Now, to document some of the issues the UTU Rail Safety Task Force believes contribute to the loss of situational awareness, injuries and fatalities, the task force requests that you complete a short survey.

There are no right or wrong answers, just honest and true answers.

Your responses will assist the task force to better understand your problems and form a consensus to present to carrier officers -- or regulators and lawmakers, if necessary -- to help make your workplace as safe as it can be.

The results will be tabulated electronically and anonymously.

To take the short survey, click here.

To read Safety Alert# 4, click here.

In solidarity,

UTU Rail Safety Task Force

Greg Hynes, UTU assistant Arizona state legislative director
Steve Evans, UTU Arkansas state legislative director
Jerry Gibson, UTU Michigan state legislative director
Scott Olson, UTU Arizona state legislative director

We accept that managing employees isn't a popularity contest. But it need not be an unpopularity contest.

I share with each of you the concern over ratcheted-up harassment, intimidation and excessive discipline. There is no more economic sense to make out of this than there is common sense.

I was recently told of an incident where an experienced conductor’s work was interrupted no fewer than 18 times over a six-hour period to quiz him on operating rules. Such unjustifiable scrutiny contributes to an unsafe workplace, as the results are used to punish rather than to educate.

When employees in safety-sensitive positions are put in a position where their primary focus at work is defending themselves, their ability to do their jobs efficiently and safely is jeopardized. That is not in the offending carrier’s best interest, certainly not in the customers' best interest, and absolutely not in the best interests of operating efficiently and safely.

We are putting a coalition together with other labor organizations to stop this unwarranted activity. First, we want to hear from you. On the UTU’s home page, at www.utu.org, there is a link to contact information for each of the International's senior officers.

Please, tell us the problems, with examples and details. Help us to teach the carriers we are going to represent our members and are not going to be silent while our members continue to be harassed, intimidated and excessively disciplined to the point of putting their limbs and lives in jeopardy. These members cannot focus on doing their jobs efficiently and safely.

No member should constantly have to look over their shoulder.

As the carriers' attempt at tortured interpretations and applications of our agreements, we will fight them in the courts in Fort Worth, we will fight them on the properties from Jacksonville to Norfolk to Omaha, and we will not go quietly into the night. We will stand and fight.

Our message to the carriers is simple: We want our members properly trained, and then we expect the carries to leave us alone and let us do our work efficiently and safely.

On behalf of our members, we will -- in the words of former President Al Chesser -- "stand and fight with fire in the belly for what is right."

WASHINGTON -- Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph C. Szabo, a fifth-generation railroader, has been in the industry since age 18.

The former United Transportation Union Illinois State Legislative Director hired out on the Illinois Central in 1976 at his father’s suggestion to make money for college. He worked mostly as a conductor in Chicago commuter service, but spent some time in yard and over-the-road freight service.

His father, Joseph F. Szabo, was a switchman with the IC, and a UTU officer for 15 years as secretary-treasurer of Local 1299. In 1987, when the IC sold its commuter operation to Metra, the younger Szabo chose Metra. "I enjoyed the breaks working freight, but I preferred being with people and having reasonable control over my working hours."

RAILWAY AGE: Tell me about your union involvement.

JOE SZABO: When I was 14 and 15, I helped my father keep the books for UTU Local 1299. I was paying a lot of attention to what was going on in the union at that time. I signed on with the Illinois Central in 1976 and joined UTU Local 1290; I attended college part time. In 1984, the secretary-treasurer of Local 1290 retired, and some of the old heads said I should run for the job. I did and won. I had been involved in local politics in my home town of Riverdale, Ill., on the zoning board of appeals, and my parents were always involved in civic affairs -- a core value for me. In 1989, I ran for local legislative representative and was elected. The rest, as they say, is history.

RA: You bring practical railroad experience to the job. What does that mean for your perspective, how you run things?

JS: I would like to think that my life experiences would add a degree of credence to the position, and hopefully bring important insight to the FRA, not only having the hands-on experience, but the daily interaction with railroad employees, even as a union officer. I really do understand what happens out there.

RA: All the activity occurring in the rail industry -- high speed, PTC, ECP brakes, etc. -- what does it mean for the FRA, and for you?

JS: It’s incredibly exciting. There couldn't be a more exciting or challenging time taking over this agency, because it is a transformational period for the agency, as well as for the industry, and for the country. Inside the FRA, we've been mandated with more than a dozen rulemakings as part of the Rail Safety Improvement Act. That in itself would be a huge undertaking, if that was the only item on our agenda. But it's not. We’ve been handed a high-priority, high-profile project by the White House.

The president has said he wants to change the way Americans travel, and that passenger rail is going to be an integral part of that transformation, of balancing our transportation network. Hallelujah! It’s been so long overdue, and something that I believe has been simmering with the population, but hasn’t resonated with our political leadership. Now it has.

So, as an agency, we’ve been charged with executing the president’s vision, and with ensuring that he is successful with it. That's a culture change for America. Inside the FRA, it's a major change, because historically, this has been predominantly a safety agency. Statutorily, safety is the primary mission of the FRA.

Out of our 850 employees, about two-thirds are dedicated to the safety program, a good program that runs like a fine-tuned machine. But we’ve got this small, dedicated passenger rail section that suddenly has been thrown into the spotlight, given this presidential mandate --short timeline, failure is not an option.

So it's created tremendous stress for us. We’ve got to go through this transformation in our passenger rail section, beef up our resources, do additional hiring, and continue to grow the expertise to make sure we have the appropriate people on board to expeditiously review and approve the grant applications that are going to be coming in. We cannot fail, and one of the things that will lead to failure would be a lethargically slow process that frustrates the states.

RA: That’s one criticism that's been leveled in recent years -- that it takes the FRA too long to get anything done, whether it’s a RRIF loan approved or a rulemaking on a particular technology.

JS: There’s no question that criticism has been out there. One of the unfortunate parts of government is that, by nature, bureaucratic processes are slow. So, as we’ve been putting together our guidance for the passenger rail program, we’ve been looking at how we can break down many of those barriers. While balancing the need to ensure that risk is reduced and that projects are approved on a merit basis, we need to be as expeditious as possible. So we’re aware of the criticism and clearly trying to address it.

RA: The industry is still trying to get its arms around high speed. What are we talking about -- 200 mph dedicated lines, or 110-125 mph trains on existing freight rights-of-way?

JS: All of the above. Frankly, in my opinion, too much of the debate has been about speed, which is only a means to an end. That end, the important criteria, is reducing trip times. That's the only thing that matters -- making sure that trip times are competitive with or superior to other modes of travel, that they offer the level of convenience that the traveling public is looking for.

Equally important is reliability. To me, this whole debate has to be about trip times and reliability. Speed happens to be one tool that helps us achieve those goals. Yes, we are looking for 200 mph dedicated systems, but that doesn't mean that there also isn’t a very important role for 110-125 mph service.

I’ll give you an analogy. We've got a road system consisting of local streets, county and state and U.S. highways, and interstates. All interconnect with each other and are part of a comprehensive system. The same approach has to be taken with passenger rail, whether we're talking about commuter services, conventional 79 mph, emerging corridors with 110-125 mph services, or 200-mph high speed.

RA: Another criticism that’s been leveled at government is that there's no comprehensive transportation policy.

JS: I hope that becomes a part of the SAFETEA-LU reauthorization process. At FRA, we're willing to be helpful in that process -- that government does start viewing transportation from a broader perspective, rather than the traditional silos, regardless of whether we're talking about transporting goods or people.

RA: Positive Train Control: Freight railroads are understandably concerned about the cost and the 2015 implementation deadline, who will pay for installation and how much. Your thoughts?

JS: We’re working on the Subpart I rulemaking and are making sure that we get out information in a timely manner. In a broader sense, the industry has an opportunity here to change the dynamics, the relationships, particularly between Amtrak and the freight railroads. There's now money on the table to improve passenger operations. I think PTC presents some good opportunities for a win-win for freight and passenger.

RA: What can you tell me about FRA's R&D initiatives? Will more funding be available?

JS: This agency supports and will attempt to advance through our R&D department those technologies that improve the safety and efficiency of the industry. We clearly have an Administration that understands the role that rail freight and passenger can play in balancing our transportation network, and its advantages. So it’s my hope that, when it comes to our R&D side, there’s going to be support to allow us to continue to enhance rail's viability.

(The preceding interview with FRA Administrator Joe Szabo appears in the July issue of Railway Age magazine.)

Montreal-based Canadian National, which reported quarterly earnings yesterday, said the gains show "momentum" building in the second half of the year, the newspaper said.

Increased shipments by some of Canadian National's customers could mean improvements for the broader economy, RBC Capital Markets analyst Walter Spracklin told the newspaper.

To educate members on the circumstances of these incidents, and in attempts to avoid them in the future, the UTU Rail Safety Task Force, appointed by International President Mike Futhey, urges that each of you continue to look out for each other and forward your ideas and concerns about workplace safety to them so they may address them. 

Interactive communication and "looking out for each other" is imperative to bringing us all home from work in one piece.

To ensure we all go home to our families in one piece, the UTU Rail Safety Task Force asks for a 100 percent commitment to rules compliance and to the following eight activities:

1) Job briefings: Ensure all crew members are present for job briefings, and focus on risk assessment.

2) Situational awareness: Constantly be aware of your surroundings and maintain situational awareness to avoid risks associated with the required tasks and work within the limits of your capabilities.

3) On/off standing equipment: Keep hands free of other objects and maintain three point contact, always being vigilant for equipment movement.

4) Avoid slips, trips and falls: Keep your eyes on the footpath and report any unsafe walking conditions to your local legislative representative for handling.

5) Radio communications: Always use proper identification, provide car counts when shoving, do not engage in excessive chatter or use "over and out."

6) Put safety first: Performing a task safety is more important than the time it takes to complete it. The only "good move" is one done 100 percent by the rules.

7) Ask questions: If any uncertainty arises, take the time to ask questions. Do not take risks or assume anything.

8) Be in charge of your own safety: Do not let others set YOUR level of safety. Report harassment and intimidation.

For more information on the UTU Rail Safety Task Force, and to communicate with the task force, visit the task force's interactive Web page by clicking:

www.utu.org/worksite/rail_safety_taskforce/safety_taskforce_home.htm

In solidarity,

UTU Rail Safety Task Force

Greg Hynes, UTU assistant Arizona state legislative director
Steve Evans, UTU Arkansas state legislative director
Jerry Gibson, UTU Michigan state legislative director
Scott Olson, UTU Arizona state legislative director

SAN FRANCISCO -- In response to UTU International President Mike Futhey announcing the flawed merger attempt with the Sheet Metal Workers International Association "dead," some 800 UTU members at a western regional meeting here July 8 responded with thunderous applause, foot-stomping, cheering and whistling.

"There will not be a merger today. There will not be a merger tomorrow. There will never be a merger with the Sheet Metal Workers," Futhey told the loudly supportive International vice presidents, general chairpersons, state legislative directors, delegates, local officers and leaders in training while delivering his state of the union message.

Futhey described 18 painful months of frustrating talks with the Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA) leadership, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs incurred as a result of the flawed merger that was initiated by a previous administration.

Implementation of the merger was halted by a federal district court in December 2007, prior to Futhey taking office. 

In issuing, first, a temporary restraining order against the merger, and then a preliminary injunction, the federal court ruled that the UTU membership had not been permitted an informed vote when the merger question first was put out for ratification in mid-2007.

If the merger were to be restarted, said Federal Judge John Adams, a constitution for the merged organizations would have to be written and then submitted to the UTU membership for ratification -- a process that was ignored when the initial merger ballot was sent to the membership in 2007 by a previous administration.

Among crucial facts withheld from the membership was that UTU's cherished craft autonomy would be eliminated upon implementation of the merger.

In an attempt to lawfully restart the merger process -- as suggested by the federal court -- Futhey sought to engage the SMWIA to write the constitution that would govern a merged SMWIA and UTU.

"I have gone to the SMWIA time and time again to put a constitution together and protect the interests of UTU members," Futhey said. "I met a stone wall each time." He said the UTU's insistence that craft autonomy be preserved in any merger was met by a SMWIA response that craft autonomy "can’t be accepted."

Futhey said that when he took the UTU Board of Directors to a meeting with the SMWIA leadership in Washington -- asking, "What will it take to put the constitution together" -- the UTU was again rebuffed. The UTU board "overwhelmingly" said, "let’s walk away," Futhey reported.

The federal court injunction against the merger is currently on appeal before the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, with no time limit on when a decision might be reported out.

UTU: A UNION MOVING FORWARD

Futhey, in his state of the union message, said that in the 18 months since his administration has taken office, the finances, organizing efforts and image of the UTU have improved markedly.

The balance of the UTU general fund has almost doubled over the past 18 months, Futhey said, while the UTU Insurance Association surplus has climbed to $23 million, the Discipline Income Protection Plan is back in the black, the strike fund has grown by 45 percent, and necessary funds will be available for the 11th quadrennial convention in 2011.

Futhey reported that more than 300 pilots and flight attendants employed by Great Lakes Airlines have voted to be represented by the UTU; that more than 80 percent of some 160 pilots with Lynx Aviation have signed authorization cards seeking UTU representation; and the UTU is working to organize an even larger airline.

Increased organizing among bus-industry employees is further improving the UTU’s image -- especially within the AFL-CIO -- as a transportation union "moving forward," Futhey said.

The UTU especially has gained stature among other transportation unions as a result of President Obama nominating two UTU officials for senior federal agency leadership roles, Futhey said.

Former UTU Illinois State Legislative Director Joe Szabo was confirmed by the Senate as the nation's federal railroad administrator, and UTU Associate General Counsel Dan Elliott was nominated by President Obama July 7 to be chairman of the U.S. Surface Transportation Board.

COLLABORATING WITH TRANSPORTATION LABOR

The UTU, Futhey said, also worked jointly with other transportation unions on behalf of successful Senate confirmation of former Association of Flight Attendants President Linda Puchala to be a member of the National Mediation Board, and former Air Line Pilots Association President Randy Babbitt to be federal aviation administrator.

"And we’re not finished yet," Futhey said. "We’ve got a voice in the Obama administration due to the UTU PAC."

In emphasizing the success of the UTU PAC in gaining nominations for Szabo and Elliott, and assisting with other successful labor-friendly Obama administration nominations, Futhey created a new and higher level of giving to the UTU PAC -- the President's Circle, which is a minimum of $2,500 annually in UTU PAC contributions.

The UTU PAC is also essential to gaining labor- and UTU-friendly legislation, Futhey said, pointing to efforts underway to achieve new bus- and airline-safety legislation, and passage last year of the most comprehensive rail safety bill in more than a generation.

"The [rail safety] bill goes farther than we wanted [in some respects] and we may need further legislation to fix what wasn't contemplated," he said. And, once again, the UTU PAC will play a crucial role in that effort, Futhey said.

MESSAGE FOR CARRIERS

Futhey also had a message for carriers seeking unilaterally to change labor contracts using elements of the safety bill as an excuse, rather than negotiate changes as contemplated by the legislation. "We will defend our contracts," Futhey said.

He also said the UTU would "not tolerate" carrier intimidation and harassment of members, and is moving on multiple fronts -- in collaboration with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen -- to ensure a minimum of two crew members on all trains, including switching operations in conventional and, especially, remote control modes.

UPCOMING SECTION 6 NOTICES

Futhey said that in advance of Railway Labor Act Section 6 notices being served in November -- to begin a new round of national rail negotiations on wages, benefits and working conditions -- UTU members will soon be asked for contract-change suggestions, and that a draft of Section 6 demands will be prepared for final determination in October by the autonomous UTU Association of General Chairpersons.

The soon-to-be-implemented hours-of-service limitations are directed by Congress in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), whose intent is to reduce train-crew fatigue and improve the quality of life of train crews.

The lawsuit was filed by the carriers in U.S. district court in Ft. Worth, Texas, and the UTU and the BLET intend to mount a vigorous defense.

The carriers acknowledge in their lawsuit that they intend to implement the new regulations as they fit; and, in so doing, may violate existing labor agreements with respect to wage guarantees.

"Quite simply, the railroads have asked the court to overturn their collective bargaining agreements with the UTU and the BLET," said UTU International President Mike Futhey. "The carriers want court approval to disregard collective bargaining agreements in violation of the Railway Labor Act.

"In fact," said Futhey "the Rail Safety Improvement Act provides expressly for collective bargaining on this issue, containing a provision permitting general chairpersons to negotiate a better balance between time off and earnings, while preserving guaranteed time off.

"This lawsuit is not about assuring the safety of its employees," Futhey said. "This lawsuit is all about protecting the carriers' profits. It is nothing more than the carriers' attempt to put the entire burden of the new hours-of-service limitations on the backs and pocketbooks of their employees."

BNSF, CSX, Kansas City Southern, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific, who jointly filed the lawsuit, asked the court to declare that any dispute, arising out of their unilateral implementation of the new hours-of-service regulations, is a "minor" dispute under the Railway Labor Act, which requires binding arbitration. "All railroads would benefit financially at the expense of employees and safety if this carrier lawsuit is successful," Futhey said.

The carriers acknowledge in their lawsuit that they have national and local contracts that include express written agreements, and implied agreements based on past practice, whose intent is to ensure a minimum number of train crews. These agreements relate to guaranteed assigned work, employee pools and extra boards.

But because the provisions of the Rail Safety Improvement Act will impose a cap on hours worked, the carriers want unilaterally to change existing contracts to put on employees the entire financial brunt of the hours-of-service changes. The carriers want to reduce the employees' guaranteed payments to, as they say in their lawsuit, "reflect the employee's unavailability."

The carriers also say they intend to prohibit employees from self-scheduling themselves to comply with the new hours-of-service regulations, a practice recognized by existing contracts.

The railroads assert in the lawsuit that "they have the right, consistent with existing agreements, to take all steps necessary to effectuate the RSIA-mandated changes in hours-of-service rules."

By contrast, say the carriers, the UTU and the BLET "contend that the actions taken by the carriers to effectuate the RSIA-mandated changes in hours-of-service rules would override the parties' agreements in violation of the Railway Labor Act's restrictions on unilateral changes in agreements.

The railroads want the court to issue a declaration that "the RSIA-related disputes alleged herein are minor and subject to arbitration under [the Railway Labor Act]."

The joint UTU-BLET reply to the lawsuit will be reported at www.utu.org upon its filing with the federal district court.

The delegates voted 356-58 in favor of amending Article XII of the UTU Constitution, which now will read:

"The Board of Trustees shall also be empowered to make agreements with vendors to provide members with disability insurance coverage or other benefits through the International, at the members’ cost, on an opt-out basis."

Of 524 delegates mailed ballots, 414 were returned, with 86 percent of those voting favoring the change to the UTU Constitution.

"Group disability insurance will be an essential financial backstop for UTU members, many of whom have been denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions resulting from their railroad employment," said UTU International President Mike Futhey.

The UTU International Board of Directors put the amendment change to a vote of delegates, noting that a review of such available policies had earlier determined that a group disability policy available from Mutual of Omaha could best serve UTU members. Mutual of Omaha is an A+ rated insurance carrier with more than $4 billion in assets.

The search was made under the leadership of UTU General Chairperson Paul Emert (GO 898), who, with assistance from his Assistant General Chairperson Mark Cook and UTU General Secretary & Treasurer Kim Thompson, contacted numerous top-rated insurance companies seeking bids.

Under this Mutual of Omaha policy, every UTU member will be eligible for guaranteed coverage during the open enrollment period, regardless of existing health conditions. The policy will be made available within 90 days, Thompson said.

As further details become available, they will be announced at www.utu.org.

Especially attractive is that the coverage will allow members with a UTUIA disability plan to keep that plan in addition to the Mutual of Omaha plan without any reduction in plan benefits.

Benefits will be for up to $1,500 monthly for up to 12 months per disability. The coverage will be for accidents or sickness, 24/7, on or off the job and will be tax free.

This is important to those seeking greater coverage than will be offered by the Mutual of Omaha plan.

UTUIA field supervisors supported the Mutual of Omaha plan and are pledged to assist members with questions during the open enrollment period.

Because of the large UTU membership base and the UTU's collective buying power, premiums will be especially low -- less than $30 per month, through payroll deduction.

A similar policy -- even if it could be purchased individually from an insurance company -- would cost UTU members up to $100 monthly.

Emert, writing in a column in UTU News in February, said: "UTU officers have an obligation to do whatever is necessary to provide for and protect the needs of the membership. This includes ensuring our members have income to protect their families and property during times of sickness and injury. This policy from Mutual of Omaha will do just that."

Thompson said that "still other benefits to members, as they are identified, now can be offered down the road as a result of this change to Article 12."

UTU International President Mike Futhey and BLET National President Ed Rodzwicz signed the petition for the emergency order.

The request for the FRA emergency order applies to all train operations, including conventional and remote control yard switching operations.

Although the UTU has collective bargaining agreements in force with most railroads requiring at least one conductor on each train start, there currently are no federal safety regulations prohibiting use of one-person crews in yard or road operations.

One-person crew operations "have been nothing more than the industry's attempt to reduce operating costs to increase profits, at the expense of worker safety," says the UTU and BLET petition seeking the FRA emergency order.

The FRA is told in the petition, "The evidence shows that no conditions exist where a lone engineer or remote control operations are safe."

The need for such an emergency order, says the UTU and the BLET, is demonstrated by a May 10 accident on CSX in Selkirk, N.Y., which killed UTU-represented conductor Jerod Boehlke, who was working alone and using a remote control device.

"The workload associated with [remote control operations], while performing other safety critical tasks, demands too much of a single individual, including loss of situational awareness," says the petition.

There are numerous incidents of accidents, injuries and fatalities where railroads utilized one-person crews, and the injuries and deaths caused by remote and single-crew operations "have continued unabated since its inception in the early 1990s," says the petition. "This has been caused in part by the inaction of the FRA to a number of petitions filed both by the UTU and the BLET for emergency orders to prevent such operations.

The petition says that while the FRA has reviewed the safety aspects of one-person crews, it "has really done nothing affirmatively to assure the safety of the employees in such operations."

The UTU and the BLET also take "strong issue" with FRA conclusions that the safety records of remote control and conventional operations are "basically the same."

Pointing to a 2006 FRA report entitled, "Safety of Remote Control Operations," the petition for the emergency order says, "We believe FRA cooked the books here. Most of FRA's erroneous figures resulted from the formulas used for calculating the statistics. For example, by using the number of hours worked instead of FRA's use of yard switching miles for determining the data, the accident rate was 2.3 times higher for RCOs."

An emergency order prohibiting the use of one-person operating crews, including remote control operations, would take effect immediately upon issuance by the FRA.

Click here to read the petition for the emergency order.

Carriers affected are BNSF Railway, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific. Other carriers, however, are expected to abide by the ruling as well.

The UTU and 11 other rail labor organizations pursued the successful arbitration decisions.

To qualify for payment from the carriers under this binding arbitration award, employees must have filed a timely and procedurally valid claim based on their request for unpaid leave under the FMLA that was denied by their carriers. The carrier payment will be at the then-effective straight time rate, and for each day the carriers improperly required the substitution of paid vacation and/or paid personal leave time for unpaid FMLA leave.

Said the arbitrators:

"What grievants lost was a contract right of significant value. The right to time one’s vacation and, to perhaps a lesser degree, personal leave days, is a hard-won right of railroad workers. The carriers’ actions deprived them of paid vacation time when they would be free of FMLA-type concerns and paid personal leave days when they needed them to address important personal obligations. They also lost the benefit of consecutive vacation days that the parties’ agreements provide. Our purpose is to provide compensation for those losses."

In December 2008, the same three arbitrators ruled unanimously that BNSF Railway, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific must halt that practice effective Dec. 22, leaving for this decision, issued June 8, the monetary remedy to be invoked.

The arbitrators had found in December that those four railroads had been ignoring collective bargaining agreements and the FMLA in an attempt to maximize employee availability. Other carriers are likely to abide by the arbitration rulings.

Under the FMLA, employees may elect to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to deal with a family emergency, or a personal serious health condition.

Based on carriers' blatant violation of the law, the UTU and 11 other rail labor organizations challenged the carriers, leading to these two arbitration awards.

In their December 2008 award, arbitrators John E. Sands, William H. Holley Jr., and Jerome H. Ross said that collective bargaining agreements guarantee employees "a set number of paid vacation days" annually, with management restricted from administering the granting of guaranteed vacation days.

The arbitrators also ruled that collective bargaining agreements similarly guarantee paid personal leave days.

The arbitrators cited a long history of other arbitration awards and court decisions backing their ruling that, "On the entire record before us, we must sustain the unions' position and find that the carriers' policies at issue to substitute paid vacation and/or paid personal leave for unpaid FMLA leave do violate the requirements of the national vacation and/or national personal leave agreements."

Affected employees should contact their general chairpersons with questions relating to their own eligibility and the timing of payments by the carriers.

The FRA says it is now prepared to move forward on that rulemaking with the assistance of a Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) working group comprised of representatives from labor, the carriers and the FRA.

In response, International President Mike Futhey appointed a UTU team to join the RSAC Conductor Certification Working Group that will collaborate to create a consensus on the procedures to be applied in certifying conductors.

Appointed by Futhey to the RSAC Conductor Certification Working Group are:

* Local 1470 Chairperson Director David A. Brooks

* General Chairperson (GO 049) John Lesniewski

* UTU Training Coordinator and Local 528 Legislative Representative Ron Parsons

* National Legislative Director James Stem

* Local 645 Chairperson Vinnie Tessitore

* Attorney Larry Mann, UTU's rail safety coordinator to UTU Designated Legal Counsel

The UTU representatives are in agreement that certification conversely carries the risk of decertification, and that their role includes building into the rulemaking safeguards from unnecessary burdens, and ensuring the rulemaking proceeds as intended by Congress in the Rail Safety Improvement Act.

Notably, the UTU representatives are in agreement that conductor certification will enhance the proficiency of UTU members, making them ever more professional and indispensable.

The UTU representatives to the working group said that collective bargaining, not the FRA rulemaking, would determine whether a certified conductor receives additional pay.

Compromise is the art of successful negotiations. But when one party goes to the negotiating table unwilling to compromise, the results can be unpleasant for both, and produce a result that might not be the best choice.

Such was the case with the Rail Safety Improvement Act passed by Congress last fall.

Repeatedly, rail labor told the carriers that if we don’t jointly reach a negotiated agreement on employee fatigue, limbo time, availability policies, and arbitrary discipline, that a major rail accident would force Congress to write legislation that neither the carriers nor labor would like.

The UTU and the other rail unions, whose members are subject to hours of service regulations, had three objectives:

1) An end to limbo time, with a short phase-out period.

2) Advance notice of start times, or a minimum of a 10-hour call.

3) An end to arbitrary discipline tied to unreasonable availability policies.

The carriers refused to accept rail labor's objectives. So, when a series of severe and headline grabbing rail accidents occurred, it became clear that Congress was going to act on its own.

The fatigue mitigation piece of the Rail Safety Improvement Act had been on Congress’s agenda for 15 years. The fatal accident in Chatsworth, Calif., involving a commuter train, was the ice breaker.

Rail labor's position was consistent throughout the process.

The result was not all that rail labor or the carriers wanted in a rail safety bill. The 10-hour call principle was included only as a pilot project, and 10 hours of rest between each shift was mandated.

Had the carriers negotiated with us in good faith, the result could have been a joint recommendation to Congress that maximum flexibility be afforded carriers and rail labor to craft solutions based on the reality of local situations.

The best legislation always starts with an agreement in principle with the involved parties, but the railroads would not agree to any change in the application of unlimited limbo time, to accurate lineups, or an absenteeism policy that would force safety critical employees to work when they were fatigued.

Instead, lawmakers took the one-size-fits-all approach because of the railroads' refusal to discuss fatigue solutions.

We are now working to find local flexibility options to fine-tune the principles contained in the Rail Safety Improvement Act.

We are not optimistic that this can be achieved in so short a time frame, even though the carriers similarly want more flexibility in the law.

What we may be able to achieve is permission from the FRA for an FRA-monitored pilot project that permits flexible approaches instead of one-size-fits-all regulations.

The UTU and other rail operating unions are committed to do everything in our power to achieve more flexible regulations that recognize that situations are not equivalent across all railroads, all operating districts or all rail yards.

We will keep you informed.

After nearly a decade as chief financial officer, Mr. Mongeau will take the railway's top job in January. But first, he'll be dealing with the grime that goes with traipsing through the ground operations of Canada's largest railway in the summer heat.

Mr. Mongeau, named yesterday to succeed retiring chief executive officer Hunter Harrison next Jan. 1, will spend three or four months on the tracks, wearing a reflective vest, safety attire and a tag that reads "Railroader in Training" as he takes an in-depth look at the tracks, terminals and repair facilities.

"It gives you some idea of what kind of a guy he is," CN chairman David McLean said yesterday after Mr. Mongeau was named CEO just before the railway's annual meeting in Calgary.

Mr. Mongeau rose through the ranks during the years that CN moved from "the worst railroad to the very best," as he put it to shareholders, from its 1995 privatization through major acquisitions in which he was a key player.

His challenge now will be to guide the railway after the bruising of the recession, trying to drum up new freight business while keeping costs under control. As the economy rebounds, CN will be positioned to thrive with an expected increase in freight traffic, he said yesterday.

Mr. Mongeau, 47, is already qualified as a conductor, and he will be tackling the task of an engineer this summer, learning how to operate the powerful locomotives pulling trains that can stretch more than 1.6 kilometres.

He has a hard act to follow. He takes over from Mr. Harrison, who is widely praised for building CN into a "precision" railway and a leader in the industry.

Mr. Mongeau will bring to the CEO role his skills as a strategic thinker who gets things done, a sharp financial mind, and a wealth of experience in making acquisitions.

"I've never seen a guy who could go out and implement and execute on an acquisition so well," said former CN director Purdy Crawford. "Just incredible. How he ties down the points. It's hard to find anybody who can negotiate as well as him in terms of putting together a deal."

Mr. Mongeau joined CN as assistant vice president of corporate development in 1994, recruited by Michael Sabia, then a CN executive and now chief of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.

Jim Gray, who retired from CN's board yesterday after nearly 13 years as a director, said it seems a natural progression for the railway to move from Paul Tellier as CEO in 1992 to Mr. Harrison in 2003 to Mr. Mongeau in 2010.

"This guy is not just a numbers guy. He goes far beyond that," Mr. Gray said after CN's annual meeting at a Calgary hotel, just blocks away from the head office of rival Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd., whose trains could be heard rumbling in the background.

In his speech to shareholders, Mr. Mongeau pledged to look for growth, acknowledging that "I will have big shoes to fill." He praised CN's transformation "from an inward-looking organization to a strategically-looking organization." After the meeting, he deflected attention to Mr. Harrison. "Today is the day for our CEO," Mr. Mongeau said.

Mr. Harrison, 64, said in an interview that his successor has been groomed to lead a management team with bench strength.

"Claude is a bright young man with a financial mind, and he's grown beyond that. He's a strategic thinker," said Mr. Harrison, a veteran railroader from Tennessee. "He's become a qualified conductor and he's becoming a qualified engineer. So, he's learning the business in a unique way, from the top-down, as well as the bottom-up."

Mr. Mongeau, currently chief financial officer, takes over from Mr. Harrison effective Jan. 1, 2010.

David McLean, chairman of CN Rail's board, said: "The board thoroughly reviewed the company's future strategic priorities and the skills and attributes required of our new CEO. We are confident that Claude is the best candidate to build on the successes achieved to date."

"Claude is an exceptional executive and leader. He is one of the architects of CN's industry-leading financial performance and the key strategist behind the highly successful rail acquisitions that have grown CN's reach throughout North America and made it a key industry player. He has a keen appreciation of the power of CN's unique business model -- Precision Railroading -- and will be supported by an outstanding team of railroaders."

CN executives cautioned yesterday that volumes remain weak in a variety of categories, including shipments of autos, forest products, coal, petroleum and metals.

Still, the company overcame declining traffic and benefited from lower fuel bills to post a strong first-quarter profit, and says its cargo volumes are positioned to prosper when the economy does rebound.

Traffic volumes, as measured by "revenue ton miles," fell an average of 14 per cent in CN's first quarter from the same period in 2008.

But the Montreal-based railway's first-quarter profit rose 36 per cent to $424 million, helped by the one-time gain of $135 million from the sale of a Toronto-area rail corridor. Excluding that gain and other items, CN's share profit of 64 cents still slightly exceeded analysts' expectations.

A drop in the cost of powering locomotives helped, with first-quarter fuel expenses falling to $182 million from $310 million.

The start of 2009 went relatively smoothly on the rails, with better winter conditions than the first quarter of 2008, when CN took the rare step of halting its trains in Western Canada for two days in January because it was too cold to safely haul freight.

In this year's first quarter, CN had a 74.1 percent operating ratio (a key indicator of productivity that measures operating costs as a percentage of revenue), up from 72.9 percent a year earlier. A lower operating ratio is better.

Amid a recession that has hurt North American railways, CN saw its first-quarter revenue dip 4 percent to $1.86 billion. In the first 14 weeks of this year, North American freight carriers' carloads have tumbled 17.7 percent.

"We're well positioned to weather this storm," said CN chief executive officer Hunter Harrison, who is set to retire later this year. "I am very encouraged, even in this environment."

Mr. Harrison and CN chief financial officer Claude Mongeau said the railway will be keeping a tight rein on expenses, including reduced overtime bills and operating with fewer staff.

At the end of March, CN had 22,083 employees, down 620 people or 2.7 percent from a year earlier. Employees are being asked to take vacation time, where possible, to help with the balance sheet.

"So far, we have been able to avoid any massive layoffs," Mr. Harrison said. "To some degree, our employees are very appreciative that we're trying to do what we can to take care of our own, to the extent we can."

Mr. Mongeau said CN's pension plan is in good shape, but may be headed toward a "technical solvency deficit," depending on whether the federal government relaxes rules on pension calculations.

As to the economy, he said there are mixed signals on how long the economic downturn will last, but it appears "the contraction may still have some distance to go."

It's difficult to read the economic future, he said, adding that the U.S. economy may be experiencing its worst recession since the early 1980s.

Currently, pipelines charge C$17.95 per barrel to ship oil from Alberta to the gulf coast. Estimates are that the increase in pipeline capacity to four million barrels a day from the oil sands to the U.S. gulf coast would cost US$24.7 billion to build and take years to complete.

CN could gear up its capacity to ship by rail up to four million barrels a day of oil at less cost and more quickly, bypassing the need to finance huge pipelines. By the end of this year, the company will be shipping 10,000 barrels daily from producers whose reserves are now stranded.

“Not enough pipeline capacity exists today to move bitumen [gooey oil sands production], diluted bitumen [called dilbit] or synthetic crude,” said CNR’s Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing Jim Foote in an interview this week. “We can get their products today to market using the concept of a pipeline on rail and move it directly either into the U.S. or to the west coast [for shipment to Asia] which creates the flexibility. It means smaller producers are not just tied to a refinery down in Texas.”

Mr. Foote, an American from Chicago, is very excited about the concept which may, once volumes build, eventually replace freight tonnage lost in the manufacturing and forestry sectors during this severe recession.

CN recently acquired the Athabasca Northern Railway linking Edmonton to Ft. McMurray to cash in on the oil sands action. The railway will deliver the oil sands production through the use of insulated and heatable railcars or by reducing its viscosity by mixing it with condensates or diluents.

The “scalability” of the concept – up to millions of barrels per day -- means that the railway can ramp up production cheaply and quickly to provide immediate cash flow to producers which otherwise will have to wait years for completion of upgraders and/or pipelines.

“That’s the beauty of having the rail system. It’s scaleable, can go in any direction they want to go – to the west coast Prince Rupert, Kitimat or Vancouver, or down to the Gulf coast -- where the capacity is already in place and where they are used to refining heavy crude,” he said.

The cost of a pipeline expansion from Edmonton to Kitimat B.C. is estimated at C$4 billion in order to handle nearly 600,000 barrels per day of bitumen and diluent. But producers will have to sign on, and take the pricing risk, for 20 years and wait years to get it built.

CN estimates that it could ship 2.6 million barrels a day of oil products to the west coast if 20,000 railcars were added to its fleet. This would not clog its system at all.

For instance, CN’s current volume of coal shipments are equivalent to transporting 624,000 barrels per day and represent only 5 percent of CN’s business. CN moves about 130 trains a day in Western Canada alone. To add 10% of the potential oil sands production of four million daily to our operations (400,000 barrels daily) would be equivalent to between four to six new trains a day.

The rail option also circumvents the problem, for Canadian producers, of reliance on monopoly markets in the U.S., and on the fickleness of environmental politics, south of the border.

“As the oil sands issues have developed recently, and prices come down, and a lot of the upgrader facilities have gone away the need for some way to get the smaller and medium sized players into the marketplace is becoming critical,” said Foote.

“The number I have seen for constructing a pipeline to serve the west coast is C$4 billion. Our rail network is already in place to get to all the west coast ports. Any terminal facilities needed would have to be put in place whether customers used pipeline or rail. CN's service is scalable, meaning capacity can be matched with production,” added Foote.

“Our target is to be moving 10,000 barrels a day by the end of this year. We already move a lot of petroleum products. Our capabilities to handle this product are clearly not an issue and we handle a lot more products that are more much more environmentally risky than this would be. Diluted or moved in a car that can be heated is similar to how we ship asphalt today.”

Rail’s other benefit is speed.

“We can take this to any port, any place the customer wants it to go with a minimum capital investment,” he said. “We can get a railcar to the Gulf Coast in eight days but in a pipeline it could take 50 days to get there.”

The rail cars can go full in both directions to lower costs, taking bitumen down and bringing condensates back, thus lowering costs.

CN is going to be testing its concept shortly with producers. Immediate beneficiaries will be projects now being developed by Japanese, French and American partnerships which are located along CN’s line between Edmonton and Fort McMurray.

This is clearly a breakthrough innovation by CN that shifts the economics and politics of the oil sands in a dramatic and beneficial way for Canadians.

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Railroad Administration has issued an interpretation of its regulations on employer harassment and intimidation of injured employees -- welcome pointers to help rail workers, injured on the job, know their rights.

The interpretation focuses on situations where a carrier supervisor or other rail official accompanies an injured employee into an examination room. Specifically, the FRA has defined what actions by a carrier official constitutes harassment or intimidation calculated to discourage or prevent the reporting of an accident, incident, injury or illness.

Said the FRA:

"49 CFR Pat 225 [of its safety regulations require] each railroad to adopt and comply with a written Internal Control Plan addressing the railroad’s policies and procedures regarding accident/incident reporting.

"[The regulation] further requires that such Internal Control Plans include, at a minimum, a policy statement declaring the railroad’s commitment ... to the principle, in absolute terms, that harassment or intimidation of any person that is calculated to discourage or prevent such person from receiving proper medical treatment or from reporting such accident, incident, injury or illness will not be permitted or tolerated.

"[M]any railroad employees fail to disclose their injuries to the railroad or fail to accept reportable treatment from a physician because they wish to avoid potential harassment from management or possible discipline that is sometimes associated with the reporting of such injuries.

"[S]upervisory personnel and mid level managers in some instances are urged to engage in practices which may undermine or circumvent the reporting of injuries and illnesses.

"FRA is aware of incidents in which a supervisor or other railroad official has accompanied an injured employee into an examination room, or other room in which the injured employee received medical treatment.

"Although concerns have been expressed as to the need for a railroad to determine the extent of an employee’s injuries, FRA does not believe that such concerns outweigh the potential pitfalls and problems associated with the practice of having supervisors accompany injured employees while they receive care from their physicians.

"Moreover, physicians are in the best position to evaluate the health of injured employees and the presence of a supervisor during such examinations would not, in most cases, add any value to the treatment of an employee and would, in general, be a distraction to both the employee and the physician."

Thus, said the FRA in its interpretation of its regulations:

"Harassment and intimidation occur in violation of Section 225.33(a)(1) when a railroad supervisor accompanies an injured employee into an examination room, unless one or more [exceptions occur]."

The exceptions, said FRA, occur in "limited circumstances in which it is appropriate, and indeed preferable, for a supervisor to accompany an injured employee into an examination room ... Consequently, FRA recognizes the following limited exceptions:

1) "The injured employee issues a voluntary invitation to the supervisor to accompany him or her in the examination room. The injured employee must issue this invitation freely, without coercion, duress, or intimidation. For example, an injured employee may see the attendance of a supervisor where the supervisor is a friend. This exception does not encompass invitations issued by third parties, including physicians, unless the invitations are made pursuant to the request of the injured employee."

2) "The injured employee is unconscious or otherwise unable to effectively communicate material information to the physician and the supervisor’s input is needed to provide such material information to the physician. In these circumstances, the supervisor is assisting the injured employee in providing information to the physician to that the injured employee may receive appropriate and responsive medical treatment."

Also, be reminded that the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 provided for the following:

* If the employee is injured on the job, the employer must provide the injured employee with transportation to the nearest hospital.

* The injured employee may not demand to be taken to a more distant hospital, but the destination must be the nearest hospital and not an emergency center.

* The employer is not required to transport the injured employee via an ambulance. They may be transported via a company vehicle.

* A railroad is prohibited from disciplining, or threatening to discipline, an employee seeking medical treatment, or for following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician.

* Employees may bring an action against the railroad, under whistleblower provisions, for any violation; and, in addition to recovering back pay and reinstatement, they may recover, separate from a FELA action, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and punitive damages up to $250,000.

* Only the injured employee’s physician can certify when the injured employee is fit to return to work, but the railroad can then order an examination by its own physician to determine if the employee is fit, under railroad policies, to return to work, or should be kept off duty for a longer period.

* If you are involved in a critical incident, such as a highway-rail grade-crossing accident or a train striking another employee or pedestrian, you may demand to be relieved from duty for the purpose of receiving counseling. In addition, you may receive immediate relief of service for the balance of the duty tour.

For more years than I care to count, we having been telling the carriers that if we couldn’t come up with a mutually acceptable solution at the bargaining table to the problem of availability policies and train-crew fatigue that we were going to ask Congress to impose a solution.

And still the carriers dithered, placing profits ahead of safety and ignoring the quality of life and safety threats of 30-day availability policies, seemingly never-ending limbo time, rolling the dice on circadian rhythms with wild swings in start times, and assuming human beings could maintain situational awareness as their cumulative sleep deficits mounted.

We provided the carriers with exhaustive evidence of train crews being called to work in a fatigued condition; and reminded the carriers that sleep scientists have concluded that going to work fatigued is equivalent to going to work drunk.

Even in the face of horrific accidents involving deadly hazmat releases and NTSB findings with regard to crew fatigue, the carriers continued to ignore our pleas to negotiate a solution to the fatigue problem. The carriers refused to negotiate.

So we went to Congress, which in the fall of 2008 acted with the most far reaching rail safety bill in decades. It was our only of relief. The law didn’t give us everything we wanted, but it is a good, overdue and necessary law.

Most troubling now is that even with the new safety law’s changes in hours of service and limbo time elimination, the carries continue to resist providing train and engine service employees with predictable starting times.

How can it be that an industry so fully computerized can’t provide its operating crews with predictable starting times?

The fact is, the railroad industry can.

In fact, on Canadian National, which Wall Street analysts say is the most efficient North American railroad, senior management is committed to train scheduling. CN CEO Hunter Harrison considers this good business, safe business and appropriate labor-management policy.

We are now negotiating with CN in hopes we can reach agreement permitting CN and the UTU jointly to petition the Federal Railroad Administration for a pilot project -- under provisions of the new safety law -- to demonstrate every railroad can efficiently provide train and engine-service employees with start and stop times within a predictable range of hours.

We stand willing to negotiate with any carrier a similar joint petition to the FRA for such a pilot project if that carrier is agreeable to structured start times.

Our objective is a changed culture that reduces employee fatigue, fully eliminates limbo time, assures situational awareness of all crew members, improves our members’ quality of life, boosts customer service, and contributes positively to each carrier's bottom line.

It is high time to bring the railroad industry into the 21st century. This pilot project has the potential to do just that.

"The most effective means of reducing the probability that train-crew members make mistakes or violate federal and carrier safety rules and maximize situational awareness is to have two sets of qualified eyes and ears in each locomotive cab," Futhey said.

The two-day NTSB hearing commenced Tuesday, March 3, as part of an investigation into a commuter-rail crash in Chatsworth, Calif., last Sept. 12 that killed 25 persons and injured 130.

As reported by the Associated Press, the engineer of that commuter train was planning to let a railroad fan operate the locomotive on the day of the accident, according to documents from federal investigators. The engineer also sent and received 57 text messages while on duty that day, including one the NTSB said he sent just 22 seconds before the head-on crash with a Union Pacific freight train.

A transcript of the text messages by engineer Robert Sanchez was released by the NTSB at the start of the hearing, during which investigators sketched out the events leading up to the deadly crash.

The texts indicate Sanchez had allowed the rail fan to ride in the cab several days before the crash, and that he was planning to let the rail fan run the train between four stations on the evening of the crash.

"I'm gonna do all the radio talkin' ... ur gonna run the locomotive & I'm gonna tell u how to do it," Sanchez wrote in one text released by the NTSB.

The documents do not identify the fan, but after the crash two teenage train buffs told KCBS-TV that they received a text message from Sanchez minutes before the crash.

Investigators said the pattern of text messages was not uncommon for the engineer, who died in the crash.

Investigators said there was no sign of mechanical error involving the Metrolink train that was carrying 220 passengers.

"All the evidence is consistent with the Metrolink engineer failing to stop at a red signal," investigator Wayne Workman told the NTSB.

Workman said text message records also indicated Sanchez had allowed unauthorized individuals into the locomotive cab three days before the accident. One of those individuals was allowed to sit at the controls while the train was operating.

"Both company and federal rules prohibit these activities," Workman said.

The Associated Press also reported that investigators found that the conductor of the Union Pacific freight train also received and sent numerous text messages while on duty. The conductor tested positive for marijuana, according to the NTSB.

The crash prompted a Federal Railroad Administration-imposed ban on the use of cell phones and other electronic devices by crew members while on duty.

The NTSB panel conducting the hearing focused on cell phone use by train crew members; the operation of trackside signals designed to prevent collisions; and oversight and compliance with safety procedures during the crash.

President Futhey's statement:

Following are additional comments by President Futhey, which were released to the media at the start of the hearing:

"The United Transportation Union neither condones nor defends the violation of operating rules intended to ensure safe operation of freight, passenger and commuter trains.

"The assignment of a qualified locomotive engineer and qualified conductor to the cab of every freight, passenger and commuter train helps to ensure situational awareness, which is essential to safe train operation and protection of passengers and the public.

"When a locomotive engineer works alone in the locomotive cab of a passenger or commuter train, and the qualified conductor -- who has charge of the train -- is in the passenger cars performing other duties, there is not a second set of eyes and ears to interact with the locomotive engineer in observing track signals and ensuring compliance.

"A two-person crew, which includes a qualified locomotive engineer and a qualified conductor, also provides increased assurance against lapses in judgment by one crew member, who, for example, might otherwise permit an unauthorized person in the cab of the locomotive.

"Human beings possess frailties, and every individual has a tendency to fail at some point. Having two qualified crew members in a locomotive cab significantly reduces the probability of life-threatening failure.

"Indeed, the professionalism and safety operating record of more than 100,000 train and engine service employees each and every day in the United States is compelling testimony that horrific accidents such as occurred in Chatsworth, Calif., are extremely rare.

"Having a second qualified individual in the locomotive cab further reduces the probability of a repeat occurrence."

UTU International Vice President J.R. "Jim" Cumby will be called by the NTSB March 4 to respond to questions. Members of the UTU Transportation Safety Team, of which Cumby is chairperson, assisted the NTSB in its initial investigation of the accident.

"Are they going to be inundated with them overnight? The answer is no, that can't happen," says Jim Kvedaras, spokesman for the Canadian National Railway Co.

The company's recently approved purchase of the lesser-used Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co., allows it to begin rerouting trains from tracks shared with commuter lines to the EJ&E as of March 4.

How many and how soon are some of the details Mundelein officials plan to discuss with the railroad next week. Increased traffic on that line is of particular concern in the Mundelein area, which has several EJ&E crossings, including Allanson Road and Route 60/83.

"I don't think train traffic is going to increase noticeably for awhile," said Mike Flynn, assistant village manager in Mundelein. "They might begin a couple of trains a day to start with but there's a lot of scheduling to take care of and they have to retrain their crews."

The EJ&E runs in an arc from Waukegan to Gary, Ind. Initial changes will not affect areas east of Mundelein, however.

Significant work is needed to broaden a curve at what is know as the Leithton interlocking, just west of Butterfield Road where there is a junction between the CN and EJ&E.

"Initially, there's only a limited number of trains we can physically reroute," Kvedaras said.

Trains can only take the curve at 5 mph, according to Flynn, and the slow speed translates to delays at crossings. The railroad has pledged to soften the curve within two years so trains can travel through at 30 mph.

"They can't really put very much (freight) traffic on that line (EJ&E) until they improve the curve that joins the lines," Flynn said. "Plus, they have a lot of other track work, sidings and double tracking before they bring the lines in full."

Railroad officials have said that up to 24 more trains per day could be using the line within three years.

Mundelein is one of several communities along the route that entered into special agreements with Canadian National before the acquisition.

The agreement, posted on the village Web site mundelein.org, calls for a financial contribution from the railroad to deal with several issues. Among them are Leithton curve, barriers to maintain quiet zones, a grade separation at Route 60/83, bypass road in the Tower Road industrial park and other measures.

The railroad will provide $100,000 for privacy fencing or berms at Hickory Street west of Route 45, for example, and $50,000 for noise mitigation at West Oak Middle School, which is adjacent to the tracks.

A special protocol for communication between the railroad and the village regarding blocked crossings and $400,000 for emergency response equipment also was part of the agreement.

"We realized that if you're going to get any concessions, you're going to have to talk to them about it: 'How are you going to mitigate the impacts to our community?'" Flynn said.

Montreal-based CN and Norfolk Southern Corp. said yesterday they will share track along the corridor to speed the movement of rail traffic between the U.S. Midwest and U.S. Southeast.

The move is part of a plan to create a new coal gateway at Corinth, Miss., to better link power plants served by Norfolk with CN-served coal producers in the Illinois Basin.

The West Tennessee Railroad between Fulton and Corinth will be upgraded to handle heavier shipments and additional rail traffic.

"For our customers it's going to be better, shorter, more efficient, more competitive routings and we see this as a very positive development," CN spokesperson Mark Hallman said.

The plan has been in the works for a year. Potential cost benefits and savings are confidential, he said.

CN will haul Norfolk freight between Chicago and Fulton, Ky., shortening the route to Birmingham, while Norfolk will haul CN freight between Chicago and St. Louis, reducing the distance by about 100 kilometres and providing improved connections.

Norfolk will also use CN's routes between St. Louis and Fulton, saving more than 80 kilometres.

The two railroads already co-operate on track south of Montreal.

CN has a major co-production agreement with Canadian Pacific in the B.C. Fraser Canyon. They also work together in northern Ontario.

"This is another in a succession of these types of innovations that we have been pursuing to share assets with other carriers in the most effective way," Hallman said.

Railway analyst Walter Spracklin of BMO Capital Markets said the agreement will result in an incremental improvement in CN's operations and are an alternative to mergers that have been rejected by regulators.

"These co-production agreements allow the railroads to get efficiency gains that they can't get through mergers," he said.

The agreement will allow CN to haul more coal, which accounts for 20 to 27 per cent of the railway business in the United States.

(This item appeared Feb. 11, 2009, in the Free Press.)

While railroads oppose our efforts to obtain for new hires equal pay for equal training, responsibility and accountability, they are spending tens of millions of dollars to defend their pricing power that pads their bottom lines.

With NBC charging up to $6 million per minute for Super Bowl advertising, freight railroads bought time during the third quarter of the game to congratulate themselves on their impressive productivity, even though it is mostly the result of fewer train and engine service employees taking on more responsibilities.

In 2008, freight railroads spent some $40 million on lobbyists to protect their monopolies; and millions more on radio, television, magazine and newspaper ads to create a positive image.

Railroads have become so profitable that Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway fund has acquired 22 percent of BNSF stock; and hedge funds, banks and investment houses now own about one-third of railroad stock shares.

During 4th quarter 2008, with most industries on the financial ropes, UP earnings rose 35 percent; BNSF earnings rose 19 percent; Norfolk Southern, 17 percent; and CSX, 16 percent.

The Financial Times reported that "North America's principal rail companies underlined their growing resilience and pricing power by reporting improved operating profits for the quarter while the economic downturn started in earnest."

Wall Street analysts say that coal, grain and chemical shippers -- those with no effective alternatives to shipping by rail -- are so captive that the railroads will continue raising their freight rates (which translate into sharply increased profits) with little fear of losing the business.

Analysts report that railroads paid millions in year-end bonuses to their top executives in December, while fighting every attempt by the UTU to eliminate a two-tier wage structure that pays new hires considerably less, even though the new hires are given equivalent skills, responsibility and accountability as fellow conductors and yardmasters with at least five years of seniority.

Meanwhile, railroads have renewed their push to eliminate the craft of conductor and operate trains with one-person crews. Having been stopped by a federal court from making such demands in national handling, they are now pursuing that objective through local agreements.

For more than 40 years, rail labor has assisted the carriers in reducing government oversight and  collecting federal subsidies, which produced a frenzy of mergers, reduced head counts and permitted monopoly pricing.

The carriers' repeated promises to share their increased wealth with employees evaporated when the time for sharing arrived.

Now, our most effective response is in the legislative arena, where railroads need labor's political support to turn back captive shipper efforts to trim rail market power.

I met recently with the head of a shipper advocacy group to discuss their legislative effort to require the Surface Transportation Board be more aggressive in its oversight of the handful of major rail systems that now dominate the railroad map. The shippers also are seeking legislation placing railroads under the same antitrust laws as all other American industries.

This is not reregulation. It's simply requiring regulators to do what the law tells them to do.

We are examining closely our Washington relationship with carriers and shippers. Our lobbying power before a labor-friendly Democratic-controlled Congress and White House may be our most effective tool to assure employees are treated equitably at the bargaining table.

We will also be continuing our efforts before a wage and rules panel to convince carriers that the time is now for reaching an equitable solution to the entry-level pay problem.

We remain optimistic that carrier CEOs will recognize the value of having a joint coalition with organized labor, where workers benefit from the railroad renaissance as executives and stockholders have been benefiting.

Now, let's do it together.

During a keynote speech to the third annual Canada Maritime Conference, held in Vancouver, British Columbia, earlier this year, Harrison, 63, promised to unveil his proposed design before he relinquishes control of the "most efficient" Class-1 railway on the continent.

He said the likely future is that two uber railways will replace Union Pacific, BNSF, CN, Canadian Pacific, CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway.

He said the six will coalesce into two, but the result will be unlike past merger outcomes. "I have a different model, but I am not prepared to unveil it yet. But before I retire I will put that model on the table," he said.

A final round of giant railway mergers would make it easier to implement accelerated freight services in North America. It would avoid problems in agreeing on high-speed rolling stock and the sharing of this equipment.

"The prediction is that rail freight will grow by 45 percent," Harrison said. "That is quite a challenge, calling for better use of existing capacity and improvements in speed and velocity (turnaround times for equipment). How fast will we go? I see freight trains operating at 100 miles per hour."

After noting that CN hosts 100-mile-per-hour Via Rail Canada trains in corridor service, he said track-bed improvements to take 100-mph freight are affordable, but public-private partnerships will probably be needed to eliminate grade crossings by providing overpasses or underpasses.

As things stand, it would be difficult to win agreement among the Big Six railways (seven, if Kansas City Southern is included) on what design of high-speed freight equipment should be used and how cars should be interchanged.

Harrison said an interim solution, pending a spate of super mergers, is for railways to operate high-speed equipment in closed loops, not allowing it to stray onto other railways.

The railways need to carry more of North America's freight because they can do it efficiently and in a more environmentally friendly manner than the trucking industry can, Harrison said.

"If only 10 percent of North America's (road) freight moved to the rails it would save $1 billion in fuel and give a big reduction in emissions," he said. "Fuel savings, fewer emissions and reduced highway congestion: We are on the right side environmentally."

Claiming that he didn't want to dump on truckers, Harrison said rail carriers can move one ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of fuel. "Imagine your car giving you that kind of performance."

According to Harrison, the railway industry is up to the task of moving larger volumes of freight and of being more accommodating to small consignments, reviving a business it largely lost to trucking. He did caution that this bright future may not come to pass if governments heed talk about re-regulating the railway industry. He said that prior to the passage of the Staggers Act to deregulate U.S. carriers in 1980, major lines were going bankrupt and the state of disrepair was so severe that stationary freight cars were toppling from the tracks.

"Deregulation taught us that the old model didn't work," Harrison said. "My advice is that you don't mess with a winning combination. The results of re-regulation could be devastating."

Harrison noted that CN is having trouble winning regulatory approval to take over a 150-mile shortline skirting Chicago. Suburbanites with what he termed a NIMBY (not in my backyard) mentality are trying to block CN's $300 million bid to acquire a major portion of the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern rail line.

Harrison came to CN from Illinois Central, which was taken over in 1998. Under CN's president at the time, Paul Tellier, he implemented the concept of precision railroading -- running scheduled trains.

Harrison told his Vancouver audience about a meeting he called of 100 or so top operating officers at which he said that change would be radical and total. "There were not a lot of amens," he recalled. "If you meet resistance to change, you need a winner, something to instill confidence that you know what you are doing."

His winning strategy proved to be a 35 percent downsizing of the locomotive fleet. "It got people thinking that if we can do this with locomotives, maybe we can do it with freight cars," he said.

CN's stud of locomotives is now only half the fleet size it was when Harrison took charge. He said that making more effective use of locomotive power conformed with one of his key business objectives - controlling costs. "Not slash and burn."

He said the changes he helped bring about at CN were dramatic, perhaps overly so. Possibly management failed to communicate effectively what it was attempting and why. But today, CN has the lowest operating ratio (a measure of costs to revenues) of any Class-1 carrier.

"When we started in 1988 we set the lofty goal of building the best railroad in North America," Harrison said. "Our new objective, driven by investment needs, is to become one of the best transportation networks in the world."

Canadian National connects directly to the ports of New Orleans and Mobile, Ala., and serves Gulfport, Miss., via a haulage agreement with Kansas City Southern. CN's Gulf rail lines converge at Jackson, Miss., run north to Memphis, St. Louis, Chicago and the Great Lakes region, then branch in a 'y' shape west and east to ports at Vancouver and Prince Rupert, British Columbia, on the west coast of Canada, and ports at Quebec, Montreal and Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the east coast of the nation.

"They have been very interested in developing a three-coast approach to moving cargo," said Port of New Orleans spokesperson Chris Bonura. Many regional transportation people believe that CN will be key to cargo growth in the mid-Gulf, particularly after the Panama Canal expansion is complete in 2014.

CN was the first railroad to take advantage of the Port of New Orleans' new near-dock intermodal railyard, which is available to all railroads at the port, Bonura said. The railyard is on property once owned by Illinois Central. The property, close to the Napoleon Avenue Container terminal, now belongs to the port. "It's directly connected to (CN's) infrastructure," Bonura said. "New Orleans is the terminus of their railroad." From New Orleans, CN's transit time is 12 hours to Memphis and 24 hours to Chicago.

CN also directly connects to the Alabama State Port Authority at Mobile, with a line that accesses a joint interchange near the main docks and another that goes directly to the McDuffie coal terminal and an area where the port plans to build an intermodal facility near the new Mobile Container Terminal.

(The preceding article by Mark Wilson appeared on the Web site www.gulfshipper.com on December 29, 2008.)

Policemen are not nannies. And they shouldn’t be used as spies or weapons against railroad workers, either. Sadly, too many railroads have been using their private police forces -- which have extraordinary powers under state laws -- not for prevention of criminal activity, but as an extension of management policies.

At the request of the UTU, the State of Illinois in December put a stop to this over-the-top harassment of rail workers, and other states will be asked to take similar action if the railroads do not voluntarily rein in their police and utilize them solely for the protection of railroad property and employees rather than as a weapon against employees.

The Illinois law amended the state’s Railroad Police Act – effective June 1, 2009 -- to put railroad police in that state under independent, objective oversight by state police and the Illinois Commerce Commission.

This means allegations of misuse of railroad police powers now will be investigated by an independent third party -- the same as actions by municipal police are subject to public oversight.

UTU Assistant Illinois Legislative Director Bob Guy, who worked with the Illinois AFL-CIO, the Chicago Federation of Labor, the BLET and the BMWE to shepherd the bill through the state legislature, explained to lawmakers that railroads are the only for-profit corporations in the United States to which government has delegated police powers, such as the ability to arrest citizens and interrogate suspects.

"Yet, historically, when carriers have been accused of abusing their police powers, the charges have been investigated only by the railroads that employ and direct the police," Guy said. "Under the new Illinois law, if the state police find fault with a railroad police practices, they can open their own investigation and turn their findings over to the Illinois Commerce Commission, which may hold a hearing, issue a cease-and-desist order, and impose fines."

Illinois State Legislative Director Joe Szabo -- a former mayor of a Chicago suburb -- said, "Too often, railroad employees have been the object of creative use of railroad police powers outside the realm of traditional police duties."

For example, in October 2007, CN used its police powers to interfere with the activities of a local UTU chairperson in Decatur, Ill., even though he was communicating with his members on a public city street. It was the second time in a month that CN threatened to use its police powers to interfere in lawful, legitimate union business activity. The CN railroad police used their police powers not to enforce the law, but to enforce anti-union management policy.

When CN management was asked to investigate the incidents, they responded with self-serving findings, and the UTU was left with no independent authority to which to appeal the police abuse of power.

Two state legislators -- one, a former UTU member -- brought an extra measure of credibility to the issue of railroad police reform in the Illinois legislature. They were state Rep. Tom Holbrook, a former B&O switchman, and state Sen. Bill Haine, who was a Madison County state’s attorney for 14 years.

The new Illinois law builds on a two-year old state law that limited railroad police interrogation of employees to four specific areas:

1) Situations in which there is reason to believe criminal conduct occurred;

2)  A response to an employee accident;

3) Situations in which there is reason to believe that interviewing an employee may prevent workplace violence; and,

4) Situations where there is a legitimate concern for the personal safety of one or more employees.

UTU members with evidence of railroad police abuse -- regardless of the state where they work -- should contact their state legislative director. In Illinois, there is now a process, under the law, to pursue these allegations. In other states, legislative directors will gather the information for use in urging passage of a similar law.

Electro-Motive's SD70M-2 model, which meets US EPA Tier 2 emissions standards, has been developed for the North American freight locomotive market as well as other railways around the world. This model uses the highly reliable 710 Series diesel engine and is rated at 4,300 traction horsepower. These orders will have EMD's Q-Cab which improves operator comfort and demonstrates EMD's emphasis on continuous product improvement for its customers.

According to John Hamilton, CEO for Electro-Motive, "We are delighted that CN has expressed further confidence in EMD by placing an additional order for EMD products. CN has chosen the energy-efficient, low-emissions SD70M-2 locomotive for its operations. It means a great deal to EMD to enjoy the trust of this key customer."

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 was signed into law on Oct. 16, 2008.

Of significance to train and engine service employees are changes to the maximum hours of service, which the new law addresses.

Following is what the law says and means with regard to some of the most significant sections relating to UTU members.

I.  HOURS OF SERVICE:

The hours of service changes become effective July 16, 2009, which is nine months following enactment of the law.

TIME ON DUTY: 

* A railroad may NOT require or allow a train & engine service (T&ES) employee to remain or go on duty in any month where the employee had spent a total of 276 hours in any one or a combination of the following activities: on duty, waiting for transportation, in deadhead transportation to a place of final release, or in any other mandatory service for the carrier.

This means the combination of on-duty time, limbo time, waiting for deadhead transportation, deadhead time, and any other time spent in mandatory service (which may include rules training time, medical examinations).

Once you serve 276 hours in any month, the carrier may not require or allow you to go on duty, remain on duty, wait for deadhead transportation, be in deadhead transportation or in any other mandatory service for the remainder of the month.

If the carrier does not take you out of service prior to exceeding the 276 hour monthly cap, or if the carrier attempts to put you in service where you would violate the 276 hour cap, you must take yourself out of service under the law.

Once the 276 hour cap is met in any month, you may not report for duty again prior to 12:01 a.m. of the first day of the next calendar month.

A call to report for duty, followed by a release, whereby the employee does not go on duty, is not counted against hours of service. However, the time spent travelling to a point of duty assignment other than a regular reporting point constitutes deadheading to duty and counts as time on duty.

The FRA is required to revise its rules in advance of July 2009 to require the carrier to keep paper or electronic records detailing each T&ES employee’s hours per month.

* A T&ES employee may NOT remain or go on duty for a period in excess of 12 consecutive hours.

If a combination of on-duty time and limbo time exceeds 12 hours, the employee must receive 10 hours of undisturbed rest, PLUS the number of hours of limbo time that exceeded the 12 hours on duty. Thus, a 12 hour shift and two hours of limbo time would require 12 hours of undisturbed rest before again reporting for duty.

* A T&ES employee may NOT remain or go on duty UNLESS the employee has had at least 10 consecutive hours undisturbed rest off duty during the prior 24 hours.

Undisturbed rest means just what is says. The carrier may not telephone the employee, page the employee, knock on the door of the employee, or otherwise disturb the employee for 10 hours.

The carrier may, however, send an e-mail message to the employee during this time period. But the carrier may not disturb the employee with a return-to-duty call until after the 10 hour period.

As noted above, if the on-duty time plus limbo time exceeded 12 hours, the 10-hour undisturbed rest time is increased by the number of hours of limbo time.

There is an exception during emergencies, and, also, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation may waive this section for intercity and commuter service if it is consistent with safety.

If the collective bargaining agreement requires the employee have 90 minutes to report for duty following the call, then the employee would have at least 11 ½ hours off duty, as the call could not be made before the 10 hours of undisturbed rest has expired.

* A T&ES employee may NOT remain on duty or go on duty AFTER that employee has initiated an on-duty period each day for six consecutive days, unless that employee has had at least 48 consecutive hours off duty at the employee's home terminal, during which time the employee is unavailable for any service.

This means when you complete the sixth consecutive start day, you must be given at least 48 consecutive hours (not calendar days, but 48 consecutive hours) off duty at your home terminal before you are again required to report for work. This includes yard assignments.

However, if you are released from duty at the away from home terminal at the end of the sixth consecutive start day, you may work a seventh consecutive start day to return to your home terminal. Then, however, you must be given at least 72 consecutive hours (not three calendar days, but 72 consecutive hours) off duty at your home terminal before you are again required to report for work.

If the 276 hour cap occurs on the last day of the month, and you have not completed your mandatory 48 (or 72) consecutive hours off duty at your home terminal, you MUST complete that mandatory time off before again reporting for duty.

If the 276 hour cap occurs at an away from home terminal, the railroad may NOT deadhead you back to your home terminal, as that would violate the law. The FRA must yet determine the manner in which you are returned to your home terminal.

The trigger is initiating an on-duty start for six consecutive days. Even if you work just one hour, the fact that you have initiated an on-duty start that day counts toward the six consecutive days.

However, the count begins anew on any calendar day in which you do NOT initiate an on-duty period. Thus, if you are called for duty Monday-Friday (five start days), and do not work on Saturday, but are called back to work on Sunday, then the six-day clock begins anew on Sunday.

The clock covers all T&ES jobs, meaning it does not matter if you ebb and flow between engineer and conductor jobs, or between extra board and pool jobs. The only trigger is initiating an on-duty period as a T&ES employee.

Note that the six- and seven-day clocks are not applicable to intercity passenger carriers, short haul passenger carriers, and commuter operators at this time.

General chairpersons may negotiate local collective bargaining agreements providing a better balance between time off and earnings, while preserving guaranteed time off.

The U.S. Secretary of Transportation may also waive the “6&2” and “7&3” requirements if the collective bargaining agreement provides for a different arrangement AND the secretary deems it consistent with safety. In no case may a local agreement exceed the 276 hours monthly cap.

The UTU International will provide assistance in these negotiations at the request of general chairpersons. The FRA has indicated that it, also, will provide assistance to general chairpersons for the purpose of assisting in interpreting the law and new regulations pursuant to the law.

LIMBO TIME:

* A railroad may not require an employee to spend more than 40 hours per month in limbo time.

This 40-hour rule begins July 17, 2009 and continues through June 16, 2010. Beginning after July16, 2010, the carrier may not require an employee to spend more than 30 hours per month in limbo time. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation may adjust that time period beginning July 17, 2011.

II. ON DUTY INJURIES:

Transportation to Hospital:

* If the employee is injured on the job, the employer must provide the injured employee with transportation to the nearest hospital.

The injured employee may not demand to be taken to a more distant hospital, but the destination must be the nearest hospital and not an emergency center.

The employer is not required to transport the injured employee via an ambulance. They may be transported via a company vehicle.

Medical Treatment:

A railroad is prohibited from disciplining, or threatening to discipline, an employee seeking medical treatment, or for following orders or a treatment plan of a treating physician.

Employees may bring an action against the railroad, under whistleblower provisions, for any violation; and, in addition to recovering back pay and reinstatement, they may recover, separate from a FELA action, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and punitive damages up to $250,000.

Only the injured employee’s physician can certify when the injured employee is fit to return to work, but the railroad can then order an examination by its own physician to determine if the employee is fit, under railroad policies, to return to work, or should be kept off duty for a longer period.

Counseling:

If you are involved in a critical incident, such as a highway-rail grade-crossing accident or a train striking another employee or pedestrian, you may demand to be relieved from duty for the purpose of receiving counseling. In addition, you may receive immediate relief of service for the balance of the duty tour.

III. CONDUCTOR CERTIFICATION:

* No later than April 2010, the FRA must conduct a rulemaking to determine the parameters for conductor certification.

The UTU will participate in that rulemaking, which will be announced in advance through publication in the Federal Register and via the UTU Web site.

Collective bargaining will determine whether a certified conductor receives additional pay.

If a certified conductor is de-certified, and barred from working as a conductor, the conductor probably will be permitted to bump to a non-certified brakeman or yardman position, unless the FRA also designates that employee to be unsafe to perform a safety-sensitive job.

The FRA will have to determine if a decertified engineer may work as a certified conductor.

IV. TRAINING:

Railroads are required to provide training in all aspects of FRA regulations, which includes hazmat training.

V. ALCOHOL & DRUG TESTING:

* Any non-federal alcohol and drug testing by a railroad shall be conducted using a scientifically recognized method of testing.

The employee can challenge whether the railroad has used a scientifically recognized method of testing.

The railroad must provide a redress process for an employee to petition for, and receive, a hearing to review the specimen results, and a dispute or grievance shall be resolved under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.

VI. POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL:

* Class I railroads, as well as intercity passenger and commuter railroads, must install PTC on main line tracks by Dec. 31, 2015.

The requirement to install PTC does not affect existing crew-consist agreements.

VII. MECHANICAL & BRAKE INSPECTIONS IN MEXICO:

No mechanical or brake inspection may be performed in Mexico unless the FRA certifies the inspection is equivalent to those performed in the U.S.; that the inspectors are receiving what the FRA considers appropriate training; that the FRA is permitted to perform on-site inspections; and that inspection reports are available.

FURTHER QUESTIONS?

Any questions should be directed toward your state legislative director or your general chairperson, who received from the International and the International's rail safety consultant an extensive briefing on provisions of the new law.

Questions should not be sent to the UTU International.

Where SLDs and GCs are not able to answer a question, they will work directly with the International, which has opened a line of communication with the FRA. 

As provisions regarding hours of service do not go into effect until July 2009, and will require rulemakings or further interpretation by the FRA, some questions may not be able to be answered with finality for some time.

Any new information will be posted at www.utu.org and available by clicking on the "2008 Rail Safety Act" box on the home page. Members should visit that Web page regularly to check for updates.

The Federal Railroad Administration issued an emergency order Oct. 2 banning the use of all personal electronic devices by railroad operating employees while operating trains and in other settings.

The ban went into effect Oct. 27.

Railroad operating employees are defined by the FRA as those subject to hours-of-service regulations -- employees engaged in or connected to the movement of a train, including a hostler.

Although the ban is commonly known as a cell-phone ban, it applies to any electronic device that was not provided to the railroad operating employee by the employing railroad for business purposes.

This includes cell phones, GPS devices, cameras, game boys, lap tops, PDAs, texting devices, the calculator function of a cell phone or electronic watch, and iPods.

There are very limited circumstances where conductors or engineers may use electronic devices.

PENALTIES ARE SEVERE
 
The penalties for violating the ban, in addition to discipline by the carrier, include being taken out of service by the FRA, and being fined up to $25,000 by the FRA.

Carriers may set up a sting to catch you in violation of the ban, such as by calling your cell phone number under the guise of testing compliance with the emergency order.

Although the FRA’s emergency order prohibits carriers from calling an engineer’s cell phone while a train is in operation, there is no such prohibition on the carrier calling a conductor’s cell phone while the train is in operation.

The simplest means of avoiding violation of the emergency order is to turn off all personal electronic devices when reporting for duty, stow them away from your person, and not retrieve or activate them until you are relieved from duty by the carrier.

FOLLOWING ARE OTHER PROHIBITIONS

1) The use of a railroad-supplied electronic device by a locomotive engineer (including a remote-control locomotive operator) is prohibited while on a moving train, or when a duty requires any member of the crew to be on the ground or to ride rolling equipment during a switching operation, or during any period when another employee of the railroad is assisting in preparation of the train, such as during an air-brake test.

2) For freight-train crewmembers, a railroad operating employee may not use a railroad-supplied electronic device for an approved business purpose while on duty outside the cab unless the following conditions are met: (1) The employee is not fouling a track; (2) no switching operation is underway; (3) no other safety duties are presently required; and (4) all members of the crew have been briefed that operations are suspended.

LIMITED USE IS PERMITTED:

1) A railroad operating employee other than a locomotive engineer operating the controls of a moving train may use a railroad-supplied mobile telephone or remote computing device in the cab of a moving locomotive for an approved business purpose, after a safety briefing, provided that all assigned personnel on the crew agree that it is safe to do so. Any other use is prohibited in the cab.

2) A railroad operating employee may use a railroad-supplied electronic device for an approved business purpose while on duty within the body of a passenger train or railroad business car. Use of the device shall not excuse the individual using the device from the responsibility to call or acknowledge any signal, inspect any passing train, or perform any other safety-sensitive duty assigned under the railroad’s operating rules and special instructions.

3) A railroad operating employee may use an electronic device when the train is stopped, if not required to ride rolling equipment during switching operations, or not required to be on the ground, such as during an air-brake test, and not otherwise violating a carrier’s operating rules.

4)  A railroad operating employee may use the digital storage and display function or a personal or railroad-supplied electronic device to refer to a railroad rule, special instruction, timetable or other directive, if such use is authorized under a railroad operating rule or instruction.

5) Railroad operating employees may use a personal or railroad-supplied wireless communication device as necessary to respond to an emergency situation involving the operation of the railroad or encountered while performing a duty for the railroad.

6) A locomotive engineer (including a remote-control locomotive operator) may use electronic control systems and informational displays presented to the locomotive engineer within the locomotive cab or on a remote control transmitter to operate a train or conduct a switching operation, including functions associated with controlling switches.

7) Under conductions authorized under 49 CFR 220, a railroad operating employee may use a railroad-supplied or railroad-authorized working wireless communication device, in lieu of the railroad radio, to conduct train or switching operations.

8) A railroad employee may refer to a digital timepiece -- such as an electronic stop watch, but not its calculator function -- to ascertain the time of day or to verify the accuracy of speed indicators.

If in doubt, don’t!

(Please share these explanations with fellow crew members and arrange for them to be posted on carrier-approved bulletin boards at reporting locations.)

Remember back in grade school, when we were given a page with four pictures on it -- a dog, a cat, a horse and an apple -- and told to identify which one of the four didn’t belong?

Imagine, instead, a page with these four pictures: a paycheck, a health-care insurance card, a union contract, and John McCain. Why doesn’t McCain belong in that series of photos?

• McCain said in his presidential nomination acceptance speech that he would take his war on unions to the White House.

• McCain calls labor unions "class warfare."

• McCain opposes "Buy America" provisions in legislation.

• McCain voted in the Senate to gut rail and transit collective bargaining rights.

• McCain voted against federal funding for mass transit.

• McCain supports privatization of Social Security and Railroad Retirement, which means turning our retirement security over to Wall Street financiers -- the same folks who have made such a mess of our economy.

• McCain is in favor of opening the U.S. border to Mexican-operated buses and locomotives.

• McCain supports dismantling of Medicare.

• McCain represents the same Bush administration anti-union bias that has resulted in appointments of anti-union federal judges, regulators and arbitrators who, in word and deed, view labor unions as an evil to be eradicated.

Contrast the anti-union John McCain with the pro-labor Barack Obama.

• Obama has a 100 percent UTU voting record.

• Obama has pledged in writing to protect Railroad Retirement, Social Security and Medicare.

• Obama consistently has supported public funding for mass transit and Amtrak.

• Obama has spoken out in support of the UTU position on the commercial driver's license problem facing bus operators.

• Obama understands that this election is about Main Street vs. Wall Street, and Sen. Obama stands solidly on the side of Main Street.

• Obama understands, as did Franklin Roosevelt, that antilabor policies are not the spirit by which our nation was founded, and that cheap wages mean low buying power, and low buying power means low standards of living.

As Mike Owens, a Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen general chairperson says, "We can’t keep complaining about agreements that are lousy and continue to vote for people who stick it to us."

Transportation trades workers in Illinois, who have known Barack Obama for two decades, beginning with his election to the Illinois state senate, are so impressed with his voting record and support for organized labor and working families that they made a video in support of Obama.

The video may be viewed at www.utu.org by clicking on the Obama photo and scrolling to "Video: Obama in their own words."

Barack Obama, through his Illinois state senate and U.S. Senate voting records, has earned the respect of working families in America.

In these difficult economic times for all working families, I urge you to join with me and go to the polls on Election Day and cast a ballot for the candidate who will put working families first –  Barack Obama.

The following provides the timetable for when major provisions of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, directly affecting train and engine service employees, take effect.

The president signed the previously House-Senate passed legislation into law on Oct. 17.

Section 103. Railroad Safety Risk Reduction Programs: The carriers have four years after enactment of the law in which to develop such programs that must include methods to manage and reduce crew fatigue.

Section 104. Postive Train Control: Class I and passenger railroads have 18 months after enactment of the law to submit plans for implementing PTC by 2015.

Section 108. Hours of Service: Within nine months after enactment of the law, freight railroads must implement the required hours of service changes, including the reduction in limbo time.

Section 401. Minimum Training Standards: Within one year of enactment of the law, DOT must issue minimum training standards.
 
Section 402. Certification of conductors: Within 18 months of enactment of the law, DOT must have in place procedures to certify conductors.

Section 405. Locomotive Cab Studies: The study on use of personal electronic devices in cabs due within one year of enactment of the law. The study of the locomotive cab’s environment is discretionary.  In the case of both studies, implementing regulations are discretionary. (The FRA already has imposed an emergency order banning the use of personal electronic devices in cabs.)

Section 406. Switch Position Indicators: Within one year of enactment of the law, DOT must publish regulations or guidance governing the use of technology in dark territory, which includes switch position indicators.

Section 413. Emergency Breathing Apparatus: Within 18 months of enactment of the law, DOT must require emergency breathing apparatus for train crews

Section 419. Prompt Medical Attention for Injured Train Crew members: This provision took effect immediately upon its enactment into law.

See www.utu.org for more information on the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, including a copy of 315-page the act itself.

To view the act, look to the lower left hand corner of the home page and click on "2008 Rail Safety Bill."

WASHINGTON --  President Bush on Oct. 16 signed into law the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

This is the most comprehensive rail safety bill in more than 30 years.

In the Senate, which passed the bill Oct. 1 by a 74-24 vote, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted "yes," and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted "no."

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 provides for certification of conductors, along with a minimum training requirement.

Additionally, it prohibits carriers from interfering with medical treatment of injured employees, mandates installation of positive train control, and offers railroads incentives to install electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes and switch position indicators.

Significantly, the safety bill caps limbo time and requires at least two days off following each six-day work week.

But a provision permits general chairpersons to negotiate with carriers a better balance between time off and earnings, while preserving guaranteed time off.

Also of significance, the legislative history of the bill supports two sets of eyes and ears in the locomotive cab, notwithstanding the installation of PTC.

Following are major provisions of the rail safety bill:

Conductor certification: Within 18 months of the bill’s becoming law, the FRA must establish a program to certify conductors, including minimum training standards.

Positive Train Control: Requires installation of positive train control by Dec. 31, 2015, on all main-line track where intercity passenger and commuter railroads operate, and where toxic-by-inhalation hazmat is transported. Also, grants are provided to assist railroads in implementing ECP brakes and switch-position indicators.

Hours-of-Service: Requires at least 10 consecutive uninterrupted hours off duty following 12 hours on duty. (There is a three-year exception for passenger train employees, during which time their hours of service limitations will be studied by the FRA.)

No freight railroad employee covered by the hours-of-service law may be called to work unless they have had at least 10 uninterrupted hours off during the prior 24-hour period. And following each six days of work, a covered employee must be given 48 hours of uninterrupted time-off at their home terminal.

If the carrier requires that employee to work a 7th day -- even if it is to return them to their home terminal -- then the uninterrupted time-off at the home terminal must be at least 72 hours.

As to limbo time, no employee covered by the hours-of-service law may be placed in limbo time after they have been on duty, waited for deadhead transportation or been in any other mandatory service for more than a total of 276 hours in any month.

And total limbo time per month is restricted to no more than 40 hours -- reduced to 30 hours on the first anniversary of the bill’s becoming law.

The bill permits general chairpersons to sit down with carrier labor relations officers and negotiate a better balance between time off and earnings, while preserving guaranteed time off.

Locomotive Cab Safety: Requires the FRA study the safety impact of the use of train crews using personal electronic devices. (The UTU has learned that the FRA already is considering issuing an emergency order prohibiting train crews from using personal cell phones, Blackberries, iPods and other electronic devices, except for company business -- and then only when two-crewpersons are in the cab.)

Medical Attention: Prohibits railroads from denying, delaying, or interfering with the medical or first aid treatment of injured workers, and from disciplining those workers that request treatment. Also requires railroads to arrange for immediate transport of injured workers to the nearest appropriate hospital.

Inspector Staffing: Increases the number of federal rail safety inspectors and supporting staff by 200. 

The emergency order will be published in the Federal Register shortly, and take effect 20 days later.

Violators of this prohibition are now subject to civil penalties and removal from safety-sensitive service.

"Operating freight and passenger trains, and maintaining track and signals requires the full and undivided attention of those charged with carrying out such responsibilities," said FRA Administrator Joseph Boardman.

The FRA's emergency order came after the National Transportation Safety Board said on Oct. 1 that the Metrolink engineer involved in a Sept. 12 train accident in Los Angeles had sent a cell phone text message 22 seconds before his commuter train crashed head-on into a freight train, killing 25, including the engineer.

Cell-phone records of engineer Robert Sanchez show he sent a text message after receiving one about a minute and 20 seconds before the crash, the NTSB said.

Records obtained from Sanchez's cell phone provider also showed that he sent 24 text messages and received 21 messages over a two-hour period during his morning shift, the NTSB said. During his afternoon shift, he received seven and sent five messages, the NTSB said.

The FRA's Boardman also said:

"The bottom line is railroad operating employees cannot focus on their critical safety functions while engaging in phone conversations, texting or any other form of unessential electronic communication, often in violation of railroad operating rules."

To read the emergency order, click below: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/PubAffairs/EmergencyOrder26.pdf.