El Paso Express

Special Edition                                   January 1998

UTU SOON TO BE HISTORY?

There is an old saying that if something sounds to good to be true, it probably is! What exactly has our always faithful, courageous, trend setting, "who needs eloquence when what you're saying makes so much sense" International President and his faithful lap dog, Clinton J. Miller III., aka Monty "lets make a deal" Hall, done now? If you can believe the news releases of Jan. 12 & 13 on the UTU Website, these two are about to singlehandedly save the long suffering railroad union members of the UTU and BLE from a fate worse than death. Yes, brothers and sisters, they have sought government intervention from the National Mediation Board to require an alleged "winner take all" election, first on the UP, and then other Class I railroads. WHY? Simple - to allow the union members of the UTU and BLE to determine which union survives in order to "represent operating employees effectively from a position of strength."

But this writer knows His Eminence and Monty all too well from their protection of our favorite "misbehaving union officer" to take their lovely rhetoric at face value without doing a "little" thinking first.

First of all, sounds like a cake walk since we outnumber them approximately 2 to 1, setting up an easy victory. But then I consider what happened in Canada. Yes, we caught the BLE redhanded making an agreement to do away with the Conductors on VIA, Canada's equivalent of Amtrak, and spent thousands of dollars putting out a copy of the agreement, etc., to all officers, locals, general chairpersons documenting what they attempted to do and surmising that this would end up costing the BLE their representation. Unfortuantely, the BLE won the representation election. Both BLE and UTU reported the results, albeit the final vote seemed somehow suspect: BLE members - 280; UTU members - 261; VOTE totals reported in UTU News was UTU 260 (one member didn't vote) and BLE 286 (six members voted twice?). Two points should be made; first, they voted right down craft/union lines, second, where are those 261 Conductors now? Paying dues to the BLE or forced off their jobs to displace in other crafts (yardmen/trainman), wherein 261 junior employees went furlough?

Yes, if the election were allowed, and if members voted right down union lines, UTU wins. But wait, who in their right mind would choose the UP railroad to have the first and most important vote? His Eminence knows full well from all the hate mail he has received from the Denver, Salt Lake, and Houston Hubs that both the UP and SP employees are madder than honents for having their seniority restricted, from changing jurisdictions, closing locals, and transferring funds from General Chairpersons to those favored by His Eminence and UP management via the Yost scam (another arbitration where the results didn't match the submissions because of the famous "Executive Session")!

That doesn't even consider the fact that near 50% of the employees are post 85 who vividly remember making 75% of the wages because of the infinite wisdom of King Freddy! Take a quick look at these new employees: young, educated, and the only thing they want from the day they hire out is to become an engineer! And many of them already are! Hmm, let me see, I go BLE, we immediately implement the Lake Erie plan of engineer and co-engineer, and now I'm on the hotshot instead of that 58 year old Conductor with 35 years of service who passed up becoming an engineer when they put out bids pursuant to Article XIII of the 85 Agreement! Can't happen? Better think about this carefully brothers and sisters!

After carefully reading all the documents on the Web concerning this matter, it is apparent that switchmen are now the bastard child of the UTU! "Specifically, the UTU is asking the NMB to rule that anyone who works on a train crew, including engineers, conductors, and brakeman, constitute a new Train and Engine Service Employees craft or class . . . ." Hmm, no switchmen there!

"The UTU, with approximately 76,000 active operating railroad members, represents engineers, conductors, brakemen, yardmasters and others in the railroad industry, as well as bus drivers and other transportation workers." Hmm, no switchmen there! Looks like 1800 yardmasters get billing over 10 or 12,000 switchmen who must be "others in the transportation industry"; is that basically right, Charlie? That phrase is repeated often and its always the same!

Hell, there ain't a switchmen on the SP who doesn't know what you tried to pull to give Parson's trainmen and Manning's HBT switchmen super seniority with your "little" Side Letter or know about your involvement in the fabricated equity figures which the UP finally rejected rather than be successfully sued! Yes indeed your Eminence, they would vote BLE to man. And lets see, under Article 80 - Oppps, I forgot, in line with the argument Clint fashioned to Mr. Crable, Article 80 no longer exits, does it Charlie? But then we do know three things for sure: 1. "(e) The provisions of this Article may not be changed by the International Union, except, upon the approval of a majority vote of the members of each of the crafts represented by the United Transportation Union." (Article 80, lines 36-39) 2.His Eminence holds the Constitution Sacrosanct! 3. Article 16 supersedes all other Articles!

By the way, Charlie, how exactly do you do this other than under your inane belief that your Article 16 powers supersede all other articles? Because you allegedly have the "enthusiastic support of the UTU's Officers, General Chairpersons and State Legislative Directors"? In fact, you spent probably 20 to 30 G's for this "little" sideshow, instructing all Internaltional Officers, GC's, and SLD's to attend this meeting without telling them the reason (secrecy being necessary to catch the BLE offguard, no doubt). But were they there to vote and authorize you to violate the Constitution or were they there to be told what you, Byron, and Clint had decided to do? Common sense, a phone call from a General Chairman on the results of the meeting immediately after it was over, and the quickness of the information on the Internet, tell me and anyone else with common sense the latter; that your articles were written already and it wouldn't have changed one bit even if you had been booed off the podium. Of course, you had your "followers" stratigically placed throughout the audience to jump to their feet and lead the cheers for your courageous actions!

Secrecy? Nope, can't make that argument since the BLE called all their officers and General Chairman in on Sunday, January 11 to advise them of what UTU would file the following day! Something a "little" fishy here?

Oh my God! What have you done Monty? I have read your letter to Mr. Crable three times now. Oh my God! What have you done Monty? Oh my God, you've "fought the good fight" again, haven't you?

In effect, "the dramatic acceleration of hiring and integration of operating employees that has occurred in the rail industry (with attendent consequences described below) and the developing Board precedent as to the propriety of a single craft or class of Train and Engine Service Employees have worked to change the initial position of UTU herein."

If I read your 11 page letter to Mr. Crable correctly, and I believe I have, you are now citing all those short line cases that we opposed, or should have opposed and still should not agree with, and the averments of BLE regarding "Exclusivity" (quoted no less from various sorces) as UTU's support for this request to the NMB? Bad short line law overturning craft autonomy, which has been the basis of the UTU Constitution for 29 years, and the misguided statements of BLE in defense of the indefensible, "exclusive representation", are the basis of this request for a "survival test" between UTU and BLE conducted by the Govenment? My God, Clint, do you have a remote clue what the President is trying to do here or are you just following instructions again to continue your paychecks?

This newsletter didn't earn its bad boy reputation as a "rag" publication because it spared people's feelings, coddled "misbehaving union officers", or avoided speaking what was on its mind! Lets do it; no fear!

Charlie ain't dumb nor is Monin. Monin had his people in the day before Charlie "dropped the bomb". Day five has gone by and BLE isn't in the Courthouse seeking injunctive relief or filing suit but rather is issuing innocuous statements which are reprinted on UTU's Website? Conclusion - BLE and UTU have already concluded their "deal", i.e., BLE wins the UP election, no further elections take place as BLE and UTU meet on cordial terms, implement a transition team, and most importantly, provide golden parachutes for all current international officers of both organizations much like the railroads do in mergers (secret deal of course). After that, we will be guided by the Hub mentality, i.e., combining of jurisdiction wherein those selected General Chairmen, be it BLE or UTU (the "choosen ones") will not be subject to election until the next quadrennial convention of the BLE (2001)! Hey, Ruck, are you crazy or what; give me one reason why Charlie and Monin would do that?

Yes, we had the Haloween Agreement where king freddie morgaged the future of employees who had not yet been hired to lighten the load on those currently working, we had the "Implemented Agreement" in 1991 wherein king freddie and his psychotic other brother freddie (the National Negotiating Team) failed to oppose "exclusivity" and misread Congress (or Robert O. Harris), and we had the "Sorry Charlie" Agreement in 1996 wherein our "courageous" president proved conclusively that his powers in "Executive Session" outweigh the members vote! But you ain't seen nutt'in yet honey until you see the results of the "National Wage and Rules Panel", Article XIII of the Sorry Charlie Agreement! Hmmm - flashback!!!!!

They told me I was crazy when I got to my company (158th Aviation Battalion of the 101st Airborne Division) on the DMZ, nicknamed the Lancers, and requested Lancer 13 as my call sign. The last 13 was killed! Makes no difference; I'm not superstitious, I was born on November 13, and 13 is my lucky number. I'll take it! So be it. I digress, thanks for all the birthday cards and letters from my brothers and sisters in the union on my 52nd birthday, you guys are just wonderful! But Article XIII of the Haloween agreement and Article XIII of Sorry Charlie Agreement cast severe doubt upon my lucky number? I Don't even want to look to see if my SRB in lieu of productivity was Article XIII!

I personally attribute the moniker of the "Armageddon Agreement" to Mr. Gary Kennedy, a mountain of a man - 6'5" or 6", 260 or 70 pounds, a local chairman, legislative rep, delegate, and socialist from UTU # 965 in Dallas. Socialist? Communist might be more appropriate - oh hell - just kidd'in Gary. I digress, Gary, at a quad Legislative meeting many years ago, was once told by an affluent union officer that he should be careful who he is seen talking with if he wanted a future in this union (obviously he was talking with me)! Gary's response was that if there is someone out here that is so dangerous that I shouldn't talk with him, he's the first person I'm going to seek out! For those who don't know Gary, his commitment to unionism, his heart, and his intellect far surpass his physical stature. Of course, that was many years ago when I was considered a radical (anyone who dared criticize or joust, verbally or in writing, with king freddie during his heyday before the 1991 "implemented agreement" was a radical), as opposed to the sedate, conservative, supportive unionist that I am today (three hail marys, beta blockers, two aspirin, and call me in the morning).

In any event, he was the first person I ever heard refer to the Panel as the Armageddon Agreement and that was several years ago. However, its a common term now even heard from insiders at the National Mediation Board!

Well, let me see if I can explain this to you. You know how the Constitution was Sacrosanct but it actually wasn't? Yes.

Well, you know how Charlie did an interview with Gus Welty of Railway Age Magazine and stated that the pay scale on the railroads (mileage component) was not sacrosanct? No. Do you know that Gus Welty writes for Railway Age, a Carrier Publication, and that he has been very critical of railroad unions in the past? No. Do you know that Mr. Welty thinks President Little is special because of what he can do for the Nations railroads? NO. Boy, you don't know shit do you? Shit who? How long have you worked here? 3 months, I just got out of simulator and I'm a promoted yard foreman, conductor, and an engineer currently working as an "other in the railroad industry" (hint - switchman) for 75% wages. What were you before you hired out with the railroad? A Flight Attendent. Hmm, you might be able to put Charlie and Monin on a couch. Huh?

Nevermind, if a writer who works for a Carrier Publication, supports the Railroads, and has been very critical of labor unions throughout his career thinks our President is a good one, does this tell you anything. Hmmm, that he might be a "little' to cozy with the Carrier's to our detriment? Exactly!

If he violates the Constitution at will when it is Sacrosanct but the railroad pay scale based upon arbitraries and mileage component are not Sancrosant, what will we get from the study panel? A salary structure? Exactly! Tell me more?

"ARMAGEDDON"

I believe the study panel is a done deal, but having two unions stands in the way of its successful implementation, i.e., the two unions will again play oneupsmanship games which would frustrate the total sell out that is coming!

Here's what to look for:

1. The total elimination of yard jobs in favor of TSE's (travelling switch engines). This key feature will automatically do away with all road/yard restrictions and job starting times.
2. Do away with all arbitraries and mileage components in favor of a straight salary. I believe it will be about $60,000 a year for a 60 or 70 hour work week. Now you understand why the president and national legislative director were touting "2 days off if you work 14 days consecutively", they were preparing you for your "quality time", two days off every month!
3. There will be a dramatic increase in the use of utility employees and there will be a common extra board (won't be any yard jobs) which is intended to eventually evolve into the APE board - All Purpose Employees - working off one combined board! How's that sound, Monty, just like the short lines and the law you quoted to give us employees a right to vote!!!!
4. Entry rates will be moved back to 100% - Charlie is the consumate politician and he now realizes that those hired after 1985 will soon outnumber those hired before 1985. Yes Brothers and Sisters, its the old heads who are now expendable! Those employees who have arbitraries, productivity funds, lifetime protection, prior rights, etc. are now a liability in Charlie's new world order on the railroads.

Are we laughing out there now brothers and sisters? Question, do you think any employee who was subject to rate progression, has no arbitraries, or productivity fund is going to balk at taking those things away from their Pre 85 brothers and sisters?

I did mention something earlier which could play a factor, i.e., these employees are generally young and well educated. If the salary figures out to less money than they are making now, they will most likely vote it down, too! Example: $60,000 for a 60 hour work week comes out to 5000 a month divided by 240 hours ' $20.83 per hour. If its a 70 hour work week it drops to $17.85 per hour or $142.85 for an 8 hour shift which is basically a cut in pay for most Switchm - oppps for most "others in the transportation industry"!

But always remember the one fact that the EL Paso Express has attempted to make the membership aware of: The corruption of the Union Heirachy in Arbitration! It doen't really make any difference how you vote because the courageous president (Monin if Charlie gets his illegal A card vote) will implement it in binding Arbitration! So, is Charlie just looking out for us to insure we get a vote to determine our own fate? Me thinks No!

Question: What happens to "lifetime protection" if the Amageddon Agreement supersedes everthing in conflict with it?????? How about you Mr. Rossi and/or Mr. Cushing, got an answer for that question?

I mentioned insiders in the NMB call this the Amageddon Agreement. That's because claims and rules cases comprise over 50% of their arbitration cases. When this agreement is complete, there will be no more of these cases. And, since His Eminence is now extending SAC P (the cooperative effort of the Union, Carrier, and FRA which has neutralized the FRA's function) to the UP Upgrade discipline policy, you can look for discipline cases going to the Board to significantly drop also!

The war of words on the internet between UTU, BLE, and the AFL-CIO? I personally think its no different that pre-fight hype. But not the kind between two boxers who are going to enter the ring a try to beat the other guys brains out to move up the monetary food chain, more like the hype between hulk hogan and roudy piper wherein we build the money but the results are already decided before we step in the ring!

Yes, I'm saying the whole thing is fixed because look at the beauty of it. Bill Clinton gets to reduce the size of big government, i.e, reduce the size of NMB by 50% or 60% (probably be able to do away with the First Division in its entirety). Now Charlie and the boys love this because all that will be left is these standing Special Boards of Adjustment wherein you can't tell the Union from the Carrrier from the Neutral ONCE they step into EXECUTIVE SESSION to get the agreed upon award!

Despite protestation from both BLE and UTU, the money in both is funky. But when the BLE wins, the sad tale of how it cost them 2-3 million and UTU 4-5 million to conduct this election will be brought out and look for a nice assessment and/or dues increase to give the new union the financial ability to effectively represent from a position of strength. Hell, we could even get this mandated by the federal government! UTU' s not out of business, they are just out of the representation business which they don't do to well anyway. They are now solely in the Insurance Business, with subsidieries in raffles and clothing lines!

BLE is the surviving union and the internal fight will be to determine, when, if ever, we go to the lake erie plan. Remember one thing, once we are in BLE, we are going to outnumber them and we will allegedly be one union with one common interest. Of course, this is the stupidity of Clint and Charlie's argument until such time as all pre-85 men are gone and all employees are promoted engineers in turn!

Hell, if they get away with it, lets call the new Union the TESEU in honor of the facinating but specious legal argument Clint made to Mr. Crable. Does that stand for Train and Engine Service Employees Union or does it stand for "Took Each Stupid Employees Union"?

A true visionary leader for the Rail Labor Industry or Judas? Me thinks "welcome to the last supper"!

Mr. Stephen E. Crable, Chief of Staff
National Mediation Board
1301 K Street, N. W., Suite 250 East
Washington, DC 20572-0002

Dear Sir:

I am in receipt of the correspondence of some eleven pages of date January 12, 1998, via hand delivery, to your office/s signatory by the General Counsel of the United Transportation Union (UTU), with reference to the establishment of a new craft or class of employees for the purpose of holding a representation election within the existing and established operating crafts on at least the properties commonly referred to as the Union Pacific Railroad (UP).

As a dues paying member of the UTU for the past twenty-six (26) years, and also the holder of four (4) elected offices in same, not limited to that of delegate, this announcement came as a shock, on face value, and upon carefully reviewing the above referenced correspondence, there is great concern as to the actual propriety of the alleged demand on the part of the UTU General Counsel.

Initially, as you are aware, the UTU represents employees in a variety of established, distinct and existing crafts or classes of service, as are recognized and defined by the surviving entity of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), the Surface Transportation Board (STB).

As such, these employees pay dues to the UTU, and elected officers to same, all of whom, members and officers are bound under the provisions of the UTU Constitution. As part of said UTU Constitution is Article 80, which clearly sets forth the provisions of Acraft autonomy@, i.e. that each craft represented by the UTU is separate and distinct.

Unlike the other provisions of the UTU Constitution, which may be changed or amended by the delegates, Article 80, "Preservation of Craft Autonomy", states in pertinent part:

"(e) The provisions of this Article may not be changed by the International Union, except, upon the approval of a majority vote of the members of each of the crafts represented by the United Transportation Union." (emphasis added)

In the instant case, the International Union, acting through its agent/s, has proffered an improper and most likely before a Court of competent jurisdiction, illegal request to invoke the services of the National Mediation Board (NMB). Plainly stated, the UTU International has not allowed the membership they currently represent a democratic voice concerning their desire to do away with the status quo, in favor of a new craft or class of service.

From the text of the correspondence, it is evident that the UTU International, through its General Counsel, is assuming a diametrically opposed position to that of the established position/s of the UTU with respect to employees of a Class 1 railroad, and now arguing that though it has always been the position of the UTU that Class 1 rail employees represented by the UTU should be allowed the craft/s or classes of service which are clearly defined, it now finds that contrary to established precedent, and the provisions of the UTU Constitution, such would no longer apply.

Presently, there exist within the ranks of the UTU membership, two (2) distinct categories of employees in each of the recognized crafts or classes of service, those with seniority pre-dating the 1985 National Agreement and those with seniority post-dating same.

The specious averments of the UTU General Counsel would have some degree of credence, if in fact, all employees represented by the UTU had seniority dates subsequent to the 1985 National Agreement. However, those employees represent only a minority percentage of the employees represented by the UTU, and the majority would never be placed in a similar status.

In reviewing 45 USCA ' 152, Ninth, it is somewhat unclear as to the time limits, other than the thirty days referenced in same, as to what the time frame in this matter would be if properly before the NMB. In addition, though the UTU International could be perceived to represent the interests of all the membership, what type of input, short of voting would be afforded to the membership.

Simply stated, the UTU International had no authority from the membership to make the demands on the NMB as occurred on or about January 12, 1998, and as such, would this matter be open to, at a minimum, public comment, and if so, what would the timetable for such be.

In reviewing at least parts of the case law which were forwarded by the UTU General Counsel, it is clearly evident that there is an obvious attempt on the part of same to Astretch the envelop@ to its fullest, however, not to provide an argument that is based in fact, reason, or law and shows total disregard for the individual rights of the dues paying members under the UTU Constitution.

Your prompt response in this matter is anticipated.

Most sincerely yours

 

Robert A. Cushing, Jr.
Delegate, UTU Local 1918

cc: The El Paso Express, authorized for publication

Uh, hey, nice letter. Uh, well, I guess this explains why you're the favorite guest columnist of the Express not to mention our favorite technical advisor. With regard to the cartoon under "Inter-Net Plans" in the recent "Atlanta Edition", I'm sure we can work this out, just have your lawyer call my lawyer! Hey, let's do lunch? And seriously, your royalties, guest columnist fees, and technical advisor fees, uh, well, they are in the mail, uh, or about to be, maybe? Oh hell, just sue me! You won't be the first to kick my ass in court!

Yes, Brothers and Sisters, everyone's favorite "misbehaving union officer", Robert W. "Fight'in Bob" Earley, has dodged yet another bullet when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled:

"This matter is before the court upon consideration of the motion of Robert W. Earley to reconsider the portion of the September 24, 1997 order denying the motion to dismiss and the motion of Lance E. Ruck to reconsider the portion of the September oreder denying a motion to stay the decision of the district cout.

Upon careful consideration, this panel concludes that it did not misapprehend or overlook any point of law or fact when it denied the motion to stay the decision of the district court. Fed. R.App. 40(a).

However, after consideration of Earley's motion to reconsider, the panel concludes that the appeal is moot and should be dismissed. Earley filed two cases in the district court; Ruck was a defendant in one and an intervenor in the other. An injunction was entered in both cases. The district's courts decision in the case in which Ruck was an intervenor specifically excluded him from the portion of the order that vacated the injunction. However, at a later date, the disrtict court vacated the injunction, thereby mooting the appeal. Barrister Assocs. v. United States (In re Tax Refund Litig.), 915 F.2d 58, 59 (2nd Cir. 1990).

It is ordered that Ruck's motion for reconsideration is denied, Earley's motion for reconsideration is granted, and the appeal is dismissed as moot."

It is noted that in Barrister those enjoined who appealed, received a JURY TRIAL during the pendency of the appeal on their claims, lost the jury trial, and only then was their appeal denied. All I want is my Constitutional right to a trial by jury!

Hmm, that rings a bell. Hey, fight'in Bob, remember at the convention when you said I talk about the UTU Constitution, but I don't even believe in the United States Contitution because I've already found you guilty without a trial! Do you remember that, FIGHT'IN BOB? And of course you always wanted a trial didn't you Bob? Remember your statement:

Mr. Earley: he could possibly - -

Mr. Cluster: Casue a little trouble, havoc.

Mr. Earley: Without a doubt, without a doubt.

But what I'm saying is, that the issue definitely has to be put to bed, and regardless of who missed the decision, the Appeals, ain't nobody--no court, anyway, at least, generally speaking.

If I'm the negotiatior and I negotiated, then what my intent was has to have some weight in court. Yea, fight'in bob, you were ready to push the envelope to court back then, weren't you?

What happened? Even OJ, also guilty as sin in my mind, got a trial! Yes, he paid "big bucks" to buy justice and made a mockery of the U. S. Criminal Justice System. But You, Fight'in Bob, YOU can't be tried, not by the Executive Board pursuant to the alleged, illegal "Settlement Agreement and Release" nor by the jury you asked for when you filed your original frivolous suit againt me, in order to answer my counterclaims because the court had dismissed your suit at your request, with the help of UTU (ASAR). Yes, you're still guity as sin but can't be tried and I'm innocent but can't get a trial to prove it! Who is it that believes in the U.S. Constitution now, Bob?

SUPREME COURT?