Dear Fellow Union Members:
I want you to know my thoughts on this matter affecting our union retirees. If you
wish, you have my permission to reprint this in the labor paper.
Concerning the extra money the government expects to find over and above the balanced
budget, I wholeheartedly agree that it belongs to the people.
I don't agree with the notion of continuing on with the past habit of finding new
wasteful ways to spend it. I don't like the idea of using it as a tax reduction, as that
would benefit the richer taxpayers the most.
I think it is time to reward the working man who had Social Security taxes withheld
from his monthly wages to create the trust fund in the first place. I would like to see
the first priority given to completely repay the amounts from the Social
Security Trust Fund and the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund that the
government supposedly borrowed during past years. I understand these funds are expected to
go bankrupt in the near future, creating a crisis situation. Common sense tells me it
would be no more than fair to postpone the problem as long as possible.
I would think it might be worth looking into as the second priority to pay off all
foreign investors and save the interest sent overseas for help with our own economy.
I would very much appreciate your help in giving these ideas a trial run through
Congress.
C. E. Curtis
Alberton, MT
Dear Brothers and Sisters of the BMWE Journal:
Let me give you all a big Montana thank you for running the labor cartoon submitted by
Raymond A. Rael. Although it didn't make front page, it is starting to get the point
across on how serious the "contracting out" problem is.
To enjoy the benefits of our jobs, we first must have our jobs. With the upcoming Grand
Lodge Convention this summer, this issue must remain as one of the top priority issues in
the next go around for contract negotiations. I urge all of our brothers and sisters of
the BMWE to talk it up with one another and write their local chairman and Grand Lodge to
let them know how you feel.
I realize we cannot stop outside contracting completely, but we can apply "legal
pressure" to these groups in the forms of making sure they follow our rules to the
point. If you see any
violation(s) of contractors on company property, report them. We, as maintenance of way
workers, are constantly harassed by company, FRA, and OSHA rules. It is time the scab
contractors feel the same pain as we do. If we are subject to enormous fines by the FRA
and OSHA, contractors should be also.
Do not allow management cover ups of violations by outside contractors. This issue
makes my blood boil so much I could write an entire page in the Journal, but
enough said for now.
My second issue I will be brief. On the BLE and UTU matter, I feel we should all work
together with all railway unions to resolve this matter. As counselors to let them
continue to survive as two separate unions if their members want. I am not in favor
of one big rail union to represent us all. Each of our crafts have our own ideas and ways
of doing our job. I feel that at contract negotiation time we can then band together to
meet management at the bargaining table.
Thank you for your time. Keep up the good work.
Jeff C. Dibblee
Havre, MT
Dear Mr. Fleming:
This has reference to your letter dated January 22, 1998, concerning the proposal to
modify the qualifications for railroad employees, spouses, and widow(er)s. As stated in my
February 2, 1998 correspondence, I have called upon our Chief Actuary to analyze the
financial impact of the proposal. He has now completed his analysis and as requested,
estimated the cost of the following changes in the Railroad Retirement benefits:
- Employees would be eligible for a full tier I and tier II retirement benefit at any age
with 30 years of service, or at age 55 with one month of service.
- Spouses would be eligible for full retirement benefits upon employee retirement
regardless of the spouse's age.
- Widow(er)s would be eligible for full retirement benefits upon the employee's death
regardless of widow(er) age. A current connection would be required for widow(er) benefits
as in current law.
Our Chief Actuary has estimated that implementing the proposed changes would require
additional income of approximately $5.8 billion-$6.5 billion per year, or $174.8
billion-$194.7 billion over a projected 30-year period.
V. M. Speakman, Jr.
RRB Labor Member
BMWE Journal:
Before I begin with our suggestions, let me first applaud Brother Ronald D. Friend on
his piece in the recent issue of the Journal regarding the lowering of the
existing retirement age. I am pleased to say it created quite a stir around the CPR/SOO
(CPR to be used by carrier when speaking of profits, SOO to be used by carrier when
speaking of labor disputes and operating costs).
With this stated, I would like to add my voice to Brother Friend's and exhort Grand
Lodge to continue its efforts in keeping with Resolution 13 of the 42nd Grand Lodge
Convention. Of course, we must keep the solvency of the Railroad Retirement system our
first priority. If other retirement systems can give benefits to employees with 30 years
service at 55 years of age or even 85 years combined age and years of service, then the
same should be possible for our system. If we cannot get the above changes, we ask that at
least the penalty for retirement at age 60 with thirty years service be reduced or done
away with.
There is one other thing that concerns me about the current retirement law. We are
penalized for over a certain amount of earnings if we should choose to work after
retirement. It seems that as long as the occupation chosen is not railroad related, there
is no harm done to the sytem. Why then is the retiree penalized? Am I alone in feeling
that this is wrong to tell a person that they may not improve their situation by the work
of their hands past a certain point? Is that not one of the founding principles of our
great nation? I was under the impression that when we retire, our pension had been already
earned by long years of work, sweat and blood. Why then is it possible to withdraw
portions of that "earned" pension for no good reason! Are there any brothers and
sisters out there in agreement with me?
When some of our local brothers met to discuss what issues should be included in this
letter, a rather compelling idea was raised. It was suggested that we lobby using our
collective power and resources to have a modest tax levied upon the carriers' outside
purchases. If this were accomplished, the funds collected would be used toward offsetting
the increased payout caused by lowering of the retirement age.
Now, I would like to address suggested changes to our Bylaws. Let me begin by telling
you a story about the SOO (note the name used) UTU strike of '94. At that time our
roadmasters were unionized. They have subsequently joined the ranks of management. Several
of the "gentlemen"
crossed UTU picket lines during that strike. When large groups of our members expressed
displeasure, they returned to the correct side of the picket lines. Several of these
people pay seniority retention fees to our illustrious brotherhood. It is grievous that we
did not have something in our Bylaws making it possible to drop their seniority from our
rolls for crossing picket lines. As I stated, since then these people have become
management. I suppose that precludes us from this action on our railroad. However, it
could be a useful deterrent on other roads should a similar situation arise.
To sum it up, if a member takes a job outside our union's scope under another
union's care, pays seniority retention fees and subsequently crosses picket lines on the
property-- then said member's seniority is terminated from BMWE rosters and retention fees
are not accepted.
Another issue is concerned with changes that would benefit our locals monetarily. We
request that Grand Lodge pay expenses for a delegate from each local lodge to attend Grand
Lodge Conventions in the future. We believe it to be very important that each local lodge
should be represented but with membership decreasing, we are able to send our delegate
only at the risk of a serious depletion of local funds. We thank Local Chairman D.
Hendricks for his dedication in volunteering to use some of his vacation time in order
that we not have to pay his wages during his attendance at the upcoming convention. If not
for this, it is doubtful if we could have afforded to send him.
The last issue brought to the table was that it would be very beneficial to have
training for local chairmen. The training in question would be how to best represent
members in disciplinary investigations. We would like to see this training set up and paid
for by Grand Lodge.
We extend our best wishes to our BMWE brothers and sisters.
K. A. Shisler
President, Subordinate Lodge 99
CMSTP&P System Federation
Dear Editor:
I'm writing in reference to the February 1998 article, "Every Member An
Organizer." If we believe "power is what it is all about," have we not
joined ranks with those we criticize? Does not this attitude reduce people to be
manipulated rather than persons having worth far greater than material gain? Work hard and
thank you for your hard work but never forget people are what it is all about.
Pat Grab
Lodge 3089
Morgantown, PA |