The Grand Lodge Convention adopted a resolution calling on us to seek mergers or affiliation. But even if there were no specific direction, arguably any responsible union leader would explore merger or affiliation. Smaller unions are recognizing the advantages of mergers and they are moving in that direction. For example, the OCAW, a progressive union we know well from their support of the Labor Party, merged with the Paperworkers to form PACE.

Out last convention mandated that we move forward. And past convention action decided that mergers be approved by membership referendum, not that we wait for a convention. Our system uses direct democracy on this issue. It has already been declared our policy to let the members decide. Besides, if the merger is a good thing, it makes sense to move forward now, rather than forego its advantages for another year.

We need to have sufficient resources to keep up the fight. Our 1996 national agreement produced long overdue gains. It was very costly to fight the court fights to try to do local handling, to do the bargaining, to prepare the best case for a PEB, and do the lobbying necessary to move the process along. In addition, contract enforcement involves big expenditures for arbitration, litigation, etc. That’s not to mention lobbying around our other issues like railroad retirement, participation in FRA rule making, etc. We have to be able to answer carrier attacks, and take up initiatives on behalf of our membership. And those costs do not go down as membership declines. It is just as costly to provide services for 10,000 members as it is for 100,000. A merger can help deal with this problem.

Maybe. But the question is really: Can we be the kind of union we need to be in the future without a merger? The answer to that question is no. We do not want to be without the resources needed to fight the legislative and collective bargaining fights that we know we will face in dealing with a railroad industry made up of a few huge carriers. Already, some organizations have shrunk to the point that they don’t have the resources to have any tactical flexibility in dealing with the carriers. We want to have the ability to shape industry patterns, and not just get stuck with the deals struck by other unions. So the advantages in preserving BMWE’s ability to wage strategic campaigns that flows from the IBB merger could be critical to our future ability to deliver good contracts.

This is a key advantage. As membership declines, the relative cost of maintaining the same level of services goes up. The merger will achieve substantial cost-savings by combining operations. We would almost immediately save the rent for our current headquarters office space, combining operations at the IBB building in Kansas City. Our Washington, DC and Chicago offices and their functions are specifically preserved. If we do the merger, we will be able to concentrate on keeping our arbitration, research and strategic planning, safety, labor protection, organizing and legal operations going. Without a merger, we will eventually have to cut those operations, or raise Grand Lodge dues steeply.

In following up on 1998 Grand Lodge Convention resolutions, President Fleming appointed a committee of general chairmen from all regions of BMWE to explore merger or affiliation with other unions. After nearly three years of meetings with other unions that expressed interest in merging with BMWE, IBB emerged as a serious prospect, and the committee went forward over the course of nearly two years to engage IBB in detailed talks.

In an ideal world, we could carry on dozens of conversations with other organizations, take several more years to do so, and then pick from a broad range of offers. Maybe the perfect merger exists in that ideal world. But let’s stick to the real world. Only a limited number of unions expressed serious interest in BMWE. After nearly two years of dialogue, IBB emerged as the best merger partner. Moreover, BMWE brings substantial membership, assets, and talent to the table today. Given the continuing decline in railroad employment, BMWE’s strength as a merger partner could evaporate over time, and so our ability to make the best possible merger could be reduced.

The Steelworkers didn’t express an interest until after the IBB/BMWE merger was almost ready to go to the Grand Lodge Officers for approval, and after it was decided that the merger Committee would not be asked to look at additional unions. So, we could walk away from the Boilermakers, in order to explore an organization that may or may not offer an acceptable merger. The Grand Lodge Officers decided that it made sense to go forward with the IBB proposal.

The IBB merger would preserve the BMWE as an autonomous division of the IBB...in fact, as its single largest division. We would be a major force within the merged organization. We would have two international vice-presidents of the IBB, twice as many as any other division. Our regional vice-presidents would stay on, and be regional directors, subject to BMWE division election. We would retain our staff, and continue to operate much as we do today. IBB has grown through mergers and organizing, and seeks future merger partners, including other rail unions. So, IBB has every incentive to fully embrace and support its largest single division. We would have the best of both worlds: we would realize economies through consolidation, yet remain a maintenance of way-focused organization.

Remember the old westerns on TV? The bad guy wanted to force the widow into marriage so he can grab her ranch. That’s the image that you get if you call this merger a ‘takeover.’ Instead, this is a merger of equals, and the BMWE will share in all of the resources of the merged organization. By the way, IBB has more money than BMWE. IBB’s reserves have been going up. BMWE’s have been going down. Now, with the efficiencies a merger will bring, our BMWE Division will be able to pay its way. But the fact is that IBB comes to the table with the stronger treasury. They are not a financially-troubled union that needs to ‘take over’ our dues dollars. Instead, you might argue that we are taking over their $60 million dollars.

If we do a loose affiliation, we’d still suffer an income-squeeze, and we’d be obligated to help fund a second international union operation. Only a full merger will work the kind of operational consolidation we need. As for the desire for a ‘quick divorce,’ we shouldn’t do a deal that has us ready to bolt for the door the first time there is a disagreement. Some friction is inevitable in putting together two unions. So, we should either be comfortable with being part of a merged organization...and confident that we can hold our own, able to make sure that the merged union provides the resources to fight the good fight . . . or we shouldn’t do it at all. The merger agreement does provide for independent binding arbitration in the case of disagreements, which we hope will never be necessary.

Like most every union, IBB’s membership has dropped. They are a fiscally-sound organization, but they understand (like we do) that it becomes easier to provide essential services to a larger membership base. So, they, like us, would benefit from combining resources to operate more efficiently. And BMWE’s presence would give the IBB’s existing rail membership more clout in dealing with the railroads and the rail labor community

The IBB merger would not hurt or change those structures. They would continue to operate as today. They would continue to elect their own officers, have their own conventions, bylaws, joint protective boards, etc .They would retain the same sort of autonomy they have today. For example, those federations who have direct election of officers will be able to continue those arrangements. Those that use the convention system can continue. Just like the present, those will be up to the individual systems or federations. In addition, participation in the IBB health insurance plan will save them substantial money compared to the current officer and employee health plans. And, the dollar per member dues rebate provided in the Merger agreement will help hold down future system division/federation dues increases.

First, it does no harm. It continues Canadian operations intact...something that may not be possible without the merger. Second, let’s assume it makes sense to be in an international union. While there has been a trend in Canada to leave international unions, our Brotherhood hasn’t gone that route. Nor has the IBB, which has approximately 10,000 Canadian members. That makes a lot of sense. Cross-border conflicts in bargaining strategy and trade union philosophy have lead to splits ( witness CAW’s departure from the UAW in the 1980's). But if US and Canadian rail unionists can stay together, there are clear advantages. The ownership and operation of railroads has become more transnational than ever. We have already had positive experience in dealing with the CN as a single, international organization.

Now, if it makes sense to be in an international, it makes sense to be part of a strong international. A trade union is created for mutual aid and support, like when resources are allocated to fend off hostile raids. Obviously, an international that is flat on its back is unable to direct meaningful assistance where it is needed. The merger will mean a stronger international, both now and in the future. And that will benefit our members in both countries.

And don’t forget that our Canadian membership will be eligible for IBB strike benefits; our Canadian Lodges (like the U.S. Lodges) will get the right to send Convention delegates on the international’s expense: international dues increases are capped; and, after satisfying the death benefit liability, the same $1.00 per member per month would revert to the system federations in Canada. The advantages of the merger apply on both sides of our border.

All non-agreement staff would be offered a job with IBB. Those who don’t want to move to the job would be offered a New York Dock/Washington Job-type separation allowance We intend to be fair with the bargaining-unit employees. We are legally and contractually bound to bargain with their union. We have no legal right to dictate to them. By the same token, they have no right to veto a decision to consolidate headquarters, if that is in the best interest of our organization.

Pension plans are a way to attract and retain talented personnel. We have had a pension plan at Grand Lodge for decades, and it undoubtedly helped to attract and retain technical and professional staff. Our pay structure is generally lower than the private sector’s. But our pension plan is better than what is often available in private-sector employment, so it is an important part of the compensation package that makes BMWE a more attractive employer. IBB’s pension plans are better than BMWE’s. They also require greater participant contributions. As a matter of law, equal pension benefits must be offered to all covered employees, so, post-merger, IBB’s benefit package would be applicable.

IBB’s plans also offer system division and federation participation. Each system division or federation would have to decide whether to participate. If the rest of the deal makes sense , it would be folly to turn the deal down because the IBB’s financial prudence has resulted in superior benefit packages.

The IBB has a multi-employer members pension plan. Depending on the negotiated employer contribution rate, it is possible to get up to 15-years past-service credit. We could negotiate with the carriers to have our members come under it, or with the IBB’s experience in creating and administering pensions, negotiate a separate rail-industry plan. Now, nobody can simply promise that would happen, and this merger doesn’t offer any phony guarantees. We would have to get employer pension contributions as part of national or local agreements. Such contributions form part of the total labor-cost package. IBB has negotiated pension benefits on METRA. Understanding that those benefits will not come without a fight, there is no reason that we could not negotiate a supplement to railroad retirement benefits.

IBB can and does operate health care plans at substantially lower cost than the national railroad plan because they are self-insured. We think that a switch to a new railroad plan could be a way of addressing rising health care costs while providing comparable health benefits. The railroads have been willing to deviate from the national plan to try to contain costs, as when they negotiated with UTU to move most of their members into Blue Cross/Blue Shield. So, we think that moving into an alternative IBB plan could hold down costs and keep more wages in our members’ pockets. Like the issue of members’ pensions, there are no guarantees. But the merger brings commitments and experience that increase our ability to fight for those improvements.

Our strike fund would continue and pay benefits to U.S. BMWE Division members (now at $250 per week for the first two weeks. Then, they are reduced to offset Railroad Unemployment benefits when they kick in). In addition, as members of the IBB, all BMWE Division members (both U.S. and Canada) would also be entitled to a strike benefit from the IBB Defense Fund. That would increase current benefit levels by $75 per week

If we do not merge, Grand Lodge dues will have to go up sharply, and, in the event of a strike, you will be eligible for the BMWE strike benefit only. If we merge, we can better hold down dues increases, you would continue to receive BMWE strike benefits (no other Boilermakers would be entitled to that fund), plus we would receive an additional IBB strike benefit. You come out further ahead.

IBB has 13 skilled organizers on staff that would be available to assist the BMWE Division, and the IBB has made commitments to help us organize in the merger agreement. BMWE now has only two full-time organizers. With the help of the IBB organizers, we would automatically increase our prospects for growth. Again, merger does not guarantee that we will grow. But we will have far more resources available for organizing than we have today.

-specific defense fund. Because we have used the strike weapon more than other rail unions, we wanted to make sure we would have the resources to support our use of self-help, above and beyond the support we would receive from the IBB international Defense Fund. So, not only would we retain the right to strike, but we’ve laid away a special fund to make sure we can strike if we need to.

Yes, just as the BMWE President must okay a strike today, the merged organization’s president will have that responsibility.

We need to strike a balance. Our membership is scattered across most every state and province of two countries. It’s just the natural result of the nature of the work we do. So active local lodges are the important link between the membership and our union. We need to be able to maintain active local lodges when they serve their members. But, at the same time , we need to have some flexibility to address lodges that have become dormant, as when a short-line sale dissolves the jurisdiction of the lodge.

There are specific safeguards concerning forced mergers or consolidations of local lodges in the merger agreement . As long as they continue to perform their normal duties, they cannot be involuntarily merged or consolidated.

Under BMWE’s Constitution and Bylaws, local lodges can be dissolved when there are less than 10 members. The IBB sets the threshold at 35 members. The IBB Constitution does, however, permit the Executive Council to waive the 35 members requirement, and IBB has waived the 35 member requirement. In fact some 53 IBB lodges with under 35 members will be eligible to send delegates to the 2001 IBB convention.

First, $1 of the difference between current BMWE dues and the IBB per-capita gets sent back to the system divisions and federations in the U.S., thereby adding to their treasuries without a dues increase. (In Canada, the dollar would be diverted to fund Canadian death benefit liabilities, until they are funded). Then there is 80¢, that equals the current BMWE 80¢ legislative set-aside. This will fund the BMWE Division’s legislative department. 75¢ will help fund the operations we preserve, like our Regional Directors, the Chicago arbitration office, etc. And 50¢ will go into a special defense fund that helps certain costs, especially legal costs, in "major dispute" strikes and other actions to defend the members. So, our higher dues simply reflects the fact that the BMWE Division will preserve and continue essential services for its maintenance-of-way members above and beyond Boilermakers international operations. And, we would be no different from other IBB Divisions that pay more than the basic per-capita in order to fund their special services.

At first, there will be six BMWE Journals per year. However, combining publications is one of the ways a merged organization is more efficient. Instead of separate publications, the merger agreement give the BMWE adequate space for BMWE Division content in the IBB paper. Besides efficiency, it will make our members familiar with other IBB news, and vice-versa.

IBB top officers are elected at large. Our Division’s Vice Presidents will be IBB Vice-Presidents, with full voice and vote on the IBB’s Executive Committee, the IBB’s governing body between Conventions. International unions elect top officers in different ways. Some use direct membership balloting. Others use convention systems, with combinations of at large and regional voting. Is one way the right way? If you look at the track records of some of the most effective unions, you’ll find that a variety of election rules apply to them. So, it is safe to say that at-large vs. regional voting is not a matter of basic trade-union principles, but rather a difference in history and structure.

Anticommunist clauses exist in a number of union constitutions. Some came about when the U.S. government made it unlawful to be a union official and a member of the Communist Party. The criminal provision of the law was declared unconstitutional in 1965, but the law is still on the books. There is a split in the court system on whether these clauses can be enforced.