This concept was best developed and articulated by Eugene Debs in the late 1880s and 1890s and the struggles which the American Railway Union fought during that time period. Unfortunately, the ARU lost those fights and for the past 125 years we have had craft unionism within Rail Labor.

And although we believe in one union for all railroad workers, we are proud of the accomplishments that Rail Labor has won over the past 125 years under a craft union structure and the accomplishments the BMWE has obtained since its founding in 1887. We have found that for the most part, when Rail Labor sticks together and the organizations coordinate their efforts, we have been able to achieve a great deal collectively (such as Railroad Retirement, FELA in the legislative field, and higher wages and better benefits than those who are not organized in the collective bargaining field). We have also found that when we are divided, we obtain less for all involved.

Given the 100 year history of craft unionism in the rail industry, BMWE believes that the only way to achieve Eugene Debs's dream of one union for all railroad workers is for mergers between organizations to take place voluntarily. There is too much history and too much that can be dismantled if Rail Labor chooses to become cannibalistic with union attempting to gobble up union.

Although the voluntary process is a difficult one, there has been some success in achieving voluntary mergers over the past 40 years. Forty years ago there were 23 unions representing railroad workers while today there are only 13. This means that the number of unions representing us have been nearly cut in half THROUGH VOLUNTARY MERGERS over the past four decades. Although we are painfully far from one union for all of us, we are and have been on the way there.

This is the reason that the BMWE opposes the manner in which the United Transportation Union leadership is attempting to accomplish its merger with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. UTU is using a gun-at-the-head approach to BLE in order to force a consolidation which BLE and its members opposes. It is just as simple as that.

In early 1998, UTU filed a petition with the National Mediation Board asking for the Board to declare the craft distinction between engineer on the one hand and conductor, trainman, and switchman on the other hand to be eliminated. UTU argued that a combination of technology and collective bargaining agreements has dissolved the craft distinction and that all of those crafts effectively perform the same work.

UTU asked the NMB to authorize an election, initially on the Union Pacific, in which engineers, conductors, brakemen and switchmen would vote as to whether they wished to be in the UTU or the BLE in a winner-take-all election. UTU leadership understand that if they attempted to have only BLE members vote to choose which union they wish to belong to, that those BLE members would vote overwhelmingly to remain in the BLE, just as they did on the Norfolk Southern in the 1980s when UTU raided BLE on the Norfolk Southern.

UTU leadership figured that if they could force an election in which engineers, conductors, trainmen and switchmen all had to vote as members of one new operating craft created by NMB fiat, that their numbers would be greater than the number of engineers who would vote for BLE and they could win, even if every BLE member voted to remain in the BLE. Conductors, brakemen and switchmen are represented by the UTU while engineers are represented by the BLE on the UP and on nearly all other major railroads.

We have carefully read the submissions of both parties in this matter. It is clear that if this matter is decided by the NMB on the merits, BLE would win hands down. However public comments made by one of the NMB Board members makes it appear that at least that member intends to decide this critical matter based on closeness to UTU as opposed to on the merits. As such a decision can have overwhelming ramifications for all rail unions given the craft nature of the industry, that person should carefully decide this on the merits, based upon existing law and NMB precedent and not on personal feelings of closeness to one or the other parties.

As all of the Rail Labor and the AFL-CIO oppose this, the relationship of the Board with most of its customers will be severely damaged if this decision is not based upon the merits, as opposed to the biases expressed by that Board member. That Board member should give up prejudices in this matter and decide it on the basis of existing NMB precedent and the law or, given the public nature of that Board member's comments, recuse.

BMWE is even intervening in this matter, because when evaluating who should be in the pool to become an engineer, we believe that many BMWE machine operators are a more logical pool for engineers than even UTU conductors. BMWE believes that our machine operators are bound by the same operating rules as engineers, operate on-track equipment, and periodically have jurisdictional disputes with BLE when some of our on-track equipment pull rail cars (tie cars, gondolas, ballast cars, etc.) because BLE believes that engineers represented by BLE should operate such vehicles.

BLE filed charges against UTU with the AFL-CIO, claiming that the UTU petition to the NMB was merely an attempt to raid the BLE again, this time in a manner in which the fact that the vast majority of BLE members wish to remain in the BLE could be ignored and was, therefore, a violation of the anti-raiding provisions of the AFL-CIO Constitution and By-laws. The entire Rail Division of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO agreed with BLE, except, of course, for the UTU.

A hearing was conducted by the AFL-CIO to evaluate the BLE charges against the UTU and other charges filed by the UTU against the BLE. The AFL-CIO found that the UTU petition to the NMB calling for an election of UTU and BLE members on the UP to pick which union all would belong to was a violation of their anti-raiding provisions.

The AFL-CIO also attempted to mediate the dispute and asked both unions to attempt to reach a voluntary agreement and the parties entered into good faith negotiations which went on for over a year. Eventually, those negotiations fell apart, for reasons known to the parties and a voluntary result could not be obtained.

UTU then revived its petition to the NMB and BLE asked the AFL-CIO to revive the Article XX violation against the UTU. UTU asked the AFL-CIO to obviate its citation, claiming that it met its responsibilities when it negotiated with BLE. Both sides claimed the other did not function in good faith during the negotiations.

AFL-CIO President Sweeney refused to remove the citation against the UTU and UTU President Little stated that he would appeal President Sweeney's decision to the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO. As an interested party and a member of the AFL-CIO Executive Council I wrote President Sweeney, together with TCU President Robert Scardeletti and TWU President Sonny Hall, (the three Rail Labor Executive Council members) and told him that we believe that the revival of the petition before the NMB by the UTU meant that UTU was still in violation of the anti-raiding provisions of the AFL-CIO Constitution and By-laws and that the appeal UTU has filed of President Sweeney's decision is an attempt to keep the AFL-CIO out of the fight while the UTU brazenly continues its raid.

We told President Sweeney that we oppose the NMB petition and that BMWE will intervene in the NMB proceeding. In the end, if the UTU does not comply with an AFL-CIO citation and withdraw its petition, it may no longer be protected by the anti-raiding provisions of the AFL-CIO Constitution and By-laws and could be raided by any AFL-CIO union. Additionally, the BLE would be eligible for AFL-CIO assistance to fight off any raid the UTU attempts.

BMWE would simply prefer that UTU withdraw its petition. Its petition has the potential to destroy stable relations within the rail industry. Voluntary mergers, affiliations, federations, or new unions are the only way to go. Although all raids are despicable, the UTU variation which simply allows its members to outvote the members of another union - members who overwhelmingly do not wish to be in the UTU - is even worse than other raids and portends ill if such a practice is not stopped.

UTU has defied rail labor and the AFL-CIO on many critical matters. All of Rail Labor and the AFL-CIO oppose the renomination of Linda Morgan to STB, EXCEPT FOR THE UTU. All of Rail Labor opposed the nomination of Clyde Hart to the STB, EXCEPT FOR THE UTU. All of Rail Labor opposed the renomination of Gus Owen to the STB, EXCEPT FOR THE UTU. There are many other issues where the UTU stands alone, many times with the carriers, against the positions of all of the rest of Rail Labor and the AFL-CIO. And on this raid, once again, UTU stands against all of the Labor Movement, claiming it's right and everyone else is wrong.

BMWE respects the membership of the UTU and the accomplishments of the organization. It has a proud history. We certainly hope that it comes to its senses, withdraws its petition to the NMB and once again begins to work closely with the rest of the Rail Labor and the entire labor movement. As hard as we will fight to assist the BLE if there is a raid, we would work with UTU to advance the interests of organized labor in general, rail labor in particular, including the interests of the members of the UTU. But UTU must be willing to work with everyone else too, and stop actively opposing the rest of the labor movement.