The following was written by Brother Jim Garrett - State Director from Iowa. Brothers and Sisters, I would like to share with you my many concerns surrounding the proposed conductor elimination agreement between BNSF and GO-001. I encourage you to share this with anyone who works for a railroad. These thoughts are in no particular order of importance. Whether a curse or a benefit, I have been here 35 year and I have seen this type of push down, fear promotion before. What I have never seen is the level of secrecy involved and the lack of member participation seen here. I first would ask that everyone read the proposed TA as if you were a railroad manager. View it in the light of how you would exploit it. Trust me, if you perceive a hole somewhere, BNSF has seen it and is already making preparations to use it. But even without the holes, how would you use it? The TA should also be considered for what is NOT in it as much as for what is. If you attend an informational session or have heard of its content, you will hear and see via the PowerPoint the usual fear issues: crew consist is expiring, we probably cant do better in the future, laws and regulations can change, we lost past battles on crew consist, etc. First, there is no expiration date on crew consist. There is a moratorium that protects us from having to negotiate it while a protected person still falls under it. So consider this: If we will be in a weaker position in the future, why is BNSF settling now and locking themselves in for 40 plus years? I submit it is because they have got a sweetheart deal. While laws and regulations can change, it is very unlikely any two person mandate will. We have public support on our side. 83% + of our community neighbors support mandating two person crews. This is huge support in the political world. And finally, the fear propagated by noting past crew consist losses. Lets put some perspective on that. In those battles we could not with a straight face argue that having two or even one brakeman riding behind the conductor (or in a trailing locomotive) was a necessity and required for safety. But we do have that argument now, it is valid, and we have political and public support. Further more, those crew consists were written under duress account of PEB mandates and featherbedding claims. Brother Knutson has voiced that the legal remedy is weak and yet HE approached the BNSF with the proposal to eliminate conductors some 8 or 10 years before the issue needs to be discussed and feels HE is in a stronger position. Again I ask you, if BNSF felt they are in a weaker position now, why would they seemingly be give up so much? It is a serious question and one you should reflect on when reading the agreement as a corporate railroad officer. I submit to you that since Brother Knutson initiate the talks, that BNSF though, What the hell, lets see what we can get and if it isnt enough well just wait 8 years. I mean, wouldnt you? Brother Knutson says laws and regulations are resendable and that any two person law or regulation can be revoked and yet later said PTC is here to stay. Please pick a side and stick to it. Look at the clause regarding elimination of brakemen and yard helpers. What does that have to do with PTC protected trains and how is safety enhanced for the remaining sole conductor or switchman? And with no additional pay. Brother Knutson said, with an incredible lack of sarcasm, that he doubts BNSF will exploit that right because of the drop in productivity. Say what?!! BNSF uses two man remotes everywhere they can without concern for productivity. CSX has one man remotes across their system with the resulting drop in productivity but it doesnt stop them. Expect them to remove those jobs. Brother Knutson has opened his monologue by parroting the carriers lines in their support for one man operations. First, he has used the AARs line that there is no proof that a second person leads to safer operations. Well, um...since all operations except for a few shortline, assigned trains are already two person, can you disprove it? That should be the question. And Brother Knutson next line supporting the carriers position came almost verbatim from the mouth of Mr. Barnett the owner of the railroad that killed 47 in Lac Magantic. He said that one person operations are safer because the conductor was a distraction. I believe Brother Knutsons line was something like, There is a growing body of belief that a second man in the cab is a distraction. Speaking for myself, I am glad to have my fellow brothers distracting me at 4 or 5 or 6 in the morning following a day of no sleep. Brother Knutson also brought up what BLET has done in the past as justification for the TA. He tells of the last man standing agreement. BLET merely established that if there be only one person in the cab it would be an engineer. Not an unreasonable position. It is Brother Knutsons TA that will make that a reality. The 2007 agreement establishes in writing the scope of work they had always performed. And nowhere in that agreement does it say that they WANT to be the last man standing. Also mentioned was BLEs Montana Rail Link agreements and the infamous Lake Erie plan. Without the slightest hint of irony, Knutson explained that on MRL the BLET is the on property representative and they have negotiated an engineer/co-engineer agreement and the Lake Erie plan was a template for engineer/co-engineer operations. Take a moment and count how many people that leaves in the cab. Although these cases do or would eliminate the craft of conductor they still provide a job! And they still provide for a safer operation. Much time and effort is spent on explaining reserve/retention boards. As if they will ever be used. Again, look at the agreement from a company perspective. They have the option to use you on trains or not. Why pay you 100% (or even 75%) to do nothing when for the same money they can get you to do something? BNSF hated the first reserve boards and theyre not going to like these any better so do not expect them to be used. As for retention boards, we have had those before and gave up nothing for them. BNSF benefits by keeping their trained conductors at the ready. Union Pacific uses a similar board and the work force gives up nothing for them. When BLET got there 2007 agreement, the BNSF bought it with the 6th week of vacation. In this TA it is being bought with a promise of $100,000 buy offs. For the senior employees contemplating a yes vote in anticipation of this walk away money I first point out that that amounts to the ultimate sellout. Second, while there may be a few strategic buy outs, they will not be wide spread and Knutson himself doubts there will be many. In fact, the biggest attrition from the PGSE ranks will come from the bottom. And this is for all the new employees. Again, read it as a manager. You can expect that if this agreement passes, there will be no more volunteers going into engine service. That will require, per our Manning agreement, that all new engineers will be forced from the bottom. In the near term you might quite literally have shiny new conductors being ushered from their final conductor exam into the LETP. How does that safety prospect grab ya? That is how BNSF will whittle the PGSE ranks; no buy offs, no reserve boards. And thats another reason they will never use reserve boards; the people destined to be forced to them will be the youngest and most inexperienced, so by working these guys BNSF gets actual work and these guys build experience which they are sorely going to need. The newest hires on BNSF will NEVER work under the terms of this agreement. Further hiring will cease. The bottom in seniority will be unceremoniously plucked and sent to be engineers. So as engineers retire (and there will be hundreds in the next 5 years) BNSF will resupply from the bottom PGSEs. There will come a time of course when the minimum will be reached and hiring will begin again. And ironically these new hires will be hired to fill the jobs that you were taken from a few years earlier. Railroad Retirement. Yes, it will be impacted. It was noted recently that under the 2001 changes that the carriers will keep flush the Tier II portion. While that is mostly true, our payroll contribution can and it has risen to also make up for the shortfall. But that speaks nothing of Tier I which is not carrier protected and is fully dependent of payroll taxes to maintain viability. The most recent analysis of RRR is that it will experience no cash flow concerns for 25 years assuming no downturn in current employment levels. If this agreement passes you can expect it to go viral and there will be significant drops in employment levels. Should RRR become distressed in the future you can expect a full on assault by the like political minds of Paul Ryan who just two years ago want to eliminate RRR and conform us to Social Security. I know that new hires think little of retirement and they could really start feeding their 401k in anticipation of losing RRR. But for those of use in the immediate to 10-12 year range from retirement, there is the prospect of benefits reduction in the future. One complaint I made concerning BLETs 2007 agreement is that they didnt provide for retirement protection and this agreement lacks that also. Fatigue. That will no doubt be a recurring question asked at these meetings. How will an engineer get a power nap under current rules, for example? How can we expect these lone engineers to maintain alertness (without the conductor distracting him). Brother Knutson answered that in Lincoln by saying, We think engineers will have assigned times. We think? Heres what I think: If BNSF consents to assignment times, Creston will close as a pool source. Assigned times will be impossible under a double ended pool system. As we are often reminded, BNSF would like to end this double ending. Oh, sure, I guess there is always that unlikely case that they will one end it in Creston. But this TA will increase the likelihood of it happening at one end or the other. And the young guys being forced into LETP, dont buy that new house just yet (but the truck might come in handy) because although you are protected as a PGSE in Creston, you are not protected as an engineer. I expect there will still be about 15 trainmen jobs and 4 or 5 engineers. The intent of this agreement for BNSF is to reduce employment and increase profits, they would never consent otherwise, and I believe that this will be the impetus to strongly consider closing Creston. (Or similar outlying locations). I know that everyone has been hearing the concerns associated with hitting vehicles or pedestrians. It is a bit chilling to me that as real and likely as this is, that there is seemingly little care about this concern. Really? Are we that callus that we will look away from our communities? How about our fellow employees? If you have been out here long enough, you know of someone who was saved by the actions of the distraction riding in the cab. In some cases, actually operating the train to a location where EMTs can meet them. What of the employee who will die that would otherwise have been saved? IT WILL HAPPEN! Yes, we will consul ourselves by saying he may have died either way. I will look at it differently; knowing we could have HELPED but choose not to, I will consider their deaths sacrifices. Now let me give you my view of the Master Conductor positions. First, there will be very few of them. It has been pointed out that only MCs can transport other employees beyond the usual 25 mile switching limit. But most all other duties described can be performed by a number of lesser paid ground service employees. In fact, if the work being performed does not require certification, any class of employee can perform the duties and be paid far less than the MC wage. So again, your the manager, what would you do? Brother Knutson was adamant when he announced that this agreement does not create van driver positions. Any PGSE can transport employees in the course of their duties. This will include utility employees in Lincoln for example who will likely take the engineer to his train, kick off the handbrakes and head back to the yard office. They need not be MCs. A question was raised about whether engineers would get their own paperwork and wheel reports, etc. Hmm, um, those things are yet to be worked out. Mister manager, what would you do? A gapping hole in the agreement is just how many MCs will be required? How big of a geographical area will they cover? What level of train saturation will they be required to cover? If an MC is transporting a deadhead crew can he be detoured to assist a train while the DH crew suffers along? (Oh, by the way, expect more deadheading by train). Lets talk about those crew hauling requirements. First, you may be required to get a CDL. That in itself may not seem a big deal, after all, BNSF will pay for it. Holders of CDLs are held at a higher driving standard. Therefore, when you collect even a minor infraction, your points are assessed at a higher rate. Consequently you are apt to lose your license sooner. And if you lose your license you may likely also lose your job. A license will be a requirement on all jobs except perhaps hostlers. In the unfortunate case where you may be ticketed for DWI you face high fines, high insurance, maybe lawyer fees and no job to pay for them. Additionally, case law provides that YOU can be sued by BNSF for injuries or damage you commit in a negligent act. Most insurance policies do not cover that and may only be available at a higher cost to the employee. I know this is long winded but there is so much to be considered. So let me toss out abbreviated concerns: We are creating a new class of split protection employee. Carriers are making record profits, have no competition and are in no need of concessions to survive. Only a 15%, 5 year raise? Arent conductors just finishing up a 16.75% raise that they got from a less profitable industry? PTC adds protection; it doesnt replace it. Carriers have historically removed rules from the book when they could not be easily complied with as crews were reduced (Anyone remember the one where you were supposed to walk your train every time you stopped?). Which safety rules will go this time? Lone engineers on Amtrak is a ruse, there is a conductor on the train monitoring speed and restrictions, engineers are limited in time and/or miles when no fireman in the cab. (They have never had a conductor in the cab. No passenger service ever). If you were going to negotiate elimination of the conductor, what would you put on the table? Return of first in first out? 7 and 3 rest cycles? Availability policies? GAURANTEED RETIREMENT? (Officers get it; union and carrier). Highways are dangerous. You are much more likely to be in an accident on a highway than you are on a train. Statistics show that in Iowa there are 1.17 deaths per 100 million miles traveled. In 2008, the most recent data I could find, deaths per 100 million miles of train travel were .13. You are 9 times more likely to die per mile traveled in a car than you are on a train. In 2011 there were over 32,000 highway deaths and only 24 rail deaths that included employees or contractors. 100% pay parity? Conductors already get 100% pay. Big deal. Past overtures by BNSF to consider conductor elimination included an offer and promise that all current working conductors would not lose their jobs. Should we not expect anything less? OK, lets talk about your guaranteed job for life. (Just the young folks, you old heads can jump ahead).The truth is, the first 2-4 years can be a little bumpy. But it has ALWAYS been that way. Every railroader before you suffered some short time unemployment. And then, well pretty much a job for life. But right now is a good time to hire on. As mentioned, we are entering a high retirement period and your bumpy road will probably be pretty smooth. Brother Knutson said he thinks that BNSF would put conductors on trains in bad weather. Really? That is not in the agreement and he is wildly speculating. And where would these conductors come from after we have whittled our trainmen ranks down to bare bones? Brother Greene is retiring in 9 months so we cant get any help from him and Brother Knutson will be 60 in May so I doubt hell mark up either. This historic vote is about much more than you. You are about to set the tone for an entire nation. Furthermore, you are about to set the tone for your own organization. Thousands of engineers maintain their membership in what they have always believed and trusted was the better union, myself included. Most of these engineers have had faith that it would be THIS group that saved his cab companion. I say give them a reason to stay and give others a reason to join by rejecting this agreement. Additionally, there is no requirement for trainmen to continue membership. It would not at all surprise me to see some of the most disgruntled conductors leave in disgust. P.S., the BLET sent me a membership application 10 days after this agreement was released. In all of my past experiences where monumental votes were at the fore, labor leadership ALWAYS laid fear at our feet. This is the best your going to get, you better take it! If this goes to an arbitrator you will probably get less! Well this time its different. We are under no compulsion to pass this agreement. We can send a resounding NO to both BNSF and our leadership and tell them if they want to try again they better ask first and include us in the process. We have the public and law makers and regulators on our side. And most of all, if you will grant it to yourself, we have the powerful of collective action. A bold NO will be the steel in our spine, the edge on our blade and the resolve in our souls to lay down no more. We are Trainmen Protecting America. We work for one of the most profitable, non-exportable, securest industries in this country and I say SCREW EM, WE AINT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! Jim Garrett Creston, Iowa
Posted on: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 22:47:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015