Editor's Note: The "Statement of Principles" agreed to with the United Transportation Union is stirring widespread discussion throughout the BLE. We interviewed BLE President Clarence Monin this month for his comments on topics currently generating the most questions.
Newsletter: Some believe that BLE officers would receive substantial increases if all salaries are adjusted in the new union to be equal according to Article 15 of the "Principles." Can you help clarify the issue?
Monin: "Certainly. First, the salary issue is complicated by the relationship between the UTU and the UTUIA, the insurance association that reimburses the UTU for costs UTU officers and staff incur for the association.
"Second, because of that complicated relationship, some people have jumped to the false conclusion that equalizing salaries will result in obscene salary increases for BLE officers. That is completely and totally wrong. The misunderstanding seems to come from trying to compare the salaries of both unions officers as reported to the Department of Labor.
"For instance, it is reported in those documents, the 1997 LM-2 reports, that UTU's GST made $128,406, while BLE's GST made $106,472. Therefore, some jumped to the conclusion that our GST's salary, with equalization, would jump up by $21,934. However, they didn't understand that about 75% of UTU's GST salary came from his work for the UTUIA, not the union. A strict interpretation of the 'equalization' clause would mean that our GST would have his salary reduced by some $70,000, to be 'equal' to the amount of salary officially paid by the UTU for its GST.
"That makes no sense. But it's also the reason why the salary issue could not be resolved by the November deadline. We needed more information to better understand the facts. And we needed more time to think this complicated situation through.
"That's why we said, basically, salaries will be equal, treat everyone fairly. Neither Ed Dubroski, our First Vice President who was at the table with me, nor I ever thought the issue could be so misconstrued as apparently some have done."
Newsletter: Has there been any action by the committees to clarify things?
Monin: "Yes, but the process is far from over. The Drafting Committee -- Hallé, Cassidy, Sorrow, Radek and Jones -- worked hard to come up with language, but finally turned the issue over to the Oversight Committee. Our Committee met and determined that the highest pay for comparable positions will set the salary for each position. In my case, my salary is greater than Little's when you take out his compensation from the UTUIA. So my salary will be the established salary paid by the new union for the General President and International President. My salary will not change.
"The BLE salaries for First Vice-President, GST, and National Legislative Representative will set the salaries for those positions. The UTU salaries for Vice-Presidents will set the salaries for those positions. I believe the changes will not be very significant.
"The salary figures will be included in the final documents, all open and above-board, for the membership to see and vote as they wish on the whole package. If the members view this as a deal-breaker, then it should be the majority of members who make that determination, and not the likes of Clarence Monin.
"It should be kept in mind that the deal-breaker we faced last year was our position that all engineers in the new union would be represented by our craft. That issue, not salaries, was at the root of major differences between our two unions. Protecting our craft -- and the BLE identity -- was achieved.
"Keeping the salary issue open and fluid helped to keep the UTU at the table. That meant we avoided facing a winner-take-all NMB vote. To me, that was a $5 million decision that resulted in our members now having an alternative to the instant-death-of-our-craft an out-and-out NMB-ordered vote would have meant.
"Now, the membership has a choice. And however they decide, on whatever basis, I can live with their decision."
Newsletter: Some people think the BLE is entering into joint bargaining with UTU for the next round of national negotiations without proper authorization, can you comment on this concern?
Monin: "It's absolutely untrue. The 'Principles,' which the Advisory Board adopted last November as official policy for the union, call for the two unions' National Negotiating Committees to coordinate their activities. Each union must, of course, continue to follow our constitutional rules.
"We've worked jointly on the Panel issues remaining from the last round of negotiations. That's how we settled the 'fatigue' issue left over from the last contract. It's the number one safety concern of our members. Apparently, some people are confusing the two different rounds of negotiations."
Newsletter: People are wondering what the deal is with the NMB. Some say the NMB would never have forced a representation election on the UP/SP. Can you comment on the situation with the NMB?
Monin: "Every indication we had from the highest levels of the AFL-CIO, from experienced labor leaders with excellent contacts at the NMB, is the Board was determined to force a representation election on the UP/SP. We stopped it, through our support from the federation, from other rail unions, and because our members stood together.
"Reports from the AFL-CIO indicate that there is still strong sentiment on the Board today to force an election if they thought one became necessary. The danger is, if the NMB did call an election that act alone immediately and automatically would eliminate the craft of locomotive engineer. Period.
"That's why, after months of talks, our Advisory Board decided the best way to stop that threat was to create a new union in which our craft would be protected and would become, over time, the dominant craft in that new union.
"The 'Statement of Principles' not only helped us protect our craft. It also gives us the opportunity to create more unity among rail labor. That's critical for the next round of bargaining with the carriers.
"If we're to improve our members' quality of life through the next contract, we can ill afford the distractions of a representation battle at the same time bargaining over national handling begins."
Newsletter: But some people are saying we should have that representational fight now, before Section 6 notices have to go out in November. What's your view on that?
President Monin: "I think that's for the members to decide and they'll have that choice when a final constitution is drafted and the full BLE membership participates in the ratification vote. When this issue began in January, 1998, there was no alternative to a representation election on the UP/SP and our craft would be eliminated on that carrier.
"We worked hard to develop another alternative so members would have a choice: Fight to continue representing those who operate the trains at a cost of $5 million or more per carrier, with our craft eliminated; or, protect our craft and our seniority through creating a new union.
"This is an important and critical decision that I think only a vote of all BLE members should determine the direction our union takes."
General Chairmen listen attentively during their meeting with President Monin in St. Louis. They are, from left: R.E. "Dick" DeLano (Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range); John C. Ormes (Elgin, Joliet & Eastern); Vic Flores (Metra); and Ron Pasquarella (Indiana Harbor Belt).
All BLE General Chairmen gathered in St. Louis on March 26 for an update on the situation between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and United Transportation Union.
BLE President Clarence Monin chaired the meeting, and reported that a smililar meeting will be held for all State Legislative Board Chairmen on April 19.
Monin and the General Chairmen engaged in a lengthy question and answer session, focusing on the Statement of Principles that was approved by the BLE Advisory Board in November. He also updated the group on continued negotiations with the UTU.
END OF PAGE 4