UTU does it better?

On August 25th in the Voltaire room at the Miami Fountainbleu Hilton Hotel and emergency meeting of the BNSF Caucus was held around 2 PM wherein UTU President Charles L. Little would address the approximately 130 present concerning the latest developments in the BNSF "Availability Policy". Seems Charlie was waiting for an important phone call from General Council Clinton J. Miller III who was at the courthouse fighting againt the BNSF's attempted TRO to prevent us from striking over this onerous policy.

The cellular phone was handed to Mr. Little and the flashbulbs popped away as our illustrious President conversed with his top Lawyer and then reported the great victory to all assembled: BNSF was denied the TRO! However, we also couldn't strike as a full hearing was now scheduled for August 30. Then came the purpose of this "little" choreographed sideshow as Sacrosanct Charlie (Sac-C) proudly announced "this is your dues dollors at work" and then gave a nice speech about the necessity of passing the $5 dues increase tomorrow, for the war chest against the BLE, continuing education, and convention funds! A true thespian at his best and it worked like a charm albeit Byron had to declare the roll call vote failed for lack of majority and then turn off the mikes to insure he couldn't hear the catcalls and demands for division of the house. But that's another story which shall soon appear under the title "You are out of order"!

Some present may even remember how Sac-C went out of his way to inquire of Mr. Miller concerning the "agreement" I have been promised repeatedly and even addressed me personally while on the phone to let me and everyone present know that it would be faxed to me immediately! Of course it was not during the last two days of the convention and I had a letter from Mr. Miller postmarked the same day waiting for me when I arrived home. No signature page of course, but 3 pages purporting to be the March 1998 "Houston Agreement" I had been seeking since January 1999 when I first learned of its existence. I now see why they never wanted me to have it and certainly not while I was in Miami!

But even though there was no signature page and obviously pages were missing, it must have actually been a agreement since on the following Monday (August 30), a Federal Judge required the parties to abide by some of the agreement, i.e., UTU can't strike, but BNSF can implement the policy (?) effective September 1, and you will use the expedited party pay arbitration procedure provided for in the agreement! My interest since I first inquired of Sac-C in January 1999 at the GCA Meeting was rather Sac-C had given away our right to strike? He said no then and I'm sure he says no now; my problem is probably going to be with the language of this Judge's decision and how do you keep any and every judge from ordering you to use the agreement in the future? But that is another story coming soon entitled "YE SHALL STRIKE NO MORE!" Thanks Sac-C, you want to send me the rest of the agreement and the signature page? How about the Judge's opinion? It is interesting that Sac-C said Clint finally sees an issue as a major dispute but four days later the judge says "nope - it's minor"! Also interesting that when South Carolina Public Railway refused to pay lump sum payments and health and Welfare adjustments contained in a national collective bargaining agreement, UTU sued, Clint argued the case, and the judge determined it was a minor dispute! Hey, Clint, I hope you won that one in arbitration? Or did we "fight the good fight"?

In any event, either before or after the phone sex (pant, pant , pant, we won, pant, pant, you're dues dollars at work, pant, pant - was it good for "u", pant, pant, I need 5 bucks?), I addressed the question to Sac-C about withdrawing from Sac-P and I prefaced my remarks by noting what happened in the Sac-P (Safety Assurance Compliance Program) "Educational Meeting" at the Washington, D.C. Regional Meeting. Namely, that every FRA and UTU member of the National Sac-P present at the podium chided the BLE for withdrawing from the program over a collective bargaining dispute and advised they had lost their voice in the process now! I asked questions and I concured with their position as the New Mexico Division Sac-P has made strides in safety and I so reported.

So the question basically was if it was wrong for the BLE to get out over a collective bargaining dispute, why would it be different for us to get out for the same reason?The Sac-C response: "Whatever the BLE did, UTU will do it better"! Huh? Duh? Well, I've said he was handsome, debonair, silverhaired, etc., I never ever said he was smart! I can only assume he didn't listen to anything I said, he was busy in his own mind concocting his spiffy response.

Did UTU do it better? Suffice to say many within the BLE ignored the edict from their leaders and continued in the programs requiring the BLE to change the instructions and leave it to the individual Divisions to determine if they continued to participate! Whoa, is this a new concept - let autonomous divisions (locals) make decisions rather than be instructed from Cleveland!!! Anybody in UTU listening - International or General Chairmen?

One fact is evident to me, General Chairmen didn't develop the Sac-P concept, Sac-C (Mr. Little) initiated these programs as part of the "educational process" and I myself lost faith in the process when I first addressed my problems with "copper concentrate" to the first ever such meeting (to my knowledge) at the Atlanta Regional Meeting without result. I viewed it as an "unholy tripartite agreement" meant to weaken the FRA's enforcement abilities, specifically relative to fining the railroads for violations. I have since changed my mind as result of the success our Sac-P has produced but I readily admit that unless you have a Superintendent who supports the process and is reasonable, the program may not be effective or even worth continuing.

I have real doubt if the BNSF General Chairmen requested to opt out of every company sponsored program as Sac-C's September 30, 1999 letter states (provided below I hope - been a while since I used the "scanner from hell") based upon what I heard in Miami, read on Oct. 4 on the UTU web site, and was provided by letter dated Oct. 4 from my General Chairman (also enclosed below?). Based upon the language of that letter from my GC, I sincerely doubt that the BNSF GC's were polled but rather were instructed by Mr. Little. I await any clarification on this issue from any BNSF GC?

However, Brother Huston is correct when he states that these programs have always been a controversial subject and his predecessor participated in this controversary at the first "love-in" at the BNSF 's Lenexa Training Facility when they had the first hard sell of the SRB (Supplemental Retirement Benefit, i.e., we need to replace your productivity fund with something cheaper for us). The ploy that day was the demand of the former GC that the Carrier was not allowing Local Chairman to participate in the "Safety Teams" and everyone was to sign up that day and the Carrier would have to correct this terrible situation. Suffice to say I didn't sign then and have never participated in any "safety team", albeit El Paso has a model safety team which is extremely effective. I have chosen to keep the position of "legislative representative" separate and apart from the safety committee. To make a long story shorter, even the former GC finally acknowledged "he was getting out of the safety business", i.e., that function is handled by another branch of the union - the legislative boards!

And, significantly, I do not see instructions from Jim Huston to get out of any company sponsored programs but rather this terse statement: "President Little's September 30, 1999 letter to Mr. Fleps collectively eliminates the issue of company-sponsored programs on the BNSF." Unfortunately, It was not the information I was anxiously waiting to receive and I am still waiting to see how "UTU did it better than BLE". BLE was wrong and capitulated to the their autonomous divisions. Is UTU smart enough to do the same? Methinks No!

Of course it makes no difference to this dissident, radical, "out of order", trouble maker who just wants to destroy all the good work of our wonderful President. There are two ways I will get out of the company sponsored programs: one, when I determine it is not in the best interest of the members I represent and two, if the majority of members I represent want me out. Until that time, Take a Hike Sac-C! Local 1571 of El Paso is autonomous.

A couple of points I still need to make. I will not be at the regularly scheduled Sac-P Meeting on October 20 in Belen, NM. I will be sending my designated alternate, Mr. D. A. Bullard, as I will be in Fort Worth on October 20 and 21 as a Co-Chairman of the company sponsored BNSF El Paso Diversity Council. Yes, coat and tie dinner at the Ft. Worth Club Wednesday night wherein I may be able to hob nob with Robbie and other BNSF elite, actually tell them what's wrong with their "Availability Policy", etc. Meeting all day on Thursday at the BNSF "complex" (my first visit) to hear what they have to say and more importantly, speak my mind whenever necessary (actually no different than I do with the union, did in Miami, and have done ever since I joined the union).

Yes, I have been provided free economy air transportation and a $94 hotel room which I will be reimbursed for if I submit a expense form (I sometimes forget?) and lost wages? Lost wages as in make whole? No, Oct. 20 and 21 are my days off, I am not entitled to lost wages because I haven't lost any - pro bono if you will. I have attended at least 6 or 8 Sac-P meetings/Diversity Council Meetings over the last 5 months wherein I collected no lost wages because I was on medical leave account my knee replacement. I even caught a ride with someone when possible to carpool and avoid unnecessary expense to the carrier and share the driving (kinda like when the engineer ran the first half of the trip and the fireman ran the second portion - ever notice even when we had the 14 hour law that no one ever complained about fatigue because there were enough crew members to share the work load?). First point - if you are in any company sponsored program for pay and time off in lieu of working, you are a piece of shit! Not really a sentiment up the the normal editorial standards expected by readers of the "Express" but nonetheless an extremely honest personal opinion.

Second point, assuming we lose the "arbitration" allegedly held today (and I think we will given the latest statement on UTU's website by Byron which prepares the members for an adverse decision but says they won't win in the long run and my view that this is another scam - OK, boys and girls, can "u" spell commitment?), why would I give up my voice in Sac-P wherein I can address the adverse safety effects of the policy, i.e., fatigue? Oh, Sac-C keeps running the misinformation campaign about how they are going to force employees to work 360 hours a month - Bullshit! I don't know why or if the Carrier has responded publicly but I'm sure they did today in the proceedings. It is ludicrous to suggest that the BNSF policy would require someone to work 360 hours in a month. Given the most restrictive situation (a 7 day yard job), you would have two days a month off and therefore could only work 336 hours!

Yea, like we have a lot of 7 day jobs. BLE in El Paso has 7 day jobs in yard service becaue the majority of their employees want them! We have 5 day jobs and 6 day locals and road switchers. The Superintendent has already professed his concern with the "policy" relative to fatigue and has stated he will change 7 and 6 day assignments to 5 days if we so desire! Labor Relations may be his nemesis should he try to follow through on such a resonable and "safety conscious" proposal.

"u" don't understand the powers that be and what is really at stake concerning the "work/rest" principles! This is not a case of prohibiting the Carrier (BNSF or any other Class I or short line) from making our employees work 360 hours a month, this is a case of tricking the FRA and Congress into forgoing rulemaking which adequately addresses rest within the industry. Simply stated, the UTU and the Carriers are intent on voluntary solutions which will allow the "greed hogs" to work 360 hours a month whether they are safe or not - money the only goal, not safety. Kinda like the wonderful 11/4 cycle jobs. Sounded good until the union allowed the Carrier to implement a "double penalty" ($500 instead of $250) if "u" wanted the agreement. What is safe about an employee working 12 hours a day for 11 days straight even if he does get 4 guaranteed days off? Then we give him an incentive to stay marked up during his 4 days off and pretty soon he can do what the Union and Railroad want - work 360 hours a month. The Railroad cuts off junior employees and saves $35,000 in H&W Benefits for each it cuts off. Hey, anyone listening out there, this ain't about quality of life or safety, it's about greed and the failure of our union to get adequate compensation for the production we provide, i.e., WE are not getting our fair share of the pie!

Of course, I'm probably just stupid and the Carrier and Union wouldn't conspire to get what they want would they? Of course not! And a republican congress will certainly give carte blance to the UTU/BLE (certainly good to see them cooperating again - merger back on to avoid that disaster at the NMB?) proposal of a guaranteed 72 hours off for each 7 days available for service! Let's see now, I'm on a guaranteed extra board, I work two days this week and collect about $1250 pay for two days work and now I'm guaranteed 3 days off? But with no pay! Hell, I like it! Perhaps the Carrier and Union have underestimated how many would use this? Nope, pie in the sky, why? Continue the facade - WE HAVE A DISPUTE HERE - HONEST WE DO!

It is late, I am tired, so I shall get the documents on here later. It's not like I have a couple hundred hits a day. Hang in there, have a nice day, and more is coming - Soon! Particularly - the Convention Special!

February 22, 2000 - Opps, never did place the communications on here and they are really moot now anyway. But my premise questioning whether UTU Does it Better? is not moot as you can see below:

Thank you for returning my call this afternoon, I am sorry I missed you. This is now in response to your message asking for a phone message or note concerning any question I have on Sac-P.

As I explained to your secretary, I was in a monthly conference call for BNSF Diversity Councils with about 8 or 9 different locations participating when two locations, Chicago and St. Paul, brought up the lack of attendance because of UTU and BLE members not participating. One location was told that the Diversity Councils were not part of the UTU withdrawal but had been unable to get anything in writing. I was unaware the BLE was still participating in any withdrawal from Company Programs as I had seen a letter making that a Division choice.

In any event, at the recent Quadrennial Texas Legislative Board Meeting, held in Austin, Texas on January 25, newly elected State Director Connie English encouraged the Legislative Representatives to take an active role in the "Safety Committees" as part of their safety duties. Accordingly, there seems to be some confusion with the International's outstanding instructions on or about October 4, 1999 to "no longer participate in the SACP and RSAC programs . . . ", particularly now that the BNSF has cancelled the Availability Policy.

Any light you can shed on this matter to the interested General Chairmen and Local Officers would be greatly appreciated. Thanking you in advance, I am

My phone call and this email occurred on January 31, 2000. I attempted to contact Byron approximately 10 days after that without success and talked with his secretary 3 or 4 days after that concerning the issue. Seems there is nothing but silence from our International.

UTU withdrew from Sac-P account the "Availability Policy". Depending upon which web site you read, UTU or BLE brought the "AP" to its knees with HR3091. BNSF cancelled their "Availability Policy" and has now put out another unilateral policy entitled "Attendance Guidelines" which had input from various UTU/BLE General chairmen? So why doesn't the International recind their instructions or at least advise us members what is the current Dictum relative to not only Sac-P, but all company sponsored programs?

I could understand if I had asked the Assistant President to answer a really tough question as opposed to "What is the UTU's position on company sponsored programs'? Do UTU dues paying members have the right to ask questions of their leaders with reasonable expectation of a response. I mean, hell, it's not like I asked Byron:

2. Now that you know Smoot was assessed $100,000 in punitive damages because Earley perjured himself stating Smoot gave you a copy of the executive session transcript of PLB 3882 at the Atlanta Region Meeting (and you admitted in front of a witness that he actually gave you the Atlanta Edition of the El Paso Express at said meeting), do you have any moral or ethical responsibility to notify the Judge?

3. When you location is described as "putting out fires on the West Coast", is that the same as being at home in Seattle again?

4. What is the position of the UTU relative to Company Sponsored Programs, not only on the BNSF but also on other Class I railroads if it differs?

In an attempt to be as "reasonable" as BNSF, answer any ONE (1) of the four (4) questions above! Think you can do that Mr. Assistant President? Rumor has it you're going to be our next President and soon as Sac-C retires in May (or sooner if the NMB is a disaster); would you support someone who won't answer questions?