Western Railroad Discussion > 1985 'Halloween Agreement'...What's the Real Story?

Most of the railroaders who've been around a while remember the infamous labor contract/agreement that was either 'forced down their throats or signed off under duress,' depending who you talk to, from back on October 31st of 1985. Can someone clarify what actually happened as far as the wording of that contract, and whether or not congress actually imposed that agreement on railroad workers?

I've heard so many stories over the years related to that agreement that I think it's time to sort out the facts from the non-facts. We rails - new and old - are still feeling the fallout from that legislation 20+ years later, and I for one would like to get the "real story" on what actually happened insofar as how that 'contract' came to pass.

Thanks in advance for any comments you folks might care to share...

From what I was told, its the reason why us UP guys start out at 80% >:(

I can't remember 1985 too well but I just finished reading a book titled "Mail Lines rebirth of the North American railroads 1970-2002" It was published in 2002 so you might have to find it in the library but it is a really good read.

Regarding the 1985 agreements it says the unions agreed to the two tier wage system, increased the basic milage-day from 100 to 108 miles and included a 10.5% wage increase plus cost of living over 44 months. The only part I can see from the book that went to a Presidential Emergency Board was the issue of fireman. The UTU constitution required every contract be ratified by a majority of each craft within the union and of course the fireman wouldn't vote to eliminate their own jobs.

It isn't clear from the book but maybe the entire contract was put in place by the PEB but it sounds like the union had agreed to everything but the elimination of fireman which was imposed by the PEB.

You bet, it was shoved down our throats. This was for the UTU, Fireman & Trainman. The BLE lost a lot too. Our hour for picking up & setting out. Initial delay, Terminal delay just for a start. By the 90s, we were working more and making less than we were 10 years before. These were all "Give Backs" because the carriers were telling congress they were broke. You bet. It was a one way street that does not have an end and if it does, the end is getting farther away every year.

Nudge

If you'd like to read the agreement (in the .pdf format), here's a link to it:

http://www.utu.org/worksite/NatAgrmts2PDF.cfm

Scroll down and click on the appropriate date.

There's also a link to the 1986 BLE National Agreement.

To fully understand what brought on the infamous "Halloween Agreement" you need to know about the Van Wart Study Commission back in '82. Here's a link to it to get you started, and you can also search the Web for more stuff:

http://www.utu.org/DEPTS/PR-DEPT/NEWS/NEWS2000/110600.htm

Here is a link to a "white paper" the UTU put out explaining how the 1985 agreement was arrived at. As you read this remember this was put out by the UTU for their own benefit. Keep in mind that since this time the UTU has continued to sell out other crafts in an attempt to gather all rail labor under their umbrella at all costs.

http://utugca898.org/FYIArchive/White_Paper_1985_Agreement.htm

Well it does appear that after the fireman issue was resolved the unions did make an agreement and it was not put in place by congress.

In the book I mentioned earlier the author says the fighting between UTU and BLE since the early 80's has weakened labors position in negotiations. I read the link to the UTU white paper and it does seem they are trying to blame the BLE for the UTU ratifying for the 1985 agreement 15 years after the fact.

I would say if UTU ratified 1985 they can't claim it was shoved down their throats. If they had gone on strike and congress had imposed the provisions on them then I would say yes it was shoved down their throats. The pre 85's are lying to the post 85's to make themselves feel better about what they did.

It looks like PEB #219 in 1991 really killed the unions, the democratic congress voted 400-5 to impose the findings and all of the big union presidents lost their next elections, Fred Hardin at UTU, Larry McFather at BLE, Dick Kilroy at TCU and Geoff Zeh at MoW.

OliveHeights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Well it does appear that after the fireman issue
> was resolved the unions did make an agreement and
> it was not put in place by congress.

That's correct. Over the years the story's been corrupted to make it appear that the UTU was forced into this agreement by Congress. Tain't so.

The two organizations often regurgitate half-truths and outright fiction to deflect blame for their actions. Such propaganda is then passed along and amplified by their members. Why, if you ask some Old Head UTU die hards about which organization "got rid of the firemen," they'll readily tell ya it was the BLE in 1964, when it reality is was the UTU itself that eliminated the craft. Oh, well...

Leave it to the "old heads" that put themselves in offices in either union, from Local Chairman right on up, who readily sell out the young guys and their future in order to gain what they want until the short time until they retire, then it doesn't matter to the "old heads" anymore, sort of like a reverse mortgage. It's called GREED. In this manner, overall, progress goes backwards and degrades and disadvantages young and future employees, and the carriers are acutely and happily aware of this. It's a game of strategy the carriers play by allowing it to happen to save money. Don't believe it? When is the last time you heard either union campaigning for better benefits for new employees? The other approach is the "triad" if you will. If one corner can make the other two corners distracted by infighting with each other, the first corner is more free to slip in what it wants. - - - - JLH

Appeciate the updates and will take a look at the sites mentioned so that I can get the whole story on what actually did take place.

highgreengraphics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Don't believe it? When is the last time you
> heard either union campaigning for better benefits
> for new employees? . - - - - JLH

Umm, every Section 6 notice since that contract. Also, I may have missed something, but didn't the trip rates correct the whole hourly dead head and no initial or final problem? Post '85 employees added about $150-$200 to deadhead in my neck of the woods thanks to that.

So that's why the new hires work at fewer jobs at 75 percent and with no arbitraries? Good representation! - - - JLH

The 75% is actually alot better than what you find elsewhere (I know of several LARGE factories around that start at 50% at take 7 years to get to 100). No arbitraries? We don't get all of them, but most of them are still there, and some of them are rolled into the trip rate. Fewer jobs? The Lake Erie Plan and Van Wort helped that along. The only time the BLE didn't just say "Me too, but more" they managed to get BOTH unions massacred.

James1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Also, I may have missed something, but didn't the
> trip rates correct the whole hourly dead head and
> no initial or final problem?

Depends on where you work. Trip Rates are being implemented on a pool by pool basis at the whem of the carriers. The carriers can choose not to implement them if they feel they'll do better (i.e., it's cheaper for them) by maintaining the mileage rate in a specific pool.