Union vs. Non-Union:

Given a short exchange in previous thread below about the applicability to this board of pro-union sentiments in a below thread. I am asking this as a serious inquiry and AM NOT TRYING TO INFLAME anybodyÂ’s passions.

From a historical perspective, IÂ’m wondering why (so many) railroaders are so adamantly pro-union and anti-company.

Tradionally, unionizing provided some measure of ability to allow for bargaining with regards to work conditions and ensuring a continuation of those conditions. As it stands, much of todaysÂ’sindustrial occupational environment is governed by federal safety regulations (FRA, NTSB, OSHA as applicable).

As for benefits, Railroad retirement is a federal program and any other employee benefit plan is subject to oversight by the IRS and DOL. There are tons of contingency-fee trial lawyers ready to turn any mishap into a settlement.

As for negotiating wages, market forces are against “the company” now.

As for protecting the level of employment-well, 5 man crews are now 2 and remote-control looks more and more like the coming thing. Operating craft employment dropped for decades even as the unions required firemen on diesels-or perhaps because of it.

I can see the advantage when thereÂ’s a need for representation especially when some rules guy over interprets a safety rule to require clairvoyance on the part of some operating crew.

I guess being a bean-counter I ask what tangible, measurable benefit do you get enough bang for the buck from your dues? Do railroads deserve the reputation IÂ’ve observed as a (potentially) malevolent employer? I know theyÂ’ve certainly done stupid things-such as fighting stokers and when NS wanted to avoid having toilets aboard engines a few years back.

I would prefer to read reasoned, responses-preferably based upon personal experience-no party lines pro or con.



superheater@rrmail.com

> I guess being a bean-counter I ask what
> tangible, measurable benefit do you get
> enough bang for the buck from your dues? Do
> railroads deserve the reputation IÂ’ve
> observed as a (potentially) malevolent
> employer?

> I would prefer to read reasoned,
> responses-preferably based upon personal
> experience-no party lines pro or con.

As this deals with present-day railroading rather than history or preservation, I would prefer that responses be made to Mr. Superheater directly at his e-mail address and the conversation continued offline.


eledbetter@rypn.org

To me, the main need for unions lies in the right to due process. If you read the "at will" clause in any employment handbook, it states that the handbook is not a contract and that employees may be discharged at any time, without reason. This means a longtime, faithful employee may be replaced by the boss' illiterate nephew at any time, without recourse, and it is perfectly legal.

A ratified collective bargaining agreement, however, IS a legal contract, subject to interpretation by state labor boards, or in the case of railroaders, the National Railroad Adjustment Board in Chicago. These agreements can further go through the court system, if necessary. Without such agreements, workers have little, if any, protection.

Non-union company policies, however benevolent for now, can be (and often are) changed on a whim without a contract in place. Two people doing the exact same job, with the exact same performance record, can be paid two different wages, depending on who the boss likes best.

Railroad workers have their own labor act (preceding the Wagner Act by about 8 years) and their own federal pension system apart from Social Security. In many ways, the Wagner Act and Social Security were modeled on the previous railway examples.

Yes, there have been concessions to technology as time goes by, some good, some bad. There is a big debate now over remote control, which we workers feel is unsafe. Today, more freight is being moved than WWII, but with a fraction of the workers.

Nearly every law dealing with railway safety came about through an initial push by the unions. Most railroads today talk a good line about safety, but seldom invest in the costly improvements to really make things safer. It is much cheaper to hand out keychains with safety slogans and put the blame on the employee for violating a safety rule when an injury occurs. Because of this, we want FELA to stay in place and not be replaced by a form of workman's comp.

Having been forced to work non-union for a time, I can tell you there is no comparision in wages. I now make more than double what I made before, with much improved conditions and benefits. The non-union companies gave us free coveralls and free coffee and donuts - I'll take a living wage any time.

Even the shortlines are slowly becoming organized again, with about 60% now represented by UTU or BLE. They do not work at class one wages, but at least have the right to due process and seniority. The latter two reasons are why the shortline conglomerates resort to bribery, threats and intimidation to keep unions out. Without due process, they can make all the promises they want, then rescind them without notice. The bunch I worked for paid a team of lawyers $900 an hour for two years to prevent a contract from being signed which had only small pay increases. It was a case of wanting to deny workers due process and genuine legal rights much more than money.

Today, I am very lucky to work for good people and make a good wage, but I know much of the reason for that lies in the labor agreement between my union and the carrier. So if you hold strong non-union sympathies, I'd suggest not versing them in a railroad yard, because you won't find much agreement and won't make any friends.

Railway Labor Act
ryarger@rypn.org

The real issues here are management. And there are TWO managments, management of the enterprise and management of the union (which is different from the rank and file).

From an economic standpoint there is really no good argument against union organization, it the only way in which workers in an enterprise can achieve reasonably equal economic bargaining power regarding wages and the conditions of employment.

But like so many things economic, the devil is in the people that are supposed to make it work.

My point here is simply that there are managements on both sides of the bargaining table, and neither is perfect. Company managers have done bad or stupid things, but so have union managers. It is not a one way street.

While shareholders and enterprise managers can be sometimes be accused of "greed", so can workers and union managers who ask for excessive pay or pay for unproductive work. But the reality is that is how negotiations work....the rug merchant asks ten times what it's worth, the buyer offers a tenth, and somewhere in the middle they reach a price that is agreeable to both.

Human chemistry also becomes important...some folks get along and work well across the bargaining table, and others bicker endlessly....or worse.;

Just like "real" politics, labor managment politics these days often gets played out in the mass media, where hyperbode and sound bites are more important than reasoned arguments. What you hear about are the opening offers, because their absurdity makes good press. What you don't hear so much about, because it is boring, are the compromises and eventual agreements.

Railroad labor managment relations is an extremely important part of railroad history, indeed of labor managment history because railroad unions were among the first unions.

An interesting subject, but rarely discussed without a lot of smoke and emotion.

If this board covers the preservation of history as well as rolling stock, then this post is on topic.

> I guess being a bean-counter I ask what
> tangible, measurable benefit do you get
> enough bang for the buck from your dues? Do
> railroads deserve the reputation IÂ’ve
> observed as a (potentially) malevolent
> employer?

Sometimes as time passes, the railroad comes to depend on the union for some minor services. Of course, this can backfire!
About 1984, approximately 2 years after S.E.P.T.A. took over the local Philadelphia commuter trains from ConRail, they were forced to use an impartial board of independent investigators (politicians) to discover why the ex-railroaders didn't like being employed by the transit company.
One example the committee discovered was that on the railroad after almost any minor incident, the train crews's immediate superior would recommend dismissal and the next layer of management would hold an informal hearing with a brotherhood (union) representative present to find out what really happened before deciding on any punishment.
Only that lowest layer of supervision was transferred to S.E.P.T.A. employment with the crews, and now would send their dismissal recommendation to a S.E.P.T.A official. S.E.P.T.A.'s philosophy was that supervisors are hired to make hard decisions and upper management just rubber stamps them! Thus, under the new management, lots of ex-railroaders were quickly fired for minor incidents.


TyburnRR@cs.com