I want you to know my thoughts on this matter affecting our union retirees. If you wish, you have my permission to reprint this in the labor paper.

Concerning the extra money the government expects to find over and above the balanced budget, I wholeheartedly agree that it belongs to the people.

I don't agree with the notion of continuing on with the past habit of finding new wasteful ways to spend it. I don't like the idea of using it as a tax reduction, as that would benefit the richer taxpayers the most.

I think it is time to reward the working man who had Social Security taxes withheld from his monthly wages to create the trust fund in the first place. I would like to see the first priority given to completely repay the amounts from the Social Security Trust Fund and the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund that the government supposedly borrowed during past years. I understand these funds are expected to go bankrupt in the near future, creating a crisis situation. Common sense tells me it would be no more than fair to postpone the problem as long as possible.

I would think it might be worth looking into as the second priority to pay off all foreign investors and save the interest sent overseas for help with our own economy.

I would very much appreciate your help in giving these ideas a trial run through Congress.

C. E. Curtis

Alberton, MT

Dear Brothers and Sisters of the BMWE Journal:

Let me give you all a big Montana thank you for running the labor cartoon submitted by Raymond A. Rael. Although it didn't make front page, it is starting to get the point across on how serious the "contracting out" problem is.

To enjoy the benefits of our jobs, we first must have our jobs. With the upcoming Grand Lodge Convention this summer, this issue must remain as one of the top priority issues in the next go around for contract negotiations. I urge all of our brothers and sisters of the BMWE to talk it up with one another and write their local chairman and Grand Lodge to let them know how you feel.

I realize we cannot stop outside contracting completely, but we can apply "legal pressure" to these groups in the forms of making sure they follow our rules to the point. If you see any

violation(s) of contractors on company property, report them. We, as maintenance of way workers, are constantly harassed by company, FRA, and OSHA rules. It is time the scab contractors feel the same pain as we do. If we are subject to enormous fines by the FRA and OSHA, contractors should be also.

Do not allow management cover ups of violations by outside contractors. This issue makes my blood boil so much I could write an entire page in the Journal, but enough said for now.

My second issue I will be brief. On the BLE and UTU matter, I feel we should all work together with all railway unions to resolve this matter. As counselors to let them continue to survive as two separate unions if their members want. I am not in favor of one big rail union to represent us all. Each of our crafts have our own ideas and ways of doing our job. I feel that at contract negotiation time we can then band together to meet management at the bargaining table.

Thank you for your time. Keep up the good work.

Jeff C. Dibblee

Havre, MT

Dear Mr. Fleming:

This has reference to your letter dated January 22, 1998, concerning the proposal to modify the qualifications for railroad employees, spouses, and widow(er)s. As stated in my February 2, 1998 correspondence, I have called upon our Chief Actuary to analyze the financial impact of the proposal. He has now completed his analysis and as requested, estimated the cost of the following changes in the Railroad Retirement benefits:

• Employees would be eligible for a full tier I and tier II retirement benefit at any age with 30 years of service, or at age 55 with one month of service.
• Spouses would be eligible for full retirement benefits upon employee retirement regardless of the spouse's age.
• Widow(er)s would be eligible for full retirement benefits upon the employee's death regardless of widow(er) age. A current connection would be required for widow(er) benefits as in current law.
  
  

Our Chief Actuary has estimated that implementing the proposed changes would require additional income of approximately $5.8 billion-$6.5 billion per year, or $174.8 billion-$194.7 billion over a projected 30-year period.

V. M. Speakman, Jr.

RRB Labor Member

BMWE Journal:

Before I begin with our suggestions, let me first applaud Brother Ronald D. Friend on his piece in the recent issue of the Journal regarding the lowering of the existing retirement age. I am pleased to say it created quite a stir around the CPR/SOO (CPR to be used by carrier when speaking of profits, SOO to be used by carrier when speaking of labor disputes and operating costs).

With this stated, I would like to add my voice to Brother Friend's and exhort Grand Lodge to continue its efforts in keeping with Resolution 13 of the 42nd Grand Lodge Convention. Of course, we must keep the solvency of the Railroad Retirement system our first priority. If other retirement systems can give benefits to employees with 30 years service at 55 years of age or even 85 years combined age and years of service, then the same should be possible for our system. If we cannot get the above changes, we ask that at least the penalty for retirement at age 60 with thirty years service be reduced or done away with.

There is one other thing that concerns me about the current retirement law. We are penalized for over a certain amount of earnings if we should choose to work after retirement. It seems that as long as the occupation chosen is not railroad related, there is no harm done to the sytem. Why then is the retiree penalized? Am I alone in feeling that this is wrong to tell a person that they may not improve their situation by the work of their hands past a certain point? Is that not one of the founding principles of our great nation? I was under the impression that when we retire, our pension had been already earned by long years of work, sweat and blood. Why then is it possible to withdraw portions of that "earned" pension for no good reason! Are there any brothers and sisters out there in agreement with me?

When some of our local brothers met to discuss what issues should be included in this letter, a rather compelling idea was raised. It was suggested that we lobby using our collective power and resources to have a modest tax levied upon the carriers' outside purchases. If this were accomplished, the funds collected would be used toward offsetting the increased payout caused by lowering of the retirement age.

Now, I would like to address suggested changes to our Bylaws. Let me begin by telling you a story about the SOO (note the name used) UTU strike of '94. At that time our roadmasters were unionized. They have subsequently joined the ranks of management. Several of the "gentlemen"

crossed UTU picket lines during that strike. When large groups of our members expressed displeasure, they returned to the correct side of the picket lines. Several of these people pay seniority retention fees to our illustrious brotherhood. It is grievous that we did not have something in our Bylaws making it possible to drop their seniority from our rolls for crossing picket lines. As I stated, since then these people have become management. I suppose that precludes us from this action on our railroad. However, it could be a useful deterrent on other roads should a similar situation arise.

To sum it up, if a member takes a job outside our union's scope under another union's care, pays seniority retention fees and subsequently crosses picket lines on the property-- then said member's seniority is terminated from BMWE rosters and retention fees are not accepted.

Another issue is concerned with changes that would benefit our locals monetarily. We request that Grand Lodge pay expenses for a delegate from each local lodge to attend Grand Lodge Conventions in the future. We believe it to be very important that each local lodge should be represented but with membership decreasing, we are able to send our delegate only at the risk of a serious depletion of local funds. We thank Local Chairman D. Hendricks for his dedication in volunteering to use some of his vacation time in order that we not have to pay his wages during his attendance at the upcoming convention. If not for this, it is doubtful if we could have afforded to send him.

The last issue brought to the table was that it would be very beneficial to have training for local chairmen. The training in question would be how to best represent members in disciplinary investigations. We would like to see this training set up and paid for by Grand Lodge.

We extend our best wishes to our BMWE brothers and sisters.

K. A. Shisler

President, Subordinate Lodge 99

CMSTP&P System Federation

Dear Editor:

I'm writing in reference to the February 1998 article, "Every Member An Organizer." If we believe "power is what it is all about," have we not joined ranks with those we criticize? Does not this attitude reduce people to be manipulated rather than persons having worth far greater than material gain? Work hard and thank you for your hard work but never forget people are what it is all about.

Pat Grab

Lodge 3089

Morgantown, PA