None of us wanted to be in arbitration because we were aware of how anti-labor the ICC and STB decisions have been under the leadership of the pro-management Chairwoman, Linda Morgan. I have written before how many former ICC Commissioners and staff, and some STB staff end up with lucrative positions in rail management and their front groups after their "neutral public service" on those agencies. However the position CSX and NS took during negotiations prior to the Fredenberger arbitration simply was unacceptable to BMWE.

After the Fredenberger award was rendered, the BMWE committees negotiated with the railroads about implementation of the award. Through difficult bargaining, the BMWE committees reached agreements with both CSX and NS which were better than the terms of the Fredenberger award. Recognizing they had a choice of simply allowing the terms of the Fredenberger award to be implemented on CSX and NS or obtaining as good an agreement as possible in light of the Fredenberger award, the committees recommended the agreements, which are better than the Fredenberger award, and put them out for ratification. .

The history of how we got to this point, however, demonstrates the problems that rail labor as a whole faces. In 1997 a joint meeting of CSX, NS and Conrail general chairmen from all crafts passed a resolution stating they would not reach agreement with NS, CSX and/or Conrail until a list of clear demands had been satisfied. If the railroads did not meet those demands, then rail labor would fight with all of the resources at its command. Subsequently, the Rail Division of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, comprised of the leadership of the various affiliates in rail labor, provided assistance in refining the demands. AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Rich Trumka agreed to coordinate the bargaining (not run the bargaining) and provide AFL-CIO research. It looked like rail labor, for once, was going to stand and fight.

At the initial meeting between most of the leadership of the rail affiliates and Brother Trumka, some of the affiliates opted out of having Rich Trumka coordinate the bargaining. Their refusal was based on the principle that they were elected by their people to represent them and did not want to have someone else run their bargaining. This was stated even though Rich Trumka made it clear that each affiliate had autonomy to bargain for its own membership and he would simply coordinate the bargaining.

After that meeting, one rail affiliate reached agreement with Conrail, CSX and NS outside of any coalition and another followed suit very quickly. Despite the fact that all general chairmen of all crafts pledged to support each other at the combined CSX, NS, Conrail General Chairmen's meeting in April 1997, most of the general chairmen and system officers broke their word to each other and allowed their international to negotiate and make deals.

The railroads clearly understood that rail labor unity had broken down and the AFL-CIO, faced with division within rail labor that was substantial--not just the usual rail labor union breaking with the rest of rail labor in order to support the railroads--had no choice but to withdraw from the process.

As we all know, all of the subsequent agreements reached by all crafts are worse than the ones that existed prior to the mergers. This is because of Linda Morgan and her henchmen on the STB blatantly and dishonestly applying the "cramdown" provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act in support of the railroads against the interests of rail labor.

It is a shame, but somewhat understandable, that a union will cut a deal with the carriers rather than stick with the rest of rail labor and the AFL-CIO. What is shocking, however, is when a union will lie to its membership and the rest of labor about the reasons they make such deals. The problem has gotten so absurd, that the United Transportation Union's leadership has actually actively fought to preserve Linda Morgan as Chairwoman of the STB even though she is under fire from the rest of rail labor, the AFL-CIO and many others because of the adverse impact her "cramdown" policies have had on all members of rail labor, including the UTU. Even though Linda Morgan was one of those who decided the O'Brien award and the Yost award, cases which the UTU vigorously fought and which injured UTU and BLE members on CSX and UP respectively, the leadership of the UTU brazenly claims that she has not been involved in cramdown decisions, even though those awards obviated collective bargaining agreements.

This is the environment in which we function and this lack of unity, even when commitments are made, makes it difficult to mount an effective fight. However, more and more the leadership of rail labor is becoming aware of what Eugene Debs stated towards the end of the last millennium--that an injury to one is an injury to all. Because when we face our memberships, and they complain about deteriorating conditions, we know their complaints are true. If we maintain this sectarian stupidity and define our struggle as only for those who elect us, we are penny-dumb and pound-dumber. We deliver bacon bits instead of bacon and tell our members that we delivered a bigger bacon bit than the other craft did. And in the end, all of the members from all of the crafts end up worse off, our numbers are fewer and our impact minimal when we are not united.