Summer 2001
Volume 108 - No. 2
Summer 2001
Volume 108 - No. 2
Communications
BNSF contradicts its own vision, values
Alliance, Nebraska was one of the first locations on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe to enjoy the implementation of a "rest cycle" extra board for its engineers. About three and a half years ago, an 8-and-3 rest cycle extra board was offered by the company to help combat engineer fatigue and enhance on-the-job safety for all BNSF employees.
I'm saddened to report that on April 15 of this year, BNSF abolished our 8&3 extra board and the Alliance engineers' extra board will revert back to a non-rest cycle extra board. This, coupled with the company's "Employee Attendance Guidelines," represent a quantum leap backward with regard to worker safety, fatigue countermeasures and is directly contradictory to the company's own beloved "Visions and Values" that grants each employee the right to "a safe work environment for the sake of ourselves, our co-workers, our shippers and the communities we serve," as well as the right to "participate fully in life outside of work by enjoying the fruits of our labor" and "to be treated with dignity and respect."
I can't help but think that this is an attempt by the company to either force our members into a far less desirable agreement, or to do away with rest cycle boards at Alliance altogether. Perhaps, this is being done in order to allow crew management to staff the extra board with fewer people and augment the various trainman's boards to help meet their manpower needs since so many people from Alliance were furloughed last year and chose not to return.
This is just another episode in the continuing saga of how little regard the Burlington Northern Santa Fe has for its employees, their safety and their way of life. This should serve as a reminder to all that so much of what you have can be so easily taken away with the stroke of a pen.
North Platte deal 'a bad agreement'
Dear Editor,
I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to a letter written by Steven Kalow, BLE Division 867, Waterbury, Conn., and published in the Spring 2001 edition of the Locomotive Engineers Journal.
As a third district Union Pacific Railroad engineer and one of the 130 members that voted not to accept the proposed Rest Cycle Agreement (North Platte, Neb.), I resent the implication that the only consideration in our vote was one of money.
Certainly the issue of adequate compensation for services performed was a key element in our decision; however, many other factors weighed very heavily as well. Certainly not least of which was how our decision would affect other engineers around the system should this agreement be used as a pattern for future negotiations. In other words, we were doing what we thought best for everyone, not just ourselves.
This was a bad agreement! Although there were some provisions that we considered a step forward, the overall outcome would have been about 10 steps backwards. There were issues dealing with seniority and the inability to exercise it properly, the continuation of the two-tier pay scale for pre- and post-85 employees, the uncertainty of the job we would have been required to perform at any given time, just to name a few.
An agreement so obviously one-sided in favor of the carrier should never have been presented for ratification. By doing so, the company was in a win-win situation and the engineers were in a lose-lose position. If we had voted to accept the agreement, then the provisions we would have been working under would have been substandard and would have benefited the company immensely. By voting as we did to reject, we were portrayed as money-hungry and uncaring about quality of life issues, and the company walked away touting how hard they tried to make things better.
It is hard enough to be judged by people outside the industry who have no idea of what they are talking about. But, to be second guessed by fellow engineers whom should know better is inexcusable. If you want to have an educated opinion on this agreement, please take time to read it. I would be happy to provide a copy to you.
Engineer sets the record straight at 'Trains' magazine
BLE Editor's Note: The following letter was written by BLE member Doug Riddell in response to an editorial written by Ed King and published in Trains magazine. Brother Riddell is a published author and regular contributor to Trains. He was one of several railroad union members who complained to the magazine about King's editorial, including BLE International President Edward Dubroski.
Dear Mark Hemphill,
Ed King's assertion that unions school their representatives "with the aim of clouding the truth and disrupting (disciplinary) investigations" is the most ludicrous and totally irresponsible remark that I have seen in print.
It belies a deep seeded anti-labor bias that in effect slanders every unionized worker in the country, as well as their representatives, specifically dues paying railroaders. It evidences what little regard, if any, King has for the contractual right to be presumed innocent and guaranteed a fair and impartial investigation of the facts to assess responsibility when charges of misdeeds are lodged against a railroader. (If management says they're guilty, they're guilty. Why waste time, right, Ed?)
To set the record straight, with the exception of full-time, salaried International and system officials, most local union representatives are non-compensated, elected laymen who concurrently work in their craft. They are thrust into the vanguard of leadership with little or no formal training in hearing protocol or the disciplinary appeal process. Other than "the school of hard knocks," their "training" most often consists of attending a 45-minute seminar held in a hotel room during an annual convention. And consider the stakes: the union and its representative can be held civilly and legally liable for incompetence or misrepresentation.
Their management counterparts conversely, attend weeks of courses in labor law and investigative practice. Even after months of prepping, they aren't allowed near a hearing room on their own accord until the carrier is satisfied that they possess the skills to guarantee conviction for even the most absurd allegations.
How absurd? A newly hired brakeman on a Class I railroad was injured while riding in the cab of a locomotive when it overturned after striking a dump truck at a grade crossing. He was cited for being an "unsafe" employee and was summarily terminated.
I represented an engineer who broke his leg when the concrete sidewalk he was using at Washington Union Station gave way, causing him to fall. After several weeks at home mending without pay, he was greeted with a certified letter charging him with "failing to look out for slipping, tripping, or falling hazards" and "using an unauthorized route." At his hearing when the carrier's witness produced a photo of the scene, I asked if a flash attachment was used. The management witness admitted that he was forced to, for lack of proper lighting. When I then produced another photo depicting management personnel using the same "unauthorized" route, the hearing officer (judge) dismissed the charges.
I unapologetically and proudly have served in elected union office for most of my 24-year railroad career, including several years representing accused employees. When my members were in the wrong, I attempted to mitigate the charges and affect an amicable resolution. But when cool heads could not prevail, I took it to the mat. I'm no Perry Mason, but I never lost a case. Nor was I given any training, I simply attempted to uncover the truth. Once, after one of my members was exonerated, the hearing officer quipped, "Mr. Riddell, you've made fools of our management officers twice this week. I sure hope you won't be back soon." I replied, "God made them fools, I just showed off His handy work."
Ed King's career is rooted in an era when management relied solely on fear and intimidation to keep the troops in line. Thankfully, today's railroad industry increasingly sees mutual benefit in placing value on their employees, their input, and the cooperation of their union: a welcomed change to be sure.
© 2001 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers