LIRR Engineers Ready To Strike?

Based on the descriptions above, it would seem this differs a little from the BN/GE situation. In that case, GE built a new shop to service the new lease power. BN delivered the power to the shop. GE brought it in, tuned it, and returned the power to BN.

Here, if an existing shop, previously or currently used by LIRR, is now being used by non-bargained people to repair LIRR equipment already in service, that would seem a no-brainer violation.

This is a brand new LIRR shop, going to be leased to BBD for M-7 work.
Issue is who will move cars into and out of shop area.

Alot of the work that Bomb is suppose to do is "warranty work." Work that they are required to do on the cars. Unfortunately they must meet schedule damands to deliver the cars or face heavy fines from the MTA/LIRR. To do this they need space to do the work. So they lease the space from the LIRR. Technically speaking when Bomb leases the property they own it for the duration of the contract. Thus they can do whatever they want on that property because they now own it. The railroad would simply drop the cars off and pick them up when they are done. This has done before with the M1/M3 when GE delivered them and KRC with the C3's.

This doesn't open the railroad to let others do non warranty work on railroad property. Such as selling tickets and some of the other stuff that has been mentioned. Work at R. Hill will continue to be railroad work because there is no work for KRC to perform on the C3. You will not find EMD performing engine overhauls at R. Hill or periodic inspections either. However they are doing work in Altoona because its "warranty" work. Work the contractor and railroad have agreed needs to be performed due to flaws the manufactor failed to fix during the manufacturing process so they can be paid in full.

Should the railroad have a presence there------absolutely to protect their interest.

Keep in mind once the warranty is up on the M7-----we own them. Any work performed on these cars wil be doen by LIRR forces.

I think it would be best served for all parties to first get the facts straight, analyze them and how it affects their organization, then react appropriately. Unfortunaley there seems to be alot of hear say and that gets into the mix and makes it worse for both parties.

Some point in facts..EMD has done work on the DE/DM's on LIRR property..namely welding on the engine skids. It was EMD's desire to later transport the locomotives to Altoona because EMD, as does any other contractor, reserves the right to have whomever it wanted perform the warranty work..since EMD was paying for it. I met them in Richmond Hill Shop.

In addition, Kawasaki since the inception of the C-3's had men on the property in HSY working on cars and preparing them for service. We performed all the switching.

The Kawasaki warranty facility leased to them in Shea Yard by the LIRR did not include them performing their own switching and car spotting. If they switched equipment, it was "of the cuff" so to speak...not written in stone like the Arch Street Yard. Regarding LIRR simply picking up and dropping off cars in Shea is untrue. I was there, we switched the equipment in their shop and in the Yard.

Absolutely no one, is disputing Bombardier's right to perform the warranty work themselves...they are paying for it.

The LIRR has an obligation, when it leases, sells, aquires or any combination of the aforementioned, to adhere to it's contracts.

The BLE is unique that it has solid contractual agreements with the LIRR regarding who operates the LIRR's trains...if other LIRR unions don't, well that's pretty sad. And maybe that is why some other unions are shaking their heads in disagreement. The BLE will protect its contract.

Please rethink some of the things your saying...because I agree with you, people should "get their facts straight" before making statements.

Liquid...

Point well taken. My response is to the quote "move LIRR equipment in the yards." I was at Shea during the KRC retrofit from the first car deleivered till the last car left Shea.

The movements were for the LIRR to drop cars on 5 and pick up on 6. The delivery of two cars was just that. KRC moved the cars into their shop to perform work. When the railroad started delivering three and four cars, KRC asked the railroad if they spot one car(when three was dropped off) inside the shop and two (when four was dropped off). this was done becasue with three cars, the third car would block the grade crossing KRC used for access in/out of the yard and it blocked the railroad from picking up six because they fouled the switch.

So based on the quote above, and my presence at Shea, the railroad did drop and pick up. There was no switching conducted by the railroad. In fact there was a drop made for four cars, but when they all couldn't fit on five track (KRC had the shop doors closed) the railroad took the fourth car back to R. Hill.

I hope that clears up any misleading info.

This action is not about the BLE&T lack of contract
It really comes down to the fact that the MTA is trying to bring in non union employees to a union shop.
The contract issues are in no means even close to strikeable as yet.
The employees to be working in the new shop are not only non union but are all Canadian citizens. Their wages will not be spent here in the US to encourage our economy (except for lunch money) all earnings will be sent to Canada to support their families.
As for our general chairman siting on the MTA labor board it sounded bad when it was announced and has proven to be bad.
This decision was probably made long ago with our GC's blessing.
It is a known fact that the BLE&T has been trying to raid the UTU across the country.
While I feel this is not a good choice for Conductors and Trainman
because of the BLE&T's passsed record of displacing Conductors,at least they are not afraid to fight the fight which all railroaders should be fighting over!!
Every union on the LIRR should be ready to strike on this offense
and be willing to eat the fines!!

I really did not want to get into this discussion but I need to add my "two
cents" to the previous remarks with due respect.
Yes, the BLET is actively seeking all operating people to join up with them
and the Teamsters.
The UTU on the other hand has been recruiting engineers all over the
place for many years and indeed in some places, they have succeeded in
obtaining a fair number of engineer as members. This is a two edged
sword.
There is intense dislike between the top leadership of the two unions and
this has gone on for some time.
What is going to come of this situation? I do not know but I suspect it will
not benefit either union very much. Some places the UTU is strong while
others the BLE is strong. On Metro-North, both unions were thrown out for an independent union.
If the local leadership of the UTU is not or does not back up the BLE in
this matter, it may very well be on orders from their leadership in
Cleveland.
I think the BLE is capable of bringing this matter to a solution with or
without the UTU but it would be nice to be with.
Noel Weaver

Thank you for clarification, LIRR272..Not to be a pain but I need to ask. Your saying when we switched in Shea, and spotted cars and moved into the shop (sometimes) it was a favor?

Can anyone, possibly Noel, clarify something for me. In the late 80's, didn't the UTU sign a national agreement whereas the Conductors were required to qualify as Engineers? This causing a "bleeding" of UTU members because when the Conductors became Engineers, they were then in the BLE?

It seems that the union that has made it a national goal to have composite employees (Engr/Condrs) is the UTU. If the UTU could eliminate the craft of Engineer, they would do it in a heartbeat. Read their testimony to the NMB. I agree with Noel...both have been acting poorly on the issues. Too many egos.

Noel or someone, can you please let us know whether this is fact or not?

Liquidcamphor wrote:Thank you for clarification, LIRR272..Not to be a pain but I need to ask. Your saying when we switched in Shea, and spotted cars and moved into the shop (sometimes) it was a favor?

Can anyone, possibly Noel, clarify something for me. In the late 80's, didn't the UTU sign a national agreement whereas the Conductors were required to qualify as Engineers? This causing a "bleeding" of UTU members because when the Conductors became Engineers, they were then in the BLE?

It seems that the union that has made it a national goal to have composite employees (Engr/Condrs) is the UTU. If the UTU could eliminate the craft of Engineer, they would do it in a heartbeat. Read their testimony to the NMB. I agree with Noel...both have been acting poorly on the issues. Too many egos.

Noel or someone, can you please let us know whether this is fact or not?

The UTU agreed with Conrail a few years ago that all engineers would come from the conductor's ranks. I do not know for sure whether that is
the situation on all of the major freight railroads today but I suspect that
it probably is. I think the UTU figured that those conductors who became
engineers would for the most part stay in the UTU but at least on what was
Conrail, that was not the case.
The fact that the UTU has been trying to take over the engineers and/or
the BLE for some time has not gone un-noticed by BLE members. After
the leadership of the two agreed on a merger a few short years ago, the
membership of the BLE voted it down by a huge margin. The UTU and the
BLE have been conducting raids on each other since.
I was told by someone who I consider in the know that the UTU was having financial problems and wanted to get their hands on some of the
engineer's money.
The BLE has fairly solid finances including a building on valuable property
in downtown Cleveland. They owned a second building, the beautiful BLE
building with a tremendous hall and pipe organ inside, until the leadership
decided to sell it and allowed it to be torn down. A shame in my opinion.
The UTU on the other had had one or two of their former top officers in big
trouble with the feds over mishandling union funds.
Noel Weaver

Liquid...

It wasn't a favor in the traditional sense. The work scheduled called for two car, then three, and then four to be delivered at various intervals. At the time two cars were delivered without any problems. At the time, the powers to be didn't consider KRC having the shop doors closed when the drop off was made. In fact they were always closed when the drop/pick up was made. When the four cars were dropped, but the one coach fouled the crossing and track six, it was taken back to R. Hill. KRC was under the impression that it could have been left on track 4. There was a GN stating no equipment could be left there due to track conditions. Also the lead loco (MP1500) was cut off and place there while the move was made.

To help keep the schedule of four cars being delivered and pick up,KRC asked the railroad if the doors were left open could the railroad put two cars inside the shop and leave the other two outside. Word was given to transportation to do so.

The delivery of four coaches was supposed to happen, but space limited all cars to be place on track 5.

I disagree with the comment the MTA is looking to put non-union labor in a union shop because no union has worked in the shop and the shop isn't officially open.

I think its a liability issue. Lets say Bomb leases the space and its owned by them for a certain peiord of time. During this time if an LIRR employee damages any equipment on that property, the railroad will be held liable and pay for any damages to the equipment. Basically paying Bomb to repair the equipment. And of course the finger pointing will start and all the other stuff will follow. On the otherhand, if Bomb damages the equipment, they have to pay for the repairs. No loss for the railroad.

As most contracts are written, the builder must be present to provide assistance and maintenance on warranty items. Once the warranty is over, you won't see any Bomb employees on the property. The same practice was done on the C3 at the Hill. You can't find a KRC employee doing any work on the cars, unless its instructional or testing of a new component.

Contract issues between the BLE and UTU is something I have no knowledge of. I hope a strike doesn't occur and some meaning could come out of this.

Its been two weeks. I thought Bombardier was going to start using the new yard two weeks from when Evers sent that letter. So who is backing down?

I'll tell you what I have heard but I'll admit never saw for myself any documentation to back this up, so take it for whatever you feel it's worth.

Nobody has "backed down". The BLE was trying to have a meeting regarding the issue and the LIRR has not responded to that. There is some correspondance between the BLE and the LIRR about the issue, however.

Also, there is mention that the LIRR has held off on signing the lease. There was a request by the LIRR in their Section 6 notice to the BLE asking for contractual language allowing the LIRR to "lease" out Locomotive Engineer work. So, it would seem that the LIRR does feel there is an issue with leasing, by asking for that. Leasing a yard the way they mentioned, would in effect, violate the "staus quo" since the BLE has not agreed to that. This is the so-called "major issue" that can allow a LEGAL strike under the RLA.

With the Arch Street issue in mind and the news artice in the Sunday NY Times about a potential new transportation authority out east leasing the LIRR east end tracks shows that this issue is far bigger than Arch Street. That is why the BLE is making such a fuss.

With the Arch Street issue in mind and the news artice in the Sunday NY Times about a potential new transportation authority out east leasing the LIRR east end tracks shows that this issue is far bigger than Arch Street. That is why the BLE is making such a fuss.

Thank you liquid at least someone is keeping up on this issue... Still no say from the UTU on this subject...however
If the BLE of the LIRR wants to do this thing legally they must wait untill the cars are actually moved
obviously the time line for the shop opening is in the lap of the mta and Bomb
The BLE will take its job action when a wheel turns in that yard by a non union man....
no time, just sit and watch

Hi UTUbrother..

Don't let the silence of your union's leadership bother you. I must say that there is quite alot of support from your membership and that's what really counts.

Maybe the UTU feels that it is an issue they really can't fight. And I don't mean just the UTU, but all LIRR unions in general. Let's face it, the MTA is the State, and they would have no problem using our tax money to litigate this until the opposing parties are finacially exhausted.

Your union has a large membership but it is handicapped by the fact that it is composed of varying crafts who sometimes have opposing agendas. And that sometimes leads to inaction by your leadership for fear of alienating one craft over another. But, they wanted it that way and it doesn't mean that every union not affiliated with them has to follow their lead.

Once they have the yard ready to go and Bombardier start moving in office furniture, we'll see what happens. Like you said, they haven't begun work yet so there's no issue until it happens.

How are the M7's physically going to be moved into Arch Street shops? Are they going to be towed down by a diesel? Nothing is cut in off the mainline for cars to access the shop via third rail power to the new East Side Yard. Someone told me from the BLE office the third rail was energized the other day, is this true?