For nearly a century, two words have described the leadership of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers: Elitist and Separatist. This is certainly not a universal description of individual BLE members, nor does it describe the attitude of every BLE officer. However, it is unquestionably the general character of the Organization's highest officeholders. Elitist because they have always considered themselves above all others and as the "untouchable" craft, completely invulnerable to the advances of technology; separatist because they have scorned any cooperative effort to address technological changes and other serious challenges jointly with UTU.

The remote control controversy in Canada should have been evidence enough to BLE leadership that all operating crafts must work together on the introduction of new technology if all crafts are to be adequately represented and protected. The BLE never once suggested that it could (or even wanted to) stop the use of remote control. In fact, BLE has embraced this technology on any railroad where its members operate RCUs. BLE never once suggested how it would protect all crafts if it gained ownership of remote control on the major railroads in the U. S. Indeed, all BLE ever wanted was to secure that work for its own members, and the rest of rail labor could look out for itself. Well, UTU did.

But that's not all UTU did. We also included protection for Engineers. When technology eliminated the traditional function of the Fireman, did BLE offer any protection for that craft? No, they bargained for more money for Engineers. When radios and wayside detectors and telemetry devices reduced the need for Brakemen, did BLE offer any help? No, they negotiated pay raises for Engineers. In stark contrast, when the tide of technology washed away BLE's sand castle, the UTU negotiated a provision that offers one half of the buyouts or RC protective positions to Engineers. Even though a UTU/BLE merger was rejected and even though BLE leadership refused to participate in any unified approach to the matter, we looked out for Engineers. Why? Because that's what a union concerned about all crafts does. If we had followed the example set by BLE over the years, that proffer of shared protection would never have happened. Unfortunately, since UTU does not hold the Engineers' contract, we can't force that protection on them. Only the BLE leadership can say "yes" to that proffer of shared protection.

Since 1969, the UTU has understood clearly the irresistible march of technology. Automation and electrification and computerization have changed every industry in America, and it is nothing short of fantasy or delusion to think that one elite craft in the railroad industry would escape unscathed. It's just as unrealistic to think that technology will now stop its relentless march, or that it will just sweep past us and we will return to the good old days. In this matter, Emerson was right in his observation that "foolish consistency is the hob goblin of small minds." Stated another way, doggedly clinging to some mythical memory of past glory is a poor substitute for a realistic vision for the future.

If BLE leadership follows the patterns of the past, they will now launch a propaganda campaign painting themselves as the innocent victims of some diabolical plot, and then ask UTU members to join them in some proud and noble (but absolutely hopeless) struggle to return the Engineer to his "rightful place" as the omnipotent king of all railroad crafts. On the other hand, if BLE leadership can put Elitism and Separatism behind them and face the future realistically, then they will work with us to implement the protection already available to Engineers under the UTU Agreement.