Author: paul

Brothers and Sisters:

In a few weeks, the tentative national rail agreement with the major carriers on wages, rules and working conditions will be distributed to affected members for a ratification vote.

The negotiating committee recommends a “yes” vote, and on March 25 — before the mailing of the agreement — general chairpersons representing members on the major carriers will be given a briefing on details of the agreement and asked to provide their support. We also intend to hold briefing sessions around the nation to which members will be invited to participate.

Some members have sent e-mails and letters, and made telephone calls, to the International office expressing displeasure that the tentative agreement doesn’t provide “enough,” and that it should be rejected, and the negotiating committee instructed to go back to the bargaining table to demand more.

We firmly believe that this contract should be ratified on its merits, and in the coming weeks we will make that case to general chairpersons and the membership.

And while we neither wish nor intend to seek “yes” votes based on fear, there are certain facts members should consider carefully before choosing to vote against the agreement.

Railroad industry labor relations are governed by the Railway Labor Act, which provides that rail industry contracts never expire, but continue in force until a new contract is ratified by the membership, or imposed on the parties by Congress.

And therein lays the danger of rejecting this contract.

When the UTU negotiating team reached its tentative agreement with the carriers in late January, other rail labor organizations already had ratified new agreements — a so-called pattern settlement. Pattern settlements historically establish a ceiling that has rarely been busted, owing to the mechanisms of the Railway Labor Act.

The UTU, in its tentative agreement, was able to better the pattern in several areas because the carriers were anxious to put this round of bargaining behind them and avoid the delay and cost that typically involves creation of a Presidential Emergency Board and congressional action.

What the UTU gained over the other organizations includes arbitration to settle the dispute over entry rates tied to training, contributions to the yardmasters’ supplemental retiree medical insurance program, continuation of a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) during the next round of bargaining, and an increase in the meal allowance.

More information on these provisions can be found at www.utu.org by clicking on the “Rail Contract Negotiations” link.

Otherwise, the UTU agreement mirrors the pattern settlement achieved by the carriers with the other organizations.

In the past, after a pattern was established and one or more unions rejected the pattern already established, the carriers refused to budge; and, under provisions of the Railway Labor Act, the stage was set for binding arbitration or creation of a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB).

Binding arbitration is a “roll-the-dice” game, because that allows a third party to impose an agreement without a ratification vote by the membership. Moreover, binding arbitration almost always results in the imposition of the pattern settlement, meaning arbitrators likely would reject the pattern-busting additions the UTU negotiating team achieved.

If binding arbitration is rejected, we can expect creation of a PEB by late spring — appointed solely by President Bush. We would not expect any labor friendly members on that PEB. Those recommendations likely would also mirror the pattern settlement.

Yes, we could strike rather than accept those recommendations, but the congressional leadership, which includes labor’s friends in Congress, has made clear to us that Congress does not want a railroad strike, with its devastating effects on an already weakened economy.

This would mean immediate congressional action to halt a work-stoppage; and given that we have already been warned by our labor-friendly friends in Congress that they do not want a railroad work-stoppage, the writing is on the table that Congress would quickly impose the recommendations of a PEB. Congress likely would be acting in a fit of anger against the UTU, and the outcome could be even worse than the recommendations of a PEB.

Those are the facts, whether we like them or not. And those facts should be considered very carefully when this tentative agreement is sent to you for ratification.

In solidarity,

Mike Futhey, International President

President@utu.org

Arty Martin, Assistant President

AsstPres@utu.org

Kim Thompson, General Secretary & Treasurer

GST@utu.org

Brothers and Sisters:

The UTU Discipline Income Protection Plan (DIPP) has remained steadfast in looking for ways to pay claims of participants. By contrast, other job benefit plans are looking for ways to AVOID paying claims.

A pattern of harsh discipline imposed by the carriers — resulting in a significant and steady drain on assets as benefits are paid out — has drawn considerable reserves from the DIPP fund.

To adequately maintain this valuable service to UTU members — and ensure the DIPP’s survival — the UTU scheduled adjustments to premiums and benefits to become effective, March 1, 2008. However, the adjustments, which were published in the December-January issue of the UTU News, have drawn numerous comments from DIPP participants — and those comments have been heard.

We have no choice but to impose the premium increase on the scheduled date of March 1.

However, additional changes, which were to include a 15-day elimination period, a 20 percent reduction for a second claim within 12 months, recovery of benefits from a favorable discipline appeal, duration of coverage-period application, and the benefit reduction schedule have been put on hold.

The UTU will continue to monitor and review the DIPP fund, and may implement change in the future, as deemed necessary.

The DIPP fund is much like Railroad Retirement, in that it is a pooled-risk fund whose financial survival depends on a broad base of participants making contributions in order that benefits are available for payment.

In short, if the DIPP fund is to continue to be offered as a service to UTU members, then UTU members must participate in large numbers. We therefore ask all participants to continue their membership in the DIPP fund, and to encourage your brothers and sisters to participate, also.

There is strength in numbers, and the continuation of this beneficial DIPP program depends upon everyone’s support.

In solidarity,

Mike Futhey, International President

President@utu.org

Arty Martin, Assistant President

AsstPres@utu.org

Kim Thompson, General Secretary & Treasurer

GST@utu.org

By Mark Allen
Coordinator of UTU Designated Legal Counsel

Railroad workers sometimes jokingly say they spend more time in vans than trains as railroads transport their workers using contract limousine services. As agents of the railroad, these companies may be held to the same legal standard as the railroad if their negligence causes injuries. It is therefore important to look for all details of the incident that might point to fault on the part of the van driver (i.e. eating or talking on a cell phone while driving).

But, what if the van driver is not at fault? Where the van driver is not at fault in causing the collision, there is NO claim against the railroad or the van service company to compensate the injured railroad worker for any injuries. The claim or lawsuit must be brought against the other driver who caused the collision. In this example, the rail-road worker usually makes his claim against an insurance company. Insurance companies for drivers usually limit the amount of coverage to a per-person and per-accident basis. So where another driver is at fault, the insurance coverage may be small and insufficient to cover all of the railroader’s expenses. Or, even worse, the other driver may have no insurance at all.

If a driver who hits a hired van is totally at fault but is not insured or is underinsured, the railroader may be required to look toward the van company’s uninsured/underinsured motorist policy or possibly the railroad worker’s own vehicular policy (if it has uninsured/underinsured provi-sions). There may also be off-track vehicle insurance by agreement between the UTU and the railroad that may pro-vide benefits, as well. It is worthwhile to review your own vehicle policy NOW to determine if it provides you with appropriate benefits for uninsured and underinsured motorist claims.

Contact a designated legal counsel for specific advice on all injury questions.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Debbie Hersman is the first member of the 37-year-old National Transportation Safety Board to bring to the job a detailed knowledge of railroads, reports Railway Age magazine.

Hersman was confirmed by the Senate in June following five years as a senior staff member of the Senate Commerce Committee, where she advised Democrats on multimodal transportation topics, including rail freight and passenger economic and safety issues. From 1992 to 1999, she was a legislative aide to former Rep. Bob Wise (D-W.Va.), a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

At 34, Hersman is also among the youngest NTSB members — Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) was 33 when appointed in 1976 — but don’t for a moment equate Hersman’s relative youth with uncertainty or shyness.

Hersman sees her mission as unambiguous: “Safety advocate. Other federal agencies balance benefits and costs through the regulatory process. The NTSB makes recommendations with one goal in mind: Improving transportation safety. Although it is naïve to assume we don’t think about costs, our decisions are not guided by that principle.”

Enter positive train control–a collision- and over-speed-avoidance technology railroads embrace as if kissing one’s sister, owing to its substantial costs of implementation beyond pilot projects.

“The NTSB can identify accident after accident that would not have happened were PTC in place,” Hersman says. “A safety-redundant system can override human error, such as resulting from train crew fatigue. Redundancy is not too much to demand when dealing with human life.”

Hersman is not the first NTSB member to advocate PTC. Its implementation has been on NTSB’s “10-most wanted” safety improvements list since 1990.

Hersman also advocates continued elimination of highway-rail grade crossings, and wants to see increased industry efforts to eliminate train crew fatigue, such as assuring adequate rest. Hours-of-service regulations mandating specific rest periods may be too simplistic, however. Too often, accident investigations reveal a train crew was in compliance with hours-of-service regulations, but had not used their off-duty time to rest, she says.

Hersman says she will be focusing on how train crews spend their off-duty hours, whether current HOS rules are adequate, and how employers and an employee’s family might help assure train crews receive adequate rest. She has interest in pilot programs that provide train crews with regular work schedules and assigned days off.

“The NTSB will make its recommendations in the interest of safety and leave for the regulatory agencies and parties of interest how best to implement the recommendations,” Hersman says. But don’t construe that comment as supporting performance standards–an objective the industry has been seeking. Hersman believes there are areas where performance standards make safety sense — such as allowing carriers greater leeway in installing continuous welded rail — but “pretty narrow and focused regulation” still has a meaningful role in assuring transportation safety.

Hersman advocates a greater role for locomotive cab voice and video recorders. Recently, Norfolk Southern installed cameras and microphones in locomotives to help document actions of train crews preceding vehicle/train crashes. Bowing to crew privacy demands, the cameras look forward from the windshield and the microphones are installed underneath the locomotive floor to record the sounding of whistle and bells.

Hersman prefers cameras that record locomotive gauges and microphones that record crew conversation. Both are of value to accident investigators. Since the 1970s, voice recorders have been used on airline flight decks. The Air Line Pilots Association initially opposed this. Laws are now in place protecting the privacy of audio recordings, and that privacy safeguard could be extended to video recordings, she says.

Although remote control operations are relatively new in the U.S., Hersman is aware of FRA data showing that where remote control is being used–as opposed to conventional switching operations–rail accidents have been reduced by almost 14% and injuries are down by almost 60%. Her initial concern with remote control is “human factor performance. When new operating practices are established, it is especially important that stringent safety procedures be established and that training and oversight be a priority,” she says.

Hersman’s term expires in December 2008.

(The preceding article was published by Railway Age magazine.)

By Dr. Norman K. Brown
UTU Medical Consultant

Most of us would agree that we should do all we can to preserve and protect the working of our brains, the part of us that makes us who we are and different from each other.

Aside from head injuries, the most common damage to our brain comes from circulation difficulties. These difficulties can occur from too little blood flowing to one area of the brain because of a clot in the blood vessel, or too much blood flowing to one place because of a sudden blood vessel leak, or hemorrhage. Both are commonly referred to as “strokes.”

There are steps each of us can and should be taking to reduce the chances of our having either of these types of strokes.

A cholesterol deposit in a brain artery triggers the most common clot-type injury. So, just as we can watch our diets (weight), engage in exercise, reduce or eliminate smoking, and control blood pressure and diabetes to protect our hearts, there are programs to protect our brain’s blood vessels.

It is always difficult to start and to stick to such programs, but your doctor will always be pleased to try to help you. Medications for both cholesterol reduction and blood pressure control are available to bolster your efforts. These medications have advanced greatly in effectiveness over the past 20 years.

The occurrence of the hemorrhagic or bleeding type of stroke, which is less common, is also reduced by attention to “blood vessel/heart healthy” programs — such as control of blood pressure.

Once the possibility of a stroke is present, there are some newer techniques for treating strokes that give us new hope — in particular, medications or lasers that help break up or dissolve blood clots and even devices such as snares and blades that are being developed to attempt removal of clot material. These last methods are still experimental, but for some people the results have been encouraging. In all cases, the time from the onset of symptoms to when treatment begins is extremely important.

When I say the sooner the better, I am talking about three to six hours maximum after the first symptoms. Former President Bill Clinton saved his own life by not waiting too long in the presence of symptoms of potential heart-muscle damage.

Let’s review some of the symptoms of early or threatened strokes:

• Sudden onset of weakness or clumsiness or numbness in an arm and/or leg, usually without pain;
• Walking or balance problems;
• Speech difficulty;
• Sudden vision loss;
• Sudden onset of very severe headaches.

If any of these happen to you or a loved one, please seek medical help immediately.

Your health will always be way ahead if you think prevention because protecting your heart and the blood vessels throughout your body will help you to a longer, healthier life.