(BLE Editor’s Note: BLE International President Don Hahs mailed the following letter today to the editors of TrafficWorld magazine in response to a column by Lawrence H. Kaufman.)
Dear Editor:
I must object to the broad generalizations made by Lawrence H. Kaufman in his column published in the May 12 issue of Traffic World.
Mr. Kaufman makes the assumption that remote control operations on Class 1 railroads are a direct apples-to-apples comparison to remote control operations on the Montana Rail Link. This is incorrect.
Montana Rail Link has invested considerable sums of money to implement remote control in the safest manner possible. MRL operates remotes in protected zones. Remote control operations are separated from mainline operations by a physical barrier – a sign with flashing lights and a derail. This arrangement is clearly safer and prevents many of the close calls and incidents involving pedestrians at public highway-rail grade crossings, as experienced by Class 1 railroads.
In addition, the MRL employs fully trained and licensed locomotive engineers to operate the remote technology. These employees have at least six months to one year of education and on-the-job training and have lots of experience handling the movement of heavy equipment attached to moving locomotives – not to mention the fact that MRL usually operates remote control jobs with a three man crew instead of two, as on the Class 1s.
Mr. Kaufman unsuccessfully attempts to make the ridiculous point that, RCO must be unsafe only when non-BLE workers operate the devices. The Florida East Coast also employs workers qualified as locomotive engineers to operate remote control, where the United Transportation Union holds the contract. To my knowledge, no one has pushed for a remote control resolution in St. Augustine, Fla.
So far, 26 different communities have passed resolutions regarding remote control. It should be noted that the campaign originated in Baton Rouge, La., after concerned railroaders approached the city council regarding remote control locomotives. The campaign is not directed or orchestrated by the BLE International Division, as Mr. Kaufman implies – it is something that originated in the field and has snowballed. The BLE International Division has kept track and reported the results. It should also be noted that many of the rank-and-file union members who lobby in favor of the remote control resolutions are members of the BLE and UTU.
As you know, UTU trainman John Sneddon died in a switching accident on February 16, 2003, in a CSX yard near Syracuse. The Onondaga County Medical Examiner’s Office said an autopsy performed on Brother Sneddon showed he died from a blunt force injury to his torso caused by a blow from a moving boxcar not from a spill on the ice. Regardless, there were no witnesses to the accident so we may never know for sure what happened.
I also take issue with Mr. Kaufman s statements regarding
the possible merger of the BLE with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. It is the railroads themselves who pulled up feeder lines, spun off shortlines, and implemented hub-and-spoke agreements, creating the strong tie that now exists between the trucking and railroad industries. A strong tie between a railroad union and a trucking union is a natural fit. A union that operates all ground transportation can be a very powerful transportation union.
Mr. Kaufman likes to portray the Teamsters as an enemy of railroads and rail labor. As evidence, he cites the recent National Master Freight Agreement that reduces the amount of intermodal traffic made available to railroads from 28 percent to 26 percent, although he states that such a reduction will not hurt railroad business.
According to a recent survey of BLE members, 72 percent have a favorable impression of the Teamsters and 81 percent support merging with the Teamsters. These numbers show that Mr. Kaufman is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Indeed, on the basis of tonnage, only 0.01 percent of freight shipped by rail comes from trucking companies covered by the Teamsters National Master Freight Agreement — only 2.1 million tons vs. a total of 21.2 billion tons shipped by rail each year.
If Mr. Kaufman wishes to point fingers and accuse the BLE of hypocrisy, then let’s be fair and not forget the United Transportation Union. A good writer can see both sides of an issue. Mr. Kaufman may as well be on retainer with the UTU considering the way he always seems to parrot UTU’s side of the story.
On December 9, 1999, the UTU issued a press release, which read in part:
“UTU is totally opposed to remote-control operations and we have
campaigned actively against them in North America and around the world. Lives have been needlessly lost because of remote controls in switching operations, and they are a danger to every operating employee. The use of remote-controlled locomotives in switching operations is expected to lead to the loss of scores of jobs for operating employees.” (Charles L. Little, former UTU President)
Just over a year and a half later, the UTU completely flip-flopped and signed a letter of intent with the national rail carriers to expeditiously implement nation-wide use of remote controls. In other words, their active campaign against remote control for safety reasons went out the window when the carriers rewarded them with an agreement to represent employees using remote control.
In a further display of UTU hypocrisy regarding remote control, one needs to look no further than James Brunkenhoefer. The UTU National Legislative Director made the following statement during the FRA’s public hearings on remote control in Appleton, Wisc., on December 4 and 5, 1996:
Only by being a party to a pointless death and disaster will the FRA and rail carriers be forced to rethink this insanity. We are urging them to rethink now, before the inevitable happens. (Railway Age, February 1997)
The BLE is not and has never been opposed to remote control technology – just to the way it is being implemented. In the current situation, the carriers in many cases are forcing the junior operating employees – who have little experience in the industry — to operate remote control equipment with only 80 hours of training, which the BLE thinks is unsafe.
In spite of columns by the likes of Mr. Kaufman, the BLE will continue to seek a responsible, safe means to remote control implementation.