# The Railway Labor Act (RLA) governs our collective



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jul 20, 2006)

UTU will not be used and abused

By Paul C. Thompson

UTU International President

The Railway Labor Act (RLA) governs our collective bargaining.

A core objective is to prevent strikes and lockouts.

The law is specific that the "duty" of carriers and their employees is to exert every reasonable effort to "make and maintain agreements."

In this regard, the RLA is one of the most successful laws ever passed by Congress. Since its passage in 1926, almost 98 percent of railroad collective bargaining disputes have been resolved without work stoppages.

When negotiations turn south, the National Mediation Board (NMB) has authority to keep parties at the bargaining table.

Where the NMB declares a bargaining impasse, the law provides for creation of a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB), whose three members make non-binding recommendations for a voluntary settlement.

Where the sides still cannot agree, Congress may use its authority under the Constitution's commerce clause to impose some form of a back-to-work order.

Successful collective bargaining in the railroad industry depends on both parties' faith in the process -- a mutual trust that neither party has its thumb on the scales.

That trust evaporated this round. Rail labor is convinced by the carriers' own words and deeds that the system is being gamed in favor of the carriers.

It is outrageous, reprehensible and shameful that the carriers have enlisted the Bush administration to help them subvert the process.

When this round of negotiations commenced in 2004, carriers told Wall Street analysts that if the UTU refused to agree to reopen locally negotiated crew consist agreements and accept one-person crews, the railroads were confident a carrier-friendly PEB would be appointed; and anti-labor conservatives controlling Congress would ensure those PEB recommendations were enacted into law.

There already is evidence of PEB subversion that is eroding mutual trust in the system. Two PEBs appointed by the Bush administration to investigate disputes on a commuter railroad included a majority of members with no experience in railroad labor-management bargaining or historic relationships between the parties, and with a strong suggestion of management sympathy.

All previous PEBs over the decades -- whether appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents -- were made up of RLA-experienced and neutral arbitrators drawn from an NMB-maintained list.

The carriers assured Wall Street that should their dispute in this round of national handling reach an impasse, a carrier-friendly PEB would be appointed by the White House -- and the railroads' friends controlling Congress would ensure that its pro-carrier recommendations, including one-person crews, are enacted into law.

The carriers' own deeds validate their words. A federal court ordered the carriers to stop demanding single-person crews as part of national handling. But they persist. In June, the carriers issued an ultimatum: Voluntarily negotiate one-person crews or accept a five-year wage freeze for current employees and a permanent 25 percent wage reduction for all new hires. The carriers declined to talk about improved employee training.

For sure, the carriers and rail labor have their eyes on the November congressional elections. If Democrats regain control of the House and/or Senate, the carriers' strategy could well go up in smoke. Although all of labor is exerting every effort to change control of Congress, the UTU is not stopping there.

I have instructed our National Legislative Director James Brunkenhoefer to make alliances with captive shippers, who are seeking legislation to limit railroad monopoly power. The UTU and other unions will work with our many friends in Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- to append shipper-friendly legislative language to any congressional back-to-work order imposing carrier-friendly PEB recommendations.

The railroads' deceitful actions this round, which produced unprecedented labor solidarity, will have other unanticipated repercussions that the carriers may not expect or enjoy.

It is well documented that there are no effective or safe new technologies, such as positive train control, to permit crew-size reduction without compromising safety and national security. Indeed, the Federal Railroad Administration's Collision Analysis Working Group concluded that a second crew member provides an important second set of eyes and ears.

The carriers' intent -- in the face of record profitability, new-found monopoly pricing-power, and appalling customer-service failures -- is further to increase bottom lines and executive bonuses by going to one-person crews. For this, the railroads are willing to roll the dice on public safety and national security.

It is time for railroads to cease their despicable undermining of 80 years of trust built up under the RLA and its time-honored processes, to drop their demands to reduce crew-size, to return to good-faith bargaining, and give more than lip service to public safety and national security.

July 20, 2006


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2006)

1926???

Seem like it is time for a change!!


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Jul 21, 2006)

Guest said:


> 1926???
> Seem like it is time for a change!!


Why? It isn't broken! "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" OBS...


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jul 21, 2006)

Guest said:


> 1926???
> Seem like it is time for a change!!


What a lot of you dont understand is if you open this up and change things for Amtrak you will also change the freight rr side to and we will not do that the rr would love to get rid of all conductors if they can find a way and that would be the way change work rules which are covers under the Railway Labor Act

And i for one will put evrey attempt to stop it as a UTU member my job is on the line just like Amtrak's employee's


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2006)

Where in Brother Thompson's article is there any mention of dismantling the Railway Labor Act, which you seem to imply? The focus rather is on the possible manipulation of the Presidential Emergency Board provisions by the freight carriers, to their advantage of course, with the collusion of the Bush administration. Nowhere does Brother Thompson mention anything having to do with Amtrak, which is not involved in the Class I railroads labor negotiations.

BNSF, CSX, KCS, NS, & UP bargain together nationally under the umbrella of the National Carriers Conference Committee.

What was the purpose of this posting on the Amtrak forum, as it has to do with ongoing negotiations in the freight railroad sector???

Seems to me you are just trying to start another ridiculous rumor regarding Amtrak with no basis in fact.


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jul 22, 2006)

Guest said:


> Where in Brother Thompson's article is there any mention of dismantling the Railway Labor Act, which you seem to imply? The focus rather is on the possible manipulation of the Presidential Emergency Board provisions by the freight carriers, to their advantage of course, with the collusion of the Bush administration. Nowhere does Brother Thompson mention anything having to do with Amtrak, which is not involved in the Class I railroads labor negotiations.BNSF, CSX, KCS, NS, & UP bargain together nationally under the umbrella of the National Carriers Conference Committee.
> 
> What was the purpose of this posting on the Amtrak forum, as it has to do with ongoing negotiations in the freight railroad sector???
> 
> Seems to me you are just trying to start another ridiculous rumor regarding Amtrak with no basis in fact.


It also has to do with Amtrak were all tied into the same thing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2006)

This reply makes about as much sense as your previous one in this thread.....in other words, none.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Jul 22, 2006)

Guest said:


> This reply makes about as much sense as your previous one in this thread.....in other words, none.


Well maybe we can make it more clear! If you have read many of Matt's postings as you say you have, then maybe you have noticed the fact that punctuation and capital letters to begin sentences is not particularly one of his stronger points in his writing. However, if we read between the lines then one can still get the message. It is a little easier for me to understand being I am a railroader myself. Anyway that aside...........

In order to make this a little more clear to you, if we start screwing around with anything regarding any kind of work rule changes, etc (in other words the Railway Labor Act), whether it be freight or Amtrak, IT AFFECTS BOTH! The passenger side and the freight side. It does not matter at all where changes are made. Changing something in the RLA with something totally freight oriented afftects Amtrak and vice a versa! Amtrak is a "recognized railroad" just as much as either one of the freights (CSX, BNSF, UP, NS) are. The Railway Labor Act affects us all in the railroad industry! And as I said earlier, it has worked all this time and we don't need to go and start screwing with it!!!! Leave it alone, it works fine! That is what Matt means in his last posting! Get it now? If not then you may not be able to understand. OBS...


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2006)

Amtrak OBS Employee said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > This reply makes about as much sense as your previous one in this thread.....in other words, none.
> ...


I guess you haven't read the original posting, the article by UTU President Thompson. It has nothing to do with changing the Railway Labor Act, only Congress can do that. What it talks about is the carriers attempting to manipulate the Presidential Emergency Board process to their advantage.

To state it as simply as possible, the Railway Labor Act is the framework in which the carriers and the unions negotiate, with step-by-step processes mandated. The Railway Labor Act itself does not address wages, work rules, etc., only the process to reach agreement on them.

I'm happy to hear that you were able to understand this better, being that you are a railroader. Since I retired last year after 27 years with the railroads, I suppose I can no longer grasp these issues.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (Jul 23, 2006)

Guest said:


> I guess you haven't read the original posting, the article by UTU President Thompson.  It has nothing to do with changing the Railway Labor Act, only Congress can do that.  What it talks about is the carriers attempting to manipulate the Presidential Emergency Board process to their advantage.
> To state it as simply as possible, the Railway Labor Act is the framework in which the carriers and the unions negotiate, with step-by-step processes mandated.  The Railway Labor Act itself does not address wages, work rules, etc., only the process to reach agreement on them.
> 
> I'm happy to hear that you were able to understand this better, being that you are a railroader.  Since I retired last year after 27 years with the railroads, I suppose I can no longer grasp these issues.


Yes, I have read the first post to all the down to the last post before responding. Anyway, my posting is not meant as an attack in any way on your comments. Now that I know you are a fellow railroader (retired) shows me you probably do understand where I am coming from. I am pretty much aware of the Railway Labor Act and what it means by the way, but thanks for the clarification. But anyway regarding the issue........

What concerns me is with the fact of that "manipulation" as you point out regarding the original post. In my eyes "any attempt to manipulate the Presidential Emergency Board to process to the advantage of the carrier" constitutes an attack on the foundation of that very "process" the RLA defines. And Amtrak may not be a freight carrier, but I can assure you Amtrak would be on the bandwagon! That's my thoughts. That's just the way I view this myself, however, correct me if I may be wrong!

Anyway, did you retire from Amtrak or other railroad? Congrats to you and good luck in your future plans, hopefully enjoying not having to work is one of them. OBS...


----------



## Save Our Trains Michigan (Jul 25, 2006)

BNSF_1088 said:


> UTU will not be used and abused By Paul C. Thompson
> 
> UTU International President
> 
> ...


Carriers play political card in contract talks

CSX Transportation and the nation's other Class 1 railroads are facing their most difficult labor challenge in decades as they seek to reach an agreement with conductors and brakemen, writes Tony Quesada in the Jacksonville, Fla., Business Journal.

The railroads have insisted that the United Transportation Union discuss terms that would allow them to reduce the number of crew members on trains to as few as one, a term the union says it won't accept.

The National Carriers' Conference Committee, representing all major railroads and several smaller lines, withdrew its latest contract offer in late June and may seek wage freezes or even pay cuts. The NCCC, which CSXT's chief labor negotiator Lisa Mancini sits on, said wage freezes would offset costs from being forced to run trains "with redundant positions."

The sides are in mediation but do not have any talks scheduled following their June meetings in Chicago that made no progress, and even regressed.

A work stoppage, however, is considered a remote possibility at this point because the Railway Labor Act is designed to prevent it. The act requires the parties to go through several steps before either can take unilateral action, such as a strike, a lockout or management-imposed wage cuts.

And it provides the option for presidential and congressional intervention to preempt such "self-help" measures at points in the process where they would otherwise be allowed.

Since the act's passage in 1926, nearly 98 percent of railroad collective bargaining disputes have been resolved without work stoppages. The industry has lost only six days of work in the last 30 years over labor disputes, said Joanna Moorhead, a National Railway Labor Conference spokeswoman to whom CSX deferred comment.

But this round of negotiations, which began in November 2004, is very different from previous ones because the union believes the railroads have broken promises and aren't negotiating in good faith, UTU spokesman Frank Wilner said. He's convinced the railroads are counting on the president and Congress to settle things in management's favor.

Railroad analyst James Valentine of Morgan Stanley, in a May 2005 newsletter to investors, wrote that the railroads used their influence behind the scenes to move negotiations to mediation.

The railroads have "the expectation that they will reach the last step in the negotiation process, namely a Presidential Emergency Board, while there is still a Republican administration and Congress in order to force the union to negotiate sacred issues," Valentine said.

The National Mediation Board must declare mediation failed before the president can establish a presidential emergency board, or PEB, to investigate the dispute and make recommendations.

If either party rejects the PEB's recommendations, Congress can impose a settlement, often based on those recommendations.

"The railroads' aggressive push for mediation, in our opinion, is confirmation the railroads intend to pursue the topic of one-man crews during this round of labor negotiations," Valentine wrote.

Wilner, the union's spokesman, said that opinion was reinforced by conversations he's had with carrier labor negotiators and industry analysts, whom Wilner wouldn't name, saying he had promised them he wouldn't.

Historically, PEBs have consisted of experienced arbitrators who understand the process, Wilner said. But he fears President George W. Bush, who once appointed former CSX CEO John Snow as treasury secretary, will stack the board with pro-management "ringers."

"Successful collective bargaining in the railroad industry depends on both parties' faith in the process, a mutual trust that neither party has its thumb on the scales," Wilner said. "That trust evaporated in this round."

Moorhead, the spokeswoman for the NCCC, said a PEB would likely be convened if the process reached that point without a new contract, but the railroads hope it won't come to that. "Our goal is to reach a voluntary agreement," she said.

When asked by an analyst on July 19 about labor negotiations, CSX CEO Michael Ward reiterated the industry's commitment to being able to man some trains with one person while acknowledging that politics are a factor.

"It is challenging in light of the elections," he said, referring to the mid-term congressional elections in November. "The unions obviously would like to see what happens in the fall."

Wilner concurred that the union intends not to meet with management until after the election. "Labor is working hard to return Democratic [Party] control to at least one side of Congress," he said. "If Democrats regain control of the House and or Senate, the carriers' strategy could well go up in smoke."

The union believes the railroads are seeking to maximize profits by running trains with an engineer and no conductor.

"The two-person crew comes from a solemn commitment from carriers that stretches back to prior contracts [in the 1970s] that reduced staffing from as many as five to two," Wilner said.

The union agreed to such cuts many years ago, negotiated railroad by railroad, largely because the railroads were in serious financial trouble, he said. "In exchange, they said that until the last affected conductor retires, there will be at least one conductor on board."

As a result of shrinking crew sizes, labor costs as a percentage of operating revenue fell from 52.4 percent in 1975 to 33.2 percent in 2003. And now that railroads are posting record profits - and paying substantial executive bonuses - and are feeling empowered to raise prices for shippers, Wilner sees the push for one-person crews as greedy. "What they really want are additional cost savings," he said.

Morgan Stanley's Valentine estimated in April 2005 that implementing one-person crews could save the industry $1 billion a year and yield 11 percent to 32 percent higher earnings per share over 2004.

The railroads' negotiating committee counters, in a June 28 letter to transportation supervisors, that its rejected offer would provide "substantial financial benefits and employment security to current employees."

The offer included a no-furlough guarantee for current employees affected by changes in the rules on crew makeup. It also included cash payments and earnings protections for up to six years for workers in territories where one-person operations are implemented; annual wage increases; opportunities for bonuses; and voluntary reserve boards for surplus workers.

At the same time, railroads argue they should have the flexibility to use technology in an operationally sound manner. The major railroads have each been working on technology often referred to as positive train control, or PTC.

The NCCC says such technology is driven by goals for increased safety as well as efficiency. New technology will be able to:

-- Warn a train operator in advance if a train needs to slow down, is about to exceed the distance needed to stop or is about to go beyond its approved area.

-- Stop a train before it goes through a stop signal, exceeds the speed limit or goes outside its approved area, if the operator does not respond to warning signals.

-- Use satellite or wireless positioning to tell dispatchers precisely where trains are at all times.

CSX's PTC initiative, called communications-based train management, has been in development in some form for several years.

"Crew staffing should be based on safety and operational needs rather than rigid rules that mandate staffing levels," the NCCC's Moorhead said. "Basically, the freight rail industry needs the ability to apply proven technology and flexibility to utilize it."

But the union disagrees that such technology is proven.

"The UTU has long been of the opinion that to best protect jobs and ensure appropriate training it's best to make a deal with employers when new technology is available and shown to be safe," Wilner said. "But in this round, we've found that the technology is only in its infancy and could be years before it's safe."

He notes that PTC systems are being tested on perhaps a few hundred miles of the industry's more than 140,000 miles of track in the United States. And none of those systems is approved by the Federal Railroad Administration.

Wilner questions how PTC technology would help a one-person crew in a medical emergency or after a grade-crossing accident. And he said fatigue can be a greater problem when only one person is on a train.

"The Federal Railroad Administration concluded that there is a safety reason for having two sets of eyes on every train," Wilner said. "If there were a federal study that concluded single-person crews would be safe and not a risk to national security and that such technology is safe, we would be talking to them. This is not about technology; it's a matter of rolling the dice on safety for profitability."

(The preceding story was published by the Jacksonville, Fla., Business Journal.)

July 25, 2006


----------

