(BLET Editor’s Note: The following is a copy of a letter sent from BNSF-MRL General Chairman Dennis Pierce to all BLET Advisory Board members and to all BLET General Chairmen involved in National Handling. In it, Brother Pierce clarifies some points of confusion regarding the tentative national contract.)
To: BLET Advisory Board and BLET General Chairmen in National Handling
Brothers,
As some of us have discussed, the information that we are receiving from the field indicates that there is a lot of confusion, much of it on the UP property, as to the relationship of the proposed national settlement and the BNSF on property addition to the national settlement. Some have been told that BLET on BNSF did a stand alone on property agreement and that we are not included in the national wage settlement. I am writing to clear up any misunderstanding, the four GCA””s on BNSF have given their authority in the bargaining round to the National Division and are properly included in the group voting on the national settlement. Accordingly, all BLET members on BNSF are in national handling and will be governed by all provisions of the national settlement should it be adopted.
Article 2 of that same national settlement allows the parties to meet on property to discuss “Optional Alternative Compensation Programs”. BLET and BNSF entered into negotiations after the national settlement had been agreed to in principle and our on property proposal is the product of those Article 2 negotiations. Unlike the CSX contract settlement, the BLET/BNSF agreement is not a stand alone on property settlement, it is an addendum or addition to the national agreement that will only happen if the national agreement is ratified. We understand that UP has yet to agree to negotiate on property with BLET under the conditions of Article 2 of the national settlement. However, the fact that BLET and BNSF reached an on property settlement under Article 2 does not mean that UP and BLET cannot or will not negotiate under that same Article if the National settlement is adopted.
While we also understand that some on UP are suggesting that UP members should vote no because UP has yet to negotiate under Article 2, the group should really consider who stands to benefit if the national settlement is not adopted. We all know that there are Articles in the BLET/BNSF on property addendum that UP has not agreed to, the chances that they will ever have too are greatly reduced if the BNSF agreement is never adopted. Defeating the National Agreement will in all likelihood defeat the BNSF addition and along with it, any chance that BLET has of setting new industry standards railroad by railroad. If that happens, the best interests of all BLET members, UP, BNSF, Conrail, KCS and TexMex have not been served, but UP””s could have been.
As for the national settlement itself, it also appears that there is a lot of confusion as to the application of the agreement and where we go from here if the agreement is not accepted. In particular, their is a lot of confusion on the Health and Welfare settlement and about our insurance plan in general. Many do not seem to understand that our insurance is not “off the shelf insurance” — it is called “experience based insurance.” In other words, the monthly premium is based on what the plan paid out in benefits the year before, plus administrative costs. The plan has been this way since its inception decades ago, that remains unchanged whether any of us knew about it or like it. For this reason, no one can predict for sure what the plan costs will be in any given year going forward, but the experts that IBT brought to the coalition meetings have studied the plan and expect the plan costs and resulting premiums to climb at around 8% per year. Beyond that, no one can say for sure what the insurance will cost into the future because if they do, they are going out on a limb promising something that may or may not be true. If the experts’ predictions hold true, then our monthly contributions to that premiums, which is currently close to $147.00, will not be over $200.00 on January 1, 2010 when the monthly contribution is frozen. That””s the best any of us have, again, that is based on the nature of our insurance, not based on any personal opinions.
If you compare the proposed HW settlement to what has happened by not settling, our premiums went from around $100.00 to the current $147.00 in just the two years that we have been bargaining and there is currently NO cap on how high they might go if we do not settle. We are not locked at 15% if we do not settle, in fact, we should watch closely what happens to UTU””s monthly contributions when they get another Harris COLA beating on July 1, 2007 for not settling. Their monthly contribution stands to possibly be higher than BLET””s if we do settle. They could be paying more than we do per month with nothing but a pitiful half COLA to show for it. I call that losing money on HW, the proposed settlement that we are considering is just the opposite. By the end of 2009 when the HW is frozen, we stand to be paying around $50.00 per month more than we pay today in monthly contributions. With the General Wage Increases in the settlement applied to the nationwide engineer average earnings of $75,000.00, we stand to be making $1,000.00 more per month in wages if the contract is settled. If anyone is saying that the raises in the contract will be negated by HW costs, then they either can’t count or they misrepresenting the settlement plain and simple.
As to the theory that there is another way to settle the bargaining round other than by PEB, we are bound by our own Bylaws to avoid doing things that could bring harm to the membership or to the union. In my mind, that is why we are bound to work within the confines of the federal law. Under the RLA, the railroad is entitled to sue the union and its members for up to triple the damages incurred, or profits/revenue lost due to any illegal job action. If the union doesn””t have that much money, which they don””t, the RLA allows the employers to sue the members as individuals. It happened to the pilots at American Airlines who are also under the RLA. They were found to have participated in an illegal job action and they now labor under a judgment of millions of dollars that they can never pay off to American. Does anyone think that your union being financially beholden to your employer due to an illegal job action makes your union stronger?
Until it is changed, the RLA drives our options and our only visible option if the current proposal is voted down is a Bush Presidential Emergency Board. Most of you were here in 1992 when Bush senior gave us our last PEB, and we have paid dearly ever since. The current Bush is even more aligned with the interests of corporate America, so before we say hell no, the members should at least understand that saying no comes with consequences too. In all reality, its called a Bush PEB where the railroads are free to push that we pay 33% of the HW instead of the proposed cap of 15%, and that you only get 2% a year in GWI instead of an average of approx. 3.3% per year which is what the current agreement is worth even after the COLA comes out. It happened in 1992, we didn””t get a real raise for 5 years when we last had a Bush PEB settle our contract.
Don””t forget that the Democrats owned congress then too, they imposed the recommendations of that anti labor Bush PEB without so much as blinking. If anyone thinks that they will refuse to do that this time, consider that they have already spent the tax revenues and more that the economy generates on the failed effort in Iraq every day. Do you think they will refuse to adopt another Bush PEB””s recommendations and allow us to shut down the railroads and the national economy to get more? Here is why I don””t see them doing that, the national average for the general public has the average American paying 33% of their HW premiums while they average 3% in wage increases per year on wage base much lower than the average engineer. I ask the group, where do we go to get sympathy from the public over what we have been offered, or the congress that they have elected, when the voting public is already getting a worse deal than you have been offered.
If the membership is willing to take that risk, and it is theirs to take, then away we go. But either way, the RLA requires that when we don””t do our own business, a third party will do it for us. That is federal law and we are bound to work within it. The membership owns the right to make this decision, but they at least deserves to know what comes with a yes vote and a no vote without any of the process being misrepresented.
Fraternally,
Dennis Pierce