UTU vs BLET

[Anonymous]

I received a packet in the mail the other day about switching unions.

Some of the literature was not flattering of the other side.

So where is this coming from, why the need to switch, it seems to me that this is only the first shot of a propaganda blitz.

How long will this last, and has it happened before?

[Anonymous]

Check out the BLE and UTU websites. You'll see the fur flying...

LC

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Raiding each other's membership is a bad habit into which many unions have fallen since union membership as a whole has decreased. UTU vs BLE is only one example. It is also occuring in the airline business as IAM membership is being raided by the Airline Mechanics Fraternal Assn. Job protection and pay increases are often the issue involved.

[Overmod]

My understanding is that the proximate cause of the current foofaraw is remote-controlled locomotives. I think this issue is fundamentally different from the airline example above, and isn't about 'the number of dues-paying members' per se.

If we believe that the use of RC will be limited to yard and set-off traffic -- as so many industry people have claimed -- then which 'union' does a single-man crew belong to? Is he or she an engineman who also switches cars, or a switchman with a control that makes the cars move where he or she wants them? (Shades of "Is it a gum or a candy?"!)

The sad thing, to me, is that there has been such a prompt and divisive response from both the UTU and the BLE. One might see the cunning hand of 'management' or 'capital' here, if one were even slightly paranoiac. (A logical 'solution' would be to split the dues requirement for crews, with a special category of 'joint membership', pro-rata voting, etc. etc. etc. -- it's clear to me at least that this wouldn't be a 'split-the-baby' decision. Unfortunately, neither union appears to want to go with this, perhaps because they think (or know) that it's a wedge that might lead to pervasive one-man crewing of mainline trains.

[cstaats]

This will sound like heresy to the unions but one merged union would be stronger and could represent all the employees. Technology has changed the railroad and the unions have changed too to best serve their members. Bickering among the Unions serves only to dimini***he strength of both Unions.

[Anonymous]

Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I have noted quite a bit of hypocrisy from both sides. First of all the UTU pushed for Trainmen to be able to operate Remotes. The problem I have with this is when the engineers lose their jobs in the yards they will flow back to another engineer pool and it starts a cascading effect in which some engineers will have nowhere to go because of their low seniority. So, in the end these displaced engineers will flow back as conductors and then the same cascading effect occurs with the conductors leaving some furloughed, so what doesn't make sense to me is why the UTU would push remotes when in the end it only hurts the members it is trying to represent??
My second point about the BLE is that they have merged with the Teamsters. The Teamsters represent trucking interests. Right there, I'm very suspicious of the intent of the BLE. There are already some local industries that have railroad spurs that have never been used because the business signed an agreement with the teamsters to only use trucking. To me this is ludicrous and hypocritical of the BLE to merge with the Teamsters when it seems like the BLE has made a deal with the devil. The only reason that I can see why the BLE merged with the Teamsters is to improve negotiations between the two unions and maybe work out some joint rail/trucking agreements with industries, but I just don't know how that sits with the memebers of each side??? [%-)][banghead][D)][sigh]

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm, the BLE site just disappeared from the net...

LC

[Anonymous]

Having been to both web sites, its like listening to battling insurance salesmen.

What "is" the difference between the two of them?

I've been out here less than a year and if I am forced into making a choice I would like make a sound decision.

Not to much to ask for, is it?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I'm not absolutely sure of this, but it may not be legally possible for one union to represent all railroad employees as in many other industries. The Railway Labor Act mandates that railroad labor be organized and represented on a craft basis.

[cstaats]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

I'm not absolutely sure of this, but it may not be legally possible for one union to represent all railroad employees as in many other industries. The Railway Labor Act mandates that railroad labor be organized and represented on a craft basis.

So it comes down to the definition of a craft. There could then be a logical argument made that there is a new craft and it needs to be represent by a separate union.

[adrianspeeder]

I just dont get unions.

Adrianspeeder

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by adrianspeeder

I just dont get unions.

Adrianspeeder

FOFLMAO!!

Nobody does!!

LC