Ye Shall Strike No More!

Sayeth His Eminence Sacrosanct Charlie in his unsigned (?) decree of March 1998 made with National Carrier's Conference representative Allen in Houston, Texas.  See below:

    We all know the story by now. Sac-C first promised a copy of the so-called Houston Agreement in January 1999 at the General Committee meeting and stated before several members that he had not given up our right to strike - it was merely a "voluntary agreement" which could be used if both sides agreed to maintain the status quo while "party pay" arbitration (binding) settled the dispute? Sounded great and I was satisfied but the copy promised never came?

    At the El Paso Shootout later in the year, Sac-C again played down the agreement in front of about 70 union members and said he would send it to me as soon as he returned to Cleveland. While he promptly faxed a written response to written questions submitted by UTU Local 1918 member Elijah Graham (See Dear Eli), I again received nothing!

    At the BNSF Caucus in Miami during an alleged "emergency meeting" on the BNSF "Availability Policy" and while on the phone with General Counsel Miller, Sac-C instructed Clint to fax it to me immediately.  Of course, I never got it the next two days of the Convention (I checked the UTU office and the Hotel business office both days).  When I arrived home, there was three pages in an envelope from Clint postmarked the day of the caucus?  Was it a "failure to communicate" between Warden Little and "cool hand clint" or was it necessary to keep it a "secret" until after Miami?

    Well, "u" be the judge after you read it and consider the ramifications so far (it would be up now if I could find it - but I will and if necessary, I shall ask for another copy with the rest of the "agreement" including the signature page). What ramifications so far?

    This is what we know: In early 1999 BNSF initiated this ill fated policy. Many General Chairmen took exception immediately and GC Repstine even sent a letter to Sac-C as early as March or April (yes, damnit - I have that letter somewhere too!). As the process continued,  GC Fitzgerald allegedly sent a "veiled threat" to the Carrier. Personally, I didn't think it was a "veiled threat" but rather a good old fashioned direct threat that was well deserved!

    What I know of John is he is a very good General Chairman and he earned my respect long ago when he had the courtesy to sent me a letter supporting the open position I took against the BNSF's attempt to give us a 401k plan in lieu of the national pay wage increases (the "bailey bull" plan as I called it, albeit I think the Flepter had his hand in that also - no disrepect intended, if he could have pulled that off he would have received a well deserved promotion!  Come to think of it, I think he did get promoted for getting Joe to sell us the SRB?). I digress - hey, BNSF put in "0" dollars this year in the SRB to meet "minimum funding standards". Damn, I'm sure glad I got that 3.5% rather than a check December 15 for 15 G's clear!

    Nevertheless, BNSF ran to the courthouse to avoid a strike, i.e., BNSF rejected the Houston Agreement whereby both sides would agree to binding party pay arbitration in exchange for maintaining the "status quo".  While we won the facade that day, by Monday August 30 the judge was requiring the agreement be adheared to except that BNSF could implement the policy effective September 1? Of course, the date was only set back until November 1 as a result of granting an extension for filing to BNSF (? - still short manpower in labor relations as result of the merger?).  See "availability policy" for more on this ongoing charade.

    So we know what happened this time - mandated arbitration account the "Houston Agreement" and we lost!   What happens next time we want to strike?  I say we get this latest "legal precedent" shoved down our throat every time from here on out!  So why is the court decision and wisdom of the judge not on the UTU Web site?  How about the complete "Houston Agreement" with signature pages?  This inquiring mind wants to know!

    It appears from the actual language of the alleged "agreement" that UTU would like to get the same system the Teamster have, i.e., VP dockets wherein you can agree with the Carrier's position and make it "law" without the need of a neutral or a PLB hearing!   The ultimate step in "representing" the members at minimal expense and effort!  Speak if "u" don't like what I have to say, hang in there, and always have a nice day!