CLEVELAND, June 26 — Dennis Pierce, BLE General Chairman on BNSF/MRL, recently sent a letter to all BLE local chairmen on the BNSF-Northlines and Montana Rail Link (MRL), which clarified the BLE’s agreements for protection and compensation for remote control on the MRL, and compared the remote control implementation on MRL to the implementation of remote control on BNSF.
General Chairman Pierce sent the letter to underscore the protective benefits outlined in the MRL agreement that the BLE negotiated and to compare them with the limited protective benefits which were negotiated on BNSF.
According to the letter, the BLE’s agreement on MRL is an attrition based model, which protects all who were employed on the effective date of the agreement. Those protected employees cannot be furloughed so long as they can hold the third position on a remote assignment. The BNSF agreement, negotiated by another union, immediately eliminated one third of the positions in yard service and implemented protective benefits in the form of guaranteed extra board slots protecting all extra service, one for each remote assignment, for a six year period.
The text of Chairman Pierce’s letter follows:
ALL LOCAL CHAIRMEN June 10, 2003
BNSF NORTHLINES/MRL File: Remote Control
MRL vs. BNSF
Dear Sirs and Brothers:
For several months now, we have witnessed the implementation of remote control operations on the BNSF property. We have also watched as remote control operations have been expanded on MRL. During this time, UTU has repeatedly chastised BLE and its agreements on MRL, and in the process, has grossly misrepresented the way in which the employees of both railroads have been affected by remote control implementation in yard service. This correspondence is to expose those UTU misrepresentations and to put forth a comprehensive comparison of the two methods of implementation based on truths rather than fiction.
Before we address the actual terms of the agreements governing protection and compensation for remote operations, it is apparent that we must address BLE’s safety concerns surrounding remote implementation. UTU has publicly attempted to prevent local, state and federal municipalities from adopting any regulation or restriction on remote controlled operation, even though many of its members have testified along side BLE members seeking to secure various forms of regulation. In one example, UTU went so far as to mail the MRL agreement to the legislators in the State of Washington, accusing that BLE would not have agreed to remote implementation on MRL if the product was unsafe. Perhaps UTU would have been better served to have studied the MRL product prior to making these accusations as the models implemented on MRL and BNSF are vastly different.
Prior to implementation of remote control operations on MRL, the Carrier invited BLE’s local representatives on MRL, BLE and UTU local representatives from neighboring BNSF locations and FRA to meet, discuss and develop the safest method of implementation. The product that resulted from these meetings, as recently described in the attached ble.org posting, includes protected zones for remote control operations in conjunction with the use of fully certified locomotive engineers as operators. MRL’s model, when compared to the BNSF model, is vastly different in terms of safety. MRL’s zones are much like blue flag or red signal protection for those employees operating remote controlled locomotives and they provide protection for those on or about other adjacent tracks as well. Although BNSF pushes its “Lock out, Tag out” campaign to insure safety, remote control operations on BNSF are the exception to this rule, often working with no one on the point of the movement and no visible zone protection. A remote controlled movement recently entered a Maintenance of Way gang’s limits in Kansas City largely due to the fact that there are no clearly protected zones for remote operations and no one was protecting the point of the movement. MRL’s model prevents accidents like the one in Kansas City and the potential injuries that accompany them. The MRL model is truly the “best practice” for safe implementation of remote operations and that is glaringly apparent. UTU has accused that BLE wants no regulation on MRL, but it has totally ignored the fact that MRL has already gone well beyond FRA’s minimal guidelines. In reality, MRL’s model, should actually be the model for regulation, not a model that requires it.
UTU has ignored all these facts in its attack on BLE’s regulatory efforts. These actions also represent a total turn around by UTU regarding the safety of remote operations. BLE participated in an implementation on MRL that was truly intended to be the safest possible; there has been no change of heart on our part. UTU on the other hand protested that even our “best practice” implementation was a safety risk to the employees in 1999 but then promptly assisted the Class I Carriers in implementing a product that is no where near as safe. That turnabout was for obvious reasons and we do not feel that those reasons included the best interests of the operating employees on BNSF.
UTU has also attempted to portray BLE’s collective bargaining agreement governing remote implementation on MRL as substandard and that accusation also fails on examination. In a recent utu.org post, UTU asserted that BLE had obtained no protection for the employees of MRL when remote control was implemented. Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact, the MRL agreement includes “attrition” based protection that protects all who were employed on the effective date of the agreement. Those truly protected employees cannot be furloughed so long as they can hold the third position on a remote assignment. To date, there have been no crew size reductions due to this attrition based model, and many of the employees protected by the MRL agreement will carry this protection for nearly 30 years. In fact, the youngest protected person employed by MRL on the date of the agreement was 25 years old at the time. He is protected and can work the third position on a regularly assigned remote job, rather than being furloughed, for a total of 35 years. Conversely, UTU not only agreed to a model that immediately eliminated one third of the positions in yard service, it agreed to protective benefits in the form of guaranteed extra board slots protecting all extra service, one for each remote assignment, for a six year period. Six years will come and go while attrition based protection on MRL will be there for the involved employees until the end of their railroad career. Again, it is no real mental challenge to see which model best protected the work rights and best interests of the involved employees.
A true comparison of the compensation related to remote control also shows which model best protected the financial interests of the involved employees. As information, the pre existing crew consist minimum on MRL was a two man minimum, engineer and switch foreman. Although MRL historically assigned a switchman as a third crew member, the agreement did not require it. BLE’s remote agreement changed these minimums, expanding the required crew size to three, two engineers and a switch foreman, the third position to eventually be reduced through the attrition model described above. The day this service was implemented on MRL, two of the three crew members were given a raise in pay; the switch foreman increased to engineer rate and the switchman increased to switch foreman rate. Conversely on BNSF, UTU assisted the Carrier in eliminating the highest paid position on the crew on day one and went to two man crews immediately. Eliminating the engineer’s position not only capped the involved employees at switch foreman and switchman’s rates, it also resulted in the cancellation of many Locomotive Engineer Training Programs on BNSF. Under the MRL model, positions in the Locomotive Engineer Training Program have increased in the past two years. In fact, the employees on MRL are currently voting on a new proposal that will afford them guaranteed access to engineer training when they have worked for approximately one year. It is clear that BLE’s model provides promotion as well as the increases in compensation that have historically accompanied promotion.
As for the actual rates that exist today on the two properties, the following break out is a side by side comparison of the elements of compensation under both models and you will see that they speak for themselves. Please remember that MRL remote control crews are not currently assigned as two man crews so the 45 minute payment is rarely applicable. Rather, there is a third employee on the assignment drawing full wages at Switch Foreman rate. At the point that the MRL’s attrition based model does create reduced crews, the following will apply. These rates reflect those currently in effect.
MRL Employee 1
Locomotive Engineer
Basic Day- 177.82
Reduced Crew 45″ 16.67
Profit Sharing 19.44
Total 213.93 BNSF Employee 1
Switch Foreman
Basic Day 162.94
Short Crew Code 32 19.80
Remote Pay 46″ 15.46
Total 198.20
MRL Employee 2
Locomotive Engineer
Basic Day- 177.82
Reduced Crew 45″ 16.67
Profit Sharing 19.44
Total 213.93
BNSF Employee 1
Switchman
Basic Day 156.29
Short Crew Code 32 19.80
Remote Pay 46″ 14.85
Total 190.94
From these numbers, it is apparent that MRL’s model provides more compensation to employees operating remotely controlled locomotives if and when crew size is eventually reduced on that property. In the interim, all remote control assignments on MRL continue to work as three man crews, with the third crew member drawing full compensation. I think that you can see that the BLE represented employees on MRL work under an agreement that they can be proud of. The operation is not only the safest possible, it provides the involved employees with the maximum compensation possible.
In closing, I am hopeful that you will find this information useful in your efforts to share the “real story” on remote control implementation. By most accounts, an attrition based model similar to the MRL product was available on the Class I properties until UTU agreed to a lesser product. As we have said before, that UTU product does not protect the best interest of the operating employees on BNSF either from a safety viewpoint or a monetary viewpoint and that is not the type of representation that anyone should be proud of. It is clear to us that UTU will continue to agree to substandard products just to retain jurisdiction over the employees that survive these same products, a true race to the bottom. There are better alternatives out there and the employees at least deserve to know that.
Fraternally,
Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman
Enclosures
cc: BLE Advisory Board
BLE Western General Chairmen