Railworkers suffer setback with crew size changes

Scan page 4

of a process which has reduced operating A utility brakeman will now have to agreement. Some took the buy-out to be crews by two-thirds in the last three years. divide the time worked among an unlimit- done once and for all with the harassment Every major railroad is seeking similar ed number of crews, instead of only one, and speedup on the railroad. Others, seechanges in the train crew size (or "crew to do the switching work. consist," as it is called). The settlement It forces all train employees hired after wage-jobs, voted for the agreement, and that Congress imposed after the national 1988 to transfer anywhere the railroad are holding their breath while waiting for strike in April threw out moratoriums in requires them, instead of in specific the signing bonus. the 133 crew-consist agreements negotiat- seniority districts.

The agreement establishes a reserve reasons. It sought to avoid arbitration, On the CNW, official estimates call for board where employees unable to hold a where it knew already it would not get the elimination of 630 jobs; that is, elim- job, or a position on the extra board, will carte blanche to allow one-person crews. ination of half the switchmen and receive 75 percent of their pay. But its In addition, the railroad expects to save size is completely up to the discretion of millions in wages and benefits after payCNW workers have been under fire the carrier, and there are many special pro- ing for the buy-outs. since 1988. After an eight-hour strike in visions to keep the reserve board at a The CNW proposal is well in line with 1989, a Presidential Emergency Board set- minimum. Many anticipate this will be the railroads' basic strategy—as Chicago tlement (PEB 213) cut 700 jobs and another paper guarantee that very few will Northwestern's CEO Robert Schmeige persons. PEB 213 played out the scenario The most serious takeback involves a dent Walsh-to preserve a "legal on the CNW that was later employed for moratorium on making any changes in framework which makes it difficult for this agreement until the last employee unions to create economic tests of This time, ironically, United Trans- working in 1988 leaves the railroad. This strength." portation Union (UTU) members were amounts to an open-ended no-strike Without a major rethinking of strategy asked to vote on a contract for the first pledge, while the railroad is allowed to in the unions, workers cannot expect to time in the union's history-and a major- decide all questions about implementing obtain a much better deal than this one. In Markgraf argued at a local meeting that In the past, the CNW has demonstrated nately, the UTU leadership completely this was basically the best deal that could a blithe indifference to contract violations. accepted the framework the railroads seek be expected, given the unfavorable climate Claims now take two to 10 years to to establish-making it impossible for for labor in arbitration hearings and resolve. Under the company's "progres- the unions to use their power to strike in sive discipline system," employees have defense of their jobs and working condiFor most UTU members, this was the been dismissed for minor infractions- tions. $100,000 buy-out proposal, not the job- from not wearing safety glasses to Some rail workers on the Union Pacific cuts proposal. The company offered the missing a telephone call to go to work on have reportedly begun slowdowns in order money to all those whose jobs will be the extra board. This has eliminated scores to resist the terms of the concessions. The eliminated, as an inducement to leave the of employees, especially union officers UTU leadership on the CN W has suggestrailroad. Those staying with the CNW and activists, at least for the two years a ed that the railroad cannot implement their were offered $15,000 as a signing bonus, case takes to get to an appeals hearing. with the promise of guaranteed employ- With this setup, the railroad has the crews. The nature of work on the railroad ment. means to get rid of protected employees makes this especially true.

and replace them with new ones, at 75 Of course, it would be a cynical move the unrestricted right to decide crew size. The best possible agreement? term, rethinking strategy means changing Many CNW workers, seeing no altera- the terms of the fight-not relying on Tina Beacock is a member of UTU Local tive and no one in the leadership speaking politicians, but on our own democratical577. out against the settlement, voted for the ly-organized, united forces.

4 SOCIALIST ACTION JANUARY 1992 CHICAGO-Railroad workers on the Chicago Northwestern (CNW) suffered a serious setback with an agreement cutting crew sizes to one engineer and one conductor on all trains. This is the final act ed with each separate railroad.

brakemen currently working.

reduced crews from three persons to two collect on.

the railroads nationally.

ity voted for it. UTU general chair Don the agreement.

Congress.

Terms of the agreement The new agreement gives the railroad percent wages with no guarantees. ing no options for other union-scale The CNW offered the money for several stated in a letter to Union Pacific's Presiurging a vote for this agreement, unfortucrew cuts without the cooperation of indeed to urge individual rail workers to resist without organization. In the long owners of United Airlines that were taking money from the mechanics, and not other workers. He said that "the more members we have, the better prepared we are to bargain more effectively with management. If the customer service agents had voted for the IAM in the last certification eleçtion, that would have also been a signicant addition to our ranks and to our power."

At other similar meetings, workers chided the union leadership for trying to scare the membership into voting for the contract. A baggage handler pointed out: "United is poised to be first or second among only three remaining airlines. They will have their monopoly and begin raising ticket prices, gouging the public and reaping super profits. They have the money. Am:, Paid cash for Air Wisconsin and Pan He continued, "They gave a 10 percent raise last year to customer service agents to keep the union out. Now is the time to stop the erosion of our living standards. Precisely because the future looks bleak is why we have to fight now."

Militant voices

In response to this pressure, the executive board and grievance committee of the Bay Area IAM Local Lodge 1781 took its distance from the International and District IAM leadership by voting overwhelmingly to recommend a "no!" vote.

A meeting of several hundred union stewards also voted to oppose the contract and to strike.

This dynamic is what accounts for the large "no!" vote. But unfortunately, that mood did not spread to the rest of the country.

Neither the national nor the local union leadership did anything to prepare for a strike. They were content to let their inaction and pessimism be the best argument for a "yes!" vote. The failure of the top IAM leadership to organize a fightback has further eroded the confidence of workers in their union.

Yet, the Bay Area experience demonstates that a fighting sentiment lies just below the surface. Building a new militant leadership to tap that rank-and-file ferment is a prerequisite for preparing for future battles.