The BNSF Labor Relations Web Site recently carried a grossly misleading story about how "generous" the Carriers have been in trying to reach agreement with UTU in the current round of National Negotiations. The article suggests that the Carriers' chief negotiator proffered a wage package of 16% over 5 years, and a "generous" (but not even vaguely described) Health and Welfare package to boot. That "generous" proposal warrants close examination.

First, the author of the article doesn't mention that the Carriers' wage offer would be reduced by COLA increases received during the time the NCCC has illegally tried to cram Crew Consist and FELA changes down UTU members' throats; or that those proposed increases would not be applied to any "frozen" pay elements (including those incorporated into Trip Rates); or that the Carriers still want new employees to work under reduced "entry rates" for several years. But the really shocking part of the NCCC proposal is how it stacks up in comparison to the increases in revenues currently being enjoyed by the railroads due in large part to the amazing productivity of UTU members.

For example, that 16% wage increase over five years is just about the same percentage growth that BNSF's revenues experienced in 2006 alone. Incidentally, in 2005, BNSF's total operating revenues jumped 18% over 2004, which were up 16% from 2003…

I think you get the picture. According to BNSF's Web Site, the cumulative increase for BNSF operating revenues over just the past 3 years is a whopping 59% (up from $9.413 billion in 2003 to $14.985 billion in 2006). At that rate, BNSF potentially stands to see its total operating revenues double in the same 5-year period that it "generously" offers employees a 16% wage package; and that's only if employees agree to pay significantly more for their Health and Welfare coverage.

On the subject of Health and Welfare, it won't be news to anyone on BNSF that many employees are literally wearing themselves out physically to keep up with the Carrier's demand for greater productivity and to avoid the ever tightening noose of BNSF's Attendance Guidelines. If the Carriers are really concerned about employees' health, it surely doesn't show in their attacks on those who are forced to apply for relief under the Family and Medical Leave Act in order to avoid discipline while they deal with traumatic personal and family medical issues. Nor does it show in BNSF's attempt to force employees who have secured FMLA time to substitute their hard-earned vacation and Personal Leave Days for unpaid FMLA leave, so that when they return they often have no paid time off remaining for rest and recovery from a grueling work schedule. And it doesn't show in BNSF's nearly total resignation from any real effort to improve train lineups or (more importantly) work schedule predictability.

I'm not sure what "concessions" the author of the article thinks the NCCC has made, but if he means the Carriers' retreat from their arrogant demands for Crew Consist and FELA changes, that's really disingenuous. The Carriers did not pull those items off the table as a matter of good faith bargaining; they had to be forced by the courts to back off because their Notices were just plain illegal. Perhaps by "concessions" the author of the article means that the Carriers have softened their original wage and Health and Welfare proposals (i.e., wages cut by half or more depending on crew size, and complete elimination of Health and Welfare benefits for any employee who doesn't meet a Carrier's unilateral definition of "full time" employment). If that's what the NCCC calls a "concession" it's like saying that cutting off a hand is a "concession" compared to a trip to the guillotine. I don't see any BNSF employees standing in line for that kind of "generosity."