I'm a Locomotive Engineer, and I'm mad about BLE(T)'s inept handling of the Remote Control (RC) issue on America's Class I Railroads.

Like many Engineers, I believe that 1) Engineers should have had a share of the jobs operating this new technology, 2) Engineers should have been at the bargaining table to negotiate implementation of RC, and 3) Engineers should have been afforded meaningful earnings protection when adversely affected by RC. Engineers did not get the work, they did not have a seat at the table, they did not get adequate protection, and BLE(T) has never explained why.

In 1988, BLE served a national Section 6 Notice requesting a new rule on all Carriers involved in national handling that would have given Engineers the exclusive right to operate Remote Control. That was 15 years ago, and BLE obviously knew full well at that time that RC was coming and that Engineers did not have exclusive rights to operate that new technology. That's why they served the Notice asking for the new "Scope Rule" that would include RC. When that round of negotiations was over, BLE walked away from the table without securing the proposed rule. Similar Notices were served on various Carriers in subsequent negotiations, and in every case the BLE settled those contracts without resolving the RC issue. Knowing full well that this issue had to be addressed, BLE leadership fumbled opportunity after opportunity to secure this work for Engineers, and has never offered any explanation why.

It has been said that one example of insanity is to repeat the same behavior again and again expecting a different result. After they lost this same battle in Canada, BLE leadership continued to believe the fantasy that a third party would just give RC to Engineers in the U.S. BLE was afforded the full benefit of America's court system and the procedures of the Railway Labor Act, and every venue consistently found that Engineers had no inherent or exclusive right to operate Remote Control. BLE leadership invested huge financial and human resources fighting a battle they had already lost in Canada and knew they could not possibly win in America, and they have never offered any explanation why.

In 2001, UTU served their own Section 6 Notice for RC, went to the negotiating table and secured a Letter of Commitment from the nation's major railroads, guaranteeing that the operation of RC equipment would be assigned to UTU-represented employees. Where BLE repeatedly failed, UTU succeeded, and BLE has offered no explanation why they couldn't get the job done.

It is important to note that the UTU Letter of Commitment did not necessarily assign RC to Yardmen or other ground service employees. It only specified that the operation of this new technology would go to "UTU represented employees". In order to give Engineers a seat at the table, UTU negotiated and ratified a proposal to merge the UTU and BLE. That merger would have assured that all operating crafts were equally represented in the implementation of RC technology (because Engineers would have also been UTU represented employees in the terms of the Letter of Commitment). Sadly, BLE rejected that merger proposal. If BLE leaders had adequately explained the importance of the proposed merger to their members, then Engineers would have been equally represented in the implementation of RC. Instead, many BLE leaders discouraged the merger and have never provided an adequate explanation why.

Even after BLE rejected the merger, UTU negotiators still included language in the RC Agreement permitting Carriers to offer protective slots to Engineers. If UTU was able to negotiate an offer of protection for Engineers when they didn't even hold the Engineers' contract, then I want to know why BLE settled their latest national agreement without including any earnings protection for Engineers adversely affected by RC.

It is high time BLE leaders stop blaming UTU for succeeding where they failed, and start giving Engineers straight answers as to why they dropped the ball on this important issue. Making unrealistic promises about the great things they will accomplish in the future because they have now affiliated with a non-rail union just isn't good enough.