Brothers and Sisters:

Under provisions of the UTU constitution, general chairpersons on affected properties have submitted questions to the International regarding provisions of the tentative national railroad contract. The contract covers UTU members employed by BNSF, CSX, Kansas City Southern, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific.

Those questions are being reviewed by both the UTU negotiating committee and the carriers for a joint response, and the complete set of questions and answers will be posted on the UTU Web site. At that point, the contract will be submitted to the membership for ratification.

However, the International has received numerous communications from members asking why our negotiating team agreed to what it did - in some cases, asserting that the BLET negotiated better individual agreements with BNSF and CSX.

In fact, the UTU national agreement is superior not only to the national settlement entered into by the BLET, but also the BLET agreements with BNSF and CSX.

Let's talk about BNSF, first.

On BNSF, the BLET agreed to a profit-sharing provision, whereby the BLET traded fixed general wage increases for uncertain profit sharing.

But as BLET General Chairpersons Dennis Pierce, Austin Morrison, Rick Gibbons and Pat Williams wrote in a Jan. 31 letter to BNSF the payout has proved, "abysmal." The BLET traded away guaranteed wage Increases for profit sharing that did not materialize as envisioned.

The UTU tentative agreement provides for a guaranteed 17 percent general wage increase (the same as in the BLET national agreement; but which the BLET traded away on BNSF).

The UTU tentative agreement also provides for a continuation of the COLA, which the BLET gave up in both its national agreement and in its BNSF agreement. Thus, only UTU members will be protected against price inflation during the next round of negotiations when general wage increases are not being paid.

As you know, several years can elapse during negotiations, and only UTU members will collect a COLA during that period. We have gone some 2 1/2 years since our previous general wage increase, and the COLA payment - which has totaled almost $3,500 over the past 2 1/2 years -- has helped our members keep up with the sharply rising price of gasoline and home heating and cooling.

Moreover, the BLET agreement on BNSF allows for engineer-only operations (and, in some cases, no-man operations). The BLET not only traded away engineer positions, but seeks to eliminate train-service jobs (a provision the UTU is challenging in federal court).

The UTU tentative national agreement makes no changes in our on-property crew consist agreements, and also continues to protect our ground-service work on BNSF and all other rail properties.

Now let's look at the BLET agreement on CSX:

The BLET agreed to a similar profit-sharing pay plan (called a performance bonus program) as the BLET has on BNSF, and which, as mentioned above, BLET general chairpersons are calling "abysmal" in practice.

The UTU tentative national agreement provides a guaranteed 17 percent general wage increase. If UTU members on CSX wish to negotiate something different on CSX, they have that option. BLET members on CSX traded away any guaranteed general way increase.

In lieu of back pay (which the UTU tentative agreement provides for), the BLET negotiated a $2,500 signing bonus on CSX, but it is not compounded into the basic day or over-miles worked, as will be the UTU-negotiated and guaranteed general wage increase.

The BLET also agreed -- in its national and on-property agreements -- that newly hired engineers continue to receive lower entry-level pay.

By contrast, the UTU obtained a provision for binding arbitration, by which the UTU can achieve an increase in entry-level for conductors tied to training. The arbitration will be a standard two-partisan-member panel with a single neutral. Had we accepted what the BLET accepted, entry-level pay would remain frozen and there would be no opportunity to arbitrate it.

Also, on CSX, the BLET agreed to short turnaround service, which increases the basic day to 130 miles (a 30 percent give-back).

Fortunately for engineers, the UTU has not made such an agreement. Thus, the UTU has protected CSX engineers from their own union's give-back provision. So long as the UTU national agreement is ratified, there is no threat that the give-back on short turnaround service can be implemented by the carrier.

The BLET also negotiated on CSX that pool engineers may be used to relieve road trains tied up under the hours-of-service law, or are tied-up for other reasons within yard limits. This work has been performed by UTU-represented yard crews, and the BLET agreement on CSX would deprive UTU yard crews of the work. Additionally, the BLET agreement on CSX eliminates an engineer's ability to change his mark-off using a personal leave day.

The UTU tentative agreement provides for an increase in the held-away-from-home-terminal meal allowance, which is not found in the BLET national agreement. Although the BLET negotiated an increase in the meal allowance on some individual properties, UTU committees of adjustment can make similar agreements through on-property negotiations (although the carrier would demand something in exchange, as it did with the BLET).

Some members question why the UTU tentative agreement allows the carrier to transmit our union dues directly to the International.

While the overwhelming majority of locals are making timely transfers of International dues to Cleveland, there have been problems with some locals, occasionally resulting in criminal charges by the Department of Labor. This revision will ensure greater accuracy, and relieve local treasurers of a very time-consuming burden. The International pledges an immediate transfer to locals of their portion of dues.

We have also been asked why we didn't demand more -- why we are "afraid" of going to a presidential emergency board. A PEB would be appointed by President Bush, and likely not have a single labor-friendly member.

Moreover, the likelihood is high that, in an election year, even our friends in Congress would not look favorably on a rail work stoppage that threatens further to depress our economy. Neither a PEB nor Congress would be bound by the court decision that has prevented the carriers from demanding an end to our crew consist agreements, or elimination of the Federal Employers' Liability Act.

We were not willing to roll the dice on your job security -- especially when the expectation is that the result would be a back-to-work law that mirrored the pattern accepted by other organizations -- a pattern that does not include retention of the COLA, an increase in the meal allowance, resolution of the entry-level pay dispute, or a reduction in the waiting period for health insurance coverage for new employees.

Shortly, you will be receiving a copy of the entire agreement, along with the questions submitted by general chairpersons and the answers provided by the negotiating team and carriers.

We have broken the pattern, and we have negotiated an agreement better than any other organization has -- nationally or on-property -- with any of the carriers. The proof is in the reading, and we trust you will read the tentative agreement carefully.

In solidarity,

Mike Futhey, International President
President@utu.org

Arty Martin, Assistant President
AsstPres@utu.org

Kim Thompson, General Secretary & Treasurer
GST@utu.org