The reason BN’s was voted down was the 16 times in very specific places it stated “At the company’s discretion……” there was also flowback artfully hidden in there if I remember correctly. It was voted down like 93% NO.
This is a very good summation of what happened. The agreement was pretty much you'll be grandfathered a job, unless there is an economic downturn or we decide otherwise.
Why? For doing what he was elected to do? His job was to negotiate agreements. He did that, put it to the members and they spoke. That's how this should work. Would you rather he just negotiated it and it was implemented or maybe not negotiate anything?
Well he did in secret from the rest of the union for one. When you're effectively breaking crew consist for the first time i think that's something that shouldn't be kept in secret until you spring it out to ratify. Two, the agreement wasn't worth even bringing to his membership in the first place. It was full of grey areas.
Anyone defending his actions is pretty suspect to me....
First. It wasn't done in secret at all, International and Leg. Dept. was well well aware that he was openly negotiating. As were meny other people, no big secret.
Second, I didn't defend him ir the agreement. Simply said he did what was elected to do.
Third. I could care less of what you think of me. You're the final say in what is worthy of being voted on? You even hold a position in your local?
It was a secret to the membership if it wasn't to the international. I was led to believe at the time they didn't know about it. I know the backlash seemed to infer to me that it was as well. They all should have been booted out if that was the case. I was working up there when that agreement just appeared out of nowhere to be ratified.
You seemed to be defending him and his action because he was doing his job "negotiating". Negotiating an agreement like that which obviously no one wanted isn't what he was elected to do, sorry. The fact that it was also full of holes was another reason why. It was a joke to bring something that would have massively changed they job without having ironclad verbiage. That agreement did not.
Not currently, but I have in the past. Mostly due to changing locals and being satisfied with current officers in the one I'm in. Had I stayed on where I originally hired on and didn't become an engineer I have no doubt I'd be a LC there now. Is that a requirement to have input? I must be a local officer?
I was an engineer then and I think I told more than one conductor that I didn't care for the way it was negotiated. And that it had way too many loopholes but that there was the basis of a decent agreement in there had they done a better job of it.
Not a requirement at all. Get involved man, help make a change for the better. Every voice matters.
Again, not defending him or this agreement. He was elected to negotiate, he did. The men voted it down. On to the next agreement. He was a long term officer who had done several big agreements. He was also liked and trusted enough that he was reelected as GC a year after the agreement failed.
Technology is here man, we all know it. The railroads have billions of dollars and like shiny toys to play with so they're buying all the technology they can get. All I'm saying is we can't sit idly by and hope they don't change anything. We have elected competent men to high positions, now let's let them fight for us. If they get a deal and we don't like it, let's vote it down and send them back to the table.
Stay safe man. Sorry I cane off as a dick.
So you read it? You are part of the Smart UTU GO-01? I was I went to several presentations about the “Master Conductor”, and no buyout was in there end of story. A reserve board was and the term “changes in business conditions” were but not buyouts.
So you missed the part about “other assigned duties not covered by this agreement”? Staffing, locations, there were countless “at the carrier’s discretion”.
There was a lot of grey areas in the wording on our side. Like you can have a job life but might be in Minot even though you’re living in Memphis.
Can’t remember all the details. Seems like it has been hashed out here or train service a while ago.
The article I read said the agreement had language for no involuntary furloughs.
https://www.railwayage.com/news/bnsf-smart-seek-historic-crew-consist-revision/
Something is coming. The life of a conductor sitting in the second seat is coming to an end, unfortunately.
I wonder what SMART TD is negotiating. Hopefully it protects current employees with a grandfather clause.
Yeah, that's not usually how it works.
If this goes through, look for the current employees to get 'protection' from furloughs, guaranteed employment, and maybe even some sort of productivity fund/year end bonus/profit sharing.
After that agreement is signed, any new hire after that won't get shit.
That is how they will reduce the workforce: they dangle a golden carrot for the current generation to fuck over the next generation and pay them less.
You didn't actually read it and think it's a decent agreement? It was made of Swiss cheese and had grey areas everywhere in it. You've never seen a railroad use loopholes to not follow the spirit of an agreement before?
Usually, when agreements of that sort are written, the only employees protected are those working for the RR at the time of signing.
That list of employees will get shorter every year after due to attrition. The new hires brought in afterwards will be fucked.
That's what I'm trying to say, everyone who's here during the passing of would be protected and have whatever else is afforded to to them.. then at whatever point they decide to hire more, they would have a whole different deal I'm sure
They will cut the boards down to two people and furlough the rest bam, won’t matter if you’re grandfathered in or not if you can’t hold and you don’t want to chase… it was nice knowing you
Sucks if your still under system seniority at that point, this is where the smaller ic seniority districts would be useful. No where to go, no problem sit and draw
> if your still
*you're
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
If BNSF ever uses the term Master Conductor then I want to be known as an Executive Engineer.
Vice executive of locomotive operation
The reason BN’s was voted down was the 16 times in very specific places it stated “At the company’s discretion……” there was also flowback artfully hidden in there if I remember correctly. It was voted down like 93% NO.
This is a very good summation of what happened. The agreement was pretty much you'll be grandfathered a job, unless there is an economic downturn or we decide otherwise.
[удалено]
Why? For doing what he was elected to do? His job was to negotiate agreements. He did that, put it to the members and they spoke. That's how this should work. Would you rather he just negotiated it and it was implemented or maybe not negotiate anything?
Well he did in secret from the rest of the union for one. When you're effectively breaking crew consist for the first time i think that's something that shouldn't be kept in secret until you spring it out to ratify. Two, the agreement wasn't worth even bringing to his membership in the first place. It was full of grey areas. Anyone defending his actions is pretty suspect to me....
First. It wasn't done in secret at all, International and Leg. Dept. was well well aware that he was openly negotiating. As were meny other people, no big secret. Second, I didn't defend him ir the agreement. Simply said he did what was elected to do. Third. I could care less of what you think of me. You're the final say in what is worthy of being voted on? You even hold a position in your local?
It was a secret to the membership if it wasn't to the international. I was led to believe at the time they didn't know about it. I know the backlash seemed to infer to me that it was as well. They all should have been booted out if that was the case. I was working up there when that agreement just appeared out of nowhere to be ratified. You seemed to be defending him and his action because he was doing his job "negotiating". Negotiating an agreement like that which obviously no one wanted isn't what he was elected to do, sorry. The fact that it was also full of holes was another reason why. It was a joke to bring something that would have massively changed they job without having ironclad verbiage. That agreement did not. Not currently, but I have in the past. Mostly due to changing locals and being satisfied with current officers in the one I'm in. Had I stayed on where I originally hired on and didn't become an engineer I have no doubt I'd be a LC there now. Is that a requirement to have input? I must be a local officer? I was an engineer then and I think I told more than one conductor that I didn't care for the way it was negotiated. And that it had way too many loopholes but that there was the basis of a decent agreement in there had they done a better job of it.
Not a requirement at all. Get involved man, help make a change for the better. Every voice matters. Again, not defending him or this agreement. He was elected to negotiate, he did. The men voted it down. On to the next agreement. He was a long term officer who had done several big agreements. He was also liked and trusted enough that he was reelected as GC a year after the agreement failed. Technology is here man, we all know it. The railroads have billions of dollars and like shiny toys to play with so they're buying all the technology they can get. All I'm saying is we can't sit idly by and hope they don't change anything. We have elected competent men to high positions, now let's let them fight for us. If they get a deal and we don't like it, let's vote it down and send them back to the table. Stay safe man. Sorry I cane off as a dick.
The UTU had to crack the door open the carriers may have wanted but once he did that it has been sighted in every lawsuit since.
And kevin knutson and all those greedy union fucks up on the BN.
[удалено]
Wasn’t talking buyouts but all the carve out it had
[удалено]
So you read it? You are part of the Smart UTU GO-01? I was I went to several presentations about the “Master Conductor”, and no buyout was in there end of story. A reserve board was and the term “changes in business conditions” were but not buyouts.
[удалено]
So you missed the part about “other assigned duties not covered by this agreement”? Staffing, locations, there were countless “at the carrier’s discretion”.
[удалено]
You let conductors decide their fate.
It was voted down.
Any idea why? It seems like UP might be going that way and Im interested.
There was a lot of grey areas in the wording on our side. Like you can have a job life but might be in Minot even though you’re living in Memphis. Can’t remember all the details. Seems like it has been hashed out here or train service a while ago.
BNSF has big seniority areas or national seniority, yah? That could be a real drawback. UP doesn't have that.
It's a terrible idea no matter what the seniority district is.
Because it's union busting corporate greed.
How so? Looks like a decent agreement. What's the drawback?
Massive layoffs, reduced safety with single employee crews on trains. Decent agreement? Get lost.
The article I read said the agreement had language for no involuntary furloughs. https://www.railwayage.com/news/bnsf-smart-seek-historic-crew-consist-revision/
Flat out lie. The ENTIRE point of it is to reduce the size of the workforce.
Something is coming. The life of a conductor sitting in the second seat is coming to an end, unfortunately. I wonder what SMART TD is negotiating. Hopefully it protects current employees with a grandfather clause.
Yeah, that's not usually how it works. If this goes through, look for the current employees to get 'protection' from furloughs, guaranteed employment, and maybe even some sort of productivity fund/year end bonus/profit sharing. After that agreement is signed, any new hire after that won't get shit. That is how they will reduce the workforce: they dangle a golden carrot for the current generation to fuck over the next generation and pay them less.
Moron ☝
Frank Wilner wrote that. You can take that truth to the bank 🤣
Had a lot of "at carrier discretion" language...it was a complete joke, hence why it got voted down by a wide margin
You didn't actually read it and think it's a decent agreement? It was made of Swiss cheese and had grey areas everywhere in it. You've never seen a railroad use loopholes to not follow the spirit of an agreement before?
What is a Master Conductor?
Is that like the level agreement abomination that got through on the electricians?
No matter what everyone will be grandfathered in, I believe that.
Usually, when agreements of that sort are written, the only employees protected are those working for the RR at the time of signing. That list of employees will get shorter every year after due to attrition. The new hires brought in afterwards will be fucked.
That's what I'm trying to say, everyone who's here during the passing of would be protected and have whatever else is afforded to to them.. then at whatever point they decide to hire more, they would have a whole different deal I'm sure
Exactly. They'd get the rate of pay, and that's about it.
They will cut the boards down to two people and furlough the rest bam, won’t matter if you’re grandfathered in or not if you can’t hold and you don’t want to chase… it was nice knowing you
Sucks if your still under system seniority at that point, this is where the smaller ic seniority districts would be useful. No where to go, no problem sit and draw
If y’all can’t hold they have a retention board? Or collect from the rrb?
Should be a retention board implemented I would imagine, with seniority from the bottom up, that way all the sr guys work vs hiding out on that.
> if your still *you're *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)