At the end of January, BMWE invoked mediation as a result of the railroads' refusal to enter into serious, intense negotiations. The National Mediation Board, pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, accepted BMWE's request for its assistance and assigned Mediators Jack Bavis and Les Parmelee to the case. The parties met for negotiation sessions in mid-February for three days and will continue negotiations on March 22 and 23, 2000.

BMWE continues to request ten days of continuous negotiations in order to either reach agreement or get to the next step in the process. "Meeting for one or two days a month will not lead to any significant progress in the talks," said President Mac A. Fleming. "The moratorium expired on December 31, 1999 - in the last century and last millennium. We consider it critical to reach agreement or go to the next stage by the end of April at the latest.

"It is unfair that simply because our members are covered by the Railway Labor Act they should have to wait upwards of a year, sometimes many years, in order to reach agreement. Agreements should be reached within a short period after the expiration of the moratorium. But the railroads believe that protracting the process provides them with economic gain in the form of lump sums instead of retroactive general wage increases and a willingness of the membership to take less than they deserve in order to get an agreement. We hope the assignment of mediators assists the parties in reaching an expeditious, fair and equitable agreement."

Railroad Retirement Update

As this JOURNAL goes to print, the railroads and the rail unions except for the BMWE and the BLE are lobbying Congress to pass Railroad Retirement legislation embodying their agreement that gives the railroads over $412 million per year by 2004 of railroad workers' money in return for much less of railroad workers' money in benefits.

Those of you who have been following the Railroad Retirement struggle closely will note that the over $412 million just reported is increased from the $347 million previously reported. The reason that the money - railroad workers' money - the railroads would get in this deal has increased is because of the value of one percent of payroll. Rather than one percent equaling $100 million, one percent equals $120 million. In a letter dated March 10, 2000, V. M. Speakman, Jr. wrote BMWE President Mac A. Fleming and said in part, "we have confirmed that 1 percent of tier II payroll is equivalent to approximately $120 million, whether taken in benefit increases and/or tax cuts."

In essence this means the railroads get even more of railroad workers' money than previously reported while railroad workers' do not get more of their money in benefits.

The BMWE and BLE continues to lobby Congress with the message that no legislation should be passed until all the parties involved reach consensus on what that legislation should be.
On February 15, 2000, President Fleming wrote every Congressman and said in part, "we are not asking that you analyze or get involved in the substance of the deal - we are asking that no legislation move until all of the organizations involved in Railroad Retirement are in agreement. However, it is necessary that we respond to the inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

"First, the groups supporting the deal mischaracterize BMWE's position when they imply that we insist the retirement age be immediately lowered to age 55 once an employee has 30 years service as a condition precedent to our supporting any deal on Railroad Retirement. BMWE obviously supports full retirement benefits at age 55 when an employee has 30 years service, but is, and has been, committed to the solvency of the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund.

"BMWE is willing to support a resolution other than 55 and 30, but believes the deal negotiated provides too great of a windfall to the railroads and not enough in improved benefits for those in the Railroad Retirement System. BLE also believes the deal is too rich for the railroads and that we are getting too little in improved benefits for too great a cost. It's just that simple. ...

"They fail to mention the $347 million per year the railroads would receive as of January 1, 2004 when they describe this deal to you and to their members. Given the fact that this is our pension and the money in the Trust Fund was contributed for the benefit of present and future retirees and not the railroads 'bottom line,' we cannot support such a split of the surplus funding.

"Another mis-characterization by the groups supporting the deal is that there will be additional benefit improvements as the fund balance permits. While this statement is true in the abstract, the Railroad Retirement Board's actuary does not project that fund surpluses permitting benefit improvements will occur until 2037. Therefore, a majority of those employed by the railroads today have but a remote chance of obtaining additional benefits during his or her lifetime.

"Now is the time when there are sufficient funds in the Trust Fund for us to obtain the best deal possible, recognizing the railroads' interests must be accommodated to some extent. Once this deal is cut, the extra money is gone until 2037 according to the Railroad Retirement Board actuary.

"BMWE and BLE agree with the groups supporting the deal that the survivor benefit needs to be immediately improved and accept the 'fix' that is in the deal. We have written the unions supporting the deal and the railroads, seeking to separate that component of the deal from the rest of it - i.e., to move legislation that all parties agree on regarding survivor benefits - and wait until we can all reach agreement on the rest of the package. We do this because we believe the survivor benefits need an immediate fix. The other unions and the railroads refused to make this change, in effect holding the survivors hostage to a deal that BMWE and BLE cannot accept."

Cramdown Update

In late November 1999, the Association of American Railroads reneged on a deal it reached with AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka which would have provided a 36-month moratorium on serving New York Dock notices while the parties negotiated for a new set of rules to deal with merging railroads. Subsequently the railroads contacted each of the crafts and asked them to negotiate new rules without the moratorium in place. Despite this reneging on the part of the AAR, the UTU negotiated a cramdown agreement with the railroads.

The rest of Rail Labor, with Secretary-Treasurer Trumka's blessing, met with the railroads in late February and early March. The UTU agreement did not meet the needs of all of the other crafts and the parties continue to negotiate. The parties are also supporting bi-partisan legislation in both Houses of Congress which would end cramdown. The AFL-CIO is actively supporting this legislation.

BLE and AFL-CIO Vindicated as NMB Denies UTU Raid

In January 1998, the United Transportation Union filed an application with the National Mediation Board asking that a single craft of "Train and Engine Service Employees" be established and that the NMB authorize an election, initially on the Union Pacific, in which UTU members and BLE members would vote as to whether they wished to be in the UTU or the BLE in a winner-take-all election.

"This was simply a thinly disguised gun-at-the-head approach by the UTU to try to force a consolidation with the BLE that the BLE's membership overwhelmingly opposes," said BMWE President Mac A. Fleming.

BLE, with the support of all of Rail Labor except the UTU, filed charges against UTU with the AFL-CIO. After a hearing, 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. But the AFL-CIO still attempted to mediate the dispute and under its auspices negotiations between the two unions were conducted for over a year before they failed.

The UTU reinstituted its petition with the NMB after the failure of the talks and the AFL-CIO again imposed sanctions against the UTU which were supported by all of Rail Labor except the UTU, of course. On February 29, 2000 the NMB announced that the panel appointed in early January to consider the question of establishing a single craft had found in favor of the BLE.

In a statement of congratulations to the BLE in which he applauded BLE members on their endurance during more than two years of struggle, President Fleming said "The UTU's approach was wrong on all counts. Wrong on the facts and the law and it was a fundamental breach of the principles of union solidarity and unity. I commend the arbitration panel for its principled application of the facts and the law and the NMB for adopting the panel's decision as its own."

President Fleming also called on the UTU leadership to give up their raid of the BLE which all of labor opposes. For more, see the President's Perspective on page 4 of this JOURNAL.

Correction

In the January/February 2000 issue of the JOURNAL on page 15 under the heading "Roll of Honor" we incorrectly listed "30-year Merit Awards." This should have been listed as "35-year Merit Awards." The editor extends her apologies to Brothers Ralph S. Bean, Jose Cortez, Leroy A. Dallke, Jerry D. Hawkins, B. L. Heiney, Joe C. Howard, Matt M. Jagol, Ronald L. Kaltved, McCurn L. Lesure, Rogelio Mendiola, Alfred Monday, Ira A. Moss, Raymond S. Neil, Florentin Rodriguez, John M. Safarik and W. W. Underhill for this error.