[By James Brunkenhoefer, UTU National Legislative Director]...
Neither this union nor any other wanted remote control (RCL). It couldn't
be stopped, as no other new technology was ever stopped by a union -- not
diesel-electric locomotives, not hand-held radios and not the end-of-train
device.
Rather than stand in the street protesting, which is like spitting in
the wind, your UTU has been working with Congress and the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) to ensure RCL is examined scientifically to ensure
its safety.
The other organization only protests. It has accomplished absolutely
nothing except convince fewer than 50 of the more than 40,000 communities
nationwide to enact a symbolic ban against remote control. Those actions
are symbolic because local communities, by law, may not interfere in the
regulation of railroad safety where the FRA has and uses that authority.
In fact, where the other organization has the agreement to operate remote
control, it makes no attempt to limit its use. On the Montana Rail Link
and, more recently, on the Tex-Mex Railway, the other organization signed
an agreement for its members to operate remote control. The goal of the
other organization is to take every remote control job away from UTU members.
While the other organization targets UTU jobs, it is the UTU that is
doing something constructive about remote-control safety. Most recently,
the UTU convinced the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee
to order a complete review by the FRA of every aspect of remote control
safety. That audit is currently underway only because of UTU actions.
Look closely at what the other organization is really doing. The other
organization says the only way to make RCL safe is to pay dues to that
organization. Yet while they protest RCL is not safe, they sign agreements
that conductors and engineers paying dues to them can safely operate RCL.
Through their twisted logic, they say UTU members are unsafe when operating
RCL, but when conductors and engineers pay dues to their organization,
there is no problem operating RCL.
Where the other organization doesn't hold the RCL contract, it petitions
local government to enact bans against RCL -- or it demands congressmen
write letters of protest to railroads challenging RCL safety. Railroad
management reacts by hiding in the weeds to watch your every move for any
and every mistake you make. Charge letters are sent, you become involved
in an investigation, and it's "on the street" for a while. All
the protests from the other organization are entirely about how YOU operate
RCL because you belong to the UTU and not the BLE.
Because you belong to the UTU, you are being targeted. They want you
and your family to suffer and continue to suffer until you join their organization.
Their goal is representation rights for conductors on YOUR railroad. Then
they will proclaim RCL is safe for all conductors.
Since the other organization rejected UTU's offer to join us at the
bargaining table and rejected our guarantee of protection for engineers,
they failed on their own to get a separate RCL agreement, failed to get
FRA to ban RCL, failed to overturn FRA at the court house, failed to gain
a right to strike over RCL, and failed at arbitration. All that was left
was to push for investigations into YOUR work performance and make you
and your families suffer.
In spite of their efforts, they have failed to make a single safety
improvement. Their only achievement is the number of UTU members liberated
from their jobs or who have joined the BLE.
We never demanded an investigation on any property where the BLE operates
RCL. We don't want their members or families to suffer. Our hope is that
someday the other organization will recognize the harm it is causing by
attacking you and your family in the name of gaining new members.
So long as they sign agreements to operate the same technology with
their members, they are saying the only problem with RCL is YOU because
YOU are unsafe - because YOU belong to the UTU.
It is time for the other organization to stop the rhetoric and join
the UTU in constructive efforts at ensuring the safety of remote control
through adequate training, careful implementation and continuous joint
monitoring.
[By Raymond Holmes, BLE Vice-President & U.S. National Legislative
Representative]...
The latest attack by the UTU leadership against the BLE's efforts to
bring safe remote control operations to our industry is filled with the
usual baloney about what a great job the UTU is doing in looking out for
the safety of its members.
The article, if you missed it, is classic UTU leadership hogwash. They
say they are going to change the world by convincing "the bipartisan
leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee to order a complete review
by the FRA of every aspect of remote control safety." The UTU drivels
on that this audit is currently underway only because of their actions.
Interesting. Later in that same diatribe, they ramble on about a push (inferred
to be by the BLE) for investigations into the work performance of (we assume)
the operators of remote control. What do they think the audit is going
to do?
The remarks come on the heels of another fatality to a railroad brother.
Is the San Antonio death by Union Pacific remote control yet another example
of how the UTU is working closely with the railroad industry to implement
safe remote control operations? How can an organization allow a Class 1
railroad to force a person to conduct switching operations -- locomotive
and all, in a major terminal -- alone?
The safety oversight for which the UTU leadership is so proud is seriously
flawed. Their ability to oversee safe implementation of this technology
when the railroads hold all the cards is wishful thinking. The tragic death
of a railroad worker under the circumstances where he was alone in a dangerous
yard operation should help all of us see the gravity of the situation.
The BLE stands by its comment on this issue presented in testimony at
the Informal Safety Inquiry on One-Person Crews and Remote Control Locomotive
Operations in Appleton, Wisc., on December 4-5, 1996.
The comment:
- "The potential for an accident increases significantly with just
one person. Trains and tracks have two sides, two ends and the possibility
of movement in more than one direction. Railroad operating rules, rights-of-way,
equipment and the system generally have recognized the need for two or
more persons to cope with this reality. We submit that it is asinine for
railroad managers to seek such operations. It shows a callous disregard
for employee and public safety. That we are required to make this argument
is indicative of how far off target some in this industry have come to
show a greater profit. In consideration of these remarks, we ask FRA to
deny any use of one person remote control locomotive operations."
BLE is amazed that we have come to the place where a labor organization
defends remote control operations and unsafe operating practices in public
forums with their management allies. What we said in the foregoing about
railroad managers is doubled when it comes to union leaders.
They are so far off target they aren't even in the right war zone.
