UTU Local 426 Archived News.
1/31/07
Re: Voluntary
Workforce Retention List
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
Attached is a copy of the
Voluntary Workforce Retention List (WRL) Agreement that is being
implemented immediately on former Great Northern (GN), former
Spokane, Portland and Seattle (SP&S) and former Colorado and
Southern (C&S) territories, in order to provide some minimal income
and benefits for employees who voluntarily choose that list in lieu
of furlough or in lieu of working. This is due to the
Carrier's recent decision to reverse the advice we had previously
received, indicating that furloughs would be kept to a minimum by
increasing extra boards.
First and foremost, I want to make it clear that this is not
something that BNSF is doing out of some sense of compassion for
furloughed employees. This is nothing more than a cold,
calculated monetary decision. BNSF management anticipates that
business levels will increase again at some point, and they want a
Short chain on a certain number of employees who can be recalled
quickly (48 hours) rather than the usual 30-day recall notice, in
order to insure that sufficient manpower will be available as
business levels dictate.
Over the past several years, UTU has given the Carrier several
proposals and made numerous attempts to negotiate some kind of
alternative to furloughs, and in every case the Carrier rejected or
simply ignored those proposals. Then on/or about Wednesday,
January 10, 2007, I received a proposal from BNSF's Labor Relations
department, along with an E-mail asking if I would be interested in
implementing that proposal. That initial proposal was
completely unacceptable, because it would have allowed BNSF to cut
extra boards to the bare minimum and use the WRL as a single
supplementary source of supply for vacancies in all crafts. I
immediately communicated with the other BNSF UTU General Chairmen
and on Friday, January 12 we offered the Carrier a joint
counterproposal based on earlier UTU drafts. The Carrier
rejected that counterproposal out of hand, and advised that the
Carrier's proposal was intended as a take it or leave it deal.
The Carrier advised us that the BLET had already accepted their
proposal, and Labor Relations then posted a Web Site article
suggesting that UTU General Chairmen were dragging their feet in
providing this benefit for furloughed employees. That
propaganda was admittedly nothing more than an attempt to pressure
UTU into accepting the Carrier's proposal, and it was later pulled
from BNSF's Web Page. Engineers on BNSF already have
protection from furlough, because UTU has provided that protection
through our 1978 and 1985 National Agreements by allowing them to
establish, retain and accrue ground service seniority while working
as Engineers. In other words, for BLET this Agreement is not
an alternative to furlough, it is simply an alternative to working.
UTU does not have that luxury. We could not immediately accept
the Carrier's proposal as BLET did, because the consequences for
ground service employees were simply too great.
Throughout the weekend and through the early part of this week, the
UTU General Chairmen continued to communicate jointly with Labor
Relations by phone in order to modify some of the most harmful
provisions of the Carrier's proposal, to clarify some of the
confusing or misleading language, and to secure a Side Letter
addressing those ground service employees who had already been
adversely affected and left their home location seeking work
elsewhere.
Although in my opinion the attached Agreement still does not provide
an adequate level of compensation and benefits to provide sufficient
protection for furloughed employees, under the circumstances it is
the best we can do at this time. Attached are comments and
observations intended to clarify certain items contained in this
Agreement. Employees choosing the WRL should review this
information so there is no misunderstanding as to the terms and
conditions of these positions.
I have instructed the Carrier to implement this Agreement on
properties where this Committee holds jurisdiction immediately.
Please keep me advised of any problems you may encounter with the
implementation of this arrangement. If desired, we can set
aside some time during our upcoming General Committee Meeting to
evaluate and discuss this arrangement.
This will cover the synopsis, the proposal, clarifications and
applications, as well as, a ballot and return stamped envelope.
Please review, cast your ballot and return your ballot to be
received no later than February 15, 2007 in this office.
Please advise if you have any questions concerning this proposal.
With best wishes, I am
Yours truly,
J.D. Fitzgerald
General Chairman
1/29/07
UP to debut train-control system in Northwest
Union Pacific Corp. says it plans to implement an up to $1 billion
technological system that will revolutionize the way it operates its
locomotives, and has chosen a route that runs between Spokane and
Cranbrook, British Columbia, as one of two testing sites for that
cutting edge technology, the Spokane Journal of Business reports.
The big Omaha, Neb.-based railway company will spend about $20
million to implement and test the system, called communication-based
train control (CBTC), on the 140-mile route between here and
Cranbrook, called the Spokane Sub, and a 193-mile route, called the
South Morrill Sub, which runs through parts of Nebraska and Wyoming.
Jeff Young, Union Pacific’s assistant vice president of
transportation systems, says the tests on both routes are expected
to launch by August and take about two years to complete. For the
Spokane Sub test, Union Pacific will train 55 employees and equip 15
locomotives with the CBTC system, while Calgary, Alberta-based
Canadian Pacific Railway, which interchanges with Union Pacific
along the track at Eastport, Idaho, will install the CBTC on 15 of
its locomotives.
Union Pacific plans to apply by early 2009 to the Federal Railroad
Administration for approval to operate the system companywide, and
expects that implementing the system will take about five years to
complete and will cost between $600 million and $1 billion, says
Young, who was in Spokane last week.
The CBTC software, which is being developed by Union Pacific;
Watertown, N.Y.-based New York Air Brake Corp.; and Wabtec Railway
Electronic, a subsidiary of Wilmerding, Pa.-based Wabtec Corp., will
change the way Union Pacific operates its locomotives after more
than a century of using older technology, Young says. Under the new
system, an on-board computer will be placed in the cab of a
locomotive. That computer, using a Global Positioning System (GPS)
device and other technologies, will display and update constantly on
a monitor a train’s weight, geographical location, velocity,
mileage, and details about the surrounding topology, or elevation
gains and losses.
It also will collect information sent from wireless radio devices
installed on each wayside traffic signal or switch that calculate
and transmit to the engineer the stopping distance between the train
and those devices, Young says. Currently, the only information
that’s displayed on board is the train’s speed, he says.
The computer sends the information via wireless radio through the
system to a dispatcher at the company’s headquarters in Omaha, who
then sends a command to the train’s engineer to proceed, increase
speed, slow, stop, or move to another track or siding, he says. The
system then monitors the engineer’s compliance, and if the engineer
doesn’t follow instructions in time, the system automatically takes
the required action. Likewise, an engineer can override the system
if it fails, he says.
There are two collision-avoidance systems under which Union Pacific
locomotives currently operate. In areas called dark territories,
where track doesn’t have wayside signals to direct traffic, an
engineer relies on verbal or written communication from a
dispatcher, who has been communicating with other engineers on the
track, to know when to stop the train or pull onto another track or
siding, Young says. The Spokane Sub is an example of such a
territory, he says.
In a signaled territory, such as the South Morrill Sub, wayside
traffic signals are spaced along a train route based on the safest
stopping distance of the largest train using the route, he says. The
train crew adjusts the speed of the train based on those signals.
The new system is expected to increase what’s called situational
awareness for engineers, which in turn would increase safety by
helping them to avoid collisions between trains and between trains
and the equipment of rail maintenance crews, he says. Most rail
accidents are caused by human failure due to a lack of situational
awareness, he says.
Union Pacific also is investing in the CBTC system because it
expects the technology will improve efficiency and productivity
tremendously, Young says. Those are pressing concerns for a company
that’s the largest consumer of No. 2 diesel fuel in the U.S., he
says. Union Pacific burned about $3 billion worth of fuel last year
and uses 3 million gallons of diesel fuel a day, he says.
The company expects the new system will result in a 6 percent to 8
percent improvement in fuel consumption annually, saving the company
an estimated $150 million to $250 million a year.
There’s about a 30 percent difference in fuel consumption between
the best and worst engineers, depending largely on when an engineer
applies the brake and throttle, Young says. The new system includes
an energy-saving feature that advises engineers on optimal throttle
and brake conditions to reduce operational variability, he says.
The feature not only will reduce fuel consumption, but also will
increase velocity, or train movement, which will improve connection
performance and delivery times and ultimately, Union Pacific hopes,
raises customer satisfaction, he says.
The CBTC also is expected to help increase productivity by boosting
the number of trains that can operate on a track, since it bases
stopping distance for each train on the lengths of all of the trains
currently on the track, rather than just on the size of the largest
train, he says.
Productivity is becoming increasingly important for railroads as
fuel costs cut into their bottom lines and competition with trucking
companies that offer just-in-time delivery heats up, Young says.
Meanwhile, customer demand, particularly for coal shipments, is
rising as energy consumption climbs, he says. Union Pacific’s volume
grew by 6 percent last year, which is “pretty significant for a
railroad,” he says.
The two lines on which the CBTC will be tested are prime examples of
the heavy demands being placed on the company’s rail infrastructure,
Young says. Rail traffic on UP’s Spokane Sub, over which hazardous
materials are carried, has shot up by 60 percent in the last five
years, thanks mainly to increased potash, grain, chemical, and other
shipments resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement, he
says. The line is the company’s only direct connection to Canada, he
says.
The South Morrill Sub in Nebraska helped move a record 194 million
tons of coal from Wyoming’s Southern Powder River Basin last year,
an increase of 15 million tons, or 895 train loads, from 2005, Young
says. The average weight of trains moving coal out of the basin was
more than 15,000 tons in the fourth quarter of 2006, an increase of
200 tons compared with the year-earlier period.
Railroad infrastructure is expensive, with one mile of new track
costing roughly $2.5 million and a new locomotive costing about $2
million. Rather than spending ever more money in that area, Union
Pacific has developed the new train control system in hopes of
maximizing the efficiency of the company’s infrastructure while
increasing the reliability of those larger shipments, Young says.
“Productivity is key to us and our stakeholders,” he says. “This
helps us to take on additional capacity without investing more in
infrastructure, and if customers can ship more business and we can
handle that traffic more efficiently and effectively, then the
customers will benefit.”
All of the major railroad companies in the U.S. are working on
developing technology similar to the CBTC system, Young says.
He says the challenge for the industry will be to make sure such
systems are interoperable, since companies often share facilities
and tracks.
(This item appeared Jan. 26, 2007, in the Spokane Business Journal.)
1/27/07
BNSF reports all-time record income, earnings
FORT WORTH, TX -- Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation today
(Jan. 23) reported record quarterly earnings of $1.42 per diluted
share, a 26-percent increase over fourth-quarter 2005 earnings of
$1.13 per diluted share, according to this release issued by BNSF.
Highlights include:
-- Fourth-quarter 2006 earnings per diluted share were $1.42, or 26
percent higher than fourth-quarter 2005 earnings per diluted share
of $1.13
-- Fourth-quarter freight revenues increased $323 million to $3.77
billion on a 4-percent increase in volume
-- Operating income was $942 million, an increase of $142 million,
or 18 percent, compared with the fourth quarter of 2005
-- For 2006, BNSF achieved $5.10 earnings per diluted share compared
with $4.01 for 2005
-- For 2006, BNSF exceeded $1 billion in free cash flow before
dividends and achieved $712 million in free cash flow after
dividends
"BNSF continued to have industry-leading volume growth in the fourth
quarter of 2006, and we experienced our 19th consecutive quarter of
year-over-year volume increases," said Matthew K. Rose, BNSF
chairman, president and chief executive officer. "Looking forward,
we anticipate strong demand will continue for freight rail
transportation, reflecting our diverse portfolio of businesses and
leading to improved revenues and earnings."
Fourth-quarter 2006 freight revenues increased $323 million, or 9
percent, to $3.77 billion compared with $3.45 billion in the prior
year. Revenue for the fourth quarter of 2006 included fuel
surcharges of approximately $450 million compared with approximately
$400 million for the fourth quarter of 2005. The increase in fuel
surcharges was driven primarily by increased participation in BNSF's
fuel surcharge program.
Coal revenues rose by $138 million, or 22 percent, to $775 million,
as a result of record loadings of Powder River Basin coal,
contractual rate escalations and a favorable mix of traffic.
Agricultural Products revenues were up $53 million, or 9 percent, to
$646 million, due primarily to strength in corn and fertilizer
shipments. Consumer Products revenues increased $80 million, or 6
percent, to $1.46 billion reflecting double-digit increases in the
international intermodal and automotive sectors, partially offset by
a reduction in the domestic intermodal sector. Industrial Products
revenues increased $52 million, or 6 percent, to $885 million led by
double-digit revenue growth in chemicals and plastics, petroleum,
and construction products. This was partially offset by softness in
demand for building products.
Operating expenses for the fourth quarter of 2006 were $2.94 billion
compared with fourth-quarter 2005 operating expenses of $2.75
billion. The $190 million increase in operating expenses was largely
driven by a $96 million increase in fuel expense primarily
reflecting a declining hedge position as well as a 4-percent
increase in unit volumes. BNSF achieved record quarterly operating
income of $942 million, an increase of $142 million, or 18 percent,
compared with the fourth quarter of 2005. BNSF's operating ratio for
the fourth quarter was 75.0 percent.
Fourth-quarter 2005 operating income includes a favorable $26
million arbitration settlement and a net $57 million loss from two
commuter-related transactions. Fourth-quarter 2006 net income
includes a $12 million increase over 2005 for income tax provision
adjustments related to prior periods.
For 2006, BNSF achieved operating revenues of nearly $15 billion, a
15-percent increase over 2005, which includes double-digit increases
in each of the company's four business groups. This increase in
revenues and the improvement in the company's operating ratio
enabled BNSF to reach $3.5 billion in operating income, an increase
of 20 percent over 2005. As a result, BNSF achieved $5.10 earnings
per diluted share for 2006 compared with $4.01 for 2005.
BNSF's subsidiary BNSF Railway Company operates one of the largest
North American rail networks, with about 32,000 route miles in 28
states and two Canadian provinces. BNSF Railway Company is among the
world's top transporters of intermodal traffic, moves more grain
than any other American railroad and hauls enough low-sulphur coal
to generate about ten percent of the electricity produced in the
United States.
(The preceding release was issued by the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Corporation on Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007.)
1/24/07
FRA recommends railroads strengthen yard safety
(The following story by Dean Brickey appeared on the East Oregonian
website on January 22.)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Dec. 14 death of a railroad worker near
Syracuse, N.Y., has prompted the government to issue recommendations
for improving railroad safety.
The recommendations follow a preliminary investigation into Dec. 14
death of a worker who was killed when his truck was struck by a
remote-controlled shoving yard movement.
The news involving new Federal Railroad Administration
recommendations was of particular interest to Ed Brookshier,
Hermiston's city manager.
Union Pacific Railroad has notified the city it wants to operate
remote-controlled trains through Hermiston. The city has adopted a
resolution banning remote-control operations. The railroad, however,
continues to pursue its plan.
Railroad officials have told city officials the remote-control
operators would be on the locomotives.
"If it was something other than that, it could be very scary,"
Brookshier said, acknowledging that some remote-control train
movements in yards are conducted by a worker who is on the ground.
"The issue for us is at-grade, ungated crossings," he said.
The FRA's recommendations were included in Safety Advisory 2007-01
published Thursday in the Federal Register.
Warren Flatau, an FRA spokesman in Washington, D.C., said the latest
recommendations are not limited to remote-control locomotives.
"It is another warning, if you will, to all parties, about the
critical importance of abiding by operating rules in yards," he said
this morning.
Flatau said the FRA and New York authorities still are investigating
the Syracuse accident. Causes and contributing factors have not been
established.
Agency officials said the subject of "point protection" for shoving
movements was included in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning
railroad operating rules and practices under consideration. "Point
protection" refers to safety at the front of a moving train.
By issuing the safety advisory, the FRA is asking the industry not
to wait until the lengthy rulemaking process is concluded, but to
act now to prevent another injury or death. The agency's most
significant recommendation is that railroads "review, or amend ...
their point protection rules to clarify that the person protecting
the point visually determine, for the duration of the shoving or
pushing movement, that the track is clear either within the person's
range of vision or for the complete distance the equipment is to be
shoved or pushed ..."
In making this recommendation, FRA officials acknowledged that
"continuous observation cannot be accomplished if the person is also
attempting to accomplish other tasks that cause the person to divert
attention from providing point protection."
The safety advisory also recommended that railroads:
• Assess their rules addressing safety at yard crossings.
• Review their point protection rules and their importance with all
relevant employees.
• Review their rules pertaining to employee behavior on or about
tracks with particular emphasis in yards.
• Address the ability of employees to call for assistance in
emergency situations.
• Assess the visibility of flat cars and other equipment with low
profiles and consider measures available to increase their
visibility when they are the lead car in a shoving movement,
especially at yard crossings.
John P. Tolman, vice president and national legislative
representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and
Trainmen, applauded the FRA's action.
"The industry is long overdue for a mandatory point protection
requirement for shoving movements," he said, "Crews should have the
absolute right to refuse to make a blind shove."
Tolman said his union urges the FRA to closely monitor the
industry's response to these recommendations, and to take further
action, if necessary, to ensure that another tragedy like the New
York accident never happens again.
1/23/07
ADVANCE E-MAIL COPY
January 19, 2007
Local Chairpersons GO-001
United Transportation Union
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Re: Voluntary Workforce Retention List
Dear Sisters and Brothers:
Attached is a copy of the voluntary Workforce Retention List (WRL) Agreement that is being implemented immediately on former Frisco, former NP and former FWD territories, in order to provide some minimal income and benefits for employees who voluntarily choose that list in lieu of furlough or in lieu of working. This is due to the Carrier's recent decision to reverse advice we received just before Christmas 2006, indicating that furloughs would be kept to a minimum by increasing extra boards.
First and foremost, I want to make it clear that this is not something that BNSF is doing out of compassion for furloughed employees. This is simply a calculated risk driven by financial motives. BNSF management anticipates that business levels will increase again at some point, but they are uncertain when and they want a number of employees who can be recalled quickly (48 hours rather than the usual 30-day recall notice), in order to insure that sufficient manpower will be available as business levels dictate.
UTU has made numerous previous attempts to negotiate some kind of alternative to furloughs, and in every case the Carrier rejected or simply ignored those efforts. On Wednesday, January 10, 2007, I received a proposal from BNSF's Labor Relations department, attached to an E-mail asking if I would be interested in implementing such an arrangement. That initial proposal was completely unacceptable, because it would have allowed BNSF to cut extra boards to the bare minimum and use the WRL as a single source of supply for vacancies in all crafts. I immediately communicated with the other BNSF UTU General Chairmen and on Friday, January 12 we offered the Carrier a joint counterproposal based on earlier UTU drafts. The Carrier rejected that counterproposal and advised that the Carrier's document was intended as a "take it or leave it" deal.
The Carrier advised us that the BLET had already accepted their proposal, and Labor Relations then posted a Web Site article suggesting that UTU General Chairmen were dragging their feet in providing this benefit for furloughed employees. That propaganda was obviously nothing more than an attempt to bully UTU into accepting the Carrier's initial proposal, and it was later pulled from BNSF's Web Page. As you know, for BLET this kind of arrangement is a "no brainer." Engineers on BNSF already have protection from furlough, because UTU has provided that protection through our UTU 1978 and 1985 National Agreements, which allow Engineers to establish, retain and accrue ground service seniority. In other words, for BLET this Agreement is not an alternative to furlough, it is strictly an alternative to working. UTU does not have that luxury, so we could not immediately accept the Carrier's initial proposal.
Over this past week the UTU General Chairmen continued to communicate with one another and with Labor Relations in order to modify some of the unacceptable provisions of the Carrier's proposal, to clarify some of the confusing or misleading language, and to secure a Side Letter addressing those ground service employees who had already been furloughed and who had left their home location seeking work elsewhere.
Although in my opinion the attached Agreement still does not provide an adequate level of compensation to provide sufficient protection for furloughed employees, under the current circumstances it is the best we can do. Attached are comments and observations intended to clarify certain items contained in this Agreement. Employees considering this option should review this information in order to fully understand the conditions of the WRL.
I have instructed the Carrier to immediately implement this Agreement on properties where this Committee holds jurisdiction, and I anticipate that the positions should be posted this next week at terminals where we have furloughed employees. Please keep me advised of any problems you may encounter with the implementation of this arrangement. If desired, we can set aside some time during our upcoming General Committee Meeting to evaluate and discuss this arrangement.
Please advise if you have any questions concerning this Agreement.
Fraternally,"
R. D. Kerley
General Chairperson
RDK/cs
cc: Associate General Chairpersons GO-001
Secretaries GO-001
BNSF General Chairmen
1/17/07
I thought you all might like to see these photos. They are from the CNRR British Columbia Derailment. They were sent to me courtesy of Les Stephens.
Thanks,
Brad
[ Photo 1][Photo 2][Photo 3][Photo 4][Photo 5][Photo 6]