October 18, 2006. When the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers merged into the Teamsters two-and-a-half years ago, they added the words “and Trainmen” to the end of their name to signal that they welcomed conductors, brakemen, and switchmen (collectively know as trainmen). But now events in El Paso have led some to question how deep the commitment goes to these new Teamsters.

Two Unions Compete for Membership

Most trainmen are currently represented by the United Transportation Union (UTU), but across the country, there have been groups who felt dissatisfied with the UTU. In some cases, trainmen have been unhappy about the culture of corruption that landed prison sentences for top officers in 2004. Others simply felt that local leaders weren’t up to the job. El Paso is one place where nearly 100 Union Pacific trainmen, the majority Latino or Black, made the switch to join the BLET.

Rail Teamsters work under unique labor law and contract provisions that allow union members to switch back and forth between the UTU and the BLET. The BLET bargains the national agreement for the engineers, the UTU bargains for the trainmen, but members can belong to either union and be represented at early stages of the grievance procedure by whichever union they belong to.

When El Paso trainmen started flooding into the BLET to avoid what they say was poor representation by the UTU, they were warmly welcomed by the local BLET division. But at higher levels, they have been left to fend for themselves as the UTU has initiated a change to prevent them from receiving any representation from the BLET. UTU members are voting on whether to ratify the change.

No Response from BLET

Threatened with losing one of the largest trainmen units in the BLET, one would expect the national officers to swing into action. After all, the large numbers of BLET trainmen in El Paso used to be a feather in the union’s cap when it was at war with the UTU back in 2004. Now that the two unions have called a truce and have pledged to stop raiding each other, it ought to be even easier for President Don Hahs to get the UTU to call off hostilities in El Paso.

Chris Woods, Vice-Local Chairman for the trainmen in El Paso is demanding answers from Hahs. In a letter sent last week, he questions why Hahs is willing to ignore this obvious breach of good faith. He points out that many of the members he represents are minorities. He writes:

“Fully aware that the BLET, in its origins, had other than a favorable impression of ‘minority’ employees, when it came to the issue of the position of Locomotive Engineer, [is] a matter well documented in not only the language of original BLE Constitution, but also, actions that were overturned in precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court decisions. As such, it could be questionable, in my mind and the minds of those I represent, as to why the BLET has allowed this current matter to progress to its current stage.”

Time is of the essence if Hahs is to act. Ballots are in Oct. 19.

Members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (a division of the Teamsters Rail Conference) will soon have the opportunity to vote for an important change to their bylaws. On April 19, a ballot was sent to every member to ask if the election of National Officers should be changed to be “one member, one vote.” Currently, national officers are elected by delegates at the BLET Convention, the same way Teamster International officers used to be elected before TDU won the Right to Vote.

One of the architects of this referendum is W. L. Morris, an officer in the small Division 316 with about 60 members who work for the Norfolk Southern in Georgia. Convoy Dispatch spoke with Morris to find out more about this watershed election.

Convoy Dispatch: How did you get the idea for this initiative?

W.L. Morris: At the 1996 and 2001 BLE Conventions, the idea was presented, but shot down by the Resolutions Committee. So this time, we decided we would go right to the members. Our bylaws give us the power of initiative, which means that any member can put an idea out there and if divisions representing 25 percent of the members approve, then the membership gets to vote on the idea. It took us one and a half years to research and figure out the best time to present it. We put it out in October and used the telephone and internet as the main communication. We think this initiative is going to break up the Good Ol’ Boy system—the one where you can’t get into the club unless you are allowed in.


CD: How many people were involved at first?

WLM: Two. Myself and our delegate, Hugh Sawyer. Hugh prepared the wording. We had the support of our division and as word got out, people around the country asked what they could do to help.

CD: How do you think direct elections would change the BLET?

WLM: The change would make officers directly accountable to the membership. Now, National Officers only have to get support from a handful of different General Chairs to get elected. They are elected by delegates, but the delegates rely on advice of General Chairs for who to vote for.

Under our initiative, delegates would come back from convention to their home divisions and let members know about the nominees, give the membership information, and then members would make up their own minds.


CD: What problems would it solve?

WLM: It would get the membership back involved through the opportunity to vote, and it would give elected officials more power in negotiating and speaking for the membership. Right now, the carriers know that the National Officers, in many cases, don’t really have the support of the rank and file, so it would give us much more strength. We need that strength to fight against single-employee operations, pension and wage cuts, and other attacks on our jobs. Railroad companies are enjoying record profits, but they aren’t feeling enough pressure from the unions to pass that on to us.


CD: Would it create any problems?

WLM: Well, according to the opposition, it would cause the sky to fall in. It is going to be a growing process, especially in informing members about initiative details, but other than that, no.


CD: What were some of the obstacles you have run into?

WLM: Some General Chairmen and the National Division came out with an opposition stance. When we got the right to put out ballots we requested that they be sent out immediately, but the National Division wanted to wait until the last minute. They told us they wanted the opposition to be able to send a letter with the ballots. They said we would have the same right, but when we sent in our letter, they edited out parts they didn’t like.

The financial resources the National Division can put into opposition far outweigh those Division 316 can summon. Therefore, the initiative has to rely on the time and effort of supporters.


CD: What kind of response have you gotten from the rank and file?

WLM: Once members heard that we had achieved the goal of getting a referendum, numerous members responded with congratulations and said that they were looking forward to being able to vote. Even some that were in opposition of the initiative sent congratulations.


CD: What kind of responses have you gotten from the General Chairs?

WLM: Most of them feel that it’s not for them to decide—that it’s up to the members what to do. Others have been flag-waving in opposition. Many are afraid this right to vote for National Officers will trickle down to the General Committees. One Vice-General Chairman said he was afraid he would be held accountable to the membership.


CD: Has the National Division made any comment?

WLM: No, not publicly. You would think they would support it because of the statements they make in newsletters and press releases about membership involvement. It is okay for the membership to pay for golf trips, pensions, car allowances, five-star hotels and the bloated salaries of officials, but when it comes to paying for a referendum on the right to vote for officers, many of those receiving these benefits say the initiative would cost too much money.

CD: What is needed to get the initiative passed now?

WLM: The membership needs to rally behind it, and I believe they will. But many members have not even been informed about it yet, so we need to expand our grassroots network to get the word out.


CD: How did you find the resources to push this initiative?

WLM: Division 316 is frugal. Instead of spending money on lost time, meal allowances, etc., we saved money and spent it on this initiative. We feel dues money should be spent totally in the interest of the membership.


CD: Do you have advice for other rank and file members who want to use the initiative process?

WLM: Our biggest resource is the support of the people. Get a good support base; it’s more important than money. Cross all T’s and dot all I’s.

We made mistakes in not requesting that the ballots for the initiative be counted by neutral entities, and not pushing for phone instead of mail ballots. Also, stay focused on what you are trying to accomplish and do not let the opposition distract you.


Click here: BMWED Also Working for the Right to Vote
Click here: Rail Teamsters to Decide on "Right to Vote"

February 6, 2006


Dear Brothers and Sisters:

Since joining the IBLE in 1974, I have devoted my entire career to improving the lives of locomotive engineers and their families. I have always put the best interests of the membership first. Regrettably, President Hahs and I have too many fundamental differences about how the organization should represent the members’ best interests. In my opinion, his views and decisions are adversely impacting the survival of our craft and organization. Consequently, I do not believe it is possible for me to continue to serve the members’ best interests while working on the Executive Staff supporting his decisions.

After many weeks of careful deliberation, I have decided I must resign my position as Staff Counsel for the National Division. I have begun closing my office and will complete as many assignments as possible in the next few weeks and reassign others. You will be advised of the status of any pending legal matters affecting your respective committees. Thereafter, I will be available to assist the National Division with any transition matters and other issues as needed—including preparation for a possible Presidential Emergency Board.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity I have had to serve you and the membership and look forward to continuing to fight to preserve our craft and organization as I return to engine service on the Norfolk Southern.

Finally, since it is improper and illegal to support the campaign of any candidate for union office with union resources of any kind, I will have to respond later—using personal resources—to the many expressions of support and encouragement I have received to pursue elective office. One thing is certain, I will work relentlessly to preserve our craft. Moreover, I will challenge anyone who does not respect the highly skilled and demanding work performed by our members; and, I will expose those who are willing to accept carrier demands that will eliminate our craft.

Fraternally,
Tom Brennan
Staff Counsel – National Division

A high-level official of the Teamster Rail Conference’s Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) announced that he will challenge President Don Hahs for leadership of the BLET. Tom Brennan served as the staff counsel for the national division for eight years, before suddenly resigning his position in early February.

“In my opinion, [Hahs’] views and decisions are adversely impacting the survival of our craft and organization,” Brennan wrote in his resignation letter. Since then, he has exercised his seniority on the Norfolk Southern. In his declaration of candidacy, he claims that the “business as usual” attitude of Hahs and past presidents has made the BLET weaker with respect to the carriers and to rival union UTU, even as the rail industry is reaping “record profits.”

He also implies that Hahs has not only failed to appreciate the work of the rank and file, but also failed to develop an effective working relationship with the Teamster administration. He declined to comment for this article, but says position statements will be forthcoming about his vision for the BLET.

One Member, One Vote?

The BLET officer election is scheduled to take place at its national convention in Las Vegas this June—one week ahead of the IBT Convention. But officers may be forced to abandon election by delegate and submit to direct election by the membership instead.

A number of BLET divisions have endorsed an initiative to adopt direct elections of the national officers. The initiative, which is gaining momentum, is close to the threshold of support that would require Hahs to hold a membership referendum on the issue.

Time is running short, but it is still possible that the initiative could be passed before the convention—in which case delegates could only nominate candidates for national office. The mail ballot election would take place within 60 days of the convention.

So far, neither Hahs nor Brennan has issued a statement regarding their views on direct elections in the BLET.

Imagine trains carrying toxic chemicals or nuclear waste through your town and across the wilderness. Now imagine that the train is operated by a lone employee working long hours. The first part is already reality. The part about a lone employee is the goal of the railroad employer group, the National Carriers’ Conference Committee (NCCC). All-Out Attack on Rail WorkersThe carriers first put out their plan to go to single-employee operations about 15 months ago, when they issued their bargaining demands to the Teamsters Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen (BLET) and the United Transportation Union (UTU). Their proposal not only included the drastic attack on jobs, but proposed that the BLET and the UTU negotiate directly against each other to decide whether the engineers or the conductors would take the biggest hit. The UTU represents primarily conductors. Any attacks on a contract should be met with a fight, but the demand to eliminate the crafts of engineer and conductor calls for extraordinary resistance. From the start, the employers gambled on a longstanding war between the BLET and the UTU to assist them in their strategy of divide and conquer. Public and Workers at RiskWith only one set of eyes and ears aboard, the safety of the workforce and the general public is vastly compromised. Crew fatigue is already a major issue on the rails. This danger is doubled with a reduction to one lone employee. Also, when a lone worker becomes injured, ill or otherwise in need of assistance, there would be no one who could come to his or her aid. And without a second crew member to help read signals and monitor the train, potentially fatal mishaps like train-motorist collisions could rapidly increase. Rank and File ResistanceIn spite of the overwhelming danger to the members and the public, the leaderships of the UTU and BLET showed no particular interest in fighting the carriers. Instead, they played into the hands of the NCCC by ratcheting up their raids and propaganda warfare against each other. The rank and file members of the two unions were not impressed. Most would rather see their dues money go towards fighting off employer demands than spent on destroying the union of their co-workers. Engineers and conductors formed a group whose aim is to stop the inter-union warfare once and for all by bringing about a merger of the two unions. Railroad Operating Crafts United (ROCU) began creating pressure on the unions to put aside their differences and put the members first. “When our employers lit the house on fire with their demands, all our unions could do was argue about who forgot to put batteries in the fire alarm,” says Illinois engineer Ed Michael. “ROCU wants to stop the bickering and focus on the real problems engineers and conductors face on the job.” Hundreds have contacted ROCU, asking how to help stop the destructive behavior of their unions. In January, the group initiated a petition drive that has circulated the continent and garnered thousands of signatures, demanding that the unions stop fighting each other and start fighting single-employee operations. Then, in February, the UTU and BLET announced that they would do just that. Change of HeartThe announcement that the two unions would call off their raiding was followed by vow of utmost unity. Naturally, members hope their leaders are sincere about their newfound unity, but there are also signs that the funds to protract the fight may have been dwindling. The UTU failed to persuade its delegates to pass a five dollar dues increase and have since announced that they will be eliminating eight vice presidents—quite a cut! Department of Labor LM-2 forms show that in 2004, half of all UTU dues income was funneled into a pension fund for officials, so it is unlikely that those eight vice presidents will suffer much. Meanwhile, BLET President Don Hahs has political worries, and may be looking to shore up support by appearing to at last engage the carriers in a fight. He is up for election this year and faces at least one serious challenger. Beyond RhetoricThe UTU and BLET have issued some very nice statements about uniting to fight single-employee operations, but members are still waiting to see results. ROCU activists have their own idea for action. They say the unions should take the fight into trackside communities that would be affected by derailments resulting from fatigue. They say coalitions should be made with other labor unions and community groups. And even though labor law makes work stoppages difficult, they want to see preparations for a strike, should it be necessary. The Track AheadPreviously, the UTU officialdom has sworn it would never merge into the Teamster Rail Conference, claiming that truck drivers compete with rail workers. “By that logic,” says Milwaukee engineer Ron Kaminkow, “Union Pacific conductors shouldn’t belong to the same union as those that work for their biggest competitor, BNSF. That, of course, is absurd. All transportation workers need to stick together to prevent us being whipsawed against one another by the companies.” The UTU may be listening. Although no engagemen has been annouced, some are hearing wedding bells. “It’s hard to say what their plans are,” says Little Rock conductor Jim Eubanks, “but one thing is for sure: we want a different kind of union. We don’t just want our unions to merge so that officers can have bigger perks; we want a truly democratic union for the operating crafts.”

February 9, 2006. A high-level official of the Teamster Rail Conference’s Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) announced his resignation amid speculation that he will challenge President Don Hahs for leadership of the BLET. Tom Brennan, the staff counsel for the national division announced he will return to operating a train rather than continue working under the leadership of BLET President Don Hahs. “I do not believe it is possible for me to continue to serve the members’ best interests while working on the Executive Staff supporting [Hahs’] decision,” Brennan wrote in a resignation letter dated February 6. The move follows months of speculation that Brennan will challenge Hahs for the BLET presidency. Brennan vowed to “expose those who are willing to accept carrier demands that will eliminate our craft”—a reference to carrier demands to eliminate the positions of engineer and conductor and instead run trains with a single “transportation employee.” If Hahs were to cave in to such a demand, it would threaten the job security of the 30,000 railroad engineers in the Teamsters, and would widely be seen as a sellout. Brennan fell short of announcing his candidacy but indicated he would “respond later to the many expressions of support and encouragement I have received to pursue elective office. One thing is certain, I will work relentlessly to preserve our craft.” BLET members have launched a joint campaign with members of the conductors’ union to call for a democratic merger of the two organizations. They have formed Railroad Operating Crafts United [ROCU] to push for a united union that would defend both engineers and conductors and be based on membership control. One Member, One Vote in BLET? A number of BLET divisions have endorsed an initiative to adopt direct elections of BLET officers through a system of one member, one vote. The initiative, which is gaining momentum, is close to the threshold of support where the BLET’s bylaws will require Hahs to hold a membership referendum on the issue. These officers are currently elected by delegates to the BLET Convention—just as top Teamster officers were before TDU helped win the right to vote in 1991. Click here: to read Brennans Letter of Resignation