Western Railroad Discussion > BNSF Galesburg Terminal Now A Super Pool

The BNSF has implemented a Super Pool for all crews out of Galesburg which includes the following routes.
Galesburg to Chicago-Lacrosse-Creston-Centralia-Madison-St.Louis-Kansas City.
There is a Short Pool from Galesburg to Peoria-West Quincy-Streator that will flip back home after each trip.

I have never seen moral as low as it is now. We are working as soon as your rest is up and crews that are off on RSIA averages 20 to 30 or more crews everyday now. This usually did not happen when there was separate pools. At one point Sunday there were 110 Engineers laid off fatigued.
The Super Pool was implemented without the approval from the Unions and the BNSF has told the Unions to take it to arbitration which will probably take years to get to.
There WILL be accidents and possibly someone getting hurt or even killed because of this. I truly believe now that the company really could care less about safety.
The money they are spending alone on labor costs have most likely doubled with having a Pilot on a lot of the trains and dying on the law.

Nothing like taking away your seniority.

Bill Miller
Galt, ON

Corporate is becomming a problem in all industries, even in radio. U cant play anything u want without permission.Unions seem to have no leverage anymore. Its as bad as goverment with no bi-partisan decisions. I feel for u guys that work for the railroad.

Competing with CSXT to be the most hated railroad workplace.
There are a number of others in the running.

BNSF has been running a super pool out of Alliance Nebraska for a while now.


Mike

Why isn't something like creating super-pools / eliminating local jobs covered in the contract? So many things like "rights" on this and that job are covered.

bnsf70mac Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BNSF has been running a super pool out of Alliance
> Nebraska for a while now.
>
>
> Mike

i have a question regarding a "super pool:" if an engineer had the seniority to hold the alliance-ravenna pool, could he still be called to work a train on the alliance-edgemont pool?

66

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/17 09:42 by darkcloud.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why isn't something like creating super-pools /
> eliminating local jobs covered in the contract?
> So many things like "rights" on this and that job
> are covered.

This is just more along the lines of someone, for example, taking your property and saying see you in court (however long that takes and however much that costs) or police arresting you or searching your property illegally and saying Stop resisting; if you think we've violated your rights, take it to court (however long that takes and however much that costs). BNSF is violating contracts with impunity and telling the folks See you in arbitration (however long it takes and however much it costs).

TAW

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bnsfengineer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The BNSF has implemented a Super Pool for all
> > crews out of Galesburg which includes the
> > following routes.
> > Galesburg to
> >
> Chicago-Lacrosse-Creston-Centralia-Madison-St.Loui
>
> > s-Kansas City.
>
>
> That's what, 1200+ miles of territory to be
> qualified on?

Right up there with train dispatchers.

>
> Safety First, just a slogan.

That's a fact, Jack!

TAW

TAW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why isn't something like creating super-pools /
> > eliminating local jobs covered in the contract?
>
> > So many things like "rights" on this and that
> job
> > are covered.
>
> This is just more along the lines of someone, for
> example, taking your property and saying see you
> in court (however long that takes and however much
> that costs) or police arresting you or searching
> your property illegally and saying Stop resisting;
> if you think we've violated your rights, take it
> to court (however long that takes and however much
> that costs). BNSF is violating contracts with
> impunity and telling the folks See you in
> arbitration (however long it takes and however
> much it costs).
>
> TAW

Yes, that's why I asked if this is covered in the contracts. The level of detail in most contracts (pre-1985 and former CB&Q people have this right, etc) suggests that there's a granular level of description for some things. Why don't / can't the unions get an injunction to prevent the changes from going into effect? Verizon's IBEW people did that for some changes which would have transferred work to non-union people in one of their mergers.

This seems like a huge deal. Why is it an arbitration issue? In your example, if I took your lawn mower from your garage, you would swear out a theft complaint and the police would be at my door the same day. Out and out theft (of seniority, rights, etc).

Minor dispute, that's what they always tell us. Safety first is only verbage to keep the FRA at bay. This situation at Galesburg is about as unsafe as gets.
Profits first, safety last.

Posted from iPhone

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TAW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Why isn't something like creating super-pools
> /
> > > eliminating local jobs covered in the
> contract?
> >
> > > So many things like "rights" on this and that
> > job
> > > are covered.
> >
> > This is just more along the lines of someone,
> for
> > example, taking your property and saying see
> you
> > in court (however long that takes and however
> much
> > that costs) or police arresting you or
> searching
> > your property illegally and saying Stop
> resisting;
> > if you think we've violated your rights, take
> it
> > to court (however long that takes and however
> much
> > that costs). BNSF is violating contracts with
> > impunity and telling the folks See you in
> > arbitration (however long it takes and however
> > much it costs).
> >
> > TAW
>
> Yes, that's why I asked if this is covered in the
> contracts. The level of detail in most contracts
> (pre-1985 and former CB&Q people have this right,
> etc) suggests that there's a granular level of
> description for some things. Why don't / can't
> the unions get an injunction to prevent the
> changes from going into effect? Verizon's IBEW
> people did that for some changes which would have
> transferred work to non-union people in one of
> their mergers.
>
> This seems like a huge deal. Why is it an
> arbitration issue? In your example, if I took
> your lawn mower from your garage, you would swear
> out a theft complaint and the police would be at
> my door the same day. Out and out theft (of
> seniority, rights, etc).


Article IX of the 1985 mediated UTU and 1986 arbitrated BLE (Arbitration Board Award #458) national agreements gives the carriers the right to serve notice of the establishment of interdivisional pool service and implement such service on a "trial basis" until the conditions become final and binding under Sec. 4 (below) if the carrier and the organization are unable to come to a mutual agreement.
About the only way the organization has any chance of prevailing in arbitration is if it can demonstrate that the proposed miles are excessive and/or the conditions are unreasonable. A hard nut to crack.

Section 4 - Arbitration
(a) In the event the carrier and the organization cannot
agree on the matters provided for in Section 1 and the other
terms and conditions referred to in Section 2 above, the parties
agree that such dispute shall be submitted to arbitration under
the Railway Labor Act, as amended, within 30 days after
arbitration is requested by either party. The arbitration board
shall be governed by the general and specific guidelines set
forth in Section 2 above.

(b) The decision of the arbitration board shall be final and
binding upon both parties, except that the award shall not
require the carrier to establish interdivisional service in the
particular territory involved in each such dispute but shall be
accepted by the parties as the conditions which shall be met by
the carrier if and when such interdivisional service is
established in that territory. Provided further, however, if
carrier elects not to put the award into effect, carrier shall be
deemed to have waived any right to renew the same request for a
period of one year following the date of said award, except by
consent of the organization party to said arbitration.

Section 5 - Existing Interdivisional Service
Interdivisional service in effect on the date of this
Agreement is not affected by this Article.

bnsfengineer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There WILL be accidents and possibly someone
> getting hurt or even killed because of this. I
> truly believe now that the company really could
> care less about safety.

I'm NOT taking sides on this BUT words spoken are powerful and your prediction of accidents (due to crew fatigue)are hereby countered with: I HOPE AND PRAY THAT ALL TRAINS WILL OPERATE SAFELY AND THAT NO CREW MEMBERS WILL BE INJURED OR KILLED FOR ANY REASON UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. MAY GOD BLESS AND PROTECT ALL OF THOSE WHO MAKE THE RAILROADS RUN.

BB

When I was working the engineers' extra board out of Alliance, NE from 1977-1984 we had to learn the track from Alliance to Edgemont, Ravenna, Sterling and Guernsey. We also had rights in the terminals of Sterling, Casper, Gillette, Greybull, Cody and Sheridan if BN needed to force you there when needed.

At least you could look forward to a pool job as you got older. Now those Alliance east, west and south pools do not exist.



darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bnsfengineer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The BNSF has implemented a Super Pool for all
> > crews out of Galesburg which includes the
> > following routes.
> > Galesburg to
> >
> Chicago-Lacrosse-Creston-Centralia-Madison-St.Loui
>
> > s-Kansas City.
>
>
> That's what, 1200+ miles of territory to be
> qualified on?
>
> Safety First, just a slogan.

BNSF is violating the contracts it has with the UTU/Smart and the BLET Unions. Like I said before is that the BNSF just does not care if they violate or not. They figure they have a good chance of winning I'm sure.
I have six more years to go before retirement and I don't think that I will see the final outcome of this until after I'm out of there.
I love my job, but I hate the company I work for. As for the Union, I'm like a lot of other employees are not impressed with them either.
The late Jimmy Hoffa they are not.

Pardon a dumb question but how do the UP trains operating through Galesburg work? Do they have UP crews and a BNSF pilot, BNSF crews, or just a UP qualified crew?

bnsfengineer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BNSF is violating the contracts it has with the
> UTU/Smart and the BLET Unions. Like I said before
> is that the BNSF just does not care if they
> violate or not. They figure they have a good
> chance of winning I'm sure.
> I have six more years to go before retirement and
> I don't think that I will see the final outcome of
> this until after I'm out of there.
> I love my job, but I hate the company I work for.
> As for the Union, I'm like a lot of other
> employees are not impressed with them either.
> The late Jimmy Hoffa they are not.

BNSF has been implementing these "Super Pools" all over the system. It happened here almost two years ago and it's still here, so I'm afraid, you better get used to it. Worker's moral continues to be very low and over worked, but the carrier doesn't care. I heard this was considered a "minor dispute", so the unions could not strike (legally). Who knows if the unions are still trying to fight this in the courts or not, it's been pretty quiet. But the fact remains, the carrier is pretty much doing what ever it wants by it's own interpretation of the work rules.

Unfortunately, it's probably going to get a lot worse with this round of contract "negotiations" as well.

bnsfengineer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BNSF is violating the contracts it has with the
> UTU/Smart and the BLET Unions. Like I said before
> is that the BNSF just does not care if they
> violate or not. They figure they have a good
> chance of winning I'm sure.
> I have six more years to go before retirement and
> I don't think that I will see the final outcome of
> this until after I'm out of there.
> I love my job, but I hate the company I work for.
> As for the Union, I'm like a lot of other
> employees are not impressed with them either.
> The late Jimmy Hoffa they are not.


As I explained in my post above the carrier is relying on ARB Award 458 which became the 1986 BLE National Agreement. Google that and refer to Article IX and you come to see that there is no agreement violation!!

Chico43 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bnsfengineer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BNSF is violating the contracts it has with the
> > UTU/Smart and the BLET Unions. Like I said
> before
> > is that the BNSF just does not care if they
> > violate or not. They figure they have a good
> > chance of winning I'm sure.
> > I have six more years to go before retirement
> and
> > I don't think that I will see the final outcome
> of
> > this until after I'm out of there.
> > I love my job, but I hate the company I work
> for.
> > As for the Union, I'm like a lot of other
> > employees are not impressed with them either.
> > The late Jimmy Hoffa they are not.
>
>
> As I explained in my post above the carrier is
> relying on ARB Award 458 which became the 1986 BLE
> National Agreement. Google that and refer to
> Article IX and you come to see that there is no
> agreement violation!!

If there's no agreement violation, then the union(s) would seem to lack standing to ask a court to enjoin the practice.