This article is worthy of being read by every union member that has or will pay union dues in their lifetime!
(not just union members, but every US citizen that votes)
Regardless of your politics, is it not crystal clear the election process is in serious need of reform? In my personal opinion this was demonstrated in the election of our current president of the USA. The majority of the voting population did not elect Mr. Bush, A HANDFUL OF APPOINTED JUDGES controlled the outcome of the election!
R. D. May
Posted on Feb 5, 2004, 2:23 PM from IP address 216.206.169.39
Roger, haven't been here in awhile but am pleased to see that you are still in business. Hope that means you are feeling better. I will add this link to my own quirky website and start checking back more frequently.
With the merger in limbo, Reform is certainly not dead.
Posted on Oct 16, 2001, 11:30 AM from IP address 63.228.39.187
I was trying to get this greeting to Roger by clicking on his e-mail on the Free Speech website but it came back with a message that said the account was closed. So I'll send it this way (appended below).
By the way: I admire the tenacity of those seeking bottom-up constitutional change. It ain't easy!
But then again, nothing good is.
Hi Roger! Long time no see. Happy Holiday Season and Best Wishes.
Friends, please check out www.uniondemocracy.org for a new article on the BLE-UTU merger. There is also a PDF file (with a cartoon by yours truly) that can be downloaded and printed.
yours for union democracy,
Matt Noyes, AUD
Posted on Sep 19, 2001, 1:50 PM from IP address 209.246.103.72
CLEVELAND, September 17 -- U.S. District Judge Ann Aldrich today granted a preliminary injunction, which, for the foreseeable future, effectively halts the proposed merger of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers with the United Transportation Union.
In her ruling, Judge Aldrich ordered the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to "impound all ballots cast by BLE members, to refrain from making the results of any ongoing or final tally of the votes known to any of the parties or to any third party, and to preserve the cast ballots under seal pending the resolution of this lawsuit."
AAA is the neutral party responsible for collecting and counting the ballots in the proposed merger. The original lawsuit was filed by three officers of the BLE in Cleveland on September 10.
The Court has not issued a memorandum explaining its reasons for granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
"It is unfortunate the Judge has chosen, in effect, to interfere with our International Convention by prohibiting our delegates from knowing the decision of the membership with regard to the merger question," BLE International President Edward Dubroski said. "Because of this ruling, our delegates will have to conduct and transact all business as if the merger has not been approved, in order to fully protect the best interests of the BLE."
No date has been set by the Court for further proceedings.
Posted on Sep 17, 2001, 3:33 PM from IP address 12.13.116.59
Anyone wishing to study the filings and rulings so far in the BLE Democratic Vote Council's lawsuit (filed in Maryland and today dismissed without prejudice for improper venue) can find them at
Boyd says:
"The Trip Rates will NOT -- and I repeat, NOT -- include overtime rates. Overtime will continue to apply in the same manner it always has been applied. All post-85 employees will be paid for overtime on the same basis as overtime is paid pre-85 employees."
Just what is he talking about here??? Overtime has always be attached to the basic day and overmiles. Today the basic day is 130 miles in through freight service. It got to 130 miles based upon the VanWart report.
If trip rates are placed into effect just how will overtime be figured?? Will it be based upon a new basic day such as 160 miles as the VanWart report recomends? Will it remain at 130 miles or will it remain a open ended item for change in the future?
I certianly doubt it will be after 8 hours.
Remember the 1985 National Agreement was suppose to have buried the VanWart recommmendations but it seem to be alive and well. What eliminates it if the trip rate system is placed into effect??
If you know let me know.
Posted on Aug 1, 2001, 7:59 AM from IP address 12.13.116.72
JULY 20 -- CLEVELAND -- The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) has today rejected a proposal to merge with the United Transportation Union (UTU) in a dispute over the last issue to be settled, the composition of the new combined union's Executive Council. "We deeply regret BLE's action," said UTU International President Byron A. Boyd, Jr., "and we particularly regret the effect it will have on the members of both unions."
"It is well past the time that BLE should recognize the reality of the railroad workplace for operating employees," Boyd said. "The National Mediation Board (NMB) has recognized that reality in a series of decisions over the last year and a half, finding the appropriate craft or class for representation purposes is train and engine service employees," Boyd added. "It appears that we will have to pursue a resolution of this long-term representation problem with the NMB because they understand it and the BLE doesn't," Boyd said.
"The cover story the BLE is using this time is that UTU changed the deal," Boyd said. "In fact, what is happening is that BLE will not recognize the reality of the changed circumstances since they walked away from the table without prior notice to UTU in May of 1999," Boyd added.
"When they walked away then, the representation issue at the NMB was unresolved, but now that the NMB has affirmed the propriety of a single craft or class for representation purposes, our membership will surely demand recognition of that fact in finalizing the merger," Boyd said. "That means that all full-time International officers of both unions should be on the Executive Council of the new union, with a majority vote of the former BLE International officers being required in matters affecting their headquarters building," Boyd said. "That would amply protect BLE's legitimate interests," Boyd added. "UTU has also guaranteed locomotive engineers complete craft autonomy in the new union, and has conceded that all engine service members would be represented by the General Committees holding the contract for engineers, which in almost all cases would be the former BLE General Committees."
"If we drafted anything less, our membership could not be expected to support the merger," said UTU Assistant President Paul C. Thompson. "We have gone through a great storm the last two years, and have emerged unscathed, but if BLE wants to gather new storm clouds, we are ready to batten down the hatches again," concluded Boyd.
Posted on Jul 20, 2001, 2:40 PM from IP address 12.13.116.34
Issue #1.
General Committee BNSF (CB&Q) with General Chairman Ken Mason, who was one of the three GC who sued and won the right to stay of the National Wage and Rules movement, has received word that the National Carrier’s Conference Committee (NCCC) will meet with him around the middle of September 2001.
Of course the BNSF and the NCCC are appealing the court decision.
Of course the UTU International has not helped with the legal expenses nor have they put anything in the UTU News concerning the matter.
Issue#2.
General Committee BNSF (CB&Q) with General Chairman Ken Mason has now been forced into court again in order to uphold the rights of that committee under Article 85 of the UTU Constitution concerning a “flow-back” agreement negotiated between the BNSF, BLE, and UTU (Santa Fe) General Committee being assisted by UTU Assistant President Paul Thompson. The flow back agreement was imposed upon the CB&Q committee that holds joint jurisdiction of the consolidated Amarillo and Kansas City yard.
The Railway Labor Act provides that a party has six months from the effective date of an agreement, or 6 months from the date of first knowledge, in which to take legal actions against another party which has violated the RLA. After consultation with legal counsel it is the position of the Q general committee that the BNSF, BLE, and the UTU are in violation of the act by allowing the Flow-back Agreement to apply in the consolidated terminals.
Prior to taking court action, the UTU (CB&Q) Committee had appealed the matter to UTU President Boyd who in a long-winded reply backed Assistant President Thompson. The matter will be appealed to the UTU board of appeals whom it is hoped will overrule the President. Since the agreements are signed, to insure that the matter can be overturned in the field it had to be filed in court.
Posted on Jul 3, 2001, 5:16 PM from IP address 12.13.116.110
Is it time for action in the courts? Have our UNIONS FAILED US?
I think so! What do you think?
Can we look to The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act for relief? I DON’T KNOW BUT AM READY TO TRY ANYTHING AS OUR UNIONS SEEM POWERLESS!
.
Older workers and workers with health problems on the BNSF railroad find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment with the BNSF due to the BNSF Availability Policy. Our unions (Internationals) are doing nothing and time goes on and on. Empty promises are all I hear along with the echo of the Van Wart report that UTU President Hardin said was dead after making the 1985 agreement and he was going to drive a stake through and bury it beside the UTU headquarters in Cleveland. Well, Fred’s dead and the Van Wart report seems to be alive and well twenty years later - guess it arose from the dead even with a stake driven through it.
Although the Availability Policy may be a desirable practice for BNSF in order to force the employees to work more it may work to the disadvantage of older persons and workers with health concerns.
Age discrimination can also happen in a more indirect way such as lumping the working conditions of the older worker together with the younger worker. Remember the saying “I can’t break rocks, run as fast, for as long, as I used to be able to”. The older worker cannot be expected to work 365 days a year day and night like a younger worker. The older worker needs more rest and more time to recover. Sometimes a working condition, rule or policy such as the BNSF Availability Policy, which seems to be fair or neutral, can actually have a greater negative impact on people of a particular age.
What about the needs of workers with a medical condition such as heart problems or diabetics that require regular rest and more time off?
Railroad operating employees generally don't have any assigned rest days. Nor do they get regular days off to compensate for the around the clock work they are expected to be available for. The BNSF don’t run it operations on schedules, it is first in first out and you have to stand available while waiting for a call. The time between trips is by carrier rules to be used to get your rest and be available for call. One cannot leave your normal calling place without carrier approval. We depend on train lineups to estimate when the BNSF may decide to call us for work. Those lineups are a poor guess and the carrier does little to try to make them accurate. Deadheads and hours of service relief are rarely shown. The eight-hour call is available, it works look at Sheridan, WY, the Internationals are aware of it and nothing happens.
Although the BNSF’s Availability Policy does allow for some layoffs the BNSF continues to deny layoffs. The policy mandates you cannot lay off more than a certain number of days but does not give you the “right” to layoff anytime. They don’t have to let you have a day off. Casual layoffs are denied time and time again. Extraboards are regulated to a minimum number of employees and both the regular employees and extra employees are denied time off.
We lost the PLB when the International’s stepped in and took over at the PLB using the “Work Rest Guidelines” of the last National Contract to make the argument over. WHY WAS THE SCHEDULE RULES AGREEMENTS AND PAST PRACTICE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SCHEDULES NOT PRESENTED AT THAT BOARD BY THE INDIVIDUAL GENERAL CHAIRMEN? EACH AREA HAS ITS OWN AGREEMENTS AND PAST PRACTIVE. SOME AREAS EVEN HAD LAYOFF POLICYS THAT WAS NEGIOATED AS TO WHAT WAS REASONABLE LAYOFFS UNDER SCHEDULE RULES. Some crew consist agreements and other agreements speak to allowing “expanded layoffs” in exchange for making that agreement. Yet the carrier unilaterally tighten the layoffs and changed the working conditions. Why was that not presented in detail at the PLB? Surly we could have brought in hundreds of present and retired workers that could have spoken to the prior working conditions that by the stroke of a pen BNSF changed.
Remember when you went to work, the working conditions were told to you and now the carrier has changed those working conditions and our unions have twiddled their thumbs and acted helpless to correct the matter. The Railway Labor Act is clear on the matter and the history is out there to support past practice but the Internationals elected not to allow the General Chairmen to present their cases. Oh, yes they picked a couple of lap dogs to make it look good but the real fight was not presented.
Was this done so the International’s would not have to face a carrier’s Section 6 notice in national handling that they believed the membership would never vote for? Did the International’s step in on purpose to make sure a “WEAK” case was presented? They know and any knowledgeable union man knows you do not win a PLB using the argument that “Hey, we have a commitment to work on work/rest guidelines”. You better have agreements and past practice under those agreements to support your case before a PLB. The more the better, every General Chairman representing every schedule should have made a presentation based upon his agreements and past practice under those agreements. A close reading of the PLB will show that the neutral seemed to be in question as to why the unions did not come in with agreements and past practice under those agreements.
I find it unbelievable how the Internationals presented their case at the PLB and the material that was not presented. I also find it unbelievable how the Internationals can be so powerless against the BNSF AVAILABILITY POLICY and at the same time take the dues from the membership to hold conventions and regional meetings, where they brag about what a great job they are doing. This is not to say anything about the meaningless Safety Summits with the BNSF where they get to strut and brag about what they are going to do? Our top unions leaders are like old dogs without any teeth, they set on the porch and bark. Oh, don’t get me wrong there are lots of good Local Chairmen, a few good General Chairmen but after that politics rule the game and the toothless barking begins.
I have a dollar bill with the number A37920674B on it that gets worth less every day yet we set and wait for a contract while the International boys politic and strut at meetings.
HOW ABOUT DOING SOMETHING NOW BEFORE MORE OF US ARE DEAD AND BURIED BECAUSE OF NOT BEING ABLE TO LAY OFF.
Posted on Jun 24, 2001, 3:16 AM from IP address 12.13.116.47
tony bojorques of utu local 1241 richmond/stockton, ca.is a local chairman but acts more like the company Lazy Boy when it comes to representing his members. instead of representing me at an investigation, he was present for reason of acting as a company witness. his function was to look for me on the property to determine whether or not i was present to attend formal investigation, and he did this most dutifully. i wish i had k-9 retrievers with as much loyalty as this local lap-dog. the bnsf has much to gain by putting these types into local union positions, and they do their best to make them feel like part of their team. what happens to those, who after elected, chose to bring up safety issues or local grievances is clear. they hit them where it hurts, the wallet. put a u.e.t. team to watch the local chair, fail him on some practices or rules, threaten him with discipline or time off, and that usually whips them into servitude quite easily. its sad to see a whole local suffer the wrath of the bnsf mis-management tactics because of a local rep. being too afraid for his own job security to stand up for his members or himself. why is there not local representation that work to do one thing, represent the local members? as it is, theses local officers take most of their time off to conduct union buisiness [or in bojorques's case company buisiness] so why not establish this job as a full-time union paid job. imagine the difference in how local issues would be handled if there was a person standing up for the workers rights that actually had the balls to take it to the company and not worry about any retaliation that might be taken when worked their next shift. make the local chair, legislative rep, secretary, all one persons responsibility and make it like the exept company positions , only paid for by the union instead. the people who are being fired and flushed down the drain just might stand to gain from having some real representation fighting in their corner. paying such high dues may not feel as if it is going to pay for the picnics, and postage stamps, and all the other things the local reps pilfer up as the excuse to dip into the pot all the time. i feel the union is one big let down. a money looting scam that steals from the poor to further the rich as they try to make us believe that they are doing such a great service to the workers in their fight for working condition fairness and security. it is more like the mafioso dons who make you pay for protection from those who would harm you, and it is the dons who will be harming you if you dont pay up. like a vicious circle, is it not?
Posted on Jun 17, 2005, 3:08 PM from IP address 69.110.102.247