Witness for the BLE

Engineer Mike Russell tells it like it is

Mike L. Russell, Union Pacific locomotive engineer and a member of BLE Division 81.

To disprove the UTU's case ­ that the line between the craft of engineer and that of conductors and trainmen has been blurred to the point of extinction ­ there is no better witness than a working locomotive engineer.

That's why Union Pacific locomotive engineer Mike L. Russell, a member of BLE Division 81 (Kansas City, Kan.) was called to the witness stand ­ the only full-time, working certified locomotive engineer to testify during the six-day hearing before the National Mediation Board.

Brother Russell delivered critical testimony explaining first-hand the differences between the craft of locomotive engineer, conductor and brakeman. His testimony destroyed the UTU's argument.

"Everything I said came from the heart and dealt with things that only a locomotive engineer would know," he said.

Russell began his testimony by focusing on train handling and the engineer:

"Besides monitoring the air brake gauges and the amp meters and stopping at the red signals or controlling the speed of my train and the slack, I think train handling is probably the most important thing to an engineer that sets us apart from anyone. Let's just say on an intermodal train, you are not going to use the same techniques that you would a loaded coal train. Or a train that might handle one way in the summertime, you might use a different technique to handle the speed and braking in the winter ...

"There are numerous decisions that affect the way you handle the train. ... You know, the things that I have learned in my six years as a locomotive engineer I am continually drawing from, and at the same time I am drawing from the things that happened six, seven minutes ago. So they can give us a manual, but you can't sit on a stand and run a train by it. It's experience and feel and things like that."

Special train handling techniques can only be learned behind the throttle of a locomotive, and, according to federal law, only the engineer is allowed to operate a locomotive.

Russell testified to the personal significance of the Federal Railroad Administration's licensing of locomotive engineers, a clear sign there is a difference between crafts. "My livelihood exists with the license I carry," he said, then stated several offenses that, if committed, would result in a loss of license ... and income.

He also informed the NMB hearing officer that engineers receive much more training than brakemen and conductors. He mentioned simulator training on property and in fuel conservation. When asked if conductors or trainmen take classes on these subjects, Russell simply said "No."

One reason BLE attorneys asked Russell to testify is that he is a post-85 locomotive engineer, since he hired out in June 1990, and was promoted to locomotive engineer in June 1993. The UTU argued that craft lines were blurred because of the ebb and flow of younger engineers between engineer and conductor.

But Russell squelched that notion. While the flow between brakeman and conductor was not a big deal for him, Russell's promotion to engineer changed his life. He testified that upon promotion he received a new seniority date that governed his ability to bid for jobs, hold assignments and bid for vacation time.

Russell said that at first he didn't think too much of the hearing, but that's because he didn't realize the importance of the case.

"I felt that it was my job as a member of the BLE and specifically a new hire to get the word out that if I wanted to belong to the UTU, I could, but I belong to the BLE by choice."

© 1999 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers