First the results themselves. According to the independent ballot counting group who actually received and counted the ballots, approximately 45% of the members who were eligible to vote actually returned ballots. Of that 45% almost 70% voted to ratify the agreement. During the last round of bargaining – the PEB 229 round of bargaining – nearly 70% of those eligible to vote returned ballots and nearly 89% of those who returned ballots voted to ratify. Although a 45% return is actually a greater return than most unions obtain and although a 70% vote to ratify is clearly a substantial majority (every system division or federation involved in national bargaining voted to ratify), it is not as good as our results last time.

This is understandable given the weakness of the agreement we sent out to members to ratify or reject. Given the political realities we faced, we felt that the membership should decide whether to accept an agreement that is not good or take the very real risks of fighting an uphill battle against a political presidential emergency board process that is stacked against Rail Labor in general and the BMWE in particular.

We knew directly from the current Chairman of the National Mediation Board that he was beholden to political forces within the administration and would take his direction from them, although he denies that now. We knew that the other crafts simply accepted that the process has to take longer than a year to complete because none of them were making any serious push to be released during the year 2000. That was one of the (flimsy) reasons another of the NMB members used to reject our request for a proffer of arbitration when we still had the possibility of obtaining a fair agreement, even though the mediators assigned to our case recommended a proffer of arbitration.

The National Mediation Board has outlived its usefulness in its current form with respect to its role in national rail bargaining. Its thought processes and the manner in which it functions makes it simply a rubber stamp for carrier plans to delay the process. Not one serious thought was given by a majority of the members of the NMB that a round of bargaining should be completed within any given time frame. One of the Board members acted as if it were a radical suggestion that a proffer of arbitration be issued less than six months after the moratorium expired – even though the mediators assigned to the case recommended a proffer -- because it was unheard of that a round of national bargaining in the railroad industry should be resolved so quickly if the parties have not reached a voluntary agreement.

Even though that Board member KNEW the carriers’ goal was to protract bargaining and force labor to agree to a concessionary agreement, that person ignored the provision of the Railway Labor Act for "prompt" resolution of Section 6 disputes in favor of some theoretical concept of preventing disruptions of interstate commerce. That person also knew that during the last round of bargaining proffers of arbitration did not lead to disruptions of service and also knew that "prompt" proffers of arbitration are not pro-labor but simply fair to both sides while protraction in a national round only benefits the carriers.

Another flimsy excuse used by the majority in overriding the recommendations of the mediators assigned to the BMWE case was that BMWE was the only craft requesting a proffer – that the other crafts were still bargaining and we were isolated. So what? If we were the only craft who bargained for a quick resolution to the round, what difference does it make that the other crafts had not bargained in a similar manner.

Still another excuse to refuse to proffer arbitration last year by the majority of the NMB was that a voluntary agreement had been reached between one of the other crafts and the carriers and that a proffer would cause the voluntary agreement to be rejected by the rank and file of that craft in order to see what a PEB would recommend for BMWE. That was also a dishonest excuse to serve the carriers, as the BMWE request for a proffer occurred months prior to the voluntary agreement and it became clear very early that the other craft was not going to put its voluntary agreement out to its members for ratification prior to the inauguration of President Bush anyway.

One of the majority that opposed the proffer admitted privately that originally a majority favored giving a proffer, but when they received strong opposition from the incoming administration and Congressional Republicans, they changed their minds. Now that Board member has the gall to claim the process is not political.

It is not as if granting a timely proffer of arbitration is pro-labor. It is not. There are no politicians of either party who will appoint a pro-labor presidential emergency board. The real question is whether there is a possibility of having a fair PEB appointed or a pro-carrier PEB. The NMB did everything it could to see that an anti-labor, pro-management PEB would be selected and achieved its goal.

We intend to explore the feasibility of recommending changes to the Railway Labor Act which will cap the time the National Mediation Board can sit on a national rail dispute before having to proffer arbitration unless both parties choose to continue under mediation.

When the Railway Labor Act was passed, more than 80% of intercity freight moved by rail. There was no interstate highway system and the trucking and air industries were fledgling. A national strike could have had a calamitous effect on the national economy.

The reason the Railway Labor Act originally discouraged interruptions of rail service is because of the impact that a rail strike would have on the national or regional economy. The days of a rail strike having a such a devastating impact on a national or regional economy are over. Now less than 40% of intercity freight moves by rail and there are several alternate modes of transport. The possibility of a rail strike was never a valid reason to delay proffering arbitration and that reason is even less valid now.

There is also a provision under the Railway Labor Act for "prompt" resolution of Section 6 disputes. The NMB, because it has become simply a wing of management, follows the RLA provisions that discourage any interruption of service, but ignores the provision for "prompt" resolution. The NMB also ignores the relatively minimal impact a rail strike would have on the national or regional economy. Again, however, the fact is that proffers of arbitration do not in themselves cause strikes. And in any case, the fact is that Congress ends rail strikes as quick as they start anyway.

To make matters more difficult, most of the other crafts had not negotiated seriously for a proffer in 2000 when the timing was right; had rejected the BMWE’s entreaties for an oath of blood – that no union settles until all unions settle – early in 2000; and ridiculed the BMWE’s request to the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department that in the event we were ordered back to work by Congress and chose to continue on strike, that they request their members to honor our picket lines.

Faced with these realities and seeing no avenue open that gave us any hope of obtaining a better result, BMWE leadership made a hard choice to get an agreement and bring it to the membership and let them decide whether to take a bad agreement or get a worse one imposed after a lot of meaningless, militant noise that sounds good but accomplishes little. BMWE leadership believes if significant risks are going to be taken by the membership, they should have a choice whether to take those risks – not have those risks shoved down their throat by a union leadership posturing politically. A Bush PEB evaluating the railroads’ ability to pay and the skyrocketing costs of health care coupled with low wage increases already negotiated by another craft simply meant recommendations similar to what we agreed to IN ADDITION TO a grievous deterioration of our work rules.

It was disheartening for the future hopes of rail solidarity to see the vigorous attempts by a few other rail crafts to convince the BMWE membership to reject the agreement. Even though BMWE leadership told BMWE members it was not a good agreement and explained why, these few crafts put out propaganda trying to make our admittedly weak agreement seem worse than it is.

One craft – the same one which provoked a national lockout in 1992 by remaining in national handling but only striking one railroad, thereby giving the railroads the option (which the railroads exercised) to lockout their members nationally once arbitration was proffered – whined that BMWE had not "met the challenge." This despite the fact their proposed solution – a PEB and self-help -- had failed in 1992 to get them a better agreement and interfered with BMWE’s local handling strategy at that time.

Another craft made up numbers – stating there was only one wage increase in our agreement even though there are five – and misrepresented the position we took regarding the COLA wage increases and other features of the agreement while offering no plan, except a lot of bravado. That union, for political reasons, ignored the fact that another union had already reached a non-ratified voluntary agreement in this bargaining round which actually provides less money to BMWE members (although not to its own members because its own members have a higher base rate than the BMWE) than the agreement BMWE reached with the carriers and that the carriers would argue to a Bush-appointed PEB that that non-ratified voluntary agreement’s wage package is the pattern for all.

Still another craft worked against the BMWE agreement – the same one which had entered a coalition with the shop crafts during the last round of bargaining to stop the UTU pattern and then pulled out of that coalition and signed an agreement with the carriers based on the UTU pattern just days before the PEB hearing commenced. This craft obtained a "me-too" understanding so that in the event the PEB gave a better recommendation than the UTU pattern, it would obtain that better result. And in fact that’s what happened, this craft did get a better result when the shop craft PEB recommended a different pattern than the UTU pattern. This same craft recently signed a letter condemning the BMWE’s "me-too" in health care, claiming that "me-toos" are unprecedented in the railroad industry.

These few crafts are willing to fight to the last drop of BMWE blood while chastising the BMWE leadership for understanding reality and giving BMWE members a choice.

The BMWE membership was and is sophisticated enough to ignore the disingenuous arguments of those other crafts and made a hard decision and we will abide by that decision. But BMWE leadership is not beating its chest about it either. We are aware that more than half of the membership chose not to vote and that those who voted for it did so fully aware that this was not a good agreement. We intend to do everything in our power to see that such a result does not occur again, regardless of which party is in power during the next round of bargaining.

As rail labor unity appears difficult at best to obtain, we will remain open to it, but will seek other allies to avoid the result that has occurred this time. We also commit to trying to find a way to maintain the equivalent level and quality of health care benefits with as little cost sharing as possible. We do not intend, however, to see any reduction in the level and quality of health benefits we currently enjoy.

Since 1980 Rail Labor has lost more than 50% of its membership. Rail Labor solidarity and unity is not merely a moral imperative but also a tactical necessity if we are to obtain good contracts in the future in the political climate in which we are all forced to function. BMWE has continuously struggled to obtain that unity, but in the area of collective bargaining several of the other crafts have simply mouthed the words while undercutting the reality.

We have offered an oath of blood to the other crafts right at the beginning of each bargaining round. They said no. We have pushed for planning meetings of the leadership of all of the crafts to coordinate bargaining. They said no. We warned all of the crafts in early 2000 of the potentially devastating impact of what could have been a PEB appointed by another George Bush to no avail.

Instead, one union boasts that it will always be the first to make an agreement so that it can take care of its members. Another union talks unity and enters into coalitions only to undercut its coalition partners at critical moments. Several other unions ignore the timing questions and simply allow time to dim any ability to get expeditious results and take advantage of what at best can be described as a shot at a fair result – and then deny that timing matters while mouthing rhetoric the carriers know is meaningless in terms of obtaining better agreements. Placed in this reality, BMWE has no choice but to play by the dog-eat-dog, one-up-manship strategies and tactics this lack of unity dictates in order to make certain that our members don’t get devastated by our being the only ones playing by unity rules while everyone else does what it considers best for its members.

The end result — the membership of all crafts lose. Because the carriers, with the conscious assistance of the NMB, have the unions fighting each other for survival rather than jointly pushing for agreements which will benefit all members of all crafts.

There is much to be learned from this round of bargaining if the leadership of all of the rail unions act with humility and commitment to fundamental principles of union solidarity on the basis of both idealism and practicality. If we fail to learn these lessons, we are simply abdicating our responsibility to our memberships collectively.

This means it must be as important to the leadership of the other crafts that BMWE members not suffer work rule deterioration as it was to BMWE that UTU members on Soo Line obtained their goals during the Soo Line strike several years ago. For if the answer the other crafts have is that we’re supposed to hang with them until they get what they want while our members again take the biggest hit, then we will have a repeat of the results of this round of bargaining. It’s either solidarity or dog-eat-dog. The fundamental principle "an injury to one is an injury to all" MUST be the oath upon which all of rail labor casts its future. Otherwise the principle becomes "an injury to one is not an injury to me" and the reality becomes that all are injured. We’re all in this together whether we like it or not.