Trip Rates June 1, 2005 for AX340 RE21 - RE33 - RE34 - RE42 - RE76 - B119 RE04 - B219 - RE07

Trip rates have been implemented on the BLET UP Southern Region on the following Pools Effective June 1, 2005 with the below identified rates.  The Carrier has until May of 2006 per the BLET 2003 National Agreement to complete the implementation process for the remaining pools in the Southern Region.

Run/Pool Trip Rate	Imp	7/1/2004		Average	Overtime
	Date	Engineer Rate		miles run	Offset (minutes)
San Antonio Hub
Del Rio - Alpine (RE21)	6/1/2005	$296.98		220	2
San Antonio - Del rio (RE33)	6/1/2005	$247.78		177	8
San Antonio - Kingsville (RE34)	6/1/2005	$256.74		185	17
San Antonio - Houston (RE42)	6/1/2005	$308.99		130	18
Smithville - Houston (RE76)	6/1/2005	$192.66		130	6
Houston Hub
Kingsville - Brownsville  (RE04)	6/1/2005	$182.41		130	3
Bloomington - Kingsville (RE07)	6/1/2005	$181.01		130	2
Bloomington - Hearne/Valley Jct (RE07)	6/1/2005	$257.08		191	9
Run/Pool Flip Rate	Date	Miles	Additive	Engineer Rate	Rate Table
San Antonio Hub
Del Rio - Alpine (RE21)	6/1/2005	438	2.75	$637.70	MOPA
San Antonio - Del rio (RE33)	6/1/2005	336	10.57	$494.30	MOPA
San Antonio - Kingsville (RE34)	6/1/2005	345	14.10	$511.18	MOPA
San Antonio - Houston (RE42)	6/1/2005	425	16.89	$632.57	MOPA
Smithville - Houston (RE76)	6/1/2005	210	5.66	$290.08	MOPA
Smithville to San Antonio (RE76)	6/1/2005	228	5.66	$313.95	MOPA
Houston Hub
Kingsville - Brownsville  (RE04)	6/1/2005	238	3.51	$325.06	MOPA
Bloomington - Kingsville (RE07)	6/1/2005	202	3.15	$276.96	MOPA
Bloomington - Hearne/Valley Jct (RE07)	6/1/2005	394	11.35	$539.77	MOPA

 

--
Posted by BLETSR to Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen UPSR News at 6/12/2005 02:34:52 PM

NEW MEDICARE DRUG BENEFIT TO GO INTO EFFECT JANUARY 1, 2006

Effective Jan 1, 2006 a new Medicare Drug benefit will be going into effect for all those currently covered by Medicare. An explanation of the benefit is available from the Kaiser Family Foundation and can be viewed by clicking HERE at http://www.kff.org/medicare/rxdrugdebate.cfm. They also provide an online calculator that allows you to estimate your yearly expenses under the plan at http://www.kff.org/medicare/rxdrugscalculator.cfm. You can view a fact sheet regarding the new law by clicking HERE.

We will post more information as it becomes available in reference to how this coverage will affect our retired membership.

FRA ISSUES FINAL RULE ON LOCOMOTIVE HORNS

FRA issues Final Rule on locomotive horns CLEVELAND, April 29 -- The Federal Railroad Administration published its Final Rule on the use of Locomotive Horns in the April 27 Federal Register. Locomotive engineers need to be on the lookout for instructions from their railroad regarding compliance with the new regulation for sounding train horns. The final rule will require the locomotive horn be sounded while trains approach and enter public highway-rail grade crossings. The rule allows for an exception to the above requirement in circumstances in which there is not a significant risk of loss of life or serious personal injury, use of the locomotive horn is impractical, or safety measures fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn. Communities that qualify for this exception may create “quiet zones” within which locomotive horns would not be routinely sounded. The effective date of this final rule is June 24, 2005. However, public authorities may begin to provide quiet zone-related documentation to FRA and other parties 30 days after April 27, 2005. This final rule supercedes the interim final rule, which was published on December 18, 2003. Therefore, the interim final rule will not take effect. A complete copy of the Final Rule is available here. Friday, April 29, 2005 bentley@ble.org http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4107 © 2004 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen http://www.ble.org

--
Posted by BLETSR to Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen UPSR News at 4/30/2005 09:09:04 PM

UTU MISREPRESENTED BLET AGREEMENTS DURING BNSF STRIKE

UTU misrepresented BLET agreements during BNSF strike (The following are portions of an April 29 memo from BLET General Chairman Dennis Pierce, BNSF (Former BN Northlines)/MRL, issued to all his Local Chairman regarding the UTU’s strike at BNSF on April 27.) Dear Sirs and Brothers: This is in reference to Wednesday’s strike against BNSF Railway by UTU. As most of you know, UTU used the BLET/BNSF Primary Recall Agreement as its justification to strike. Since the strike, BLET’s agreement and our actions have been grossly misrepresented and this is to give you the other half of the story that UTU has omitted in its spin. From what we know, UTU’s complaint regarding BLET’s agreement is centered around the portion that allows junior demoted engineers to bid or be forced into the engineers’ quota at their location, while senior demoted engineers remain on the ground. UTU accuses in its posts that this portion of the agreement created “flow back” as was implemented on the former SF portion of the property with the concurrence of UTU. The truth is that the Primary Recall Agreement did not create “flow back” as was created on the former SF. The former SF “flow back” agreement allows engineers to self demote prior to exhausting the engineer’s quota and return to the ground at their own discretion. Quite the opposite, the Primary Recall Agreement changed nothing in that regard. Engineers on the former BN portion of the property must still exhaust the same engineers’ positions before returning to the ground that they had to exhaust prior to the new agreement. While UTU may choose to ignore this fact, BLET went out of its way to avoid any changes to the steps that must be followed before engineers on the former BN portion of the property are allowed to flow back to ground service crafts. Rather, the only provisions that were changed in the primary recall are those that govern the promotion or entrance to the engineer’s craft. BLET’s agreements have always governed engineer’s promotion and the filling of engineer’s positions. The last time that our jurisdictional rights on this Committee were challenged in that regard was in 1967. In that case, the UTU predecessor BLFE argued that BLE was not within its rights to implement the 5 day work week agreement in yard service without UTU concurrence. The complaint then centered around BLE’s decision to create the engineer’s “hog board,” modifying how engineer’s vacancies were filled. BLFE lost that argument and we are certain that the former BLFE leadership of the UTU that now brings the same argument forward now will lose the argument again. A critical court decision in 1942 established the “cleavage of power” for any union to begin at the entrance to the craft(s) that it represents. That court precedent as quoted in the 1967 arbitration settlement and has been quoted in other similar arbitration awards as late as 1991. Ironically, UTU argues in its court case that under UTU Agreements, engineers can never be on the ground when they could hold an engineers position on their district. As most of you know, BLET’s agreements have never required that, we have always forced and accepted bids from the junior men when jobs went otherwise “unbid” at other locations. In addition, senior forced engineers have always been released back to the ground when junior engineers were available to properly release them. While the Primary Recall Agreement may have expanded the bidding and forcing of junior engineers to include the home location, that application was in already in effect on the former FWD and CS portions of the former BN property. For many years, junior engineers have been allowed to bid and were forced to vacant engineer’s positions at their home location and UTU registered no complaints. You can rest assured that we will be taking the action necessary to defend our right to negotiate and implement agreements that are specific to locomotive engineers, be that in the court proceeding or in any possible arbitration if that is where things go. Just so you know, multiple disputes around the country concerning ebb and flow related issues have been arbitrated and none have risen to the level of a major dispute up to now. We don't see this one ending up any different. Fraternally, Dennis Pierce General Chairman BNSF (Former BN Northlines)/MRL Friday, April 29, 2005 bentley@ble.org http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4106 © 2004 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen http://www.ble.org

AUTO MARKUP TO GO INTO EFFECT ON MAY 1, 2005 ON UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

Per Article VII of the BLET 2003 National Agreement an automatic mark up procedure will go into effect on May 1, 2005 for all operating employees on the Union Pacific Railroad.

Click Here to download a PDF version of the BLET Interpretation and Question and Answers.

Click Here to download a PDF version of the UTU Auto Mark Up Agreement

Click Here to download a PDF version of notice of intent to implement

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE PROPOSED 10 HOUR UNDISTRUBED REST RULE OUT FOR RATIFICAITON ON THE BLET SOUTHERN REGION

Below are some revised Q&As that hopefully clear up some of the questions generated by the10 hour UDR Agreement out for ratification.
Fraternally,
Gil Gore

Q1. Who is affected by the new proposed Undisturbed Rest Rule?
A1. All engineers working in pool freight service or road/combination extra boards.

Q2. How much rest is mandated in the agreement?
A2. At the home terminal 10 hours Undisturbed Rest (UDR) is mandated by the agreement. At the away from home terminal for the first 45 days 10 hours undisturbed rest is mandated by the agreement. After that initial 45 day period each pool will have the authority to reduce their rest period at the away from home terminal to 8 hours Undisturbed Rest if they choose to do so. That rest period can be changed from 8 – 10 or from 10 – 8 hours UDR every 6 months by notifying the Carrier of the change.

Q3. Are assignments with a regular start time (yard jobs, traveling switch engines, local) impacted by this UDR agreement?
A3. No, regular assigned employees will not be impacted by this UDR agreement. Extra employees working these assignments will get the 10 UDR at the home terminal after each tie up. This UDR agreement will have no impact on extra employees protecting local service at the away from home terminal.

Q4. Dose this UDR agreement change the current 1996 On Property Rest Agreement providing for 8 – 10 – 12 hours UDR under certain conditions at the employees option?
A5. This agreement mandates 10 hours UDR at the home terminal every trip and a minimum of 8 – 10 hours UDR at the away from home terminal. Any rights to UDR rest periods that exceed the provisions in this agreement remain in full force and effect and if qualifying criteria are met can be taken at the employee’s option.

Q6. Do I have to be rested to deadhead out of the home or away from home terminal?
A7. You don’t have to be rested to deadhead out of the away from home terminal. You do have to be fully rested for a deadhead out of the home terminal. If you have kicked for the voluntary UDR under the 1996 agreement you should not be called to deadhead or to service until the UDR period is up.

Q7. Can an engineer be contacted during his UDR period?
A7. Contact is allowed for notice of annulment, abolishment, set back of call time, successful application for a new assignment, emergency situations, and other notices required by the agreement. The FRA considers this type of contact as incidental and it would not trigger a new rest period. Extended calls with questions regarding train handling during the previous trip or work preformed on line of road would be inappropriate under this rule.

Q8. Will the UDR mandated in the agreement offset any labor protection, pool or extra board guarantees?
A8. No, rest mandated under this new agreement will not trigger any deductions from labor protection, pool or extra board extra board guarantee.

Q9. Does the UDR mandated rest in this agreement impact an employee’s right to any bonus incentive payments guaranteed to engineers who remain available for service the entire half?
A9. No, however, we remain in dispute with the Carrier regarding engineers electing to take additional UDR at their option for a greater period than the UDR mandated in this agreement. If you elect to exercise that right, they will not pay your bonus day and you will have to appeal that denial through your Local Chairman.

Q10. Engineers already have a UDR agreement, why do we need to ratify this agreement?
A10. While we have enjoyed the ability to take UDR at our option at both the home and away from home terminal, certain conditions must be met in order to exercise that right. The following conditions apply to the 1996 UDR agreement.

You have to be on duty 8 – 10 hours to qualify for either 8 or 10 hours UDR.
If you are on duty less time, the UDR is not available to you at all.
If you are deadheaded you are not entitled to UDR.
You have to be on duty 12 hours in order to qualify for either 10 or 12 hours UDR.
You are prohibited from taking any UDR on the day before and day of a legal holiday

Under the new proposed rule you get 10 hours UDR on every tie up at the home terminal with no qualifying criteria. You will get 8 – 10 hours UDR at the away from home terminal depending on the option selected by your Division to apply to the pool under its jurisdiction every trip. You are automatically qualified for the UDR per the agreement even on legal holidays.

Q11. Are there any conditions in which an employee can waive the right to UDR under this proposed agreement?
A11. Yes, if you are notified of a displacement at the home terminal and the additional rest mandated by this agreement is going to cause you to lose a trip or work event, then you can notify CMS when they call to notify you of your displacement and they will suspend your mandatory rest period. You will drop back to the rest period mandated by the HOS Act.

Q12. Why is the union supporting this agreement, we already have a rest rule available to all engineers?
A12. This agreement provides for a consistent reasonable rest period for employees working a varied work schedule. As an example, we have an engineer in the DFW Hub tying up at 000 hours for an 8 hour rest period. It takes him/her 45 minutes travel time to get from the yard office to his/her home. It takes him/her an additional hour to shower and get something to eat and wind down from the trip. Best case scenario he/she is in bed sleeping by 0145 hours. With the three hour call mandated by the DFW hub agreement this engineer’s phone is going to ring at 0500 for an 0800 call to duty. We have an engineer subject to a 12 hour tour of duty who has only been provided a 3 hour and 15 minute sleep cycle. Under the new proposed UDR rule, he/she would get an 8 hour 15 minute sleep cycle prior to being subject to a call for duty. Both the Union and the Company receive constant complaints from employees about working fatigued, This agreement mandates a specific rest period and insures that every employee subject to variable call times will have an opportunity for a minimum of 8 hours sleep prior to each tour of duty. Continuing to subject our members to working on 3 – 4 hours sleep is simply unsafe and unacceptable. That position is unsustainable in any scientific or legislative arena.

Q13. Can the agreement be canceled?
A13. One of the best features of this agreement is that it is experimental and can be canceled by either party. A 60 day notice of cancellation is required and the agreement mandates negotiations to fix the problems leading to the cancellation notice during that 60 day period.

Q14. What happens if we reject this agreement?
A14. The current UDR rule remains in effect. However, we have two choices here, we can either be proactive and implement an agreement that provides the necessary sleep to safely perform our duties and provides us some protection against lost work opportunities (going to 8 hours UDR at the away from home terminal at our option, waiving the UDR period in the home terminal if displaced and losing a work opportunity, not being required to be fully rested to deadhead from the away from home terminal,) or we can sit back and wait for Congress to mandate a new rest schedule for us. In the face of the recent accidents across the country, fatigue countermeasures are coming. It is simply a matter of time. If Congress mandates a new law governing rest, they won’t care about any impact to your earnings. They won’t care if you lose earnings via displacement. They won’t care if you spend 12 hours at the away from home terminal waiting to take a two hour van ride home. They won’t provide you any options nor will they give you a right to cancel their legislation. We will be delivering our fate to a third party who doesn’t really understand what our job requires or entails. Past history has shown that involving third parties to mandate resolution to our problems has not worked very well.

Q15. What is meant by a 4 hour interim release in this UDR Agreement?
A15. A 4 hour or more interim release is provided for in the HOS Act and requires that your hours of service be aggregated or combined from your previous service trip. As an example, you are called to deadhead to the away from home terminal to man a train back to the home terminal on continuous time. The deadhead trip takes you 2 ½ hours to complete. Upon your arrival at your away from home terminal, it is discovered that the train you have deadheaded to protect has laid down due to mechanical problems. Prior to your tie up, UP can notify you that they are going to return you to service with a minimum 4 hour rest period, however, the previous deadhead time (2 ½ hours) will be included or aggregated with your remaining time left to work (9 ½ hours) to determine your maximum 12 hour on duty period for the service. In other words, you would only have 9 ½ hours left to work on the working trip back to the home terminal. This agreement requires that they give you specific notification prior to your tie up that they intend to bring you back on an interim release. An interim release can only be given at a designated away from home terminal into which the pool operates.

Click Here to view a PDF copy of the agreement.

FRA TO CONDUCT TESTING BLITZ ON SAN ANTONIO SERVICE UNIT BEGINNING MONDAY NOVEMBER 15TH 2004

In light of the recent accidents in the San Antonio area, we have been informed that FRA is planning a testing blitz with plans to check Radio Rules, Signal Rules, Speed, Haz-Mat, Cardinal Safety Rules, Headlight and Ditch rules. It is imperative that all members use their BLET Safety First Quick Reference Guide along with their BLET Safety First performance Guide as a check list to ensure proper rule compliance. Let the focus of this blitz lead them to the real culprit in this tragedy, Union Pacific Railroad. Let's NOT give them a scape goat on which to pin the blame.

Man Killed in Fifth Train Derailment in San Antonio Since May

Details regarding the cause of the below tragic accident are not fully developed. Irregardless of the outcome of the investigation, both FRA and UP are going to be cracking down on radio communications and stopping your train within half the distance given if you loose communication. The rule is quoted below and it is imperative that we get the information out to our members as soon as possible. They are in control of the move and they must protect themselves and others with strict compliance with the rule. The NTSB has been dispatched to the scene. Brother GY Bailey a member of the BLET Safety Task Force will be assisting in the investigation. We will provide more information as it is received.

5.3.6 Radio and Voice Communication
Employees may use radio and other means of voice communication to give information when using hand signals is not practical.Employees must make sure crew members:Know which moves will be made by radio communication. Understand that while using the radio, the engineer will not accept any hand signals, unless they are Stop signals.
5.3.7 Radio Response
When radio communication is used to make movements, crew members must respond to specific instructions given for each movement. In addition:Radio communications for backing and shoving movement must specify the direction and distance and must be acknowledged when distance specified is more than four cars. Movement must stop within half of the distance specified unless additional instructions are received.

Man Killed in Fifth Train Derailment in San Antonio Since May
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 11, 2004

AN ANTONIO, Nov. 10 (AP) - One man was killed and another injured Wednesday when a train car smashed into a cold-storage warehouse where they were working, city officials said.
The derailment was the fifth in San Antonio since May, all involving Union Pacific Railroad trains. It was the second with fatalities.
Roger Bruening, 39, was killed in an office at Crystal Cold Storage when the train car crashed into the corrugated metal building. Another employee was taken to a hospital with injuries that the authorities said were not life-threatening.
Sgt. Gabe Trevino, a police department spokesman, said, "It appears that the train was backing up to hook onto cars, but it pushed them too far back and they went over the rail stop and into the wall."
About 200 gallons of diesel fuel spilled, but was contained.
Judge Nelson Wolff of Bexar County was visibly angry at the crash scene, calling it more evidence that a too-close relationship existed between railroads and their federal regulators that compromised safety.
Judge Wolff said he and others were going to Washington next week to meet with the Federal Railroad Administration, as well as Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Representative Charlie Gonzalez of San Antonio.
Asked the message he would deliver, Judge Wolff replied, "Get more inspectors out here, and stop being so damn cozy" with the railroads.
Steve Kulm, a spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration, said that since 2000 his agency had expanded its nationwide staff of inspectors, and that they had carried out far more inspections and more than doubled the amount of fines assessed.
"And Union Pacific has been inspected more times, has received more violations and has paid more fines than any other railroad," Mr. Kulm said.
Last month, Ms. Hutchison asked for a federal investigation into the Union Pacific crashes.
"Today's accident highlights why it is important to have a top-to-bottom review of San Antonio's railroad corridor," she said.
John Bromley, chief spokesman for Union Pacific, based in Omaha, said an investigation team had been dispatched to the accident scene. The investigators will interview crew members, review their actions and examine the train for any signs of mechanical failure, he said.
Mr. Bromley said a Union Pacific crew member was supervising the operation on the short spur track leading to Crystal Cold Storage. He said the supervisor was in radio contact with the train's engineer.
The other four Union Pacific crashes in San Antonio occurred on mainline tracks. In one, on June 28, a Union Pacific train traveling at 40 miles an hour struck a Burlington Northern Santa Fe train that was trying to pull over onto a siding. The collision split a tanker car carrying chlorine gas, creating a huge toxic cloud that killed a Union Pacific conductor and two women who lived near the crash site. Two other people suffered badly burned lungs.
Several more people were injured in the crashes.

CARRIER SERVES SECTION 6 NOTICE ON BLET ND

All Railroads in the National Carrier's Conference Committee have served notice on the BLET National Division regarding their desires in the next round of bargaining. The PDF file containing that information can be viewed by clicking the link above.