(The following story by Foss Farrar appeared on the Arkansas City Traveler website on June 4.)
ARKANSAS CITY, Kan. — Two local railroad unions are at a stalemate with Burlington Northern Santa Fe management on a proposal to change the way rail crews are administered between Arkansas City and Gainesville, Texas.
But rumors that the Ark City terminal will be “dried up” and 150 to 200 conductors, brakemen and engineers will be moved elsewhere are false, according to BNSF management and a local union chairman.
“Railroads throughout the country are in turmoil now,” said Jim McDaniel, the chairman of Local 464, United Transportation Union.
But rail freight business is excellent now, which means the economy is picking up, he said. The economy typically accelerates about six months after rail traffic increases, McDaniel added.
Steve Forsberg, a BNSF spokesman, said Wednesday that management has completed an agreement and it’s now in labor’s hands.
“The agreement would tweak how that (labor) pool is administered,” Forsberg said. “If labor approves, that pool would continue out of Ark City. If they don’t approve it, management would look at other options.”
The latest negotiation session between representatives of Ark City’s local UTU, which represents railroad conductors, and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and the BNSF management was on May 26 in Fort Worth, Texas, where BNSF has its headquarters, McDaniel said.
“Right now, there’s no immediate concern for Arkansas City,” he said.
He added, however, that rhetoric was strong at the negotiations. For example, management would give no assurance to one of the negotiators that the Ark City terminal would not be “dried up.”
“They have no plans to do that now, but there is no assurance that five to 10 years down the road, it couldn’t happen. You don’t know.”
McDaniel said, however, that it didn’t appear that labor’s proposals at the session were heard by management.
“I don’t know where we’re at,” he said. “I don’t know what they (BNSF managers) want. We’ve made proposals and they’ve made proposals, but they don’t seem to be receptive to the our needs.”
Jim Hagar, the local chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, said Monday that it could be “devastating to Arkansas City” if BNSF closed the local rail terminal.
“We have had generations of railroaders in this town,” Hagar said. “Their fathers worked here and they are now raising their kids here.”
The negotiations have resulted from the failure of BNSF management to follow a 1972 agreement on the cycle of railroad crews for trains traveling between Arkansas City and Gainesville, Texas, Hagar said.
The cycle involves two Ark City crews followed by a crew from Gainesville, one from Ark City and one from Gainesville, he said.
“The carrier (BNSF) a few years back said they could not (manage) that cycle,” Hagar said. “But under the Railway Labor Act, we are required to negotiate to come up with a good faith agreement.”
Negotiations are now at a critical point because railroad management has been paying monthly penalties for not adhering to the agreed-upon labor cycle between Ark City and Gainesville, Hagar said.
That amount is paid to crews who have been yanked from their regular work order, he added.
“The carrier was not running our cycle but doing what they pleased,” he said. “We took it to arbitration and a neutral (party) ruled in our favor. That was in January of 2002.”
McDaniel said the 1972 Purcell Long Pool agreement allowed two-man conductor-engineer “pool” crews from Ark City and Gainesville to work the 261 rail miles between the two cities. Ark City-based crews would lay over in Gainesville before the return northbound run, and Gainesville-based crews would lay over in Ark City before the return trip south.
But as clerical jobs were cut by rail management in Ark City and elsewhere, the scheduling of crews became difficult to manage. For example, there no longer are any clerical workers in Ark City.
“The only ones who now work out of Ark City are basically those who run the trains,” McDaniel said.
He added that both labor and management basically agree on how the crews would work. The problem is how they would be administered, and by whom. Union leaders would be stretched too thin if they were required to be responsible for administering work crews.
“To be a part-time union man and full-time railroader, and on top of it be on call 24 hours a day (is too much to be expected),” McDaniel said.
Forsberg agreed that the administration of crews is where negotiations are stalemated.
“That’s really been the hang-up,” he said. “In the long run, does it meet our objectives of moving freight for customers?”