LIRR Engineers Ready To Strike?

WCBS says LIRR engineers are ready to walk off the job if non-union Bombardier employees continue to move LIRR equipment in the yards. The company says it will meet with the union to discuss the issue.


http://wcbs880.com/local/NYC--LIRRStrik ... _news_html

I support the brothers and sisters of the BLE decision to walk if the matter can not be resolved.

I support them too

hey maby a strike will "kill 2 birds w/ 1 stone"

Get them a contract/arange somthing w/ the bombardiar crews && teach the MTA what it would be like to run NO railroad at all.
hey maby some regulars can help this to keep their railroad running instead if letting the selfish"its for me's" in the high seats win.

go getem!!

Maybe this will give the MTA a wake up call for letting non-union labor to do movements that are not authorized if the BLE union calls a strike.

This issue involves more than moving cars. While others are better qualified to discuss this, I'll add that the Electricians also object to what are scab employees doing work in a shop and yard built by the Long Island Rail Road for the servicing of LIRR equipment.

The engineers also see that if the Carrier is permitted to let a contractor switch cars in a regular MU repair yard that is leased to others, there is nothing to stop them from leasing other yards as well.

This is fundemental Union Shop stuff which has to be settled. The Railroad has to get down to business and talk to these men.

Not suprisingly, the UTU, who represents the trainmen and carmen (most of the shop employees) is quiet on the subject. They probably feel that the trainmen's tenure and manning is quite fragile at this time and don't want to rock the boat.

With budget concerns, and rampant discipline problems in record numbers (no shows, AWOL's, "No Fares" cash reports) there is constant pressure on the Railroad to reduce the number of collectors and trainmen. I doubt the UTU wants to make waves right now.

If I were a carman and the UTU sat around while my job was being handed to an $11.28/hour scab, I'd be going after my union... This type of problem is fundamental when a union represents two different crafts. The interests of one is often deemed to be neglected.

Clem

If there is a strike will NYA still run

Clem,

Right you are, again.
My union, the IBEW, should be right in the middle of this. We have possible Electrician Car Mover jobs at stake here.
The jurisdiction of moving of cars in the Arch Street Shop should be worked out between the RR, BLE, and IBEW.
It is abhorrent that the RR try to sneak nonunion, unqualified workers into the jobs and hope no one notices.
I hope the BLE has notified the FRA about this, too.

Clemuel wrote: The engineers also see that if the Carrier is permitted to let a contractor switch cars in a regular MU repair yard that is leased to others, there is nothing to stop them from leasing other yards as well.

This is fundemental Union Shop stuff which has to be settled. The Railroad has to get down to business and talk to these men.

Clem

Clem -

The BN had a similar issue with the original Oakway "power by the hour" arrangement for coal trains out of Alliance NE. These leased units were to be serviced by the GE's own people, and BN staff couldn't touch the power. BN dropped the power on the pad, and GE took it from there.

After a short walk-off, the deal was changed to have BN mechanics do the work under close GE supervision. GE guarantees availability of the promised power. I believe the same arrangement is now used in the UP deal with EMD.


Paul

I'm a little surprised that the union is already talking about a strike. If they feel that management is violating a contract provision, wouldn't it be more productive for the union to go to court and try to get an injuction to force the LIRR to stop the practice until the dispute can be properly mediated?

Shouldn't striking be a last resort, to be done only when all other avenues have failed? Would it be worth the harm that will be done to the riding public if other legal remedies are available? If I'm being ignorant or naive here guys, please enlighten me...........

N340SG, as I understand it, the IBEW is right there with the engineers on this. They are fighting hard for you from what I have been told.

And we all realize that there are probably volumes of case law on this issue, as the Long Island isn't the first to bring in contract workers. Depending on the details there have been decisions on other properties favorable to both sides. On the Long Island alone there have been similar, but different situations that both sides will quote to support their arguments.

And yes, striking is always a last resort. There is an issue of whether a contract violation is a Major or a Minor issue. On a minor issue, a union would have no support in a walkout, and would probably be ordered back to work and perhaps fined. A Major issue, however, is a horse of a different color and includes such basic rights as pay, right to work, etc.

The unions involved must go to court to acquire concurrance of the court that this is a Major labor issue. I would bet this is happening this week. With that, they would have some right to strike, barring court intervention.

Those close to this issue say the Railroad simply will not talk to the unions about it. Hence their frustration and need for self-relief.

For the customers who read this board, be assured that this isn't simply a band of labor walking out and closing the place. The threats, public posturing and subsequent litigation is all part of the process. Typically, Railroad Labor Laws make it very difficult for employees to legally strike. Generally, if Labor is granted that right in court it means that at least one jurist is convinced that the Railroad is not acting in good faith and that the action is necessary and indicated as a last resort.

Clem

Very few unions enjoy a strike. We Machinists with the freight railroads have been working under section six for over five years now. Unless a strike is authorized by the Iternational part of the union, then it would be considered a wild cat strike and it would be in violation of the Railway Labor Act. There are times when a widcat stike could occure, ie: serious and imediate threat to the safety of railworkers, but it better be upheld by the International.
I lost a union job to Bombardier. I certainly have no love for them and I consider them all to be scab workers. Something to be flushed down a toilet every chance you get. Remember: if it's good for the company, chances are it's not good for the workers.

I can not understand why every local union on the LIRR is not openly objecting this whole plan. To allow the company the right to lease property to non union employees opens up a can of worms which has no lid. The UTU should be behind the BLE all the way on this one! At best we could see some YE crews in the new yard. If not at least some M of E carmovers! If the unions (all of them) allow the leasing of LIRR "property"
to others what is to stop them from sub leasing ticket sales, maintanance,train crews.
The LIRR is trying to allow Non union employees to move cars a direct violation of their own book of rules. Rule O " No employee other than a qualified engineer shall be permitted to operate a train...........etc.
If this precedence is set who is to stop the LIRR from "leasing "
maintanance at hillside to non union
Richmond Hill
West Side Yard
Fare collection
Ticket sales
train service to a whole branch ( IE oyster bay,
West Hempstead, Far Rockaway) the branches named for
cancellation of service.
It is not a question about money it is the fundamentals of union
The unions of the LIRR need to show solidarity or they will be gone!!
Shall we fight this move by the LIRR or let them bust our unions????

Your right on the money "UTUBrother". What really bothers me is why the largest union on the LIRR, the UTU, is silent on this. They even have some of their "minions" running around the Railroad trying to convince people that this is a non-issue. They don't speak for everyone. They never take a stand on anything and accomplish very little in the meantime.

So, whats next on the LIRR's agenda? Do they "lease" the LIRR to the "MTA Railroad" and disregard contracts that were made with the LIRR under the guise of..it's MTA Railroad's property and they can do what they want? Because this is where it's leading.

The News programs stated that commuters were suprised about the possible strike. Understand that the LIRR only informed the unions a week ago about the arrangement and refused to discuss the issue with them. As a last resort, the BLE and IBEW had to threaten to strike to force the LIRR to discuss the issue. The party who is acting irresponsibly on this is the LIRR. They should have at least agreed to meet on the issue and not force the BLE to announce what they did.

Anyone who reads this and lost their jobs due to outsourcing can understand how others feel when they are threatened with this. Imagine if you could have done something about it before it happened...this is why the BLE has to resort to something they really don't want to do..strike.

Well, does the fact that the former head of the LIRR UTU now sits on the MTA board affect their stand on this huge issue? Is that the same guy who championed the last contract? I don't understand...

And also remember that if the employees who strike face huge penalties sometimes - including losses of their homes, jail time, etc. They do not take this option lightly, and it is usually the last option, unless you submit.

If I understand the whole process correctly, and I believe I do, the "Status Quo" is supposed to be maintained during a period where there is no contract, such as the BLE is in right now. The BLE cannot legally strike just because they don't like the fact that there is no contract. They are legally entitled to immediately strike, however, if the LIRR breaches the status quo, to wit, existing contract.
This is what would have to be decided. Does this issue breach the existing BLE contract? If so, the BLE is entitled to strike. Courts may grant an injunction, anyway, but that would not be correct to do. The BLE would appeal, etc., etc., etc.

Tom