Dear Sir and Brother:
This acknowledges receipt of your March 9, 2004 letter. I
appreciate your comments.
I completely agree with your assessment of the “Attendance Guidelines.” However,
as you are aware, on the BNSF we have an Arbitration Award issued in 1999 that
allowed for the Attendance Guidelines, after a federal court held the issue was
a “minor dispute” under the Railway Labor Act after UTU threatened to strike
over them.
The problems resulting from the Attendance Guidelines have
basically been brought on by a few members who want to pick and choose when they
work and when they mark off. Instead of cracking down on the problem employees,
the carriers choose to force the Attendance Guidelines on all of the employees.
The second problem we can blame on ourselves. For years we had
mileage regulations in effect that regulated pools, etc., as well as the amount
of trips an employee could make each month. In 1985 when the basic day was
increased, instead of indexing the mileage regulations to reflect the changes in
the basic day, most properties and General Committees just eliminated or did not
police the mileage regulations. The carriers had no problem with this because if
they could get the current work force to make a few more trips, they saved the
cost of fringe benefits by not having to hire additional employees.
An example of this is Interdivisional Service. When ID Service
was first placed into effect, crews would be gone 1% to 2 days away from home,
and then when they returned home, they would have a layover of 2 to 3 days. The
high milers have seen the opportunity to make an extra trip or two, resulting in
less and less layover time at home. As time went on, the carriers forced the
existing work force to pick up the slack, resulting in crews not being able to
layoff and less time at home.
With the above thoughts in mind, I have met with several carriers encouraging
them to go back to the mileage regulations. This would solve most of the fatigue
and quality of life problems each of us are facing. It also would go a long way
toward solving the Attendance Guidelines problems.
On February 17, 2004, I met with Dave Deely and several other Carrier Officers
on the BNSF to discuss what I have outlined above. I have had one meeting with
the Union Pacific, and I have another meeting scheduled with the UP on April 14,
2004. Both the BNSF and UP seemed receptive to my suggestions in addressing both
of our problems.
I realize that the direction I am proceeding in may not make the “high milers”
happy. However, I believe it is the only solution to address our problems
successfully before some outside agency does it for us. That will be the end
result if something serious happens that is directly related to fatigue.
If the General Committees would move in this same direction, I feel it would
move the process along much faster.
Trusting that this responds to your March 9, 2004 letter, I remain
Fraternally yours,
/s/Paul C. Thompson
International President