Following is the text of the June 14, 2005 posting on BNSF's Labor Relations Web Site.

More on the Moratorium - "Overlooking the Facts"

June 14, 2005

UTU's latest reply about the crew consist moratorium repeats the claim that UTU still has a sweeping moratorium barring a Section 6 notice dealing with crew size. UTU is still wrong, and yet again, overlooks several key facts:

• The 1980 moratorium never prohibited proposals to change the "standard crew" size provision -- the provision that specified "the consist of all road freight and yard crews."
• The 1980 moratorium was carefully and narrowly written only to bar proposals to change provisions covering certain specified crew consist restrictions - among them, car limits and train lengths and pure attrition.
• UTU is right that in the 1988-1993 period, the moratorium was a real barrier to the Section 6 notice on crew consist that the railroads served then. But, that's because the railroads' 1988 proposal for immediate crew size reductions was incompatible with the "car limits, train length" and "pure attrition" restrictions in the 1980 agreement; those provisions were still very much in effect when the railroads' Section 6 notices were served in 1988, and they were covered by the moratorium.
• In the early 1990s, the resulting agreements eliminated car limits and train length restrictions - which had, before, prevented crew reductions beyond what was specified in the 1980 agreement.
• The 1990s agreements eliminated pure attrition, allowing the immediate reduction of crew size, and substituted an elaborate reserve status system as the means of employee protection.
• Crew size itself never has been and is not covered by the moratorium. Car limits, train length and pure attrition restrictions were originally covered by the moratorium; but these provisions no longer exist.

  We realize all this information is somewhat technical. And, while the technicalities are extremely important, they aren't the main point. Our purpose is to show that a myth has been circulated in our industry for too long claiming that the railroads are forbidden even to make reasonable proposals in the bargaining process for changing antiquated crew consist rules that don't fit with modern technology and work processes. And, the moratorium situation which the railroads and UTU faced back in the "1988 bargaining round" is completely different from the situation we find ourselves in now.

  Well, how about the idea that even if our proposals are not banned, we shouldn't push them because we're making too much money? Please look at John Fleps' "Thoughts on the Bargaining Round" for a more complete discussion of that issue. Additionally, UTU's tired old "class warfare" argument misses the mark by a mile.

  No private sector business, like BNSF, can or should have to employ more people than are needed to do the work safely and efficiently. And this is especially true when the company is willing and able, as we are now, to generously protect all the employees affected by the change. The real significance to the railroads' currently stronger financial position is that it enables us to implement the needed changes more gradually, and in a way which not only fully protects the affected people from financial hardship, but creates even higher earnings opportunities for the people who want to stay on the job.

  Most importantly, the changes we seek would enable the deployment of dramatic, safety-enhancing technology, which is here now, but which even federal safety regulators recognize the industry cannot afford without modernized work rules.

  With all of these possibilities presented in the current business environment, shouldn't we at least be talking, instead of hiding behind moratorium myths?

  Now, UTU also says that even if the moratorium isn't what its myth implies, crew consist is a "local" issue which we can't bargain over nationally. This is also a pretty thin excuse. We won't debate here whether the issue is local or national, because, so far, UTU won't bargain on the issue anywhere. BNSF and the other railroads in national bargaining will meet with any UTU representatives who have the authority to address these issues; but no one from the union will come forward. In fact, while various UTU leaders have said on the one hand that crew consist change is up to the general committees, as far as we can tell, top union leaders have effectively forbidden local UTU officials to bargain over the subject.

  General Chairman Kerley's website keeps trotting out the 1930s-style canard that the railroads are morally wrong in all this. The bottom line is that all of our proposals are not only lawful, but rooted in completely legitimate, business objectives. And, our proposals are coupled with a strong willingness to do right by the affected employees, as our currently strong financial position allows. Old-fashioned insults of management and simply saying "no" to negotiations change none of these truths.