| |
 |
Tuesday, March 15, 2005 |
The latest issue of the Association for Union Democracy's (AUD) UNION DEMOCRACY REVIEW contains the following short news item that illustrates an important union member right protected by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Every member of a labor organization has the right to copies of applicable collective bargaining agreements.
SHORTS
In the United Transportation Union, Local 1548, Susan Lucas, one of its few women members, contacted AUD because her local refuses to give here or any other member copies of side agreements that the union has been making with management since the basic current contract was adopted way back in 1994. The local told her, she says, that "there are filing cabinets full of them and there is no way they can get them to me." Federal law, the LMRDA, requires unions to give members, upon request, copies of the collective bargaining contracts under which they work. Lucas and other women want to pressure the international union to comply with the law.
They should know that concerted action within the union can work. Type the search words "utu union" into Google and the very first item that comes up is the page with a summary of members' rights under the LMRDA -- a disclosure that exists only because of concerted efforts by AUD supporters to force compliance with LMRDA Section 1105.
9:18:57 AM 
Google It!
|
|
A local chairman gives UTU GC and member of the negotiating team, Delbert Strunk, a piece of his mind. From that source of heated discussion and brotherly love, UURR:
Dear Dilbert Stunk
by Happy Victim of UTU Extortion
Dear Delbert,
I see, once again, it is contract time. I also see you are on the negotiating committee. As a former UTU member, and soon to be one again if I understand the recent letter I just received from you; I thought you might appreciate some random thoughts on negotiation. Remember when you talked us out of the productivity fund? You patiently explained to us know-nothings how we would end up with nothing if we didn't vote for it. Although several others and myself declined your advice and voted against it, in the end it passed anyway. I must say though, there are some among us not comfortable with the vote count. The men on the Poco division, without the benefit of this enlightened guidance, voted against it (for keeping the productivity fund) and are today receiving the maximum annual bonus something like $20,000 per year: Negotiating point #1; when the company is pushing their agenda you don't endorse and promote it for them, instead try to assume a more opposing position. Remember when we had five and six people on a crew? Now robots are eating up the few jobs we have left, and the UTU by all appearances seems to be endorsing it! (See negotiating point #1) Remember when we had a choice between unions? When one union wasn't doing its job you could voice your dissent by moving to another union. I don't believe the UTU's position that the movement away from the UTU is because of members seeking lower dues. And I don't think anyone just up and decides to change unions on a whim, rather I believe it is a last desperate attempt to get the unions attention. This is essentially how we used to get the attention of the carriers when they wouldn't listen to reason... we withheld what they wanted... our labor! In both cases it works. The evidence of this, in the UTU's case, is the last ditch attempt to rescue its crumbling empire with their "seniority maintenance fees". Just what the hell is that anyway, Delbert??? Do you really expect us to believe the carrier has any interest in scrambling the seniority roster if we neglect to submit $74.50 to the UTU monthly? I suspect about the only maintaining this fee will accomplish is to maintain the lifestyle to which you and your colleagues have become accustomed.
Remember when we had the meaningful right to strike? I know it was a long time ago, but I've heard tales about some railroaders actually refusing to work when the carrier refused to bargain in good faith. They say some of these old fools had the crazy idea that their labor was a bargaining tool. Some called this ancient practice "Solidarity". They also hinted that if the right to withhold their labor were ever suspended there would be no more bargaining. They, fools that they were, said, "If the right to strike is ever lost, we'll just be beggars". What do you think, Delbert? Remember the contract of '96, the one we voted down because it was no good and yet it was forced down our throat anyway. What was the purpose of that vote?
Remember when a new contract meant, at the very least, staying even with the cost of living? A little story: In 1985 I was working the Peru pool. Granted we had a lot of arbitraries then; initial, final, fifty-mile pull in for outlaws, and not to mention the one hundred mile day. All whittled away ending with the grand finale. ..trip rates. (See point #1) At that time you could figure your pay at about a dollar per mile and not miss it by much. This was good pay, but then somewhere along the way someone seemed to have forgotten about the cost of living, because although our living cost rose, our wages didn't. Now let's look at this. Taking the standard 3% inflation rate per year compounded to present (wages + 3% per year), the Peru pool should now be paying $349.54 for 188 miles. Instead they tell me they're getting $225.00 and paying part of their health care in the bargain, and yet every contract is proclaimed a victory! While the most recent engineers contract is not the best, it might be called a victory when compared with the trainmen's. Our contract is pitiful! And does memory serve me properly when I recall you receiving about a 100% pay raise in '99 or 2000? Who negotiated that? The UTU has become a LIE. The officers have become too far removed from those who still practice the noble art of railroading. They have nothing in common with those of us who still swing a lantern for a living. As a result, the union is no longer "united" and the only "transportation" the UTU seems interested in is transporting dues to their pockets. We who, out of our wages, have fed and kept you and your lot for years now find ourselves forgotten and abandoned. It seems the local chairman are the only ones who still associate with us and try to get us help needed from the union. They do this while still working a full time railroad job. The most we've come to expect from upper union is the self-congratulatory UTU newsletter we receive monthly. You, intoxicated with your own rhetoric, betrayed us in favor of your own ambitions. Remember when you worked for the NS, when you were out swinging a lantern with the rest of us? Do you remember the "all injuries are preventable" mentality spawned from the noble NS harassment award? All injuries are indeed preventable... even if it takes a little shady paperwork. You are also, no doubt, aware of the fine program NS has on discipline. There are some among us who think maybe you should be on property challenging these situations. It's been quite awhile since I've heard of you even stopping by the tin shanty for a visit. Delbert. It was not always with regret that I claimed myself a UTU member but it seems the UTU is no longer the union it once was. I am now embarrassed for the UTU. Even aside from the convicted felons I am embarrassed for the leadership that seems to have lost its way. Their ambitions and egos seem to match those displayed by a few corporate CEO's we've seen recently in the news... some wearing handcuffs.
Since you'll once again be receiving dues from me, here is an opportunity to earn a portion of them. YOUR MISSION, should you decide to accept it: On 9/5/04 while working my regular assignment, 286L3, the crew was pressed into relief service and we submitted applicable mileage. We were on duty 11 hours and 15 minutes. The mileage exceeded the overtime made so I didn't expect any, but I did expect the mileage. The engineer was paid the mileage claimed but I was paid neither the mileage nor the overtime. Calling payroll, they explained "your not entitled to mileage because you're on trip rate". "Well then, shouldn't I get the overtime", I asked? "Of course not" I was told, "the mileage you claimed ate up your overtime". The mileage? I said, "You didn't pay it". "Certainly not" was the reply, "your not entitled to mileage because you're on trip rate". So more or less if you're on overtime and claim additional miles, you don't get either! Just between you and me Delbert, I don't know if I like this trip rate stuff.
If you decide to pursue this claim, I will post any successes you have with it along with this letter at the administration building and the tin shanty in Bellevue.
Doug Duffield
P.S.- Looking over my membership application I have to wonder if I can meet the qualification. It says at the bottom, " a member must be of good moral character". You didn't have any trouble getting in, did you? Cc: Pertinent Local Chairman
8:40:35 AM
Google It!
|
|
Here's a story forwarded to us describing a recent accident on the BNSF caused by a "false clear."
February 11, 2005
To all Kansas Division Employees;
Last Thursday, February 3, 2005, our division experienced a serious train accident resulting in three of our team members being injured. Here is what happened and what WE are doing as a result of the accident.
At 4:45pm, February 3, 2005, westbound train Q-KCKALT3-03 operating on main track 1 struck the rear of standing train V-MCIWAT8-02 at MP 44.1 on the Emporia subdivision when the Q-KCKALT3-03 encountered a clear signal at MP 41.27 followed by a red at MP 43.41, resulting in the collision at MP 44.1. The signal system failed to provide the proper aspect resulting in a "false proceed indication."
Train Q-KCKALT3-03 with approximately 2800 feet of site distance, upon seeing the red signal and the train just beyond, placed their train in emergency at 51 mph and impact speed is estimated at 23 mph. Eastbound train P-LACCHI2-31 operating eastbound on main track 2 saw the collision, placed their train in emergency and stopped 41 feet short of striking the wreckage that was foul of main track 2.
The engineer of the Q-KCKALT3-03 was injured when he jumped from the train prior to the collision, the conductor of the same train who remained on the train and the third to the conductor on the eastbound train who also was injured when he jumped from his train.
This accident also resulted in the derailment of two locomotives and eight rail cars, environmental damage spilling 5000 gallons of diesel fuel on the ground and an estimated $2,000,000 in damages.
The "false proceed" was caused by rodents stripping insulation from signal wires in an aerial junction box causing false battery voltage to energize a relay which caused the westbound signal on main 1, MP 41.3 to display green instead of yellow. The false proceed indication was intermittent in nature and was not present while testing with the FRA after the collision. The condition was found while testing follow up moves behind a train. The junction box in question was also found to have evidence of rodents in December 2004, while the signal maintainer was performing the required annual inspection. The signal maintainer cleaned the junction box and sealed the cable entrance with a silicon based compound.
Despite the corrections made by the signal maintainer, the junction box was again compromised by mice. At the time of the false proceed indication, the mice had chewed through the silicon and re-established residence in the junction box, chewing the wire insulation off several cable wire conductors. Corrective action is: 1) inspect all pole line junction boxes on BNSF system before February 11, 2005, for evidence of rodents or junction boxes not being properly sealed, 2) change policy of annual inspection to, once evidence of rodents is found, re-inspect every month for a minimum of 90 days to ensure enclosure and circuit integrity, 3) establish standard for type of sealant to be used on various types of signal junction boxes and cable entrances.
Additional details:
This same signal exception was reported on February 2, 2005, by a train crew when a green signal was reported in advance of a red at the same two signals at MP 41.27 and MP 43.41. The train dispatcher notified the signal desk who in turn notified the signal maintainer to respond, however no exception was noted as was "thought" to be a track circuit that had cleared.
Another signal exception was reported on January 30, 2005 where signal at MP 36.3 was reported green followed by a red signal at MP 39.3. Again the signal maintainer was notified, responded, yet found no defect.
Both incidents and tapes of actual conversations between train crew and dispatcher, dispatcher and signal call desk, and call desk and maintainer were reviewed. In both cases, the information conveyed in the conversations between train crews and dispatcher was interpreted by the signal team as a dropped signal indication that is created by broken rail, failed insulated joint or other exception and if that were the case, the signal system functioned as designed. The conversations, for what ever reason, did not provide sufficient detail to differentiate between a false proceed indication versus a dropped signal indication. As a result, the signal team focused their inspection procedures on the signal system west of signal at MP 43.3 instead of on signal system integrity previous to signal. In addition to the current process of reporting signal problems to the dispatcher and signal call desk, a management oversight process will be established to have each report reviewed by a technical expert to determine appropriate follow up or gather additional information to ensure proper follow up is completed in the field.
I realize you have had many questions regarding this accident, why, and how it occurred. While we still have a lot of follow up to complete on the items listed above, we remain committed to correcting the equipment failure and enhancing our processes to proactively eliminate this type of failure in the future.
I appreciate the efforts by numerous people in the recovery of this accident. Those who assisted at the scene caring for their injured co-workers, those who relayed information, those who actually handled the clean up and restoration process, those who managed the network during this time, and those of you in train and engine service who helped us throughout the weekend to ensure we were able to move the backlog of traffic. Everyone pitched in to return the railroad to a normal status.
If you have any further questions regarding this accident, please contact me.
Danny P. Reynolds
General Manager, Kansas Division
12:32:28 AM
Google It!
|
|
© Copyright 2005 The Usual Suspect.
|
|
