Name: old head
E-mail:
Employed as: Conductor, for 30+ years
Posted: 20 February 2010
UTU response to negative view of SSA proposed agreement
To: All concerned that received this e-mail:
From: john Hancock, General Chairman
This is a response to the e-mail attached from “Just an old
railroader.” I normally don’t respond to unsigned, but this is
important. I do appreciate the opportunity to respond. My response is
in italics below each comment.
John Hancock
General Chairman
Consolidated Southern Region Agreement
Dear Fellow UTU Members,
We stand facing a choice on whether to vote for or against a new
agreement. A union is a faternal organization, a body of brothers and
sisters working towards a unified goal. We are, however, scattered
across the southeastern United States, separated by both miles and the
hectic work schedules railroaders face. I saw a need to help overcome
the many obstacles preventing opinion sharing in the ratification
process, That’s why I have created this blog where you can insert your
ideas and let your voice be heard by other members. What follows is a
little about me and my opinions. They are just that, opinions based on
what I have read of the agreement and my past experience.
I am an old UTU member and very proud to be an employee of the former
L&N Railroad. I was, in my time, very active in the union and am well
versed in the jobs that union officers are required to do on a daily
basis. I have also seen, in my thirty-five years of service, exactly
how CSX operates. I come to you, not to sway your vote one way or the
other, but to share with you my concerns regarding the proposed
Consolidated Southern Region Agreement. I know that you have, or will
be, bombarded with hard sell and scare tactics to get the agreement
ratified. I beg you to please read the agreement and make a decision on
your own, a decision not based on the cries of doom you will hear but on
the face value and intent of the agreement and the alternatives which
have not been mentioned in detail.
My biggest concern is the impact on newer employees. It seems that
CSX's plan is to cut costs by cutting their manpower needs, reducing
the number of train service employees on the payroll, and by squeezing
all they can out of the employees that remain. Their attack on the
UTU's junior members is nine pronged and all nine involve CSX's
desire to increase profits, control our lives, and make us what they
feel would be perfect employees.
The first prong of the attack would come with giving CSX the ability to
use utility employees where ever they want. Any place they must work two
man jobs because of topographical issues, they will change them to one
man jobs with a utility man scattered here and there. The L&N Crew
Consist Agreement prevents them from doing that and we have kept many
employees working as a result. That will change with this agreement and
the impact (furloughs) will probably be seen as soon as they figure out
where they can make the switch.
Response: The L&N Crew Consist Agreement protects crew consist
protected employees (pre “91) on trainmen/switchmen jobs where a
protected trainmen has Never left the job, and they are designated with
a “P.” On jobs on which a protected crew consist employee has left the
job, it can be blanked today and the job is identified with a “B.”
Once all the crew consist men have retired, then the company can make
all the jobs blankable.
With respect to utility jobs, on the SCL, we have the same agreement as
the L&N. Utility jobs can only be put in where mutually agreeable.
Many of our LC have agreed to put on utility jobs, and where these jobs
have been put on, there has been no reduction in trainmen jobs, and we
have more jobs. Where utility jobs have not been put on, the men have
proved to the Company that they did not need the utility jobs.
Moreover, a utility man can only be in one place at a time. In the
coal fields, they need the brakeman.
The second prong involves the removing of up to 20% per year of the
protected employees from the blankable positions they now hold.
Presently there are senior employees holding blankable brakeman/helper
positions on preferred jobs, allowing junior employees to work as the
conductor/foreman. CSX will simply pick those preferred jobs as their
first 20% and force the senior employees off the assignments. Unless
there is another preferred job blankable position available for the
displaced senior man to go to, he will go to a preferred
conductor/foreman position. The result will be that the junior man is
furloughed. Even though that senior employee is being a good guy by
keeping a junior employee working, the agreement's Side Letter 8 makes
him out to be a bad guy by withholding the increase in road switcher
rates for everyone at that location (Art 45 C) as long as he is holding
a blankable position. I am shocked that a side letter would be signed
that pits members against members and destroys solidarity.
Response: The 20% reduction per year is in line with the attrition of
protected crew consist employees. It is anticipated that in 5 years,
all protected crew consist employees will probably be retired.
The side letter involves a 7.5% pay increase for all mine runs. If the
job is not blankable, then the 7.5% increase goes in effect.
The third prong is EBS which, as they learned when they implemented it
with the engineers, will reduce the number of train service employees
needed at a location by doing away with practically all displacement
time. There will be no claiming vacancies and seniority moves on any
day other than a JAD. There will be no staying displaced for a while to
catch your breath from working. You will be expected to work the days of
the assignment taken or forced by EBS, take paid leave (P/L D/V), or be
subjected to the attendance policy. Consider the total time that
employees have been in displaced status over the past month at your
location and the extra employees that worked while they were displaced.
The need for those additional employees will go away when EBS is
implemented.
Response: If you like to sharp shoot to work, or you sharp shoot not
to work, you will not like EBS. If you want a steady job with steady
income, know when you will be able to work for the week without being
pulled 10 times a day, being able to hold the extra board for the week,
then you will like this rule. Also under EBS, all yardmen will be
guaranteed the days of their job; so will regular assigned through
freights, local freights and mine runs. Even if the Company abolished
the job during the week, the employees assigned thereto are guaranteed
the earnings of their assignment by being paid the trip rate, the miles
of the assignment or a basic day, whichever is greater. IF CSXT annuls
a yard job on the L&N, and you hire out after 1991, you do not get
paid. Now, you will get paid. This is great!
EBS will create more work opportunities. CSXT will no longer be able
to call furloughed employees to work. If this Agreement is
implemented, CSXT will have to have more employees working than they do
today.
The fourth prong is CSX making it financially punitive for an extra
board employee to mark off (loss of one week guarantee and Individual
Performance Award) for unpaid leave. If no employee on the extra board
ever marks off for non-compensated time off, they will need fewer extra
board employees.
Response: The extra board is mainly for extra work and vacation
vacancies. Under EBS, CSXT will need more employees.
The fifth prong is aimed at employees on regular assignments in an
attempt to keep them marked up. The threat of loosing their Individual
Performance Award for a six month period could make an employee not
take any unpaid leave. No unpaid leave means no extra board work and
fewer extra board employees needed.
Response: Today, you do not have IPA. All the older men have two
weeks of daily vacation, 11 personal leave days, 6 weeks of vacation;
there will be plenty of opportunities to be off and still get the IPA
and keep the extra board turning. EBS will put more people to work.
The sixth prong involves yards where the standard five day work week is
replaced with a 12/3 and 10/4 work schedule. Although you were told that
any implementation of the 12/3 and 10/4 schedule would have to be
mutually agreed to, there is no language in the agreement that would
require it. I would strongly suggest that, if it were the intent of the
agreement to require a mutual consent, a side letter is signed detailing
what exactly would be required before a five day work schedule is
changed. Even though the immediate impact of going 12/3 10/4 would be
slight (1 job loss for every 15 converted), a person on one of the 12/3
positions will never mark off because CSX will stick him two ways. The
first is where his pay from the previous days worked will drop from the
guarantee of 13 hours and 20 minutes to the time actually worked at the
straight time rate. If the poor guy worked 12 hours the two days he
worked he would be paid 24 hours for he week, losing 16 hours of his
guaranteed 40. Pretty stiff for making off one day. Second, if he takes
a P/L day off, they will take a full two P/L days from his allotment for
the one day. With 11 personal leave days per year, he could only take
five days off before ran out. The five days he could not take off would
be a week of starts for an extra board person.
Response: There is no 12/3 and 10/4 work schedule. There is an
optional 4 and 3; it is not mandatory. There are no job losses I
agree that the weekend work will increase activity. At the same time,
the work productivity is not as high. The Company does not like the
4&3. The good thing is three days or 4 days off. It is a change, and
it is different.
The seventh prong is CSX gaining the ability to work a yard job any
time of the day or night. Yard extra board employees would have to
remain available for call twenty-four hours per day and not, as it is
now, just during calling times. If CSX were to call outside the
historical calling times, the extra board employee would have to take
the call which might just happen to be a road trip.
Response: The current [national] yard rule permits the carrier to call
an extra yard job at any time. This came out of General Order 27. On
the former L&N, the Carrier cannot call an extra yard job between 12
midnight and 4 a.m., by special agreement. This would change.
However, what is important is that if they call an extra yard job
outside the calling time, the pay goes back to the last start time. So
if CSXT calls an extra yard job on duty at 4 am, the pay starts at 12
midnight. So, at 8 am, the employee is on overtime even though he has
only worked 4 hours. Simply stated, give a little, get a lot.
The eighth prong is that yard extra board employees would have to
remain available and work after they had made their five straight time
starts for the week. Before this agreement, any such overtime work
would be voluntary. After this agreement the work would be mandatory.
Response: When the yard employee works on the sixth day, he gets time
and one half for the entire day. Also, to day, the yard extra board
employee has to be available for the rest of the week. There is really
no change except that we made it easy to get time and one-half.
The ninth prong would be forcing the implementation of Furlough
Retention Boards. I know of no L&N property that has implemented a FRB
since the side letter was signed, and for good reason. Most Local
Chairmen know it is simply a CSX tool to have an extra board to
supplement an extra board. Rather than put the poor guy on normal extra
board, why not just string him along at almost minimum wages, save the
guarantee, and keep the real extra board cut to the bones.
Response: The furlough retention board is voluntary; you can elect
furlough. CSXT could reduce the extra board; however, if any group
employee has 4.5 starts on the FRB, then CSXT has to put him the senior
furloughed employee back on the extra board for a week. EX: CSXT
reduces the extra board down and individuals claim the furlough
retention board. There are 100 starts on the FRB, next week CSXT will
have to put 22 employees back on the extra board and leave them there
for a week.
Moreover, this is the first time that we have a formula to make CSXT
put people on the extra board. Today, we do not have any contractual
means to get people put on the extra board. They can cut it today to 2
and call furlough employees on the former L&N with no guarantee at all.
This rule is a great improvement; it will put more people to work under
the RSIA in which it cannot make a deduction for RSIA lay off.
Being attacked from nine directions, the junior employees cannot, and
will not, fare very well. It's simply a matter of CSX applying the
agreement if it is ratified by the membership. The collective
bargaining agreement would rule and the furloughed employees would have
no recourse. That would be only if the agreement was voluntarily
ratified.
You all have heard the threats of the agreement being forced on you by
a cram down if rejected. Why didn't CSX simply serve a coordination
notice at the onset? The answer is simple, and green, MONEY. There is a
volume of documents that provide employee protection and benefits in
just such cases.
If the membership voluntarily agrees to a single agreement of their own
free will before a consolidation notice is served, it would be handled
like any other collective bargaining agreement. Under those conditions,
the adversely affected employees would fall prey to what they and their
fellow members had agreed to. However, if CSX serves a consolidation
notice, any employee adversely affected by the coordination could claim
protection as provided for by New York Dock. Rrather than the agreement
tossing the new employees out with nothing, they might enjoy some of
the many wage and benefit New York Dock guarantees. That just might get
them by until the economy recovers and enough older employees retire.
Those protections would also apply to working employees who are forced
to lower paying jobs, forced to move to another location, have their
home terminal moved, or other ways.
This is true that a coordination notice will invoke New York Dock
Protective Condition. However, that may mean that you get a guarantee,
or you may not get a guarantee. Certification is not automatic. You
must prove that you were adversely affected in order to get a
guarantee. Also, NYD only applies to money. It requires you to work
the highest paying job to protect your guarantee. If you made the
guarantee in the yard, they can require you to go to the road to
protect your guarantee, which means you don’t have a guarantee.
Moreover, it does not prohibit changes in work rules or seniority.
Seniority can change. Simply stated, while NYD Protective Conditions
sound good, it is not what it appears to be. It is better than
nothing.
However, this Agreement will put from a minimum of $18,000.00 to
$53000.00 or more in a member’s pocket. And if the national does
better on the GWI, it will be more money guaranteed.
There are other items in the agreement that cause me concern which you
should consider.
Even though it wouldn't apply to post 85 employees, there are no
provisions in the agreement for air hose pay (currently $2.09 on the
L&N). Those payments will no longer be made if the agreement is
ratified. An employee on a five day job who works 244 days a year (less
5 wks vacation and 11 PL days) will lose $509.96 the first year. That
being the case, his lump sum payment would really only be $490.04 each
of the two years paid as he would have earned the $509.96 of that money
anyway that year. If the employee earned $200.00 per day, that loss
would equate to a 1% cut in pay each year after the lump sum payments.
It's just a shell game.
Response: Employees that currently get paid air hose pay, such pay
continues. See Article 15, Section 3 G. As such, the comment that
there are no provisions for air hose pay is incorrect.
The change I would hate the most would be having to start my vacation
on Saturday to match up with JAD and EBS. As it is now, we can mark of
in conjunction with our off days. Unless you can hold a job with
Saturday and Sunday off, you go from a nine day vacation to a seven day
vacation. Who the heck wants to observe two off days, come back and work
one day, and then start seven days of vacation (Wed & Thu off days).
Response: The vacation does start on Saturday.
Even though you were told that there will be no extra board guarantee
deductions for RSIA additional time off, that too is another shell
game. Read Note 3 of Article 37. An employee on is on an extra board
that is guaranteed $850.00 per week. The first week of the pay period
he earns $1400.00 and works seven days in a row. His last start brings
him back to the home terminal where he starts the second week by
observing his rest day and two additional RSIA days off. After the RSIA
days off, he works three times and earns $600.00 for the week. He would
be due $250.00 in guarantee, right. Wrong. CSX would apply his earnings
the first week that were over the guarantee amount ($650.00) to the
second week's earnings in computing guarantee and he would get
nothing. CSX wants a weekly guarantee but wants to calculate it as a
bi-weekly
guarantee when it suits them.
Response: The writer’s understanding is incorrect. The weekly
guarantee is $1200.00, which means that he is due $2400.00 for the
bi-weekly pay period. If the employee has to take RSIA 2 or 3 days
rest during the bi-weekly period and earns $2000, he will be paid
$400.00 in guarantee to equal $2400.00 in the bi-weekly period.
I'm sure you, like me, have some local agreements that are near and
dear to your heart. Many provide additional pay and more favorable
working conditions. If ratified, two General Principals of the
agreement would apply. First would be that "The following rates, rules
and regulations will govern the pay and conditions of employment of
Conductors, Trainmen, and Yard employees." The second is that "The
parties acknowledge that this Consolidated Southern Region Agreement
also replaces any and all local agreements, past practices, and
arbitral jurisprudence that are in conflict unless otherwise agreed as
provided for in Side Letter 9" will take effect. Read Side Letter 9
and Moratorium Provisions C. Any local agreement CSX decides is in
conflict would be history, subject to the DRC and arbitration if
needed. If you are on a pool that now gets held away after less than 15
hours, it raises to 15. It is unknown how CSX will attack local
agreements, if they will go after local guarantee rates, special
arbitraries, or whatever else they can get away with. That battle is
yet to be fought and it will be uphill all the way. Who knows what will
actually happen.
Response: 99% of all local agreements have cancellation clauses. Local
Agreements are made because both parties have a need for the local
agreement. Simply stated, the only reason that local agreements are not
cancelled is that both parties want the agreement, so more than likely,
all local agreements will remain in effect.
To date, trip rates have never went down, only increased with wage
increases. This agreement requires that the trip rates for road
switcher/mine runs be reviewed and adjusted every six months for the
first two years (Art 45 E). Do you really think they will be adjusted
up? Should there be a change in operations, CSX can use their
"experience" to decide a new trip rate for the members. That seems
more than a little scary.
Response: The writer does not understand the rule. Under the road
switcher rule, the employee can claim miles run, miles of the
assignment or miles run, whichever is greater. The trip rate provision
in road switcher service does not change the forenamed provision.
However, what the trip rate in road switcher will accomplish is that
when an extra man is deadhead in separate service, he will get at least
a day’s pay. Today, a post ’85 employee gets actual time; if this
agreement is adopted, he gets no less than a day’s pay. This is a
great pick-up!
The proposed agreement does not alter the existing national agreements;
only system agreements (see Moratorium Provisions C). One of the
National Agreements that will remain intact is the 1986 National
Agreement that denies arbitraries to post 1985 employees with the
following –
Section 5 – Duplicated Time Payments
Duplicate time payments, including arbitraries and special allowances
that are expressed in time or miles or fixed amounts of money, shall
not apply to employees whose train or engine service seniority is
established after the date of this agreement.
Response: The writer is correct. The proposed Agreement does not
change the national agreement. However, Side Letter No. 4 permits us
to examine those provisions and get them for everyone in the same
manner as we did in trip rates.
What I have seen so far gives me heartburn in two ways. The first is
that the post 1985 members are being promised all of the arbitraries
included in the agreement and CSX will refuse to pay them, You could
see CSX claiming they are duplicate time payments and not applicable to
post 1985 employees by the 1986 national agreement which was not changed
(see Art 31 Sec 3 E 3, Art 36 A D Q2, and others). The second is that
the agreement takes what had been contract violations, which resulted
in penalty payments that were payable to post 1985 employees, and makes
permissible with an arbitrary (duplicate time) payment to be made to the
employee. For example and as it is now, a post 1985 yard employee who
leaves the yard to perform pusher service submits a claim (8 hrs) for
the agreement violation and the claims have been paid. Article 38 H
changes that by making it permissible in an emergency and allows an
arbitrary payment of one hour or time/miles. Not only will there be
less pusher assignments but the claim could be reduced to a one hour
arbitrary and possibly not even paid to a post 1985 employee. Just like
the 12/3 10/4 yard schedule, I would suggest that you get a side letter
stating that all arbitraries in the agreement are payable to all
employees, both pre and post 1985. CSX would have no problem of
providing one if that was their intent.
Response: With all due respect, the writer is 100% wrong in his
response in all his comments in this paragraph. For example, the
writer holds that a yard crew used in pusher service would be reduced
from a day’s pay to one hour arbitrary. The writer’s comments are in
error. The reason the claimant gets a day’s pay is because an employee
is performing road service and is due a day’s pay under Article 32,
Section 2(B).
You should remember that the value of an Individual Performance Award
of CSX stock depends solely on the value of the stock at the time given
and should not be held as a set amount. The actual value of the award
could vary widely, depending on the market or forces such as stock
splits. If you are serving our country in the National Guard or
Reserve, and have weekend duty once every six months, you will never
see an Individual Performance Award until you hitch is up. Just CSX's
way of saying thanks for your service.
Response: The stock is the stock; it is not based on a monetary value.
This is better than the writer’s opinion. CSXT’s policy on serving in
the military remains in effect. Finally, the IPA is an addition.
If this Agreement is ratified, the L&N maintains its autonomy.
If this Agreement is not ratified, then you will not have continuous
held away after 15 hours, you will not have the 6th week of vacation,
you will not get the double pay in the meal allowance; you will not
receive any bonuses while the guy on the other side of the cab will be
getting all of this.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views. I appreciate and
respect everyone’s opinion.
John Hancock
|
|
