Winter 2002
Volume 109 - No. 4
Winter 2002
Volume 109 - No. 4
President's Message
We will not back down
BLE will continue to scrutinize safety of remote control
Arbitrator Gil Vernon may have issued his final award on the issue of remote control trains on January 10, but it will surely not be the final word as far as the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers is concerned.
I understand this issue is of paramount importance to our members and I promise you the BLE is going to keep it on the front burner. We will not simply let it go quietly. We're going to pull out all the stops to ensure safe operations and make the general public aware of remote control train operations in their communities.
We have already approached the National Carriers Conference Committee to negotiate a solution.
We must also continue to try and convince the Federal Railroad Administration to immediately begin a rulemaking to establish enforceable rules to ensure that the most highly trained and qualified employee operates the remote control devices. We requested a rule making in October of 2000.
Unlike rail management and leadership of the UTU, we are not convinced the remote control devices are completely safe. We did not buy into the sales pitches delivered by the snake oil salesmen who represent the companies that manufacture the remote control equipment.
Rail management often cites statistics to prove how safe remote control operations were in Canada. How they come-up with these statistics, one is in Canada they don't operate outside yard limits, they also don't go on the main line. Another point that is a direct correlation to injuries when you reduce the crew from three to two you have less people that could get injured there for, the statistics are lowered.
Rail management says remote control results in fewer personal injuries. Is it the miracle of remote control preventing these injuries, or are there just fewer people working because remote control has eliminated jobs? The fewer people you have working, the lesser the chance for injury.
Rail management says remote control results in fewer accidents. Is it the miracle of remote control preventing these accidents, or is the technology inherently slower and less efficient? The fewer cars you move, the lesser the chance for an accident.
Regardless, I firmly believe that these devices would be safer in the hands of Federally certified locomotive engineers. Who are trained by at least six months and up to a year and one half.
The arbitrator's January 10 decision was called "a victory" by leadership of the United Transportation Union. As far as rail operating employees are concerned, the only winners were:
--UTU leaders, who get to keep their jobs a few more years_
--Rail management, who will reap huge profits from job cut backs; and
--Manufacturers of the remote control devices.
Rail operating employees are paying a high price for remote control with their jobs, while only receiving a small part of the savings. The UTU members who don't lose their jobs to remote control will be given greatly increased workloads and responsibilities, but will only receive 46 minutes of pay. In other words, UTU members will now perform their current duties, plus they will absorb the duties of yard engineers, for only minimal compensation.
Clearly, the UTU dropped the ball for their own self-serving reasons
and have caused job losses for its own members. The BLE will try to pick
up that ball and ensure BLE and UTU members alike have a safe working environment.
© 2002 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers