I have been an Engineer for 25 years, successfully completing the UTU Engineer Training Program, FRA Engineer certification and re-certification. I have always felt a healthy professional satisfaction in those accomplishments. However, I never assumed that my being an Engineer made me superior in any way to the people who shared the cab with me, or that becoming an Engineer would guarantee absolute immunity against major technological advances, industrial change or economic upheaval. In fact, I don’t know of any industry in the world where mastering a particular craft provides that kind of guarantee. Blacksmith or software designer, truck driver or astronaut - all have one thing in common. Technology and the dynamics of a world economy are constantly changing industry and the labor needed to run it.

I trained for promotion to Engineer in 1977 under a UTU Agreement, and it was my UTU train service seniority that gave me that opportunity. Although I had to relinquish my train service seniority to enter engine service at that time, I did establish and retain seniority as a Fireman under a UTU Agreement so that if I became unable to work as Engineer I could exercise that Fireman seniority. In 1978, UTU secured a rule permitting trainmen to retain and accrue ground seniority while working as Engineer. UTU has always known that the best job protection is a job, and that seniority in only one craft is a fool’s bet.

As our industry changed, various crafts were affected in various ways. Clerical workers were replaced en mass by computer technology. Maintenance of track, structures and equipment was reduced by automation and improved engineering design. The result was longer trains and increased productivity, and all railroad operating crafts suffered a shrinking of their ranks, some more than others. UTU constantly worked to preserve as many jobs as possible and to provide protection for those whose jobs had to be eliminated due to these changes in technology and industry and economics. Through attrition or reserve boards, and by expanding job opportunities and seniority rights, UTU strove to protect the long-term interests of all crafts in our industry. BLE set a very different course. They took advantage of every opportunity to increase the wages of those fortunate enough to still be working as Engineers, but did little to protect those who lost jobs or to prepare for the inevitable day when technology would knock on their own door.

In 1985, UTU provided an opportunity for Engineers who did not already have ground service seniority to be added to the appropriate ground service rosters. Even then UTU knew that eventually Engineers would face the same threat from technology that had ravaged every other craft. Sadly, some Engineers looked that gift horse in the mouth and rejected the offer because of shortsighted advice from BLE leaders who convinced them that refusing train service seniority would somehow insure the permanency of their position as an Engineer.

When the U. S. Congress enacted legislation forcing reductions in train crew consists in 1991, BLE negotiated a “Special Pay Differential” for Engineers (Public Law 102-29), directly piggy-backed on UTU Agreements. The Engineers’ additional pay was contingent upon a member of the train crew receiving compensation for operating short-handed under a UTU Agreement, and was payable only to Engineers who held ground service seniority that would have entitled them to such payment as a trainman. Those provisions were refined and revised on individual Carriers, but if UTU Agreements had never permitted Engineers to acquire or retain train service seniority in the first place, BLE would have had no basis at all for an argument to increase the Engineer’s wages due to reductions in train crews. BLE repeatedly used this “me too” approach to secure significant improvements in wages and working conditions for Engineers, yet BLE leaders still rejected any notion that their members’ future was inextricably linked to the other operating crafts.

With the introduction of Remote Control technology, UTU will continue its tradition of striving to represent the interests of all operating crafts. I only hope that BLE leadership will seriously consider the consequences of attempting to remain an island in the stream of industrial change. Unfortunately, it appears that they are now looking outside our industry for a new partner. Perhaps that is a viable option. On the other hand, I’ve always found it rather disconcerting to hear the Teamsters and Railroad Retirement mentioned in the same breath.

Yes, I am proud to be a locomotive Engineer. I only hope I can still say that after the BLE leadership has made the critical decisions it now faces.