Member Type: TD - Railroad

Home>News>TD - Railroad

As part of the first SMART Leadership Conference in San Francisco on Aug. 8, Surface Transportation Board Chairman Martin Oberman appeared remotely to address the general session.

The STB, which is tasked with the economic regulation of various modes of surface transportation, primarily freight rail, heard the concerns of SMART Transportation Division President Jeremy Ferguson and three members of the union as well as other labor unions and shippers in April.

As a result of those hearings, the board instituted additional requirements for the large U.S. Class I carriers, including submitting service recovery plans and more recruitment and trainee retention data, bringing some press outlets to say that labor unions, including SMART, “had Oberman’s ear.”

“It isn’t a question of favoring labor or favoring someone else,” Oberman said. “And I have insisted from the outset, and I will continue to do so, that the board wants input and feedback from everybody.”

Class I carriers’ Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) operating scheme has lengthened trains and led to a 30% rail workforce reduction among Class I carriers since 2017. Struggles with service and the ability of railroads to retain employees have drawn the attention of federal regulators including the five-member STB.

“It’s been apparent for a long time — certainly since the pandemic began that the Class I railroads just way overdid it in cutting the workforce,” Oberman said. “I don’t know of any business that can operate by taking out 30% of the workforce and have the same level of delivery and productivity and service and products to be delivered.”

Additional employment reductions that happened during the first days of the pandemic made the situation worse and left the rail industry unprepared to deal with the economic rebound.

“They’ve all been struggling to have sufficient people and sufficient crews,” Oberman said of the Class I carriers.

Almost three months in, the more granular reports now being provided by the four U.S.-based Class Is to STB have not shown very good results for carriers attempting to meet the six-month targets their labor recovery plans have set, he said, with Norfolk Southern showing slight improvements in recruitment and T&E worker retention.

“I would say that the news is not great,” he said. “The good news is, it hasn’t got much worse, but the disappointing news is that, with minor exceptions and improvements here and there — they should be acknowledged — there hasn’t been much improvement.

“To say the least, I was hoping to see more improvement during this time period.”

Oberman also remarked that the input the board has received from members of rail labor has been “very enlightening” for the STB

“I really do welcome the input I get,” he said.

Oberman took multiple questions from the audience, including fielding a report out of Seattle and Kent, Wash., regarding service cuts and out of Texas.

In regard to the STB authorization bill proposed recently in the U.S. House, Oberman said that he and the other four board members — two Democrats and two Republicans — will focus on establishing a consensus.

“We don’t have, fortunately, on the board the kind of polarization and tribalism that you see too much in Washington. I am determined to keep that from happening on the board.”

SMART Transportation Division President Jeremy Ferguson, left, and SMART General President Joseph Sellers Jr. listen as Surface Transportation Board Chairman Martin Oberman appears live via video on Aug. 8 at the first day of the SMART Leadership Conference in San Francisco.

It’s a shame, really, that the safety of my members, the public and the infrastructure are nothing more than political pawns in the railroads’ game of never-ending greed. And it’s a shame, frankly, that the railroads manipulate woefully inept individuals – having never meaningfully walked the ballast or performed the myriad tasks of a conductor or engineer from inside the cab of a locomotive – and contributing editors, to carry their water in the hopes of somehow creating a narrative that corporate profit (as compared to safety) is the greater good.

On Tuesday, August 2, Railway Age published an article titled “Biden Promise Fueled FRA NPRM,” wherein its author bows to his superiors’ bidding and attempts to make the case that data is in their favor. But to do so, he had to sharpshoot for supporting documentation and data, blindly whisking by the plethora of reports and studies that stand as mountains between them and reality, and he had to bend quotes and statements made as if he were some sort of deceitful, abstract performer.

Only in corporate America can a promise of maintaining the safest course be misconstrued to the public as being unethical. In fact, it seems quite ironic that the article’s author accuses this Union of being a special interest when the former FRA Administrator broke from the agency’s position and capitulated to the railroad executives’ pressure by withdrawing the ongoing crew size regulation, only to be defeated in federal court.

The rationale is sound, and the need for regulation is necessary. I find it ridiculous that the author of a book theoretically explaining the purpose and processes of the Railway Labor Act is incapable of comprehending the role of politics in the prioritization of safety and the overall welfare of America’s railroad workers.

The Many Omissions of a Man Not Actually from the Industry

Positive Train Control (PTC) is a $15 billion safety overlay system that is incapable of performing the cognitive functions and tasks of a certified conductor. This was identified by FRA in its January 2020 Final Report, Teamwork in Railroad Operations and Implications for New Technology, and its July 2012 Final Report, Cognitive and Collaborative Demands of Freight Conductor Activities: Results and Implications of a Cognitive Task Analysis. Simply put, PTC does not, and cannot perform the functions of an onboard conductor, and it cannot provide the benefits of two human beings working in collaboration inside the cab of a locomotive.

Railroading is a high-risk industry. And like all other high-risk industries, teamwork is the most critical component. Over the last two decades railroads have achieved their safest and richest era because of the two-person crew. Ironically, however, is the industry’s failure to record and report its near misses. Unlike aviation, which has had a near-miss reporting system for years, the railroads have fought off FRA’s and labor’s many attempts to capture the data of accidents that didn’t occur because of the actions of a two-person crew. Had that data been collected, the truth of the safety benefits of a two-person crew could have long been made public.

Rightfully, the NPRM seeks to act where collective bargaining cannot. It is an asinine notion to consider that safety should be subject to the chopping block by way of the negotiating table. After all, the FRA’s mandate is to “enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods.” So why should they suggest that safety somehow be up for negotiation when the gambling of rail workers’ lives would clearly be a dereliction of duty, especially when there is no data to support it?

“Another item omitted is the fallacy of the PTC and locomotive technological systems as they exist today. Every day, our members report dozens, if not hundreds, of initial-terminal and en route failures across the nation’s rail network. Train crews have literally learned not to depend on its functionality, but rather to anticipate it dropping out.”

The Class I industry does not employ a single-person crew concept on any territory. The fact is, there is no data to support or suggest what would happen should a reduction be permitted to occur. Therefore, in the absence of data, the determination (should it happen) to remove a crew member from the cab of a locomotive equates to nothing more than risk.

The author attempts to blur that reality by comparing operations on short-line railroads and one-off situations, but he fails to present in his article that these railroads are much smaller in size, slower in on-track movements, and far less complicated than their big brother counterparts; not to mention that their train consists are vastly shorter and lighter as well.

Another item omitted is the fallacy of the PTC and locomotive technological systems as they exist today. Every day, our members report dozens, if not hundreds, of initial-terminal and en route failures across the nation’s rail network. Train crews have literally learned not to depend on its functionality, but rather to anticipate it dropping out. The author offers no viable option for this scenario, but rather pretends to portray the system as absolute, despite having no real-world knowledge. It is because of the two-person crew that this problem has not been exacerbated into catastrophe.

Likewise, PTC also does not account for the growing length of trains. In the railroads’ pursuit of the lowest operating ratio, which is nothing more than an industry-created measure to exhibit to Wall Street that a railroad can cut its way to profits, the average length of trains has grown exponentially; a concept the carriers have lovingly embraced. Unfortunately, for the communities in which these railroad properties intersect, derailments and blocked crossings have become a plague to society. By theoretically placing a conductor into a ground-based vehicle, the only known variable that will arise in these instances is that the conductor will most likely not be in place to act in an emergency, much less with any urgency. As it stands, a conductor is readily available on the locomotive to act as a first responder at a moment’s notice. A routine that has been proven time and time again. 

“To be blunt, this nation’s regulatory agencies should not allow corporate entities to self-regulate, as their bottom line obscures the purpose and promise of their mission to keep their employees’ work environment safe.”

However, should a railroad desire to veer from the safest course, it may attempt to do so through the proposed rule’s waiver process, which the author, trying to charm his influencers, portrays as an unfair level of scrutiny and rigged process. His words, which are nothing more than an amplification of the railroads’, reek of similarities to Boeing’s cries to the FAA years before the 737 Max accidents.

To be blunt, this nation’s regulatory agencies should not allow corporate entities to self-regulate, as their bottom line obscures the purpose and promise of their mission to keep their employees’ work environment safe. Like eyes following the bouncing ball of karaoke lyrics, rail carriers have proven their willingness to abruptly reverse course in capitulation to outside pressures originating from their hedge fund investors. It is because of this that the NPRM’s waiver process is necessary, and is exactly why it must be transparent, rigorous and thorough.

Common sense safety provisions do not stymie or impede future innovation, they protect it, and any assertion to the contrary is absurd. The railroads, like aviation, have realized their greatest advancements in technology with a crew of two at the controls. Now, they want you to believe that the industry that could afford more than $10 billion in stock buybacks last year alone would somehow be hampered by a regulation such as this.

Rest assured, nothing could be further from the truth. And rest assured that it does not require a single-person crew to provide a better quality of life. There is absolutely nothing preventing America’s rail carriers from providing its workforce with predictable work schedules, more time at home, increased authority, larger rates of pay and protection against furlough. Yet here we are: three and a half years at the negotiating table and forced to a Presidential Emergency Board because the carriers are unwilling to negotiate the very terms described within the author’s article. Let me be clear, quality of life is not a bargaining chip to be used as blackmail against the safety of my members, especially when the carriers have the means and funds to grant it.

The Mystery Argument of Data, Despite the Absence of Actual or Comparable Data

A railroad is not a railroad, but a spade is a spade. As stated earlier, there are no Class I railroad over-the-road single-person crew operations in this nation, and a Class I in comparison to a commuter, Class II or any other designation does not a good argument make.

This country’s railroad network is unlike any other in the world. On average, according to Operation Lifesaver, there is a collision between a train and a person or vehicle every three hours. Astonishingly, there is no process to record and/or report the near-misses that didn’t occur because of the actions of a two-person crew. As a result, it is unknown just how great of an effect a reduction in crew size could have toward an unwanted increase in these types of accidents. This is important because other foreign countries, as the author referenced as being relevant, do not have the same exposures to the public that we do. Their success, if you will, does not equate to our success, as it may very well result in the detriment to our communities.

Additionally, foreign freight trains are much smaller by comparison. According to a FreightWaves article published April 3, 2019, (U.S. and European freight railroads are on different tracks), “… [U.S.] freight trains are often 3,500 meters (2.175 miles) in length; in western Europe, freight train lengths are closer to 750 meters (less than one-half mile).” Simple physics will tell you that fewer rail cars and lighter tonnage will result in fewer mechanical failures, and the ability to stop in less time and drastically shorter distances. Common sense will also tell you that shorter trains result in fewer blocked crossings.

FRA’s January 2020 Final Report, Teamwork in Railroad Operations and Implications for New Technology, states that “[c]onductors also provide several additional cognitive support functions to locomotive engineers that PTC does not provide. These functions include supporting locomotive engineers in monitoring events outside the cab window for potential obstacles and hazards that would not be detected by automated systems (e.g., people working on or around the track; trespasser; cars at grade crossings). They also include filling knowledge gaps that locomotive engineers may have (e.g., knowledge of the territory; appropriate interpretation of operating rules) and supporting decision-making (e.g., where to stop to avoid blocking a grade crossing). Knowledge and decision-making support is especially important in the case of less experienced locomotive engineers. Conductors also serve an important role in handling unanticipated events and keeping the locomotive engineer alert, especially on long monotonous trips where there is a risk of falling asleep.”

“The mass exodus of workers in today’s railroad industry will have a long-term, adverse effect on the knowledge and skill base of conductors and engineers. Experience cannot be taught in a classroom. It takes years for these workers to hone their craft.”

The Class I railroads are currently hemorrhaging experienced, mid-career locomotive engineers and conductors. This has had a devastating impact on the supply chain, and this will have a devastating impact on long-term viability. It is no surprise to us that America’s rail shippers have taken to the Surface Transportation Board and the media to speak out against the railroads’ greed and inability to provide a quality service.

But this is particularly important, however, considering what the FRA’s report had to say above – “[conductors] fill knowledge gaps that locomotive engineers may have and [they] support decision making.” The mass exodus of workers in today’s railroad industry will have a long-term, adverse effect on the knowledge and skill base of conductors and engineers. Experience cannot be taught in a classroom. It takes years for these workers to hone their craft. PTC does not and cannot account for that, nor can the locomotive’s energy management systems. Only can the cognitive and collaborative efforts of teamwork overcome a hurdle as large as this.

Yet, in spite of all this, the Class I railroads are actively pursuing the ability to fast-track single-person crew operations without having vetted or tested a single proven or reliable method of operation, because this is just about the only card they have left to play to lower their operating ratios and to perform one last-ditch act for their audience of demanding shareholders. Like puppets on a string, they are succumbing to outside, misguided pressures.

That is why this regulation is needed, and that is why it’s needed with urgency.

As to the author’s rambling of data-to-come – the condemnatory flaw can only be found in his rant. FRA’s purpose is to prevent unsafe conditions from occurring. By his own admission, the collection of credible data is still being developed. But rather than wait for confirmation, the author proclaims that the agency should throw caution to the wind, like chance in the game of Risk, and allow the railroads to continue their current crew-reduction trajectory, despite, once again, not having any data to support his position. At least with a two-person crew, we know that the safest era in railroading history has been achieved. That is one data point that cannot be manipulated. And that is one data point worthy of protecting.

Similarly, and as stated before, the two-person crew has brought about the richest era in Class I railroading history. The Unions are proud of this fact, and we acknowledge that this is a direct representation of our members’ work. So, it is a slap in the face for the author to try so obtusely to make the argument that the railroads would somehow see a negative economic impact when all of the history and data points to the contrary. Ironically, former FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo is criticized in the article for “limit[ing] research to just those sources you want to hear from.” Perhaps the man who wrote these words should take a look in the mirror.

The Safest Way

Without question, the author of the Railway Age article has wonderfully performed like a jester for his majesty’s court. But in the end, it’s nothing more than a shame that he is willing to dance for the railroads as they fill their pockets and turn a deaf ear to my members as they cry out for help.

We do however agree with the author’s statement that our predecessor organization did support PTC in the initial stages. We had members that were a part of the FRA RSAC committee tasked with the development and implementation of PTC. During these jointly-held meetings between the FRA, Rail carriers and union craft members, the carriers stated that PTC was a safety overlay system and not a conduit to replace the conductor. Repeatedly they stated PTC’s implementation was to enhance safety in an attempt to eliminate, as much as possible, human error. As the safety of our members is paramount, we supported and embraced this technology. Our position did not change until the carriers, in an attempt to find a way to lessen the financial burden of PTC, used their handpicked FRA Administrator, an ex-Rail Carrier CEO, to reverse course and state that PTC could now overcome many known faults and shortcomings and miraculously replace the conductor.

“…the carriers stated that PTC was a safety overlay system and not a conduit to replace the conductor. Repeatedly they stated PTC’s implementation was to enhance safety in an attempt to eliminate, as much as possible, human error.”

However, that is where the author’s accuracy ends, and like most things he has written, the author is wrong. PTC does not take the place of a conductor and it does not support the engineer. If anything, it increases the task load. If the carriers would have followed the RSAC committees’ recommendations and placed an operating PTC screen and controls on the conductor’s side of the locomotive, it would have reduced the current task overload that has greatly stricken the vast majority of engineers. PTC is extremely user intensive, requiring constant input and manipulation, and it prevents an engineer from being able to observe his/her territory. Since the advent of PTC and its subsequent implementation, the importance of the conductor’s role within the cab of a locomotive has never been greater. It was determined that the conductor could verify mandatory directives, handle safety-related tasks such as work authorities and confirm PTC alerts in conjunction with the engineer.

Every single day an accident is prevented because of the actions of a conductor, and every single day that data is not collected. In some cases, it may have been by utilizing the emergency brake that is located on the conductor’s side of the locomotive, again correcting the author’s error by stating that there are no controls on that side of the locomotive.

In the end, it all comes down to two outcomes. Is the FRA best served protecting and maintaining a crew size that is known to be safe; that is known to be the best model for customer service; that is known to have made the railroads more money than ever; and is known to have a process via the regulation (should it occur) to have a means and method of allowing for the safe and controlled testing of different crew sizes? Or is it best served to risk chance and see what happens with a reduction in crew size that has no measurable baseline for safety; that has no baseline for profit; and has no baseline for customer service?

Obviously, there is only one outcome for which FRA has the legal authority and obligation to act.

As has been said throughout history, the truth will always be brought to light. And you, too, can look that up.

The SMART Transportation Division is comprised of approximately 125,000 active and retired members of the former United Transportation Union, who work in a variety of different crafts, including as bus and commuter rail operators, in the transportation industry.

Follow this link to read this post as a pdf.

A bill introduced by leaders in the U.S. House on Aug. 2 and endorsed by the SMART Transportation Division seeks to address complaints levied against the Class I rail carriers brought by customers and echoed by rail unions in hearings in the spring before the Surface Transportation Board (STB).

See a recap of that testimony here.

The Freight Rail Shipping Fair Market Act (H.R. 8649) reauthorizes the STB, the federal agency that oversees the economic regulation of freight rail in the country.

Among the bill’s purposes, according to a release from the U.S. House Transportation Committee: 

  • Strengthening STB’s authority to address rail service emergencies;
  • Requiring rail contracts to include service delivery standards and remedies, while leaving details to be privately negotiated between parties;
  • Providing STB with clear direction to resolve common carrier obligation complaints;
  • Creating financial incentives for both railroads and their customers to efficiently move railcars;
  • Supporting freight railroad efforts to identify where freight is located on their systems while in transit; and
  • Adequately funding STB to allow for quicker dispute resolution when petitioned. 

“I am proud to introduce the Freight Rail Shipping Fair Market Act with Chair DeFazio, Chair Scott, and Chair Costa to improve rail shipping nationwide,” Rail, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee Chair Donald M. Payne Jr. said. “The freight rail companies have focused on profits instead of performance and it has led to delays and problems in how we transport commodities to farms, factories, and stores across the country. My bill gives the Surface Transportation Board the power to prohibit rail rate increases during a rail emergency and resolve rail emergencies when they occur. This bill will improve the speed and reliability of rail service and guarantee that freight rail shipping continues to improve in the future without unnecessary regulations.” 

On the heels of his testimony before the STB in April, SMART-TD President Jeremy Ferguson testified in June before Payne’s subcommittee discussing labor’s concerns with rail operating tactics under Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR).

U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who was critical of the railroads’ PSR tactics in a May appearance before the rail subcommittee, lent his support to the legislation.

“I am pleased to join Chair Payne on the Freight Rail Shipping Fair Market Act, which will hold the freight rail industry accountable for their appalling service to shippers and ultimately help American families burdened by the increased price of goods,” DeFazio said. “It is imperative that our rail network is reliable, and yet consolidation and Wall Street pressures on railroads to cut costs and increase profits have made that near impossible. This bill will level the playing field and provide railroad customers—many of which are transporting key food and energy products—the service they deserve. This bill will also provide the tools and guidance the Surface Transportation Board needs to fulfill its mandate and better regulate disputes among Class I railroads and their customers, weed out unfair practices, and incentivize efficient operations. I look forward to putting these policies into action, empowering the Board, and boosting competition in the freight rail industry.” 
 
“Whether carrying inputs to our farmers or moving their products to market, rail is a vital tool in the American agriculture industry. This fact has become increasingly apparent as rail service issues have created challenges for our farmers, grain elevators, and ethanol producers and resulted in increased costs for producers and consumers alike,” Agriculture Chair David Scott said. “I want to thank Chair DeFazio and Chair Payne for their work on this legislation, particularly their work with the agriculture community to address their concerns. I am proud to join as an original cosponsor of the Freight Rail Shipping Fair Market Act.”
 
“The pandemic has wreaked havoc on every segment of our economy. It has disrupted our supply chain, both in terms of imports and exports and has put our agricultural community at great risk. The time is now to sit down with rail carriers to fix this broken supply chain system. I support this legislation to improve freight rail service, reduce inflation, and ensure our shippers and suppliers are confident in the ability of our nation’s rail system to efficiently move goods and services. This is the only way to give consumers confidence in fair pricing and consistent access to products in grocery stores and on shelves,” House Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture Chair Jim Costa said.
 
To better understand why rail service delivery problems persist, the Railroad Subcommittee held hearings in March and in May 2022, and the Surface Transportation Board held a hearing on urgent issues in freight rail service in late April 2022. All three hearings documented serious problems in the freight rail industry stemming from years of Wall Street focus on increasing railroad operating profits to allow for stock buybacks and dividends, rather than investing those profits in expanding critical freight rail service to more places and serving more industries. Despite these hearings and actions undertaken by the Surface Transportation Board, severe service issues continue to hamstring rail shipments across the country. This bill seeks to stem that tide.

Captured freight rail customers who stand to benefit from provisions in H.R. 8649 have signed on to support the Freight Rail Shipping Fair Market Act. They include: 

  • Agribusiness Association of Iowa
  • Agribusiness Council of Indiana
  • Agricultural Council of Arkansas
  • Agricultural Retailers Association
  • AgTC — Agriculture Transportation Coalition
  • Amcot
  • American Agri-Women
  • American Bakers Association
  • American Chemistry Council (ACC): 
  • American Cotton Producers
  • American Cotton Shippers Association
  • American Farm Bureau Federation
  • American Feed Industry Association
  • American Sheep Industry Association
  • American Soybean Association
  • American Sugar Cane League
  • Arkansas Rice Federation
  • Association of California Egg Farmers
  • California Association of Wheat Growers
  • California Cattlemen’s Association
  • California Grain and Feed Association
  • California Pork Producers Association
  • California Poultry Federation
  • Consumer Brands Association
  • Corn Refiners Association
  • Cottonseed and Feed Association
  • Freight Rail Customer Alliance
  • Georgia Agribusiness Council
  • Grain and Feed Association of Illinois
  • Growth Energy
  • International Dairy Foods Association
  • International Fresh Produce Association
  • Iowa Institute for Cooperatives
  • Kansas Association of Wheat Growers
  • Kansas Grain and Feed Association
  • Kansas Agribusiness Retailers Association
  • Laughlin Cartrell Inc.
  • Midsouth Grain Association
  • Minnesota Crop Production Retailers
  • Minnesota Grain and Feed Association
  • Minnesota Wheat Research & Promotion Council
  • Mississippi Feed and Grain Association
  • Montana Agricultural Business Association
  • Montana Grain Elevators Association
  • National Aquaculture Association
  • National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
  • National Association of Wheat Growers
  • National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
  • National Corn Growers Association
  • National Cotton Council of America
  • National Cotton Ginners Association
  • National Cottonseed Products Association
  • National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
  • National Grain and Feed Association
  • National Grange
  • National Industrial Transportation League
  • National Milk Producers Federation
  • National Oilseed Processors Association
  • National Sorghum Producers
  • Nebraska Agri-Business Association
  • Nebraska Cooperative Council
  • Nebraska Dry Pea and Lentil Commission
  • Nebraska Wheat Board
  • Nebraska Wheat Growers Association
  • New York State Agribusiness Association
  • North American Meat Institute
  • North American Millers’ Association
  • North Carolina Agribusiness Council
  • North Dakota Grain Dealers Association
  • Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance
  • Northwest Chicken Council
  • Ohio AgriBusiness Association
  • Oklahoma Grain & Feed Association
  • Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association
  • Oregon Feed & Grain Association
  • Oregon Wheat Growers League
  • Pacific Egg & Poultry Association
  • Pacific Northwest Grain & Feed Association
  • Pet Food Institute
  • Plains Cotton Growers, Inc.
  • Portland Cement Association
  • Private Railcar Food and Beverage Association
  • Roquette
  • South Dakota Agri-Business Association (SDABA)
  • Soy Transportation Coalition
  • Specialty Soya and Grains Alliance
  • Tennessee Feed and Grain Association
  • Texas Ag Industries Association
  • Texas Grain and Feed Association
  • Texas Wheat Producers Association
  • The Fertilizer Institute
  • USA Rice
  • Wisconsin Agri-Business Association
  • Wyoming Wheat Marketing Commission

The full bill text and a fact sheet are available by following the links.

Brothers and Sisters of our unions:

Presidential Emergency Board (“PEB” or “the Board”) 250 conducted hearings in Washington, D.C. this past week, concluding on July 28th. We both were honored to represent our unions and, by extension, the memberships of the dozen strong United Rail Unions as we presented and testified in support of our unified case to the PEB. We are sharing this joint message to ensure that our members are up to date on all of the bargaining round issues.

For the first time in history, the 12 United Rail Unions, representing 115,000 members in every craft in the industry, presented a unified case on wages, healthcare, sick leave and holidays to the Board. Also for the first time in history, SMART-TD and BLET presidents made joint presentations on our unions’ proposals to eliminate carrier-imposed attendance policies, provide for voluntary rest days for road crews, and to increase away-from-home terminal meal allowances. In addition, BLET Director of Benefits Dan Cook, who also serves as the Cooperating Railway Labor Organizations’ administrator, testified in support of the United Rail Unions’ unified Health and Welfare proposal and SMART-TD VP Brent Leonard testified in opposition to the crew consist issues that the carriers attempted to improperly raise in this proceeding.

At the conclusion of the first day of hearings on July 24, and in an effort to keep our memberships current on the status of the bargaining round, the United Rail Unions released summaries of our final proposals before the Board, as well as the carriers’ final proposals. Those proposals are still available on our union websites. We encourage all members to take the time to review them, and more importantly, realize just how far apart the two sides remain after more than two and a half years of negotiations.

As has been said since an update from the Coordinated Bargaining Coalition in January 2021 and in every update from rail labor since, it is also important to remember who is responsible for the absence of an acceptable National Rail Contract settlement. By reviewing the carriers’ final proposal presented before the PEB, it remains all too evident that they continue to refuse to make a realistic and worthy proposal that our voting members would ratify. That is why our contract dispute has reached a PEB, one of the final steps under the Railway Labor Act.

Regarding the unions’ final presentation before the PEB, it’s important to see how the union leadership arrived at their final proposal. Both parties served Section 6 notices in this round of bargaining at the start of negotiations in late 2019. Those notices are a mandatory starting point in the bargaining process, and generally include every item on which each individual union seeks to negotiate. As the parties negotiate, each side’s list of issues is prioritized to ensure that the most important ones are addressed in the ultimate contract settlement.

This bargaining round was no different. Based on membership feedback, several items were initially identified early on as key priorities including, increasing wages, rejecting concessions on healthcare, addressing unreasonable attendance policies and paid sick leave, and establishing predictable time away from work. The need for paid sick leave without penalty became even more evident with the pandemic and the manpower shortages caused by carriers’ continued mismanagement.

Leadership of the SMART-TD and BLET collaborated on presenting our craft-specific issues throughout negotiations and collaborated with our entire bargaining coalition on our shared issues. But, as is now obvious, the carriers refused to engage in meaningful bargaining on our most important issues. Multiple proposals were exchanged over these last two and a half years, including varying wage proposals, all in an effort to come to a voluntary agreement worthy of ratification by the membership.

Nowhere else was the distance between the sides more evident than in the discussion of wages. Contracts of both five- and six-year durations were proposed and discussed, driving differing values for the wage package. Our last unified wage proposal as we were released from mediation in June contained a six-year proposal with wage increases occurring July 1st of each year totaling 40%, with 36% of that payable in the first five years. In contrast, in January of 2022, the carriers’ proposed wage increase totaling 11% and their last proposal as we were released from mediation was a five-year proposal with wage increases occurring on July 1st of each year totaling 14%.

With a gap that wide, it was no surprise that voluntary efforts, as well as mandatory government-sponsored mediation, failed to reach an agreement. Once the parties were released from mediation, the United Rail Unions immediately began work preparing their final unified proposal to be presented to the PEB. That process included union leaders, the unions’ collective legal counsel, health care experts, and an expert economist. In the end, the unions agreed to present the summarized proposal shared with our memberships on July 24 at the close of the first day of hearings.

Before we get into the wage proposal numbers, it is important to understand the status of our negotiations as we went before the PEB. The PEB is not the start of negotiations. As explained above, the start of the negotiations happened when our lengthy Section 6 notices were served in 2019. Further, the PEB hearing is not a negotiation; it is an opportunity for both sides to present their final proposals, which must be supported with extensive economic data through live testimony. In this case, the hearing spanned five days, where both parties made presentations by expert witnesses to support their proposals. 

In crafting the unions’ final wage proposal, and knowing that those proposals had to be supported by our expert economist, an in-depth analysis was conducted — taking into account long-term wage growth, past and present, as well as increases in the cost of living for the years covered by the agreement. Consideration also had to be given to the financial value of the other non-wage proposals going before the PEB as part of crafting a final proposal that we believe the Board would recommend.

In the period between the close of NMB mediation in June and the PEB hearings in July, and after consultation with the unions’ economic expert, the unions determined that the wage proposal that could be best supported by our economic data was a final, unified proposal totaling a 28% gross wage increase (GWI), uncompounded, over five years. While some saw that move from our previous position of 36% over five years as too big, it is not certain that they understood the proposal’s other terms.

One other component of our final proposal was to move from the July 1 annual wage increase dates in our 36% proposal, to annual January 1 wage increases. The effect of this change is fairly simple math — paying each raise six months sooner doubles the value of each wage increase in the year it is applied.  In fact, on a base salary of $100,000, advancing the GWI schedule by six months each year generates additional compensation of over $15,000 during the term of the agreement as compared to July 1 annual increases. For someone with a base salary of $75,000, the advancement generates additional compensation of over $11,000 during the term of the Agreement — vastly reducing the financial gap between the 28% and prior 36% proposals. On the same base salaries, the unified proposal with the earlier effective dates would also generate in excess of $20,000 and $16,000, respectively, in back pay for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022. 

While we do not agree that it should impact the PEB decision, the history of wage increases in our National Agreements was part of the carriers’ presentation in opposition to not only our proposed wage increase values, but also against the earlier annual increase dates. That history is straightforward; no National Agreement in the past 45 years has included GWIs totaling over 18% for a five-year period. Regardless of that history, our economist clearly laid out the economic support for the 28% wage proposal presented to the PEB. 

Our health and welfare experts also made the case that no additional health and welfare costs should be pushed onto employees. We made the case for needed sick days and additional holidays for all involved Unions. We made a joint case for eliminating all non-negotiated attendance policies, allowing General Committees to serve notice to compel on-property bargaining for voluntary rest days, and improvements to our held away meal allowances.

All in all, the United Rail Unions made a sound, reasonable case before the PEB.  We must thank our team’s legal counsel, health care experts, expert economist and all of the witnesses who gave testimony on behalf of our United Rail Unions. In the coming weeks, we will receive the PEB’s recommendations for settlement of our dispute and then consider them.

While it was not possible, we also wish every member of every union could have attended the hearings before PEB 250 and to have had a chance to testify on their own behalf about the conditions, the struggles, and the situations that carriers have created for the people whose work brings them profit. Through their actions, and in the case of these drawn-out negotiations, their inaction, the carriers’ cavalier and pay-no-heed attitude toward our brothers and sisters who did the work through a pandemic, through job cuts and through an ongoing supply chain crisis could not be clearer. They do not care to either understand or respect their employees. Some of their assertions, such as how happy their employees are, were beyond belief — even to those of us that have heard their spin before. We refuted them all.

Following the recommendations of the PEB, the parties have another 30-day cooling off period to consider the recommendations and reach an agreement. If the carriers continue to refuse to make a ratifiable proposal, very critical decisions will have to be made during that period. As has been said time and again, do not listen to the carrier moles and trolls that attempt to blame this situation on the employees or their Unions. They are only attempting to divide us as we close in on the final months of this round of bargaining. Among our unions, our solidarity is our strength. Please do not allow those attempting to divide us to succeed.

In solidarity,

President Jeremy Ferguson

SMART Transportation Division

President Dennis Pierce,

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

Today, July 24, 2022, the United Rail Unions, who are bargaining as part of the Coordinated Bargaining Coalition and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way/SMART Mechanical Coalition, and the Carriers represented by the National Carriers Conference Committee (NCCC), began their presentations before Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) No. 250, which was appointed by President Biden on July 18, 2022.

The hearings are scheduled to continue through Thursday, July 28, with Friday reserved for facilitation meetings with the parties and the PEB. Following the hearings, the PEB will issue recommendations for settlement of the national agreement dispute. A second thirty-day cooling-off period will begin when those recommendations are issued, which should occur on or before August 15.

A summary of the proposals being advanced by the United Rail Unions can be found by reading this PDF, and a summary of the proposals being advanced by the NCCC can be found by reading this PDF.

The Unions’ proposals include a 5-year wage proposal seeking an increase of 31.2% when compounded, while the carriers are asking the PEB to recommend 17% compounded over 5 years.

On the issue of healthcare, the Unions are seeking status quo for employee cost sharing, and increases in autism and hearing benefits, which are long overdue. Despite our members being deemed “essential” and keeping the Nation’s rail system operating during the pandemic, the Carriers, just as they did during negotiations, have the audacity to ask the PEB to recommend massive healthcare concessions in both the form of drastic increases in employee costs and decreases in certain benefits, along with healthcare plan changes that only serve to further increase the record profits they are already reaping. In addition to wages and healthcare, the Unions are also seeking to create a national sick leave policy that would provide employees with 15 protected sick leave days and add three additional holidays, along with various craft-specific work rule proposals.

As we have previously communicated, the United Rail Unions remain unified in their efforts to secure the best contract possible for our members. We will show this week that the Unions’ proposals are supported by current economic data and are more than warranted when compared to our memberships’ contribution to the record profits of the rail carriers.

Additional information will be provided as developments warrant. We appreciate your continuing support.

Read this statement in PDF form.

###

The unions comprising the Coordinated Bargaining Coalition are: the American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA); the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen / Teamsters Rail Conference (BLET); the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS); the International Association of Machinists (IAM); the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (IBB); the National Conference of Firemen & Oilers/SEIU (NCFO); the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU); the Transportation Communications Union / IAM (TCU), including TCU’s Brotherhood Railway Carmen Division (BRC); and the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers (SMART–TD).

The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division and SMART Mechanical Unions are also bargaining as a coalition.

Collectively, these Unions represent approximately 115,000 railroad workers covered by the various organizations’ national agreements, and comprise 100% of the workforce who will be impacted by this round of negotiations.

SMART Transportation Division President Jeremy Ferguson released the following statement on July 22, 2022, regarding the commencement of the Presidential Emergency Board:

Brothers and Sisters —

At 2:30 p.m. Sunday, July 24, 2022, Presidential Emergency Board 250 will convene in Washington, D.C. and proceed through Friday, July 29th, as the next step in the Railway Labor Act process.

We anticipate a fair and thorough series of hearings before the board, which consists of three qualified members. SMART-TD and the other rail labor organizations are prepared to present our best case to get a contract workers can be proud of after serving the nation through a pandemic and a supply-chain crisis. Carriers have enjoyed record and increasing profits through the hard work of unionized labor. This PEB gives us an opportunity to show the evidence that our toil should be rewarded.

Out of mutual respect for the process taking place, there will be no updates on the hearings, which will consist of daily sessions lasting anywhere from 10 to 12 hours, from either labor or the carriers once they begin. Until labor and the carriers have made their cases, SMART-TD will respect the authority of the PEB and comments will be reserved until after the PEB has released its recommendations.

That being said, the continued outreach and show of solidarity by not only SMART-TD members, but all of rail labor continues to fuel and motivate labor leaders through this arduous process. The silence need not extend to you. Any and all support is encouraged, seen and appreciated whether from rail workers, other branches of organized labor or from the public. Rail labor earlier this week received a letter of support from the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in which President Willie Adams and Vice President Bobby Olvera Jr. pledged solidarity to our organizations. We thank them for voicing their support and express our highest gratitude to our ILWU brothers and sisters.

Let’s continue the momentum as we move ahead!

In solidarity,

Jeremy R. Ferguson

President, SMART Transportation Division

Attention freight rail members in national handling:

To further strengthen our PEB presentation, we are soliciting additional evidence regarding the restrictive and punitive measures carriers have used to punish employees who are attempting to look after their own health, and the actions taken by members to avoid such.

Specifically, we are requesting that members provide details surrounding any time where they felt they had to come to work ill and/or injured, in order to avoid potential discipline and loss of compensation. This includes any time where members may have neglected to care for their own personal health because of the Carriers’ policies.

Additionally, we ask that members share any stories where they have either been denied mark-offs to tend to their own personal health or marked off sick and were subsequently punished. These mark-off requests could have been to attend counseling sessions, routine medical appointments, and/or medical treatments; but must have been for the employee — not a family member or relative.

We want to show how these policies have harmed you and how having paid sick days to care for your own personal health, without retribution, would be a much-needed relief for T&E crews.

Please respond to legal_TD@smart-union.org.

Please reply with your name, local number, and current contact information, in the event that we need to contact you to gather additional information.

In solidarity,

SMART Transportation Division

The United Rail Unions issued the following statement July 15, 2022:

The Rail Unions who are bargaining as part of the Coordinated Bargaining Coalition and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way/SMART Mechanical Coalition attended the Public Interest Hearings hosted by the members of the National Mediation Board on Tuesday, July 12, 2022, and we thank the National Mediation Board for their efforts to help the parties reach a voluntary agreement. Unfortunately, the nation’s rail carriers continue to refuse to negotiate an agreement that our members would accept.

As a result, and as was expected, President Biden announced today that he is appointing a Presidential Emergency Board before the expiration of the cooling-off period at 12:00 a.m. on Monday, July 18, 2022. The Presidential Emergency Board will have thirty days to convene, hear the positions of the Unions and rail carriers, and issue recommendations for settlement of the dispute. A second thirty-day cooling off period will begin when those recommendations are issued.

The Rail Unions remain united in their efforts, and are now working together in preparation of a unified case representing the best interests of all rail employees before the Presidential Emergency Board. Our unified case will clearly show that the Unions’ proposals are supported by current economic data and are more than warranted when compared to our memberships’ contribution to the record profits of the rail carriers.

Additional information will be provided as developments warrant. We appreciate your continuing support.

###

The unions comprising the Coordinated Bargaining Coalition are: the American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA); the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen / Teamsters Rail Conference (BLET); the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS); the International Association of Machinists (IAM); the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (IBB); the National Conference of Firemen & Oilers/SEIU (NCFO); the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU); the Transportation Communications Union / IAM (TCU), including TCU’s Brotherhood Railway Carmen Division (BRC); and the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers (SMART–TD).

The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division and SMART Mechanical Unions are also bargaining as a coalition.

Collectively, these Unions represent approximately 115,000 railroad workers covered by the various organizations’ national agreements, and comprise 100% of the workforce who will be impacted by this round of negotiations.

Read this release in PDF form.

An open letter from the office of SMART-TD President Jeremy Ferguson

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Earlier today, I advised our Rail General Chairpersons involved in national bargaining that the cooling-off period after our release by the NMB will be ending Monday, July 18, at 12:01 a.m., and if a Presidential Emergency Board is not appointed by then, there will be the opportunity to engage in self-help. A copy of that letter can be found here.

According to the governing provisions of the SMART Constitution, a strike action over a national contract dispute must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the affected General Chairpersons. This method, which has been carefully written and democratically required by our delegates, provides a quick and effective way to obtain strike authority from our members. As noted in my letter, our General Committees have so far shown unanimous support for exercising our right to legally strike, if and when the opportunity presents itself. This result does not come as a surprise, given the railroads’ abysmal treatment of our members over the last 2+ years, and their ongoing refusal to make any move toward a contract that is even remotely worthy of your consideration in a ratification vote.

As noted in my letter to our General Chairpersons, this approval does not automatically constitute authorization to engage in a strike. Final authorization will come in a separate notice from this office, and will be widely distributed using every communication tool available to us. The earliest this office could issue that notice could be on or after 12:01 a.m. on Monday, July 18, 2022. However, if President Biden establishes a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) prior to this date, which is generally expected under these circumstances, no strike authorization can be issued during the PEB process.

With that being said, preparation for the possibility of a strike is well under way. We will soon be distributing materials to all affected SMART-TD Locals, which will include explicit detailed instructions. We will also be electronically distributing picketing materials so our members may choose which signs they want to display. This method of distribution provides the added benefit of avoiding any potential delays that might result from mass printing and mailing these materials from a central location.

Your national negotiating team is more determined than ever to obtain a contract that provides the fair compensation, meaningful improvements in quality of life, and better healthcare that we rightfully expect and deserve. To the carriers and their media pundits who are trying to cast us in a negative light: Your bogus rhetoric might resonate with the hedge fund managers, Wall Street investors, and billionaire cronies you cater to, but the hard-working people who earn you your all-time record-breaking profits aren’t buying it. Make no mistake, we are prepared and willing to exercise every legal option available under the Railway Labor Act to achieve our goals.

Fraternally,

Jeremy R. Ferguson
President, Transportation Division

SMART-TD President Jeremy Ferguson

SMART Transportation Division (SMART-TD) would like to take a few moments to update the thousands of essential rail workers whom we proudly represent, the rail shippers and customers, as well as the public at large on the real status of labor negotiations and about the serious factual misrepresentations that the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and railroad representatives are stating as “FACT” surrounding the “railroad labor negotiations and the need to avert a network shutdown.” Their claims are simply not true.

Let me be clear, rail labor is NOT looking to strike or shut down the nation’s economy at the expense of everyone. We want and deserve a fair agreement for our members. We strongly believe that a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) will help us to garner that without the necessity of a strike. This does not mean that we will not do what’s necessary to get a fair agreement, but rather we expect the Railway Labor Act (RLA) to do its job as it has in the past so that it does not come to that. We are fully prepared to act if the provisions of the RLA get to the point of self-help or strike.

I was present and testified with a full team of experts in front of the Surface Transportation Board (STB) on April 26th and 27th in Washington D.C., concerning the massive network disruptions, the negative effects of Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR), and the pending supply chain collapse due to railroad mismanagement of their networks. Shippers don’t know when they will be serviced, and the workforce doesn’t know when we will be going to work. I was proud to testify to make it known that we fully support our customers’ efforts to have the reliable and consistent service that they not only deserve, but also contracted with the railroad(s) for. I made it clear then, and now do so once again, that we stand ready to do everything within our power to keep freight moving and to support this country’s supply chain and economy.

Much like the testimony delivered by the railroads and AAR at the STB hearings, again there’s a steady stream of lip service, half-truths and misleading innuendo trying to skew the truth about the status of negotiations. I would also note that, to date, the AAR has not put forth any data supporting the “fair” percentage wage increases they are proposing and “provide well-deserved compensation increases to our essential employees and are consistent with labor market benchmarks.” What they are purporting as fair is only fair in their eyes and obviously not seen as “fair” by their essential employees who are quitting their jobs in record numbers. I have been at the negotiating table. I have yet to see any fair proposals put forth by the carriers in three years of negotiations. The benchmarks they are using at the negotiating table were established well before the pandemic and inflation occurred. I would also cite the fact that due to the PSR scheme worker productivity is running at such a high level that it is literally about to snap like an overstretched cable or chain.

Assuredly, a 16% wage increase over five years is not acceptable by today’s benchmarks. The railroads’ plans to increase the employees’ share of healthcare costs to such a point that the raises become net-zero is not reflective of rail carriers’ record profits or of their desire to keep their “valued freight rail customers,” isolated from further network disruptions caused by lack of manpower. The proposed five-year increases also come below all standard cost of living metrics. The railroads these days are having a very difficult time attracting potential new employees because of their refusal to bargain in conjunction with today’s benchmarks, much in the same way that they refuse to acknowledge shippers’ need to have sufficient and reliable service in accordance with their common carrier obligations.

On multiple occasions, SMART-TD has stood up for shippers, while carriers lacked any interest in fixing the current shipping problems that worsen by the day. PSR is the reason. Everyone knows it. Legislation may be needed for a permanent fix to the problem, and I think that day is coming soon. The quickest fix is to stop the railroads from running such ridiculously long trains, which the current infrastructure can’t handle, and get back to basics now! Instead, they cajole shippers to help them save a few dollars of their record profits, wanting to tip the scales against the very people who do the work and who are chiefly responsible for getting the railroads their profits. This is appalling. By hanging the fear of service disruptions in front of the shippers, it would almost be comical if the current state of the supply chain situation were not so dire.

Meanwhile, the tales told by the mouthpieces of the carriers keep getting bigger and bigger. One such fish tale dangled in front of people mentions that labor seeks a 47% wage increase. Even the head of the National Railway Labor Conference can’t provide the evidence to document this whopper. The truth is the three biggest railroads at the negotiating table don’t want to part with ANY of their record profits, nor do they wish to reward the workers who have busted their asses for the last three years without a raise, to get them those record profits. The shareholders were rewarded with record buybacks of $10 billion. Where is the reward for the employees who are actually doing the back-breaking work to make those buybacks possible? With a stale contract that has been in effect since prior to inflation taking hold, the workers have nothing to show for their blood, sweat and tears, as well as the sacrifices they and their families have made.

Pouring on the risk and absurdity, the big 3 claim they wish to get a deal done given those “fair” proposals they’ve allegedly made. What they’re not telling everyone is that instead of negotiating with labor at the national table to get this deal done, they are instead more concerned with keeping up their mediation meetings in an attempt to get a crew-consist agreement completed to further reduce the rail workforce, thanks to the allegedly “fair” arbitrator selection process out of the previous National Mediation Board (NMB). Carriers again are attempting to go to one person occupying the cab of a freight train. (Their ultimate stated goal is zero crewmembers on trains frequently carrying hazardous freight.) Such a measure would put the safety of our communities at serious risk and the supply chain in dire jeopardy, more so than it is right now. Were carriers so concerned about a fair national agreement to stop service disruptions, one would think they would concentrate on the goal of a national agreement. Instead, carrier execs and their cronies are off for two weeks at a time trying to find a way to get rid of more employees rather than trying to come up with a fair and equitable agreement to keep the ones they now have. UNBELIEVEABLE, but not surprising!

Class 1 railroads are not just servicing their own greed and that of Wall Street, they are working against serving their own customers, their own workforce, the families of their employees, the communities they serve and the American economy. This strategy will net them those short-term monetary gains they desire at the expense of the long-term viability of the American supply chain, our national security and the long-term health of the national economy.

Lastly, I find it very offensive that the railroads, via the AAR, would reach out to the shippers to assist their efforts in advocating for so-called “fair-minded” arbitrators with rail industry experience to the Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) to help facilitate what they perceive to be a reasonable agreement and avoid network disruptions. We all know that getting a good contract for the workforce will not only stop the bleeding, but it will also help employee morale and keep the supply chain moving. Absent an enticing contract, the current workforce will continue to shrink and worsen the situation more than any other factors possibly could. I can’t stop my members from leaving the industry, but the railroads can by offering a truly fair and equitable agreement with wage increases, no changes to healthcare costs and predictable scheduling, among other asks.

To the rail customers: I urge you to respond to the AAR’s request by telling them that you support SMART-TD and labor as we have supported you. We have faith that the Railway Labor Act process will work just fine, much like it always has since 1934, and you should too. Don’t let yourselves “get railroaded” by the AAR. America’s Class 1 railroads are attempting to “railroad” customers, railroad employees, their families, and the American public, as a whole, and “attention must be paid.” Don’t listen to their propaganda. Do your research and look at the facts for what they are. I can assure you, if the carriers get what they are proposing, things will only get worse and it will be their own fault.

Sincerely,

Jeremy R. Ferguson
President, Transportation Division