UTU Local 426 Archived News.
5/26/05
Members:
I will be on vacation for the last week of May. Please contact
Scoter Pischel if you have a pressing issue like a investigation
notice and he can get it postponed. Scoter and I and Bruce Smith for
Seattle had a conference call last week with Bobbie Smith from the
crew office as part of the shared values program. Small things such
as consolidating the boards at Hauser and Spokane for ease of
marking around in the pools. On the burner is getting them to
project 12 hours out people going on days off on the boards.
Thank you.
Jim Larkin
5/23/05
Operating Practices Bulletin Tagging Defective Equipment and Inoperative Brakes May 5, 2005
A recent audit by FRA on our
instructions and training relative to the Power Brake Regulations
uncovered a deficiency in our process when a rail car has defective
air brakes. FRA advises that BNSF has not been granted formal
approval of it’s electronic method of tagging and tracking defective
air brake equipment. BNSF has applied to FRA for permission to use
electronic tagging and recordkeeping, but until that approval is
granted, the Power Brake Regulation requires cars to be reported and
tagged by the person discovering the defect or inoperative brake.
This would include a train crew member discovering such a defect on
a train en route.
While awaiting the approval from FRA for the electronic
tagging/tracking method, tags must be physically applied to both
sides of the car in addition to recording the defect information on
spaces provided on the Train Profile for subsequent crew’s that
operate the train. The tag has specific information that must be
entered on it. This same information will need to be provided the
NOC Mechanical Desk so that the information can also be recorded in
our database electronically. These items are:
• Reporting Mark and Number of the defective locomotive or car
(example- BNSF 601234)
• Name of the inspecting or discovering Railroad (example- BNSF
Railway)
• Name and Job Title of Inspector (example- A. Blackburn, Conductor)
• Inspection Location and Date (example- Harlem, MT 04/25/05)
• Type of Defect (example- Brake was cut out because it would not
release)
• Movement Restrictions (example- None)
• Repair Destination (example- Havre, MT)
Note: Mechanical Desk will advise on location
• Signature (example- A Blackburn)
A “Defective Air Brake Equipment Tag” (#14300140) has been developed
for this specific application. It may not be readily available at
the time this bulletin is issued, but it is still a requirement to
tag a car with defective air brakes. In the interim, use the back
side of either the Non-complying locomotive tag or the Out of
Service tag found on the locomotive or in the crew packs to record
the required information outlined above.
Depending on the type of tag used and the equipment on car, the tag
can be placed in the card holder or attached via self adhesive
backing or tie on each side of the car.
Further instructions will be provided once the electronic tagging
process has been approved by FRA.
5/23/05
DOT/FRA TO TARGET RAIL-CREW
FATIGUE
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and
its Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will redirect inspectors
to safety hot spots, invest in new high-tech equipment to inspect
track integrity, and accelerate research into the role fatigue plays
in railroad accidents and how "better crew schedules" might help
improve rail safety.
These new initiatives, to be known as the National Rail Safety
Action Plan, were announced here May 16 by Transportation Secretary
Norman Mineta as part of a weeklong national speaking tour in
celebration of National Transportation Week.
Mineta said the DOT/FRA plan will help prevent train accidents
caused by human error, improve the safety of hazmat shipments,
minimize the dangers of crew fatigue, deploy state-of-the-art
technologies to detect track defects, and focus inspectors on safety
trouble spots. The plan, Mineta said, will target "the fundamental
factors that cause rail accidents."
One of the primary safety issues addressed in the plan is human
error, the largest single factor accounting for 38 percent of all
accidents over the last five years, Mineta said.
Under the plan, DOT/FRA will seek to develop a new federal rule to
address human factor accidents. He said the department is also
accelerating research into the role fatigue plays in accidents to
help railroads set better crew schedules.
Mineta also announced the implementation of a new National
Inspection Plan for deploying inspectors and resources to safety hot
spots before accidents occur. And as part of that reinvigorated
inspection effort, the FRA will invest in what Mineta called
"special high-tech rail cars that automatically inspect track
integrity as they roll along the rails."
The safe transport of hazardous materials by rail is also a major
focus of the action plan. Mineta said the freight railroads will
begin providing local emergency responders a ranked listing of the
top 25 hazardous materials transported through their community. And
by July, Mineta said, the FRA will launch a new pilot program
providing emergency responders with real-time information via a
secure website about the hazardous materials involved in train
accidents.
Additionally, to help alleviate risk in so-called "dark territory"
-- or railroad lines without signal systems -- DOT/FRA is
investigating new devices to detect if switches are in the correct
position, and low-cost circuits to detect broken rails. The FRA is
also beginning field tests on new technology that automatically
controls train movements and speed, including bringing a train to a
stop.
"While the railroad industry's overall safety record has improved
over the last decade, very serious accidents continue to occur,"
Mineta said. "Growth in both freight and vehicle traffic has created
new opportunities and new challenges in the form of more trains on
our tracks than ever before. But safety must remain the core
principle that guides operations on our nation's rail system."
A copy of the department's National Rail Safety Action Plan is
available at
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Safety/action_plan_final_051605.pdf.
A copy of the secretary's speech is available at
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/minetasp051605p2.htm
5/19/05
Statement on Locomotive-Mounted
Video Cameras
2005-05-12
BNSF has begun taking delivery of production locomotives equipped
with forward-facing video cameras from GE Transportation Rail. The
cameras are being installed to help provide information on
grade-crossing and train/pedestrian accidents. The railway expects
to equip a total of 350 locomotives, including about 100 new
locomotives and 250 retrofits, by the end of 2005. BNSF plans to
install the cameras on lead-qualified locomotives that will operate
throughout the system. One camera will be mounted on each
locomotive. The camera is intended to capture the view of the track
ahead as seen by the locomotive engineer. It will be mounted inside
the windshield of the cab and will be pointed down the track ahead.
The camera will not provide a view of any activity inside the
locomotive cab. The camera will be mounted on the locomotive’s
windshield and will be fixed in position; it will not be able to
move from side to side or up and down. The camera is approximately
three inches in diameter and will be located so as not to interfere
with train crew members’ vision from the cab. Installation also will
include a microphone, placed outside the cab to record exterior
sounds, such as the locomotive whistle and bell; it is not intended
to capture conversation inside the cab. The camera will be
synchronized with the locomotive event recorder and will provide
color video at 15 frames per second, compared with 30 frames per
second for standard broadcast video. Each camera will record at
least 70 hours’ information, given normal locomotive operating
conditions. Recorded audio and video can be downloaded by BNSF and
used for such purposes as confirming the operation of grade-crossing
warning devices and motorist behavior. BNSF installed cameras on six
GE Dash 9 locomotives as part of an initial implementation in August
2004. The first six cameras helped BNSF determine specifications and
requirements for locomotive-mounted video cameras.
5/19/05
To: All Concerned
From: James Brunkenhoefer
I wanted to take this time to share with you how things are looking
in Washington. It is hard to look at the horizon and not see
trouble. I will devote most of this to the FELA provision in the
Asbestos Senate Bill, S. 852, currently pending in the Senate
Judiciary Committee. Asbestos is a mined commodity that was used for
many years primarily in fireproofing. Scientists eventually
discovered though that if a relatively small amount of asbestos
particles are inhaled, an enormous percentage of people who breathed
in these particles became sick with a number of diseases, primarily
Mesothelioma. Many of these cases did not develop for almost forty
years after the exposure. The greatest number of exposures
took place in the ship building, construction and mining industries
although there was some exposure in the railroad industry. Beginning
in the 1990s, the courts began seeing more and more lawsuits against
corporations for those suffering because of asbestos exposure.
Eventually the courts were overwhelmed by these cases causing
tremendous delays in settlements. In addition, the size of the
settlements was driving many companies into bankruptcy.
By the early 2000s Congress began to seriously work on legislation
that would limit the liability of the corporations and supposedly
speed the settlement to the suffering. Although, the intent may have
been good, this proposed legislation caused a great deal of
problems. The railroads obviously wanted to be included in anything
that would limit their liability because there are no such limits
contained in FELA. They pleaded to be included because they did not
want to be "the last man standing" without the limits contained in
the legislation. They believe that it would raise their exposure to
more costly lawsuits. The railroads were successful in the House of
Representatives to have their amendment included every year.
However, the bill always died in the Senate under a threat of
filibuster. This was even though a handful of Democrats supported
the overall concept of the legislation because of the threat of
bankruptcy of various corporations in their state.
Before the November elections, Senator Specter's office approached
AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department (TTD), Rail Division, to
try to work something out on the FELA provisions. The AFL-CIO
Transportation Trades Department, led by a local attorney Greg
Lawler and Don Griffeth, an attorney for IBT/BMWE, met with Senator
Specter's staff. As you know UTU is not a member of TTD. For a full
year these gentlemen simply said no and there was no acceptable
substitution. This is a position that UTU supported and continues to
support. In November the election resulted in the replacement of
five Democratic Senators with five Republican Senators -- the
political landscape changed. Also, about this time, the railroads
served on UTU, as well other unions, a demand that labor and
management work on an agreed to settlement that eliminated FELA and
replace it with a no fault workers comp type program. Others may
have not understood that the landscape had changed by this time. If
S. 852 passes out of Committee with the FELA compromise, the
railroads would have set the pattern to achieve later gains in
court, at the bargaining table or in FELA what they want.
Sometime early in the year, the TTD-IBT/BMWE group reached a
compromise that allowed for the inclusion of a FELA provision in the
asbestos legislation. It is my understanding that the settlement
itself is not a bad one. I am sure that the intent of the parties
was good. Unfortunately, these unelected gentlemen appear not to
have an appreciation for the changed landscape by this time. The
railroads were attempting to use the FELA/Asbestos negotiations as a
wedge to show what could be done in an agreement in a settlement
involving FELA at the bargaining table. It was about this time that
UTU and UTU alone went to the Federal District Court in East St.
Louis and sued to have FELA taken off the bargaining table. It is
UTU's position that changes in federal law are not bargainable
items. We refused to negotiate Railroad Retirement as long as the
railroads threatened Section 6 notices or adverse legislation. This
time the railroads changed their approach and they felt confident
that after last November's election they could advance their
position either with the threat of legislation supported by Congress
or by having their demands rolled into a PEB and
passed by Congress. As soon as UTU became aware of the compromise it
contacted all members of the Senate and objected. UTU could not be
party to a settlement involving an agreement on FELA at the same
time it alone was at the courthouse suing to have FELA removed from
the carriers Sections 6 notices. In addition, the unions that are
party to the compromise are aware of UTU's position. All the unions
including UTU are opposed to S. 852. It appears that the other
organizations do not now want to oppose their compromise in spite of
the changed landscape. It is our concern that if we do not fight,
all of the way at every step that such lack of effort will be used
against UTU at the bargaining table at the courthouse and at a PEB.
An early survey of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
gives UTU optimism that its effort to eliminate FELA from S. 852 has
a legitimate chance of success. If we are successful, then it helps
us every step down the road to preserve FELA. If we are unsuccessful
in Committee but successful at killing the bill eventually nothing
is lost.
It is not UTU's attempt to mislead you about this information. After
all, we are not invited to the parties where FELA was compromised so
some of the information may not be accurate. This is something the
other unions did on their own. But we sure object to the result. We
are not attempting to point fingers. It is not important how we got
here or who is to blame. What is important is saving FELA. It has
been a good law for almost 100 years. It is too important to be lost
a little bit at a time through compromises no matter how
well-meaning. If we are to preserve FELA we need your help and we
need it today. We will need it continually throughout the struggle.
Please contact both of your Senators and ask that FELA be removed
from S. 852. Have your friends and neighbors contact their Senators
repeatedly. This will not be easy but it is extremely important. We
all know the railroads' history of threatening discipline or firing
injured employees. Just imagine what it would be like if there was
no FELA. It’s up to you.
5/2/05
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Shortly before yesterday afternoon's strike, Clint Miller and I
commenced a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Minnesota seeking an
injunction to prevent the BN from violating the 1985 National
Agreement and the 1987 Memorandum of Agreement providing that an
engineer may exercise trainman seniority only if the engineer is
"unable to hold any position or assignment in engine service . . .".
In case you are interested in greater detail, attached is a
copy of the complaint for your information. Feel free to share
this information with other interested UTU officers.
As you may know, we were able to procure an agreement for an early
preliminary injunction hearing before Chief Judge Rosenbaum in
Minneapolis. The strike action significantly aided us in
accomplishing this. We are in the process of scheduling that hearing
now. If you have any questions, feel free to call me. Best regards.
Fraternally,
Mike Unger
Rider Bennett,LLP
mwunger@riderlaw.com
612-340-8953
TOLL FREE 1-866-340-FELA (3352)
Whitefish/Spokane Run-Thru equalization proposal. Read it here.
5/2/05
Dear Brothers & Sisters;
Just wanted to say thank you for the great job that was done on the
strike that the UTU had against the BNSF on Wednesday April 27,
2005. This came off as a success for the UTU. Myself and Mark
McNaughten went to Yardley and took our people of the property, Bob
Johnston took the people of the property at Hauser Yard. Everything
went very well.
Unfortunately we had two BLET members cross our picket lines. One at
Yardley and one at Hauser. There names and actions have been forward
onto our International President for further handling. By now you
should all know why we went out on strike. Some times you have to
show your might to get the carriers attention, and we did. This was
a complete surprise to the BNSF but we accomplished our goal and
that is they have to negotiate with us over this issue.
There will be more posted about this on our web site please check
the web site for further information. Again thank you for a job well
done.
AE McDonald
Local Chairmen
Spokane WA
Read the peaceful withdrawal from service letter from the UTU (strike letter)
5/2/05
Members:
The labor
relations team is putting on a media blitz through the company
computer, while reading these messages remember who is doing the
authoring of these messages. They are the same people who after we
negotiate a contract spend countless hours trying to get around the
language and not pay you what they should, job security for unions,
so read what they say and decipher what you want out of the
information, but remember what side of the fence it comes from.
Jim Larkin L/C