Robert D. Webb
9633 Amestoy Avenue
Northridge, CA 91325-1917
Appeal/correspondence
July 22, 2004 Certified Priority Mail # 7002 0510 0000 5406 3982
Mr. Paul C. Thompson, International President
United Transportation Union
14600 Detroit Avenue
Cleveland, OHIO 44107-4250
Re: Appeal to President Paul C. Thompson’s June 28 Membership Ratification Letter, Enclosed.
Dear Sir and Brother:
This is an appeal to your June 28 members’ ratification letter to J. Kevin Klein and John Previsich, encl. I am also responding to your July 16, 2004-letter attempting to state that General Chairmen J. Kevin Klein and John Previsich did not request International assistance resulting in the June 2004, Union Pacific Western Lines proposed modification agreement. According to Klein, Previsich and Vice GC Holder at Local 240s June 9, 2004, meeting in Rosemead, the June 23, 2004 General Committee meeting in Reno, and at both Local 1846 and Local 240s special meetings on July 8, 2004, one or more of these General Chairmen stated that an impasse was reached when the Union Pacific refused to negotiate with the General Committee regarding manager borrow outs used as engineers. They stated that the General Chairmen requested International assistance, which resulted in a lawsuit being filed by the UTU. The UP choose to negotiate a proposed agreement with the assistance of the International officers assigned by you, Assistant President Rick Marceau and Vice President David Hakey. Myself and up to 50 other members attended all four of the above meetings where the statements regarding a request for International assistance were witnessed. The proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by Local Chairmen at the UTU region meeting in Reno, which became apparent to GC J. Kevin Klein prior to and during the June 23, 2004, General Committee session. Not one Local Chairman attending was for the proposal and a subsequent opposition petition (vote in writing that you have) was signed by 21 out of 35 Local Chairmen.
The above paragraph is a direct parallel of Article 85, paragraph three, lines 9-17. You seem to have taken a position that the General Chairmen affected did not request International assistance, even though it is the General Chairmen who make and maintain agreements and that the above officers have stated over and again that they did in fact request International assistance to arrive at the current proposal. Attempting to bypass the majority vote of Local Chairmen affected is a violation of the contract with the members that our constitution represents. The following serious objections voiced by that majority of Local Chairmen have not been addressed; Article I “give back” of overtime to the UP after no more than 10 hours/20 mph schedule for pre-‘85 members, Article IV, first “attempt” to notify during displacement and the opening of off assignment payments (side letter 4). Clearly the BLE agreement reached in April 2004 does not forfeit overtime and has been suggested by all of the opposing Local Chairmen to be superior to the “give back” contained in the UTU proposal. This issue is foremost, yet remains uncorrected.
Thank you for reminding me that once the Local Chairmen vote to approve either system or local adjustments where International assistance was sought and obtained, as the above statements and signatures to the proposal Marceau and Hakey represent, then there is no requirement to a referendum vote the members. So, the ballots were mailed in violation of the constitution and now they must be stayed. The proposal must be withdrawn until the objections have been corrected to the approval of the majority of Local Chairmen affected. That will correctly conclude the matter under Article 85, line 15-17.
The undesirable modification proposal and International constitutional maneuvering is arousing the rage of a large number of pre and post-‘85 members. Not only the wage loss, but the fact that those overtime miles would no longer be counted toward the 4000-mile regulation, so members would have to work more and the pools would be cut. Whom does all of that benefit? Whose interests does the UTU represent? A recent quote by Michael Moore seems appropriate; “When motivated by rage, might I point out that when you feel betrayed, when you feel that something or someone you love has been wounded and cheated and lied to, the fury that floods the heart is unstoppable. Fury is a right of passage” . . . especially when dealing with robber baron railroads. That fury, or “fire in the belly,” gave those that came before us the courage to form a union and stand up against abuse more than 100 years ago. Improvements in pay and working conditions were obtained, sometimes by blood, that some in our union are attempting to take away today. Sir, both young and old feel betrayed. How could you possibly support this wage loss to your members, millions of dollars that will remain in the pockets of the Union Pacific? Does this in any way demonstrate integrity to the new member of today's “open policy” UTU? Is this what they have to look forward to with the coming engineer-only demand by the NCCC?
If the best we can do is to take away almost $60 a day from those that have paid their dues to this organization for 20, 30 or 40 years, then who could fault members for refusing to cowardly send dues to the UTU? Options are being considered by many, Mr. Thompson. Have we not lost enough already? Please sir and brother, I ask you to stay the ballots, withdraw the proposal and correct the objectionable items to the approval of the affected Local Chairmen, as the constitution requires.
Fraternally,
Robert D. Webb, VP/Local 240
Los Angeles
cc: D. E. Johnson, General Secretary & Treasurer
J. K. Klein, General Chairperson, GO-887
J. Previsich, General Chairperson
H. J. Garvin, Local Chairperson
Email: Above and officers/members of three hubs affected.
Enclosure: June 28, 2004, Thompson letter to Klein/Previsich.
12:02:57 AM 
Google It!
|
|
