall during my three days off; can I lay off? Sure, just deduct a pro rata day from your salary Lance!

Hey, all you Geniuses on that wage panel, you think quality of life is sleeping 45 minutes on a damn train, working a 60 or 70 hour week, having 3 days off after you've worked 10 to 12 hours a day for 12 days? Let me tell you what quality of life is - Look to Europe for your answer, i.e., a 32 hour work week with 3 days off a week!

I just can't wait to see how ugly this agreement really is and how you geniuses plan to sell it. But of course, I already know, intimidate the members and then sell us out behind closed doors when we vote it down. I got a better plan, hell, elect me President, and here's the agreement: every employee now working is guaranteed $60,000 for a 40 hour work week and doesn't have to work anymore during the 7 day period once he gets 40 hours. Seniority prevails and you can work all you want within the hours of service law at $30 an hour for all time over 40 hours!

Now a lot of cynics out there are thinking, Ruck, you're crazy; why would our hierarchy do something like that because they couldn't get re-elected in Miami? Well, Brothers and Sisters, Sacrosanct Charlie doesn't worry about the Bob Earley Scandal bringing him down, does he. And he ain't worried about the pitiful agreement bringing him down either! You want to know WHY?

FORGET MIAMI

That's right Brothers and Sisters, read my lips, there will be no UTU Quadrennial Convention in Miami in 1999. Sacrosanct Charlie knows he can't get re-elected once the members have to work under the Armageddon Agreement and he probably can't even stand the backlash of the Earley Scandal once its true magnitude is known.

But enter the "new organization" which facilitates the Armageddon Agreement and no Convention until 2004. The current officers of BLE and UTU will all be protected, Clint will issue his expert legal opinion, backed by the United States Department of Labor, they will have one of their flunkie's file a specious lawsuit which will be quickly decided behind closed doors in favor of the hierarchy and it will be smooth sailing into retirement for Sacrosanct Charlie and the Boys! And the members? Well, they will have a miserable quality of life and the right and obligation to pay their dues! Here you go Brother, buy a raffle ticket, some high priced insurance, some logo clothing, up your TPEL Contribution, and get a free bus ride!

TIMES ARE A CHANGING

I was listening to the radio this morning on a talk show and heard that in a newly approved fifth grade school book for the State of Texas on American History thirty three (33) words had been devoted to Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Depression and two and one half (2 2 ) pages to major league baseball pitcher Nolan Ryan.

In reflection, I thought of the UTU News and the Aofficial@ UTU Web site, where there is little to any substance, however, much ado about nothing, that is if you are a working man. Does the working man care about events involving railroads in Russia, when he doesn't even get paid properly? Probably not.

Brothers and sisters, you are on the brink of changes, and as our President says, "The New Beginning", which could be construed as "The Old End". Seems that the "information superhighway" will be the wave of the future. Have you ever thought that we wouldn't have had to spend in excess of five hundred thousand ($500,000) dollars on "Mumbleshit One", if we had used an animated .gif file of a bus moving on a map on the Internet. ( So, the new beginning would only apply to the workers, not the leadership.)

Many months ago I attended a UTU Local meeting in the Houston area, as a guest and in an official capacity, wherein the justifiable concerns of the membership were eloquently voiced by a large majority of the members. They were irate concerning the Union Pacific, and were more than willing to lash out at the "union" for all the problems that were being encountered in that area. Basic question, or more properly statement, "What's the Union going to do about it?"

The problem is that these good brothers and sisters answered their own questions, they are the Union, and what are they going to do about it? There was a time when I also believed in the omnipotent power of some abstract entity, i.e. the Union, and felt that mystically someone, maybe a Local Chairman, General Chairman or International President was the answer. When I found that not to be the case, I became involved and attempted to make a small difference.

Interestingly, with time came knowledge, and a full awareness of how the "Union" could do something, but the question is would they?

Point in case will be the Union Pacific and its seeming ill-fated takeover of the Southern Pacific. All of the "shanty lawyers" can easily agree that this UP is arrogant, stupid, and that all management should be fired, probably starting with the crew dispatchers and timekeepers.

But one must step back and evaluate the "madness" of the UP. From a practical standpoint, I would consider what the UP has done to be a brilliant and bold business move, which if allowed about another five to seven years would produce a company that is second to none in the transportation industry. However, as in all bold and brilliant moves, there are by nature casualties.

From the perspective of the working man, the casualty will be very close to home. The "union" did something, made an unholy alliance with the UP in the form of the commitment letter. Though most members opposed the merger, the "union" dangled the operative words of "protection" like a carrot, and most were happy.

But what price glory? Brothers, you got protection, the kind of protection that is known as the "circle guarantee", i.e. put a circle around the product and once you step out of the circle the protection is gone.

What has transpired, and will continue to transpire, is a constant erosion of things of value that the working man has known, but will soon be gone. They will never come back.

And the question, simply stated, is "Why?". As long as the leadership of the Union is allowed to move unbridled through life, with no accountability, the workers will continue to suffer. It is time for all members to become educated, read the Constitution, learn the law.

There is one retired member, Mr. K. R. Smoot, who has taken the Union to task, and at present it appears that his journey down the road of truth, justice and the American way is far from over. He may not win, but neither will the Union.

The jobs of switchmen, brakemen, firemen and conductors will probably not even justify a footnote in future history books, but there will be a legacy to the high Union officials who showed the Auncommon courage@ to do away with them, working in conjunction with the Carriers to, for lack of a better term, "increase productivity".

Guest Columnist: R. A. C, Jr.

WEB UPDATE

Hopefully, I will have made some modifications to the El Paso Express Website by the time you receive this latest newsletter. Check us out at http//home.elp.rr.com/elpasoexpress and my E-mail should be leruck@elp.rr.com. If nothing has changed, I ran out of time before I left for Reno. However, I do hope to at least get the Settlement Agreement and Release on the site!

Also, Remember, Contributions are always welcome at the express and we do have a Summer Special - the First 40 donations of $25 or more receive the Supreme Court Appendix, i.e., your very own copy of the SAR, numerous filings, PLB 3882, Case No. 155, pertinent communications and law, and of course, The Evidence!

Come see me in Reno, I don't bite and even if I do, I've had my shots. If you can't find me anywhere, look on the Crap Table! And, always, HAVE A NICE DAY)