Railroad Forums 

  • National Railroads Strike in September?

  • For topics on Class I and II passenger and freight operations more general in nature and not specifically related to a specific railroad with its own forum.
For topics on Class I and II passenger and freight operations more general in nature and not specifically related to a specific railroad with its own forum.

Moderator: Jeff Smith

 #1605498  by Gilbert B Norman
 
AceMacSD wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 3:45 pm Guys around here are living beyond their means and can't afford to not get a paycheck. Too many people in this industry will cross the picket lines.
Mr. AceMac, with eleven years of railroad included within my CV, Messrs. Lurker's and Olesen's immediate comments are not to be dismissed.

Regarding Mr. Olesen's comment, the 1985 matter on "the only airline I know" resulted in Officers who simply would not fly with one another, and if they did, there could well have been a flight safety compromise. My FA friend, who still flies @ 62yo, "was there". She is very "pro AFA", and she walked with the Officers. Of course, at that time, she only had one year, unmarried, and really had nothing to lose.
 #1605517  by AceMacSD
 
I'm all for the union and I do not oppose this strike. Being a union officer for my Local I have seen the significant lack of enthusiasm our members in this area have for following their union. Not just my local but all of the UTU and BLET in this region. Meeting attendance is at a record low..

There have been sick outs organized in which only one or two members actually followed through while the rest went to work. At least the Jersey Transit guys actually pull through. Unions in these parts have demoralized their members to a point where there's no going back. If the officers are not caving to company management demands, they are out at bars and bbqs with management. Our locals took a big hit after split date. To a lot of these guys, the only time they interact with the union is when they get into trouble. Any or day of the week they feel that we are stealing their money that they need to pay off their homes or kids daycare.

I really do hope that an agreement can be reach to avoid a strike. But if a strike is inevitable, I think it is going to take a lot to reel everyone in to go along with it. Especially when the union is not helping to pay their bills.
 #1605525  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. AceMac, included within my railroad (non-Agreement) CV is three years in Labor Relations.

Now you have chosen so far, and I respect that, not to disclose which crafts or properties your Local represents. If such is Amtrak, to my knowledge the crafts all have their own Locals and are not party to collective bargaining through the Committee (Conference back in my day). So, in theory, Amtrak and their Agreement employees have no issues (yet; at National level), but that does not mean Amtrak employees will cross any lines of Class I employees.

First, only in my capacity as an "interested observer" (my final profession at retirement was a CPA), I concur with Mr. B&A, who first noted such at this topic, the Carriers and Employees will come together on rates of pay. Any rules relating to working conditions will be "swept under the rug" until either some are addressed locally or the next time the moratorium that's always part of a national agreement on serving Section 6's expires.
 #1605531  by justalurker66
 
AceMacSD wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 11:12 amI'm all for the union and I do not oppose this strike. Being a union officer for my Local I have seen the significant lack of enthusiasm our members in this area have for following their union. Not just my local but all of the UTU and BLET in this region. Meeting attendance is at a record low..
So when the union votes for a strike, do you have to have a majority of the people present/voting or a majority of the membership? Is there a default (eg: if you don't vote your vote counts as "in favor")?

I see where 99.5% of BLET voted for the strike. If union members don't want to honor a strike they shouldn't vote for one.
AceMacSD wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 11:12 amThere have been sick outs organized in which only one or two members actually followed through while the rest went to work.
I suppose in some regions the unions can punish members more for not bowing to union pressure.

I have held a couple of union jobs. I did not see the benefit of having a union at either job. I do not recall any union activity at the jobs either ... my only contact with the union was the payroll deduction. I don't recall ever speaking to someone representing the union allegedly representing me. (I'm sure I would have received the "your job would be worse" spiel if I had spoken up against the union at work. Complaining wasn't worth the angst.)

(BTW: This reflects my experience with unions and should not be assumed to be blanket statements for or against all unions or against any specific job action pending.)
 #1605559  by eolesen
 
So when the union votes for a strike, do you have to have a majority of the people present/voting or a majority of the membership? Is there a default (eg: if you don't vote your vote counts as "in favor")?
A strike vote requires a majority of the membership, not just a simple majority of ballots cast. That would make non-votes are a no by default.

I don't know how BLET is organized on the joint talks i.e. can one lodge or local determine if they vote not to strike while others do e.g. UPRR stays on the job while CSX goes on strike...

They could also take a page from the flight attendants some time back and do a targeted CHAOS strike, e.g. Los Angeles on Monday, Chicago on Tuesday, Ztrains on Wednesday, local trains on Thursday...

https://unitedafa.org/docs/afa/chaos-faq.pdf



Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

 #1605568  by Gilbert B Norman
 
eolesen wrote: Sun Aug 28, 2022 9:05 am I don't know how BLET is organized on the joint talks i.e. can one lodge or local determine if they vote not to strike while others do e.g. UPRR stays on the job while CSX goes on strike...
Mr. Olsen, "back in my day", and I'm certain no different today, only the Grand Lodge could authorize either selective or national "self.help".
 #1605664  by pablo
 
Allow me to mention that I've been a union member for almost 30 years. I have also had the ability to work with railroad men who were members of unions, too, in a professional capacity.

15 years ago, I have no doubt there would be solidarity. In my current position and location, I am certain that a union action would get traction and have a following. However, just across the border, two different unions (one in my current occupation, one not) attempted job actions for contractual concerns. The success of these actions was mediocre at best, and there were plenty of people who chose not to join the "Strike" (such as it was) even though it was to their benefit. The inaction was costly and the collective bargaining unit actually lost ground at the end of it, in my opinion.

1999 me would have laughed at the idea that a union could be so fractured. 2022 me suggests that it's become a much heavier lift, and no longer a foregone conclusion.
 #1605695  by Railjunkie
 
As an Amtrak employee and BLET member we have no seat at the table for the current negotiations. I can only speak from the experiences I have seen at my crew base through the years. Late 90s local chair called for a job action due to assignments being messed up the first two trains stood. Local officials called and asked what was needed to get service back and running. Issue taken care of in less than 3 hours.
That same situation today would likely result in someone on their day off willing to work for overtime or some form of kangaroo court being held to make an example of. Not many would stick together. I think the railroads know that AND are banking on it.
 #1605703  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Again all; I reiterate, that on at least on the railroad side, the Act has done a far better job at keeping "labor peace" than has "The Trilogy" (Wagner, Taft-Hartley, Landrum-Griffin) applicable to all other industries.

Messrs. Olesen and West Point, your thoughts?
 #1605706  by eolesen
 
My personal opinion is that the Railway Labor Act has done more for management than the unions. The only tangible benefit I can see is the legality of a closed shop system wide. Other than that, it almost always works out to a compromise like what we're seeing in the latest PEB offer that satisfies nobody.

Personally, I think if railroads and airlines were put under Taft Hartley, you might see more serious attention paid to negotiations because the right to strike becomes immediate on contract expiration. None of this nonsense of dragging things out 2 to 5 years.

The potential downside is you could see some split representation by state or region where perhaps the same Union might not represent all in the same craft. That might force the union to become more proactive and continue to show a benefit to retain representation, however.



Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

 #1605742  by BandA
 
Are there many areas left where the railroad is a large employer? I would think the young employees, if they are unhappy with wages or working conditions would quit and move on rather than wait for a strike.

We are rapidly shifting from a labor shortage to a recession, so conditions that looked good for a strike a few months ago might be gloomy for workers by the end of the year.
 #1606178  by Railjunkie
 
Talking with a few crews who travel over some territories I no longer keep qualifications up on. They tell me the Mohawk and the B&A are turning into parking lots it has gotten so bad CSX has started to reroute trains through Pittsburgh and the Sand Patch. Crews are slowly refusing to go to work when called. Engineer today said he passed an outlaw on the B&A that has been sitting for a day or so, Frontier yard in Buffalo is plugged I know DeWitt was when I was out there a couple of weeks ago. Its going to get worse, I heard nothing about a settlement.
 #1606186  by Gilbert B Norman
 
eolesen wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 12:28 pm Personally, I think if railroads and airlines were put under Taft Hartley, you might see more serious attention paid to negotiations because the right to strike becomes immediate on contract expiration. None of this nonsense of dragging things out 2 to 5 years.
Mr. Olesen, it is my understanding that railroads and airlines ARE governed by "the trilogy" to the extent that so long as there is no conflict between "trilogy" and Act provisions, the Act will govern.

For example, the Landrum-Griffen, the third "leg" of the Trilogy enacted during the Eisenhower years, provides that a union member may seek legal remedies against a union for "failure to represent". A railroad worker has those rights; I can recall a General Chairman once sharing with me that "5% of my men give me 95% of my headaches". Those are the ones that in an instance where carrier-imposed discipline is fair and proper, will have the Union take the matter up to Board level, lest he seek remedies against his own union!!!

Now there is one area, that now over forty years and one intervening career later, I cannot reconcile. That is where the Act allows "closed/union shops", i.e. you will join the union, yet Taft Hartley, enacted by veto override during the Truman years, prohibits such.

As information, the first leg, the Wagner Act, was enacted during FDR's presidency.

Anyone holding an Agreement position in the railroad or airline industry care to enlighten?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 16