engineers pulling bids

[Iron Bender]

I can definitely see that being an issue in terminals where the ATSF and BN were consolidated. And it would be wrong for an engineer to flow back as a Sante Fe trainman and then mark to BN jobs he could have never flowed back to or been set back and able to mark to. Keep the Santa Fe agreements to the Santa Fe jobs.

But up here in the PNW, we're a thousand miles from the nearest former Santa Fe property, so that isn't an issue. But we do have engineers either improperly demoting themselves or going to distant terminals to get cut back and then returning to their home terminal as trainman when they could have held as engineers all along. That BS needs to come to an end as well. Requiring that engineers exhaust their engineer's seniority within reasonable, specified zones before being allowed to exercise their ground seniority and then being able to work the ground only within that zone should fix that problem.

The latest I have heard is that this on temporary hold right now. Supposedly not all of the committees have signed MOUs, the company is more focused on the RSIA, and there is meeting of the BNSF, UTU, and BLE scheduled for later this month. Supposedly the BLE is pleading to force a flowback agreement or at least create zones as they see fit.

As far as I am concerned, everyone who raised their hand to become an engineer knew what they were getting into. They were forfeiting their right to exercise their ground seniority without restriction. There is no flowback here. Many of us passed up becoming an engineer because we knew we wanted to work as trainmen. I don't care how it is on the ATSF side or any other damn railroad. That's how it is on the BN. If we're going to rewrite the rules, then we had better make sure it is equitable for everyone. If the engineer's are going to get a second chance to go back and work the ground, then the ground men should get a second chance to go back and get an engineer's date at the earliest time they could have. Or just give everyone a date for every craft based on their original hire date. Otherwise, fuck it, lay in the bed you made for yourself.

[6MaxNL]

here's what i don't understand about the WHOLE union/contract/agreement thing... it takes up to 5 years to "negotiate" a working contract... we have "agreements" with the carrier and then we need to have MOU's as well??? wtf???

if we have a contract let it speak for itself and for the life of me why does the union (both UTU/BLET) allow the carrier to unilaterally decide to not honor an "existing" agreement out of the blue with a threat of "law board"???

if you have a contract, you have a contract, and do not need a "Memorandum of Understanding" on how to interpret the contract... jeebus.

it isn't solely the engineers pulling bids either... it's being abused with program trip rates, declinations of legitimate claims, and many other carrier abuses and infractions of our labor rights... this whole thing, along with other work related issues stemming from the union/carrier bullshit, sounds like a bunch of high school girls passing notes back and forth (or texting in this day and age! lol)...

sally says this... mary says that.... the MOU says this... carrier says that... union says this...

i could understand everyone getting all balled up over this single issue of pulling bids if the unions could get all balled up over the carrier abusing contracts, agreement and MOU's...

now we're having this SMART rest and losing guarantee slipped into our backside...

tyvm to all the contract, agreement and MOU "negotiators"... job well done.

[dealem]

Originally Posted by Iron Bender

I can definitely see that being an issue in terminals where the ATSF and BN were consolidated. And it would be wrong for an engineer to flow back as a Sante Fe trainman and then mark to BN jobs he could have never flowed back to or been set back and able to mark to. Keep the Santa Fe agreements to the Santa Fe jobs.

But up here in the PNW, we're a thousand miles from the nearest former Santa Fe property, so that isn't an issue. But we do have engineers either improperly demoting themselves or going to distant terminals to get cut back and then returning to their home terminal as trainman when they could have held as engineers all along. That BS needs to come to an end as well. Requiring that engineers exhaust their engineer's seniority within reasonable, specified zones before being allowed to exercise their ground seniority and then being able to work the ground only within that zone should fix that problem.

The latest I have heard is that this on temporary hold right now. Supposedly not all of the committees have signed MOUs, the company is more focused on the RSIA, and there is meeting of the BNSF, UTU, and BLE scheduled for later this month. Supposedly the BLE is pleading to force a flowback agreement or at least create zones as they see fit.

As far as I am concerned, everyone who raised their hand to become an engineer knew what they were getting into. They were forfeiting their right to exercise their ground seniority without restriction. There is no flowback here. Many of us passed up becoming an engineer because we knew we wanted to work as trainmen. I don't care how it is on the ATSF side or any other damn railroad. That's how it is on the BN. If we're going to rewrite the rules, then we had better make sure it is equitable for everyone. If the engineer's are going to get a second chance to go back and work the ground, then the ground men should get a second chance to go back and get an engineer's date at the earliest time they could have. Or just give everyone a date for every craft based on their original hire date. Otherwise, fuck it, lay in the bed you made for yourself.

PERFECTLY ARTICULATED. Fair is fair.

[grabiron]

This is at the very least an interesting topic!! Where do MOU's come from? How about that 1991/1993 Crew Consist Agreement!! The reason for MOUs after agreements are negotiated is very simple, to close up any loopholes that come up down the road that were not covered in the agreement. The Primary Recall and Last Man Standing Agreement were silent as to flowback issues, yet people found their way around the agreements, therefore, MOUs. As for the 1991/1993 Crew Consist Agreement, check out the part on productivity shares. This may not effect many but I believe many engineers with pre 1980 trainmen's dates would not set themselves back if this applied.

[6MaxNL]

then what's to stop the carriers from "questioning" any of the agreed upon contract... if the morons have huge gaps and holes in their language then wtf??? our last "contract" took years after the previous one expired to come to light... if it takes years to hammer out a contract then why doesn't it take years to hammer out a MOU???

if "I" sign a contract... and "You" sign a contract guess what? it's F*CKIN' CONTRACT!!!! don't like the wording??? change it NEXT TIME AROUND!!!

so the MOU on engineers going to ground gets through lickety-split when OH's are getting displaced out of their comfy spots... while the carrier is ass-raping us on "program trips" and "trip rates"??? where's the freakin' MOU on that one?!?!?!

the carrier comes in and states they are not going to honor the current agreement for RO's on our MOBA trains and will go to court over it... so we cave... but screw us over time and time again on other issues too??? how about a MOU there my leadership!

screw the MOU's... gimme a contract and stick to it.... change it at next negotiations... (when money/perks exchange hands...)

wonder how the, ahem :::cough cough cough", contract negotiations are coming along??? bwhahahahahaha!!!

[corn-huh?-sker]

One of the first things i learned on this property. Agreements dont mean sh*t to the carriers. Why dont we go to court for every agreement the carrier shits on? Does the carrier have judges in thair pockets or something?

[rrbob]

Originally Posted by corn-huh?-sker

One of the first things i learned on this property. Agreements dont mean sh*t to the carriers. Why dont we go to court for every agreement the carrier shits on? Does the carrier have judges in thair pockets or something?

It is a thing called "The Railway Labor Act"

[corn-huh?-sker]

Bob, you are a great poster and i have learned alot from your postings. But how does the "railway labor act" stop us from taking those fuckers to court?

[6MaxNL]

that's my point...whenever it's "brother on brother"it seems shit gets done... when it's the labor agreement against the carrier, all of a sudden someone is quoting some antiquated 1936 rail labor rules shit to me... wtf???

reach donw and see if you still gots a pair, will ya???

[rrbob]

Originally Posted by corn-huh?-sker

Bob, you are a great poster and i have learned alot from your postings. But how does the "railway labor act" stop us from taking those fuckers to court?

Corn, I am no expert on this and I don't have time to look it up right now,but the Railway Labor Act is a law that spells out how railroad labor and management resolve their difference. It spells out how contracts are negotiated, how claims and discipline are disputed, sets up the PEB and so on. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there is language that specifically prohibits us from going to court on some issues.