UTU and National Carriers' Tentative agreement.

I dont think you guys get to vote on new contracts. In the past anyways the UTU has not sent out anything. I looked at the UTU website and didnt read anything about when the ballots where to be sent out. Ask those guys that have been around awhile how many times they voted. It might be once or twice.

thebigc wrote: You guys are just a little too much in bed with the carrier for my tastes.

Thats one of the many lies the UTU puts out. Theres not much those guys wont say to keep you giving them your dues. Take a look at everthing they have done so far.
It aint good.

Yep - keep up the BLE vs. UTU crap up...

the carriers just love it....

UPRR engineer wrote:

thebigc wrote: You guys are just a little too much in bed with the carrier for my tastes.

Thats one of the many lies the UTU puts out. Theres not much those guys wont say to keep you giving them your dues. Take a look at everthing they have done so far.
It aint good.

BLE Is not blameless.

But the war needs to end

I think the Union war is pointless. I haven't been around long enough to comment on who does what wrong, but it seems that if the two are fighting with each other then it makes it easier for the carriers to win because the union are focused on each other. Seems that if they would unite that more could be achieved.

As far as joining the UTU or BLE it seems anti-productive for a conductor to join the BLE or for an engineer to join the UTU. The BLE hold the engineers contract and the UTU holds the conductors. If you go to the opposite one then you end up not having a vote on what affects your job. We don't need to merge the unions for the two of them to get on the same page. Seems that if the upper leadership of both of them was actually concerned about the members AND the lively hood of the union organization itself they would accept the fact that each union has a place in todays workforce because each holds one of the contracts. BUT, if they don't work together to preserve jobs then in the end they may both suffer.

Why can't we all just get along??? (LOL)

UPRR engineer wrote:

thebigc wrote: You guys are just a little too much in bed with the carrier for my tastes.

Thats one of the many lies the UTU puts out. Theres not much those guys wont say to keep you giving them your dues. Take a look at everthing they have done so far.
It aint good.

I'm speaking from my 21 years experience with the carrier for which I work. I don't need any union official to tell me where its at or who to vote for as I can think for myself.

And my experience tells me that we, the UTU, always negotiated first. And things were OK. Some contracts were better than others but by and large, we did OK and as a result, the other crafts did OK as well. The one time the BLE led the way, they fumbled the ball. And thanks to pattern bargaining, we all got screwed due to the BLE's "turnover".

Sad fact is, there once was a time when both unions worked together for everyone's betterment. Now we have all these cocky know-it-all LETP fakers who think they themselves are the reason we have what we have when the fact is, it was the work of the prior generations of union officers.

Excerpt from UTU.org:

'Whys' of national rail agreement

Brothers and Sisters:

Under provisions of the UTU constitution, general chairpersons on affected properties have submitted questions to the International regarding provisions of the tentative national railroad contract. The contract covers UTU members employed by BNSF, CSX, Kansas City Southern, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific.

Those questions are being reviewed by both the UTU negotiating committee and the carriers for a joint response, and the complete set of questions and answers will be posted on the UTU Web site. At that point, the contract will be submitted to the membership for ratification.

However, the International has received numerous communications from members asking why our negotiating team agreed to what it did - in some cases, asserting that the BLET negotiated better individual agreements with BNSF and CSX.

In fact, the UTU national agreement is superior not only to the national settlement entered into by the BLET, but also the BLET agreements with BNSF and CSX.

Let's talk about BNSF, first.

On BNSF, the BLET agreed to a profit-sharing provision, whereby the BLET traded fixed general wage increases for uncertain profit sharing.

But as BLET General Chairpersons Dennis Pierce, Austin Morrison, Rick Gibbons and Pat Williams wrote in a Jan. 31 letter to BNSF (click here to read that letter), the payout has proved, "abysmal." The BLET traded away guaranteed wage increases for profit sharing that did not materialize as envisioned.

The UTU tentative agreement provides for a guaranteed 17 percent general wage increase (the same as in the BLET national agreement; but which the BLET traded away on BNSF).

The UTU tentative agreement also provides for a continuation of the COLA, which the BLET gave up in both its national agreement and in its BNSF agreement. Thus, only UTU members will be protected against price inflation during the next round of negotiations when general wage increases are not being paid.

As you know, several years can elapse during negotiations, and only UTU members will collect a COLA during that period. We have gone some 2 1/2 years since our previous general wage increase, and the COLA payment -- which has totaled almost $3,500 over the past 2 1/2 years -- has helped our members keep up with the sharply rising prices of gasoline and home heating and cooling.

Moreover, the BLET agreement on BNSF allows for engineer-only operations (and, in some cases, no-man operations). The BLET not only traded away engineer positions, but seeks to eliminate train-service jobs (a provision the UTU is challenging in federal court).

The UTU tentative national agreement makes no changes in our on-property crew consist agreements, and also continues to protect our ground-service work on BNSF and all other rail properties.

Now, let's look at the BLET agreement on CSX:

The BLET agreed to a similar profit-sharing pay plan (called a performance bonus program) as the BLET has on BNSF, and which, as mentioned above, BLET general chairpersons are calling "abysmal" in practice.

The UTU tentative national agreement provides a guaranteed 17 percent general wage increase. If UTU members on CSX wish to negotiate something different on CSX, they have that option. BLET members on CSX traded away any guaranteed general wage increase.

In lieu of back pay (which the UTU tentative agreement provides for), the BLET negotiated a $2,500 signing bonus on CSX, but it is not compounded into the basic day or over-miles worked, as will be the UTU-negotiated and guaranteed general wage increase.

The BLET also agreed -- in its national and on-property agreements -- that newly hired engineers continue to receive lower entry-level pay.

By contrast, the UTU obtained a provision for binding arbitration, by which the UTU can achieve an increase in entry-level for conductors tied to training. The arbitration will be a standard two-partisan-member panel, with a single neutral. Had we accepted what the BLET accepted, entry-level pay would remain frozen and there would be no opportunity to arbitrate it.

Also, on CSX, the BLET agreed to short turnaround service, which increases the basic day to 130 miles (a 30 percent give-back).

Fortunately for engineers, the UTU has not made such an agreement. Thus, the UTU has protected CSX engineers from their own union's give-back provision. So long as the UTU national agreement is ratified, there is no threat that the give-back on short turnaround service can be implemented by the carrier.

The BLET also negotiated on CSX that pool engineers may be used to relieve road trains tied up under the hours-of-service law, or are tied-up for other reasons within yard limits. This work has been performed by UTU-represented yard crews, and the BLET agreement on CSX would deprive UTU yard crews of the work. Additionally, the BLET agreement on CSX eliminates an engineer's ability to change his mark-off using a personal leave day.

The UTU tentative agreement provides for an increase in the held-away-from-home-terminal meal allowance, which is not found in the BLET national agreement. Although the BLET negotiated an increase in the meal allowance on some individual properties, UTU committees of adjustment can make similar agreements through on-property negotiations (although the carrier would demand something in exchange, as it did with the BLET).

Some members question why the UTU tentative agreement allows the carrier to transmit our union dues directly to the International.

While the overwhelming majority of locals are making timely transfers of International dues to Cleveland, there have been problems with some locals, occasionally resulting in criminal charges by the Department of Labor. This revision will ensure greater accuracy, and relieve local treasurers of a very time-consuming burden. The International pledges an immediate transfer to locals of their portion of dues.

We have also been asked why we didn't demand more -- why we are "afraid" of going to a presidential emergency board. A PEB would be appointed by President Bush, and likely not have a single labor-friendly member.

Moreover, the likelihood is high that, in an election year, even our friends in Congress would not look favorably on a rail work stoppage that threatens further to depress our economy. Neither a PEB nor Congress would be bound by the court decision that has prevented the carriers from demanding an end to our crew consist agreements, or elimination of the Federal Employers' Liability Act.

We were not willing to roll the dice on your job security; especially when the expectation is that the result would be a back-to-work law that mirrored the pattern accepted by other organizations -- a pattern that does not include retention of the COLA, an increase in the meal allowance, resolution of the entry-level pay dispute, or a reduction in the waiting period for health insurance coverage for new employees.

Shortly, you will be receiving a copy of the entire agreement, along with the questions submitted by general chairpersons and the answers provided by the negotiating team and carriers.

We have broken the pattern, and we have negotiated an agreement better than any other organization has -- nationally or on-property -- with any of the carriers. The proof is in the reading, and we trust you will read the tentative agreement carefully.

Sounds like UTU vs BLET!!

...

So far it's unclear to me exactly what this agreement is going to be. First and foremost when they talk about entry rates of pay, are we talking about current employees being bumped up to 100% or anyone hired after this contract goes into effect? There's a big difference between sending the ongoing issue of entry level rates of pay to mediation or arbitration, and sending the whole thing to arbitration. What we mean to do is solve the problem of the "step rate" altogether, have everyone start at 100%, but what we're talking about and what they're talking about might be two entirely different things. With the rate new hires are being added, if they're stiffing us out of the bump up to 100%, we're losing our asses.

I've lost my trust in the UTU. They're hiding something... If they weren't, they would already have the tentative agreement posted so we could be looking at it and making an informed decision.

Here is a link to the UTU agreement:

http://www.utulocal1548.org/Proposed_of ... person.pdf

The're talking about current employees at less than 100% and anyone else hired after this contract is ratified being subject to mediation by a third party. No bump to 100% until those talks are done, good luck!

Any backpay retrieved by the 17% is going to be reduced by any COLA received during the same period. Some folks have gone through the numbers and believe they would only receive a couple hundred dollars, but our base pay should increase by 17%, maybe?

The Health and Welfare benefits are also going to cost more!

This contract is only good until December 31, 2009 then we start with negotiations again.

..

But we got a $2.00 meal allowance increase that goes into effect two years from now, so higher copayments, indefinite delays in a bump to 100%, uncertain settlement of entry level rates of pay is all okay.

After looking this contract over I've determined it's blah. Pure blah. The only thing we young guys have to look forward to is a bump to 100%, and we're not even getting that for sure, and not for a while if at all. COLAs have to be paid back, so they an interest free loan - worthless, no one is getting much backpay for this reason. Nothing special here... At least we're not going to have pre - 2008 post 2008 employees... but then again, the mediation board hasn't spoken yet.

They're sitting there patting themselves on the back because they didn't sell out the conductor though.

Don't worry, the conductor is next. The BLET has already conceded that Engineers will work road trains with one man crews. I know they say that it is "just in case" it comes to that but I believe they think they can get a pretty good pay raise out of it. The word on the street is that most class ones are going to try and get everybody engineer qualified in the next five yrs in hope that we will go to engineer only road crews, or the possibility of everybody being on one board...i.e. no more conductor/engineer just train service employees.

I think the UTU is taking our dues money and try to make everybody think they are keeping our jobs.

Yep, once you step outside and look at whats going on it aint to hard to see whats going to happen. Gonna make the switch then buddy?

Heres some other things that puzzle me.
1. The BLE really didnt throw a huge fit about RCL. (maybe there sitting on it for one man crews)
2. We signed first, with the biggest raise ive ever got.
3. The railroads decided to keep the COLA for train service guys.
4. (not for sure on this one, switch shack talk) UTU OK'd the "title"/"job" of utility man in a past contract.
5. Making the computer more hoghead friendly to get paperwork.

Looked into the UTU website more today, looks like they are actually gonna send out ballots sometime in April. So thats good.

I am swaying strongly on the side of just joining the BLET. I know I evetually want to be an engineer but I believe we will see everybody as train service employees before my time comes to be an engineer. If it does come to that then so be it. I like being a conductor and I am sure I would like running the motor, so if one night I am on the ground and the next in the seat, so be it. I just wish the UTU would be honest with the membership. I have been here for such a short time and I already feel distrustful of them.

Maybe it's time to start going to the BLET meetings and make the decision.

you want some wine with that cheese? stop complaining "oh im only at 80 % dont sign the contract" do your time like everyone else did. i did my 5 years at step rate then 2 years later on july 1 2004 everybody got 100% then new hires after that date where once again subject to the step rate progression. oh well thats the way it goes. i think the real issue at hand with this contract should be on more revelant issues about medical, general wage increases and job protection ie save the conductor. the carriers love to keep this 75% step rate plan inorder to deter the membership from focusing on the real issues. hey with only 7 years seniority i still consider myself a new hire but you newer guys should be putting all that energy in learning 100% of the job!!!!

just a thought....... if you ran a company and had guys at 80% and other guys at 100%, would you want to try to get rid of the higher paid man to save 20%? In this day and age of every manager doing their best to fire guys, who do you think they are looking for the most? Just my 1.6 cents worth, 80% of 2 cents. what do you guys think?