Railroad Limo Safety Improvement act passes Texas legislature

----- Original Message -----

From: Terry Briggs

To: Undisclosed Receipents

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:24 PM

Subject: Railroad Limo Safety Improvement act passes Texas legislature

 

To:       Division Officers – Texas

CC:      General Chairmen, BLET Auxiliary, Designated Council, BLET National Division

 

Brothers and Sisters,

 

I am very pleased to announce that the Railroad Limo Safety Improvement bill, SB481, finally passed the legislature on May 12. The bill was sent to the Governor on May 14. The Governor has 10 days from that date to either sign or veto the bill, or he can allow the bill to become law without his signature. There is no reason for the Governor to veto this legislation and it is expected that he will sign the bill.

 

SB481 strengthens the regulation of contract carriers (railroad limo companies) who transport railroad operating crews in a vehicle designed to transport 8 passengers or less, including the driver, when operating intrastate. A copy of the bill is attached. The underlined text highlights the changes being made in current law.

 

Current Texas regulations for contract carriers include a limit on a driver’s hours of service, vehicle maintenance and inspection requirements, and certain driver qualifications.

 

In addition to the current regulations, SB481 requires contract carriers to set up a program to screen drivers for drugs and alcohol upon employment, post accident and randomly. The regulations requiring a drug and alcohol screening program to be set up will include important provisions which protect the limo drivers’ rights. Additionally, contract carriers will be required to maintain a minimum of $1.5 million in liability insurance. Finally, the legislation requires the Texas Department of Public Safety to inform contract carriers as to what regulations apply to their business.

 

The passage of this bill culminates efforts that the Texas State Legislative Board (TSLB) of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) initiated in August 2006. Identical legislation was filed last session (2007-2008) but the bill was killed by the (then) Chair of the House Calendars Committee. The legislation was filed in response to a contract carrier accident in Texas in August 2005 that claimed the life of one person and severely injured two BNSF railroad employees, ending their railroad carriers. The conductor injured in this accident is dependent upon others for his care, and will continue to be so for the rest of his life. In a post accident drug screen, the driver of the vehicle transporting the rail crew tested positive for methamphetamines. Additionally, the vehicle being driven was covered by only $55,000 in liability insurance.

 

I want to acknowledge several people who helped pass this legislation. State Representative Marc Veasey (D), Fort Worth, filed the bill in the House. Senator John Carona (R), Dallas, filed the Senate version. Both legislators and their staff helped immensely.

 

UTU State Legislative Director, Connie English, and Vice Director, David Arterburn, both helped with the essential day to day lobbing. In addition, the Texas AFL-CIO and the members of the United Labor Legislative Committee (ULLCO) provided the TSLB Chairman with invaluable advice and support.

 

Finally, over 30 BLET Division Legislative Representatives lobbied for SB481 during a two day TSLB meeting held on March 3^rd and 4^th, 2009 in Austin.

 

Contract carriers travel 30 million miles yearly in Texas transporting BLET and UTU members to and from trains and between terminals. Thanks to the combined efforts of everyone mentioned above, and all of our members who contacted legislators, SB481 has finally passed making on the job travel by contract carrier much safer in the future.

 

Fraternally,

 

Terry Briggs, State Legislative Chairman

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen - IBT

7083 Baker Blvd.

Richland Hills, TX 76118

817-285-7668

chairman@tslb.org

 

 

 

FRA cracks down on harassment of injured rail workers

CLEVELAND, March 30 — BLET National President Ed Rodzwicz today hailed action by the Federal Railroad Administration to crack down on the harassment and intimidation of injured rail workers.

In today’s Federal Register, the FRA published a worker-friendly interpretation of 49 CFR Part 225-Harassment and Intimidation Prohibition. The FRA now interprets harassment and intimidation of workers to occur when railroad supervisors accompany injured employees into an examination room.

“Workers often feel uncomfortable or intimidated when a representative of railroad management enters the doctor’s examination room after the worker has sustained an on-the-job injury,” President Rodzwicz said. “On behalf of all BLET members, I thank the FRA for clarifying this point and improving the protection of injured rail workers.”

There are exceptions to the rule — a railroad supervisor can enter the exam room if the injured employee issues a voluntary invitation, or if the employee is unconscious or unable to communicate and the supervisor’s input is needed to provide material information to the physician.

The rule came about after injured workers complained that unwelcome railroad supervisors entered exam rooms in an attempt to persuade doctors to issue less severe diagnoses. The less severe the diagnosis, the less likely the injury would have to be reported to the FRA.

The FRA can issue harsh financial penalties to rail companies for harassing and intimidating workers.

“This new rule protects the privacy of our members and allows them to have the same doctor-patient confidentiality that all Americans enjoy,” President Rodzwicz said. “The BLET sees this favorable interpretation as a step in the right direction by the FRA.”

A copy of the interpretation is available on the BLET website at:
http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/49CFRPart225H&I.pdf

Monday, March 30, 2009
bentley@ble.org

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4786

© 1997-2009 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
http://www.ble.org

 

Harassment & Intimidation Interpretation From FRA

Brothers,

 

Attached and below is the FRA interpretation of 49 CFR § 225.33(a)(1) prohibiting harassment and specifically addressing railroad supervisors going into the examination room during the exam of injured employees.

 

Please distribute this information to our membership.

Fraternally,

Gil Gore

 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 225

Railroad Accidents/Incidents: Reports

Classification, and Investigations

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of interpretation.

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice of interpretation to inform interested parties of its application and enforcement of the harassment or intimidation provisions contained in 49 CFR part 225, specifically relating to situations in which a supervisor or other railroad official accompanies an injured employee into an examination room. This notice of interpretation informs the regulated community as to when such behavior constitutes harassment or intimidation calculated to discourage or prevent the reporting of an accident, incident, injury or illness. This document is not intended to address or impact statutory provisions related to providing ‘‘prompt medical attention, as enforcement of those provisions fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas H. Taylor, Staff Director,

Operating Practices Division, Office of

Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA,

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., RRS–11,

Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590

(telephone 202–493–6255); or Zeb

Schorr, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief

Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue

SE., RCC–11, Mail Stop 10, Washington,

DC 20590 (telephone 202–493–6072).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 225.33(a) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires each railroad to ‘‘adopt and comply with a written Internal Control Plan addressing the railroad’s policies and procedures regarding accident/incident reporting. This section 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 * * *.’’ The FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports also notes that ‘‘many 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.’’ FRA Guide, Ch. 1, p.8. The FRA Guide goes on to state that supervisory 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.’’ Id.  FRA is aware of incidents in which a supervisor or other railroad official (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘‘supervisor’’) has accompanied an injured employee into an examination room, or other room in which the injured employee received medical treatment (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘‘examination room’’). While FRA is concerned that injured employees in such situations may not receive complete or prompt medical treatment, responsibility for ensuring that such treatment is afforded has been assigned by Congress to the Department of Labor. FRA is concerned that when accompanied by a supervisor an injured employee may be discouraged or otherwise prevented from reporting an accident, incident, injury or illness. Similarly, a supervisor may influence the type or extent of medical treatment afforded the employee in an effort to affect the reportability of that injury. 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.

 

The purpose of this document is to articulate a general principle regarding what behavior constitutes harassment or intimidation in violation of § 225.33(a)(1) in the particular context of supervisors accompanying injured employees in examination rooms. The interpretation contained in this notice reflects the longstanding position of FRA regarding this practice. This document is not intended to address or impact the meaning or application of the statutory provisions contained in 49 U.S.C. 20109 related to providing ‘‘prompt medical attention,’’ as enforcement and application of those provisions fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor

 

II. Interpretation

A. General Principle

Harassment and intimidation occur in violation of § 225.33(a)(1) when a railroad supervisor accompanies an injured employee into an examination room, unless one or more of the exceptions listed in   section II(B) of this notice exists.

 

B. Exceptions

FRA recognizes that there are limited circumstances in which it is appropriate, and indeed preferable, for a supervisor to accompany an injured employee into an examination room. Thus, FRA believes that limited exceptions to the general principle articulated in section II(A) of this notice are necessary. 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 seek 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 so that the injured employee may receive appropriate and responsive medical treatment.

 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24,

2009.

Jo Strang,

Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal

Railroad Administration.

[FR Doc. E9–6953 Filed 3–27–09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

 

From: Policy, Kathleen [mailto:policy@ble-t.org]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 8:39 AM
To: _General Chairmen US GCA; _Legislative Chairmen US GCA
Cc: Tolman, John; Pontolillo, Tom; Stephen J. Bruno
Subject: harassment & intimidation interpretation

 

The FRA issued the attached notice of interpretation to inform interested parties of its application and enforcement of the harassment or intimidation provisions contained in 49 CFR part 225, specifically relating to situations in which a supervisor or other railroad official accompanies an injured employee into an examination room.

 

Kathleen Policy

Legislative, Political & Regulatory Coordinator

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

Teamsters Rail Conference

25 Louisiana Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20001

Office: (202) 624-8766

Cell: (202) 552-9328

Fax: (202) 624-3086

policy@ble-t.org

www.bletdc.org

 

Work Stabilization - Agreement Package - Rail Safety Bill

From: Gore, Gil [mailto:gilgore1@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 7:19 PM To: All Local Chairmen BLET UP Southern Region – 17 Questions

Subject: FW: Questions for Bro Gore - Work Stabilization - Agreement Package - Rail Safety Bill

Brothers,

I am providing these questions and answers that were forwarded to me regarding the Work Stabilization Agreement in DFW – Longview and the Agreement Package out for ratification on our Committee. These questions would apply to San Antonio as well and Houston once we get a finalized agreement. We are still working on the work stabilization agreement in the Houston Hub. There are also questions about the Standing Bid and Temporary Lodging Agreements as well as one on the new Rail Safety Act. My responses are in red below. Links to the agreements are located below for your quick reference.

DFW-Longview Work Stabilization Agreement

San Antonio Work Stabilization Agreement

Agreement Package Proposal – Entire GCA

Hoping you find this information useful, I remain.

Fraternally,

Gil Gore

BLET - CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION This message is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521, and is legally privileged. The content of this message is for informational purposes only; provided to the membership of the BLET and should not be construed as any official position on the application of any contract language discussed in this communication and should not be used or referenced by anyone in future proceedings. Any use of this information by anyone other than intended recipients is prohibited.

1. Has this already basically passed by a polling of your local chairman and polling Troy Johnson's local chairman, when do you think this will be in effect. The DFW – Longview and San Antonio Work Stabilization Agreements are out for ratification with ballots due back by 03-15-09. The agreement package is out for ratification (Standing Bid – Temp Lodging – Board Positioning – Pool Reduction) as a package to our entire Committee with ballots due back by 03-15-09. The UTU has agreements out for ratification in DFW, Longview and San Antonio. We are working on getting a work stabilization agreement for the Houston Hub as soon as possible. As you know, these are tri-party agreements (BLET – UTU – UP). DFW – Longview and San Antonio fall under the jurisdiction of UTU Chairman Johnson. Houston falls under the Jurisdiction of GC Bumpurs. As far as an implementation date, we will have to work through that once they are ratified. 2. I don't have trainman rights in Longview hub so should I choose Ft Worth as my EFT and bid to Shreveport ( i have residence here) Assuming the agreement ratifies on both the UTU and BLET side, EFT Choice is a personal decision that each person will have to make initially or they will be assigned the EFT in which they are currently working. The establishment of EFTs neither grant nor reduce any seniority entitlement to anyone in either train or engine service. Whatever seniority you had prior to the implementation of these Work Stabilization Agreements you retain after their implementation. Your engine service seniority entitles you to work anywhere in the DFW – Longview seniority district as an engineer. There are provisions in the agreement dealing with engineers working within their EFT and outside their EFT (Article IV Paragraphs A&B). I personally can see no benefit to selecting an EFT where you hold no trainman’s seniority but that is only my personal opinion. Others may see that differently. The final choice is left up to the employee. could they pull me back to Ft Worth under any circumstance, If you chose EFT 2 as your home EFT you can work anywhere as a locomotive engineer as long as your seniority permits. The only way you could be forced back to EFT 2 as an engineer is if you cannot hold an engineers assignment in Longview (EFT 4). can I even choose Ft Worth with no residence, Yes all employees are free to select any EFT where they hold seniority. That is a personal choice that will either be made by the employee or assigned per your last work location. With the restriction of changing EFTs only every 3 years in Article III, A, 4 the employee under most circumstances would want to select the location where they live and hold seniority. That is a generalized statement and not a one size fits all comment. If your desire is to work as an engineer in a location where you hold no trainmen’s seniority, then your decision on selecting an EFT might be different under those circumstances. The important thing to remember is that your EFT selection in no way restricts the seniority that you have right now. No matter which EFT you select as you home EFT, you can continue to work as an engineer in Longview until you retire seniority permitting. if i choose Ft Worth and work in Shreveport and then can't hold Shreveport or Longview hub and no one in Ft Worth is younger than me working would I flow straight back to conductor there You could if you cannot hold as an engineer in EFT4 or EFT2. Per Article IV, B, 2 you have the opportunity to flow back to train service at your home EFT if you have trainmen’s seniority at that location. You also have the option to exercise your engineer’s seniority to any position you can hold in the DFW – Longview hubs if you choose to continue working as an engineer. See Q&A 3 regarding your ability to bid only in the craft you are currently working. Should you flow back to train service in EFT 2 then you would not have the opportunity to go back to Longview as an engineer until you were brought back to engine service under the agreement. 3. If you choose to flow back to train service and then decide you want to go back to eng service outside your EFT can you bump an engineer in another EFT even though you are a trainman, is there a time limit or what The decision to flow back to train service will not fit all situations. Everyone should remember that once reduced to train service you have no bid rights as an engineer (See Article VI). You will have to be called back to engine service before you would again secure bid rights to engineer assignments. As long as you staying working as a locomotive engineer somewhere within the DFW – Longview seniority roster, then you would have engineer bid rights when a position comes open at the location of your choice. In this circumstance, the Standing Bid Agreement would get you home to Longview quicker by application rather than waiting on a 6 day bulletin to expire. 4. Alexandria llj66 will lodging be provided if we have to cover off extraboard and would it be counted in our 75 days, or since its a 125 miles lodging is automatic On all assignments covered off of extra board over 30 miles the carrier has a contractual requirement to provide lodging. The only way any days of lodging would count against your 75 days would be if you were force assigned to the LLJ66 at Alexandria as your regular assignment. 5. Is there going to be a system put in place to see the lodging you have used for the calender year and a notation on the seniority roster showing your EFT It is my understanding that there will be an EFT designation on the rosters. Per the Temp Lodging Agreement, each employee is responsible to keep track of their entitlement to lodging. It would be advisable to keep a calendar or diary of assignments and lodging used. Most are doing something like that for tax purposes are forced to work away from home. 6. Why can't we have a bump board anymore , like ts316 be85 We have objected to the bump board issue and there is a fix requested in the computer que by both Labor and CMS. We expect the fix sometime soon. 7. how do you put a standing bid in this new computer system, even for an extraboard I personally have never done this but sent a note to Bev Anders requesting that they have a web meeting – conference call with Troy and I so that we can review that process. There are standing bids honored all over the Southern Region weekly with the adjustment of extra boards now. If we need more training, we will try to press for securing the same so that everyone knows how the process works prior to any implementation. 8. Forcing engineers off the bump board to a no-bid job after they stay on the bump board 48 hours , if no one they force the 1st out cut off engineer in that EFT to it and if there are no cut off engineers and no one hanging out on the bump board whats the next scenario a cut off engineer from another EFT Per Article V of the DFW – Longview Work Stabilization Agreement if no one on the bump board and no applications and no demoted engineers at the EFT, then we would force the oldest demoted engineer from the next nearest EFT. 9. Have you heard if they AW board for conductors will go away if this passes and/or is the lodging they have been paying going away if this fails It is my understanding they have negotiated new AW boards in all hubs. The lodging that has been provided was a result of some complaining by both the UTU and BLET labor leadership. In today’s economic environment, UP is planning to cut many management positions. There is no contractual entitlement to lodging at the present time. With or without this proposal, the lodging was on the radar for reduction. Troy, Larry and I have staved off the pulling of this lodging several times in the last year. Without a contractual entitlement, it is only a matter of time before UP reduces to a bare bones benefit only providing the requirements under the collective bargaining agreement. That is one reason that it appears there was a rush to ratify initially. I was trying to get the provisions in place so there would be no disruption in anyone’s benefit who currently is forced. 10. Where are we at on the new Federal Law about rest days or assigned off days and when does this go into effect for sure, or they going to cut the extraboard guarantees The BLET UP General Chairmen have been trying to be proactive on the issues surrounding the Rail Safety Bill. We met with UP in January in Spring at the suggestion of our assigned VP Lee Pruitt. While many questions remain unanswered by FRA, it was productive to sit down the UP and discuss the possible impact of the implementation of the RSA coming on July 16, 2009. From that meeting Brother Pruitt talked to President Rodzwicz and helped secure a meeting in Las Vegas among all BLET GCs and State Leg Bd Chairmen which was attended by Vice GC Russell Elley on behalf of our Committee. We have another meeting scheduled for March 18, 2009 in Omaha with UP. President Rodzwicz, VP Pruitt and BLET Leg Staff working with FRA on the implementation of the RSA will be in attendance at that meeting along with all the BLET GCs. Our goal in these meetings is come to understandings where possible with UP on the implementation and impact of the RSA on our members and identify any disputes for expedited handling. We are trying to be proactive on these issues and will be distributing more information as it is received. We are both in limbo (Carrier and Labor) on certain aspects of the bill until FRA clearly defines their interpretation of the implementation. All labor unions have stakeholders at the table in those discussions with FRA. Review the BLET GCAs Joint Letter to UP by clicking HERE

The 48 hour requirement in the Temporary Lodging Agreement to physically report to the force assignment location seems too harsh and will likely exclude many employees from qualification. Why did we agree to that provision? Agreements are usually negotiated in a quid quo pro fashion with each side securing benefits from the negotiations. The original proposal by the Carrier on this issue was to report within 24 hours. We felt that was certainly unreasonable and wanted 4 days. We ultimately agreed to the 48 hours as a compromise on the issue. While 48 hours in some instances may be tight, all locations on our territory that employees could be possibly assigned can be reached in no more than 12 hours travel time. That gives employees a day and ½ to prepare for the trip. The agreement mandates that you report to the location and attempt to make contact with the local MOP. The temp lodging agreement makes note that the purpose of the agreement is to provide opportunity for rest “prior to service” (Section 3, 2, Note). Reporting to the location simply means you must physically be there and contains no requirement to go to work within 48 hours of being assigned. That simply means you have to “report” and begin the qualification process by contacting the local MOP. It does not mandate that you go to work within 48 hours of being assigned. If you just arrived in town, then a rest period following the trip would be appropriate to comply with the Note in Section 3, 2 of the Temp Lodging Agreement. The quid pro quo exchange of the agreement is that they provide the lodging and we expeditiously fill the job. You can take longer, but doing so will put your entitlement to lodging in jeopardy. Does the 48 hour requirement to report to the forced location in the Temporary Lodging Proposal have exceptions for someone who is legitimately sick, on vacation, PL or for some other reason unable to report? As will all agreements, there is no one size fits all provision. If there are extenuating circumstances prohibiting someone from reporting within 48 hours, those should be explained to management with a commitment as to when you can report. If an employee was on vacation when the force assignment was made, then they should report within 48 hours after the vacation period ends and they will be entitled to lodging. If an employee is sick and unable to report, those circumstances should be reported to management with a request for exception and a commitment to report as soon as possible. Is the reference to EFTs in the proposed standing bid and bump rules subject to modification if the Work Stabilization Agreements are not ratified? The Work Stabilization Agreements are being ratified by each seniority location. DFW and Longview are being ratified together since they are common dovetail seniority. San Antonio is a separate ratification as will Houston be once it is completed. Coffeyville and Van Buren do not have need for Work Stabilization at this time because they retained the Side Letter 1 provisions form the UP Katy Merger of one and engineer always an engineer. If the Agreement Package ratifies and the Work Stabilization fails to ratify, then there will have to be adjustments in the agreements since there will be no EFTs. The references to EFTs would be eliminated and we would return to forcing the current assignment provisions for filling no bid vacancies. Reference the Standing Bid Proposal Article II Section 2 number 3 – “To the closest unassigned/no bid vacancy at another EFT”. Can you give an example of how this would work if the Work Stabilization Agreements passes and how it might apply if they fail ratification? Assuming the Work Stabilization Agreement ratifies, I provide the following example of the Standing Bid Article II Section 2, 3. An Engineer in Fort Worth has failed to place within 48 hours of notification of displacement he would be assigned as follows: To a no bid vacancy within EFT 2 (Fort Worth – Dallas). 2. To an Engineer’s Extra Board within EFT 2 seniority permitting. If 1 and 2 or not available then to a no bid vacancy at Sweetwater (EFT 1), Chickasha (EFT 3) or Longview (EFT 4). Assuming the Work Stabilization Agreement fails ratification, I provide the following example of the Standing Bid Article II Section 2, 3. To the closest no bid vacancy within the Dallas – Fort Worth – Longview Hub. To an Engineers Extra Board within the Dallas Fort Worth – Longview Hub seniority permitting. Would it still be acceptable for an engineer to pass up and bump within the same pool since he would no longer be assigned in that pool after passing up? No, the intent of the agreement is to stabilize the pool. It would not be permissible for an engineer to give up his assignment and place back in the pool which he vacated when he gave up the assignment unless he had no other seniority choice available. Why is there a 3 year restriction on an employee changing his/her home EFT in the Work Stabilization Agreements? The title of the agreement is Work Stabilization. The intent is to stabilize the work environment and provide opportunities for employees to stay home. There was much discussion about this provision. The trainmen wanted 5 years and we lobbied for 1 year. Our compromise was to allow movement of an EFT every 3 or more years. This is to prohibit someone from trying to gain unfair advantage of the ability to flow to or from engine service at specific locations where he/she might have a more advantageous seniority position simply on a whim. That is also the reason for the proof of relocation. EFT’s do not restrict or improve anyone’s seniority standing. UP’s plan should be to hire location specific to help control manpower needs and thus eliminate force assignments. These agreements preserve everyone’s seniority right to the expanded seniority in the hub in both train and engine service while at the same time protecting the promotion rights of trainmen as long as promotion is taken at the first opportunity at your home EFT. The selection of an EFT is nothing more than the area which identifies your rights of flow to and from engine service thus limiting your requirement to chase your seniority around these huge hubs. If someone wants to relocate to Chickasha from say Hearne before the 3 year period expires, he/she can do so with all seniority in tact. If reduced from engine service at Chickasha, then he/she would be entitled to displacement rights available when working outside his/her EFT under Article IV, B, Outside EFT. Those provisions are still much better than the current provisions which would have that person chasing his/her seniority over the entire seniority district if reduced from engine service at Chickasha. There is no magic bullet that will cover all circumstances. The provisions in this agreement while maybe not perfect for a particular unusual circumstance, provides better working conditions for everyone, even those who might decide to relocate before the 3 year limitation has expired. These agreements benefit all train and engine service employees everywhere. 17. In setion II, part B, San Antonio Work Stabilization Says, will include all assignments that go on duty at that location……etc………... Does this mean that the xe50 board at ax226-Taylor will protect “ALL” assignments at Taylor or will the BA110-Smithville xe70 board still protect the yard jobs like we do know? The jurisdictional coverage of every extra board remains the same. The Work Stabilization Agreements do not change the jurisdictional coverage of the extra boards or what jobs are protected by what extra boards. The inclusion of all assignments on duty at that location is related to the geographical identification of the Ebb and Flow Territories for the purposes of flow to and from engine service. Outside that, the EFTs have no impact on other agreements.

FMLA update: Another positive ruling

CLEVELAND, January 9 — Resolution of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) continues to unfold in a positive manner for Rail Labor as a group of FMLA arbitrators unanimously overturned additional carrier arguments on January 8.

After receiving the December 2 Award, which sided unanimously with Labor, the carriers filed a request for interpretation. In the December 8 Award, a panel of three arbitrators ruled that the FMLA policies of the four largest Class I railroads (BNSF, CSXT, NS and UP) violate the industry’s national vacation and personal leave agreements.

In the January 2 Award, the arbitrators unanimously rejected the carriers’ suggestions that:

1. Unscheduled leave should be treated differently from scheduled leave for purposes of their ability to force employees to use their paid leave as FMLA leave; and

2. The BLET personal leave agreement should be treated differently than the other national personal leave agreements for FMLA substitution purposes.

“I am pleased the arbitrators unanimously agreed with our position,” BLET National President Ed Rodzwicz said. “I ask for patience from our members as this lengthy legal process continues to unfold.”

Approximately two years ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that the law did not permit the carriers to override collective bargaining agreement provisions that gave workers control over scheduling paid leave. The legal process has been ongoing ever since.

Regarding the first interpretation question, the Board: “unanimously agree[d] that, just as no substitution of such days for FMLA leave may occur after such days are set, neither can it occur before those days are set. We see no legitimate distinction between the two. The carriers are therefore not permitted to require substitution of paid personal leave and/or single vacation days for FMLA leave before those days are set.”

Regarding the second, the arbitrators wrote that they: “similarly see no distinction that would vary the impact of our Award, which we intended to apply to [the BLET] agreement’s subject matter just as it does to all the others. Our Award therefore bars substitution of paid personal leave under the BLET national personal leave agreement.”

The unions are now preparing for the remedy phase of the arbitration. It is expected that a decision on that issue will be issued sometime this spring. Attorneys Mike Wolly and Margo Pave of the firm Zwerdling, Paul, Kahn & Wolly, P.C., are handling the case for BLET and several other Rail Labor unions.

More information regarding subsequent hearings will be made available on the BLET website.

Friday, January 09, 2009
bentley@ble.org

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4754

BLET, labor win big in FMLA arbitration

CLEVELAND, December 8 — In a decision received this afternoon, a panel of three arbitrators has ruled that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) policies of the four largest Class I railroads (BNSF, CSXT, NS and UP) violate the industry’s national vacation and personal leave agreements. Among the victors are BLET members working for these railroads.

The BLET, along with ten other unions, had challenged carrier policies that required workers to use paid vacation and personal leave when taking FMLA leave in certain circumstances. Nearly two years ago the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that the law did not permit the carriers to override collective bargaining agreement provisions that gave workers control over scheduling paid leave. When the Supreme Court declined to hear the industry’s appeal, the stage was set for the arbitration of the matter.

The arbitration panel held that “the parties’ contracts at issue here do, as the District Court posited … ‘grant employees rights in addition to the accrual of vacation and/or personal leave, such as the right to determine when to use their accrued vacation and/or personal leave.’ … In all cases, employers may not unilaterally change scheduled vacations without good cause and appropriate notice. … [O]nce those days are set, no unilateral employer changes may occur without meeting specified contractual standards. These are not insignificant contractual benefits.”

The panel also found that “clear contract language and similar consistent arbitral precedent protect use of personal leave days and individual vacation days from arbitrary or unreasonable unilateral employer action unrelated to operational needs or other contractual standards.” The Award states “The carriers’ policies requiring employees 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.”

According to the Arbitration Agreement, the Award becomes effective on December 16, 2008. On that date, the Agreement provides that “the carriers will immediately discontinue the invalidated provisions of [their] policies.” The arbitrators then will consider “the appropriate remedy for employees who were required to use paid leave for FMLA leave in violation of the national vacation and/or national personal leave agreements.” Assuming no agreed-upon extensions, initial submissions on that question will be due January 15, 2009, and reply submissions on January 30. A hearing then would be held by February 13, with a decision to be issued by April 14.

BLET National President Ed Rodzwicz congratulated those who made this victory possible, and thanked the BLET membership for their patience. “I want to congratulate, first and foremost, Mike Wolly, Margo Pave and the legal team who put on a great case, and our General Chairmen who persisted in keeping this struggle alive on the property and providing us with the data we needed to win. I also want to express my most sincere thanks to the Brothers and Sisters on BNSF, CSXT, NS, and UP for hanging in there throughout the many years that have passed while we fought to vindicate their vacation and personal leave rights.”

The Award is available for download as a PDF from the BLET website at:
http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/JSCaseNo3750.pdf

BLET, UTU jointly petition FRA for review of EO 26

CLEVELAND, November 17 — The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the United Transportation Union (UTU) filed a joint Petition for Review of Emergency Order 26 on November 14, requesting that the Federal Railroad Administration make specific exceptions to the Order in the name of safety.

The Emergency Order was issued on October 7, 2008, and significantly limits employee use of personal electronic devices in locomotive cabs. The ban applies to any electronic device that was not provided to the railroad operating employee by the employing railroad for business purposes.

“It is not our intention to unnecessarily complicate a fairly bright-line rule regarding the use of electronic and electrical devices,” BLET President Ed Rodzwicz and UTU President Mike Futhey said in their Petition for Review. “However, we do believe FRA should seriously consider those atypical situations in which EO 26 as currently written could inadvertently result in a diminution of safety, as compared to operating conditions and practices in effect prior to its promulgation.”

The Emergency Order came about because of the tragic accident in Chatsworth, Calif., which claimed the lives of 25 people on September 12 when a Metrolink passenger train collided with a Union Pacific train. Initial NTSB reports indicated the Metrolink engineer may have been distracted by use of a personal cellular phone while on duty.

“The safety of our members and the general public is the top priority of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and these exceptions to Emergency Order 26 will make it much more effective,” BLET President Rodzwicz said. “The best way for our members to comply with the Emergency Order is to turn off their personal electronic devices, store them in their grips, and do not use them until you have been relieved from duty.”

BLET and UTU are seeking an exception to the Order banning the use of personal electronic devices while deadheading. While the unions agree that the Emergency Order seeks to improve safety, they argue that, “since deadheading crews have fulfilled their safety-related responsibilities — and in many cases are not on duty — they should not be restricted to ‘business purpose use’ only.”

To that end, the unions ask the FRA to rewrite a portion of the EO so that it reads: “A railroad operating employee who is deadheading may use a cell phone while within the body of a passenger train or railroad business car, or while inside the cab of a locomotive that is not the lead locomotive of the train on which the employee is deadheading.”

The use of cameras is also called into question. BLET and UTU argue that the EO appears to forbid photographic documentation by a train employee of safety hazards or violations of rail safety laws, regulations, orders or standards, which would actually diminish railroad safety.

On that issue, BLET and UTU ask for an exemption, which would read as follows:

“An electronic still or video camera may be used to document a safety hazard or a violation of a rail safety law, regulation, order or standard; provided, that (1) the use of a camera in the cab of a moving train may only be by a crew member other than the locomotive engineer, and (2) the use of a camera by a train employee on the ground is permissible only when (a) the employee is not fouling a track, (b) no switching operation is underway, (c) no other safety duties are presently required, and (d) all members of the crew have been briefed that operations are suspended. The use of the photographic function of a cell phone is permitted under these same conditions.”

Thirdly, the unions question a section of the EO that prohibits the use of electronic devices such (as calculators) to make computations. The BLET and UTU point out that a number of safety-critical computational functions are required in numerous circumstances if on-board systems fail or are not provided. These include managing correct horsepower per ton, calculating tons per operative brake, dynamic brake and tractive effort compliance, and correcting train length for speed restrictions and clearing track authorities.

A new section regarding exceptions to this portion of the EO should be added, and should be worded as follows:

“When mathematical calculations are required for safe train movement (e.g., managing correct horsepower per ton, calculating tons per operative brake, dynamic brake and tractive effort compliance, and correcting train length), it is permissible to perform such calculations by using an electronic calculator, or by using the calculator function of a cell phone or electronic timepiece.”

Finally, the unions petition the FRA to allow the use of Global Positioning Satellite tracking devices in order to gauge the accuracy of locomotive speed indicators, particularly when the designated measured mile lies within a temporary speed restriction of less than 30 miles per hour.

One effect of EO 26 is to preclude the use of a GPS device to calculate the speed of a train that is not equipped with a speed indicator because the train will not exceed 20 mph. Another is that the accuracy of a speed indicator determined within a slow order of 30 mph or less cannot be correlated with its accuracy at speed above 30 mph. Maintaining proper train speed is both safety-critical and demanded of a locomotive engineers.

The BLET and UTU petition the FRA to consider an exception to the EO for GPS devices, requesting that GPS tracking devices be allowed to verify the accuracy of the speed indicator in a controlling locomotive.

The joint Petition for Review was submitted to FRA today.

“BLET and UTU members will be kept apprised of the situation, and will be advised once FRA responds to our concerns,” Presidents Rodzwicz and Futhey said.

Monday, November 17, 2008
bentley@ble.org

 

Court of Appeals continues stays on direct observation rule

CLEVELAND, November 13 — In an order issued yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has extended its stay of the implementation of a Department of Transportation regulation that would require direct observation of urine specimen donation in all return-to-duty and follow-up drug tests, which was to take effect on November 1.

The stay will remain in effect until the Court considers and rules on challenges to the constitutionality and legality of mandatory direct observation and an associated “strip search” requirement that were filed by nine unions — including the BLET and International Brotherhood of Teamsters — and the BNSF Railway.

The Court also issued the following briefing schedule:

·  The Joint Brief of Petitioners is due on December 12, 2008.

·  The Brief of Respondent DOT is due on January 12, 2009.

·  The Joint Reply Brief of Petitioners is due on January 26, 2009.

In addition, the Court directed that the case be placed on the argument calendar on the first available date following completion of briefing.

Thursday, November 13, 2008
bentley@ble.org

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4730

Railroad Employees Flexible Benefits Program

Brothers,

I have been asked a question regarding the eligibility of engineers covered under the BLET National Agreement for Health and Welfare who are reduced to train service having an entitlement to continue enrollment in the BLET Flexible Spending Plan under the National Agreement.  If a member is covered by the BLET H&W Plan for 2009 he/she would be entitled to continue participation in the Flexible Spending Plan throughout the course of the year 2009 even if reduced to train service subsequent to being locked into the BLET H&W Plan for the 2009 calendar year.

I have also provided below the information on the BLET National Division site with links to description of benefits and enrollment forms.  Please encourage our membership to participate in this plan because our 2009 participation much reach 5% of our membership to retain the plan beyond 2009.  They can elect to participate in as small an amount as $120 for the year ($10 per month deduction).  The deadline for enrollment is approaching and it is imperative that those who want to participate enroll by November 12, 2008.  This is a very good benefit that we do not want to lose.

Thanking you in advance for your efforts, I remain.
Fraternally,
Gil Gore

Railroad Employees Flexible Benefits Program

In much the same way that a 401k program allows individuals to use pre-tax dollars to save for retirement, the Railroad Employees Flexible Benefits Program allows members to use pre-tax dollars to pay for certain medical expenses or dependent care expenses. The current 2008 plan allows members to save anywhere from $120 to $5,000 per year for dependent care expenses, or $120 to $3,600 per year for medical expenses. It is expected the dollar amounts will change under the upcoming 2009 plan year.

However, the program is in danger of being lost unless membership participation increases. Side Letter #8 of the 2007 National Contract specifies that at least 5 percent of eligible BLET members must participate in the plan or it will be terminated as of December 31, 2009. Current participation levels are below the 5 percent threshold, and the BLET is encouraging all members to contact United HealthCare for details when open enrollment begins.

Open enrollment for the plan will begin in the near future. Details on how to enroll will be provided on the BLET website and in the BLET newsletter once open enrollment begins.

In the meantime, the following information is being made available to BLET members so they can learn more about this money-saving plan.

2009 Enrollment Materials

Overview of Railroad Employees National Flexible Benefits Program for 2009 (PDF)

List of eligible carriers and Railroad Codes
(you will need these codes to complete your
enrollment forms) (PDF)

2009 Enrollment Form, Railroad Employees Flexible Benefits Program (PDF)

2009 Claim Form (PDF)

Over-the-Counter Medical Care Items Eligible and Ineligible for Reimbursement Under UnitedHealthcare Plans (PDF)

September 16, 2008
Flexible Spending Account will provide real savings

July 24, 2008
Flexible Benefit Plan information center now available

July 17, 2008
Flexible Spending Account enrollment begins in October

May 30, 2008
Flexible Benefits program allows members to save on health care expenses

 

Court of Appeals stays direct observation rule

To All BLET Local Chairmen UP Southern Region

CLEVELAND, October 31 — In an order issued earlier today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has temporarily stayed implementation of a Department of Transportation regulation that would have required direct observation of urine specimen donation in all return-to-duty and follow-up drug tests, which was to take effect tomorrow.

The stay will remain in effect until the Court considers and rules on an emergency motion filed by nine unions — including the BLET and International Brotherhood of Teamsters — and the BNSF Railway to stay the regulation until it has ruled on challenges to the constitutionality and legality of mandatory direct observation and an associated “strip search” requirement.

Friday, October 31, 2008
bentley@ble.org

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4722

© 1997-2008 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
http://www.ble.org

 

Health care cost sharing to increase slightly

To All Local Chairmen BLET UP Southern Region

CLEVELAND, October 31 — Rail worker cost-sharing contributions toward health and welfare coverage will increase slightly next year, but the increase will not be as much as originally anticipated.
The monthly contribution will increase from $166.25 per month to $170.96 per month beginning January 1, 2009. However, it was expected that the rate would increase to as much as $192 per month.

Health care for all rail labor unions is negotiated jointly through the Cooperating Railway Labor Organizations (CRLO). CRLO is a joint policy holder with the carriers of the Railroad Employees National Health and Welfare Plan, and participates in annual rate-setting meetings on an equal footing with the carriers.

According to the CRLO, the favorable trend in the medical premium for 2009 is in large part due to the removal of almost 20,000 ineligible dependents from the Plan through the recent eligibility audit — a savings of about $30 million for 2009.

In addition, medical claims are predicted to increase at a far lower rate than the national average of all insurance plans due to the implementation of several significant plan improvements, such as Nurse Line, Custom Care Coordination, Disease management, Integrated Behavioral Health, and Wellness Programs (Healthy Weight and Smoking Cessation). All of these changes are designed to improve the health and medical treatment of participants, and thereby reduce the frequency and severity of illness.

The monthly premium rate for the medical portion of the Plan increased a very modest 2.1% to $1,061.46. The Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment premium decreased 10% to $12.30, while the Dental Plan rate increased by 23.3% to $55.98. The Vision Plan rate remained the same at $10.00.

Employee cost-sharing amounts were set by the 2007 National Agreements at 15% of the premium rates for the above four components of members’ insurance coverage (Medical, Life, Dental and Vision). The total amount of the four components for 2009 is $1,139.74, which is an increase of $31.40, or 2.8% over 2008. The 2009 cost-sharing amount is thus 15% of $1,139.74, or $170.96, an increase of $4.71 over the current amount of $166.25.

“Our cost-sharing increase was far lower than expected and well below the national average, which is a significant accomplishment,” said BLET National President Ed Rodzwicz. “The BLET will continue to work diligently along with the CRLO to keep employee cost sharing to a minimum while moving ahead with the constant improvement of our membership’s benefits.”

Friday, October 31, 2008
bentley@ble.org

Flexible Spending Account Information

From: Warren Dent [mailto:jwdent1@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 8:16 AM
To: All Local Chairmen
Subject: Flexible Spending Account Information

Brothers,

You have all seen the messages from the GCA and ND offices about the upcoming annual enrollment for the Flexible Spending Account plan option. Those messages have emphasized the necessity of our increasing the number of active participants in order to protect and preserve this valuable option. We have to have a minimum 5% of the membership participating in the plan or it is lost after December 2009. Current enrollment is below the 5% threshold. I am of the opinion that the reason for this is that most of our membership is in the dark about what the plan is or how they can benefit from it. I must admit that, until recently, I counted myself in that group.

Depending on an individual’s medical circumstances and number of dependents, some Brothers/Sisters have more to gain than others, but the truth is that everyone can derive a benefit from this plan. The minimum contribution is $120 per year but you can earmark up to $3600 annually for medical expenses. The designated annual contribution amount is evenly deducted via payroll throughout the year. The monies contributed are not subject to Federal Income Tax. Therefore, a minimum $120 annual contribution from one in a 25%-33% tax bracket, would net the individual a $30-$40 tax savings on monies he/she was going to spend anyway. Deductibles and co-pays for Doctors, Dentists, Optometrists and Specialists qualify for reimbursement under the plan as do prescription medications and some common over the counter meds. For your info, I have attached some information about over the counter medications that qualify for reimbursement.
Click Here for UHC OTC info

Click Here for IRS OTC info

Click Here for more OTC info

In addition to the medical plan there is also another plan covering dependent care costs, with a maximum annual contribution limit of $5000. While this option might impact a smaller percentage of the membership, for those who qualify, it can be a vitally important benefit.

Understand that contributed monies that go unused over the 12 month period are lost, so I am encouraging those electing to avail themselves of this opportunity to be wise when determining their contribution amount. Even with that in mind, it is easy to see where virtually every member, even if enrolled for only the plan minimum of $120 per year, stands to gain from participation in this plan.

I understand that United Healthcare will be mailing the FSA registration packet to each member sometime next week and we will have about 30 days to respond. I urge each of you to consider whether the plan is right for you. Even if you chose not to participate, I’m asking each of you to spread the word to your membership about the plan and its’ benefits so that they understand what it is about and have an opportunity to make an educated decision concerning their participation. I would hate to see us lose this valuable opportunity and agreement right due to a participation shortfall that was based on lack of knowledge and/or understanding. I just ask that you give it some thought and encourage all those Brothers/Sisters that you influence, or come in contact with, to do the same.

You can view informational articles about the Flexible Spending Account plan on the ND website at www.ble-t.org. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me and I will do my best to get them answered.

Fraternally yours,

Warren Dent

FRA clamps down on use of electronic devices

CLEVELAND, October 3 — In the aftermath of the most deadly passenger rail accident in more than a decade, and just days after the National Transportation Safety Board reported that the engineer of one of the trains involved in the September 12 tragedy had sent and received dozens of text messages while on duty, the Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") is issuing an Emergency Order that severely restricts the use of cell phones and other wireless communication and personal electronic devices by operating crews.

Emergency Order No. 26, which is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, October 7, goes into effect on Monday, October 27, which is 20 days after publication. The Emergency Order governs operating employees’ use of mobile telephones (commonly called cell telephones or cell phones), other electronic devices or electrical devices, and other portable electronic devices (such as portable digital video disc (DVD) players, radio receivers, and audio players) capable of distracting a railroad operating employee from a safety-critical duty. It does not restrict use of the railroad radio or working wireless communications already subject to 49 CFR Part 220.

The uses of electronic devices that are restricted by the Emergency Order include:

·  the use of a mobile telephone or another electronic or electrical device to conduct an oral communication;

·  placing or receiving a telephone call;

·  sending or reading an electronic mail message or text message;

·  playing a game;

·  navigating the Internet;

·  playing, viewing, or listening to a video;

·  playing, viewing, or listening to a television broadcast;

·  playing or listening to a radio broadcast other than a radio broadcast by a railroad;

·  playing or listening to music;

·  executing a computational function; and

·  performing any other function that is not necessary for the health or safety of the person and that entails the risk of distracting the employee from a safety-critical task.

All personal electronic devices — electronic devices not supplied by the railroad — must be turned off and any electronic earpieces must be removed while a train is moving; the only exception is that, when radio failure occurs, wireless communication devices may be used in accordance with railroad rules and instructions. Personal electronic devices also must be turned off with electronic earpieces removed when duties (1) require an operating employee to ride rolling equipment during switching operations, or (2) require any railroad employees to be on the ground, including any situation where other employees of the railroad are assisting in preparation of the train (e.g., during an air brake test). Operating employees may not use personal electronic devices for any purpose other than voice communications.

The use of a railroad-supplied electronic device by a locomotive engineer (including a remote-control locomotive operator) is prohibited while the train is moving or when duties (1) require an operating employee to ride rolling equipment during switching operations, or (2) require any railroad employees to be on the ground, including any situation where other employees of the railroad are assisting in preparation of the train. An operating employee other than a locomotive engineer may use a railroad-supplied mobile telephone or remote computing device in the cab of a locomotive for an authorized business purpose, after a safety briefing, provided that all assigned personnel on the crew agree that it is safe to do so.

A railroad operating employee may use a railroad-supplied electronic or electrical device for an approved business purpose while on duty within the body of a passenger train or railroad business car. However, 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.

For freight train crewmembers, a railroad operating employee may not use a railroad-supplied electronic or electrical 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.

The Emergency Order does not restrict an operating employee from using the digital storage and display function of a railroad-supplied electronic device to refer to a railroad rule, special instruction, timetable or other directive. In addition, operating employees may use wireless communication devices as necessary to respond to an emergency situation involving the operation of the railroad or encountered while performing duties for the railroad.

In addition to being subject to discipline or dismissal for violating a railroad operating rule governing the use of electronic devices, willful violation of the Emergency Order could subject the violator to a substantial civil penalty. FRA also could move to disqualify a violator from performing safety-sensitive service temporarily or permanently.

BLET National President Ed Rodzwicz endorsed the Emergency Order on behalf of BLET members. "We applaud the NTSB for bringing this information forward promptly, and the FRA for acting quickly," Rodzwicz said. "Sadly, the use of electronic devices has literally become a life and death issue for all operating employees and compliance with the Emergency Order must be absolute," added Rodzwicz.

Click here to view or download FRA Emergency Order 26 in PDF format (30 pages):
http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/FRAEmergencyOrder26.pdf

 

Teamsters offer Hurricane Ike Disaster Relief assistance in Louisiana, Texas

CLEVELAND, September 24 — The Teamsters Disaster Relief Fund is accepting applications for assistance from members in Louisiana and Texas after Hurricane Ike damaged homes and property in early September.
Assistance is available to individuals and households in the following Louisiana counties who may have experienced a loss due to this disaster:
Acadian, Beauregard, Calcasieu, Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson, Jefferson Davis, Lafourche, Plaquemines, Sabine, St. Mary, Terrebonne, Vermilion, and Vernon Parishes.
To help increase awareness of this valuable assistance, members who live and work in Louisiana are asked to print and post the following notice at their places of work:
http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/LAikedisasterflyer.pdf
Assistance is also available to individuals and houses in the following Texas counties:
Angelina, Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Cherokee, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Hardin, Harris, Houston, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, Walker, Waller, and Washington Counties.
To help increase awareness of this valuable assistance, members who live and work in Texas are asked to print and post the following notice at their places of work:
http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/TXikedisasterflyer.pdf
If you or someone you know needs help, please call the Teamsters Disaster Relief Fund office at: (202) 624-8971. If you were impacted by the hurricane, please download and complete the "Request for Help" form available below. The completed "Request for Help" forms (including all requested documentation) must be returned to the Teamsters by Tuesday, October 28, 2008.
Members living in Louisiana who wish to apply for relief should print and complete the following “Request for Help” form:
http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/LAikedisasterrelief.pdf
Members living in Texas who wish to apply for relief should print and complete the following “Request for Help” form:
http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/TXikedisasterrelief.pdf
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
bentley@ble.org
http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4697
1997-2008 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
http://www.ble.org

 

FW: Joe Biden in Ohio this week: "John McCain and the Bush Administration have declared a war on organized labor's house"

---

From: Tolman, John [mailto:tolman@ble-t.org]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:56 AM
To: _NDOfficers; _Legislative Chairmen US GCA; _General Chairmen US GCA; _SpecialReps; _GIA; _ExecStaff
Subject: Spam:***, FW: Joe Biden in Ohio this week: "John McCain and the Bush Administration have declared a war on organized labor's house"

 

Brothers and Sisters

Now you know why he selected Senator Biden, our friend.

Frats

John

John P. Tolman

Vice President and National Legislative Representative

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaroadblog/gGg4pG

Flexible Spending Account will provide real savings

CLEVELAND, September 16 — Registration for the money-saving Flexible Spending Account (FSA) begins next month, and BLET members are encouraged to take advantage of this valuable new health and welfare benefit. The program allows BLET members to pay for doctor co-pays and other medical expenses with pretax dollars.
A partial list of items that qualify for this type of payment includes: Doctor co-pays; Drug Co-pays; Dental Co-pays or other dental expenses not covered in our dental plan; Vision Co-pays or additional cost for eye care not covered under the national plan; and Over the counter medications, such as cold medicine, decongestant medicine, aspirin, Tylenol or their generic brands.
At the Union Pacific Railroad, Southern Region General Chairman Gil Gore is a staunch supporter of the program. He encourages all BLET members to sign up.
“I have a personal experience with the medical portion of the FSA,” Brother Gore said. “The program has helped tremendously with braces and other major dental work for my children not covered by our health insurance.”
Brother Gore gave braces and orthodontist work as an example. He said the FSA could really help BLET members who have children save money.
“If you have some major dental work scheduled (such as braces for your kids) up to $3,600 of that expense can be paid with pretax dollars,” he said. “If you are in a 25%–33 % tax bracket, that amounts to as much as a $1,200 reduction in the federal taxes that you pay.
“We planned ahead to have our children’s dental work done at the proper time to get maximum benefit from the plan,” he said.
In much the same way that a 401k program allows individuals to use pre-tax dollars to save for retirement, the Railroad Employees Flexible Benefits Program allows members to use pre-tax dollars to pay for certain medical expenses or dependent care expenses. The current 2008 plan allows members to save anywhere from $120 to $5,000 per year for dependent care expenses, or $120 to $3,600 per year for medical expenses. It is expected the dollar amounts will change under the upcoming 2009 plan year.
Just like 401k contributions are automatically deducted from your paycheck, membership contributions to the Flexible Spending Account are withheld from your paycheck. Your contributions to the plan are spread out over 12 monthly payments (in other words, if you elect the 2008 maximum of $3,600, then you would place $300 per month into your Flexible Spending Account). If you elected the 2008 minimum of $120, then you would have $10 per month deducted from your pay and placed into your Flexible Spending Account. You can receive payment from the account when you present a bill via a claim form. You must furnish receipts to be reimbursed for the expense.
“It also allows you to pay for all of your co-payments on doctor visits and for prescription medicine,” Brother Gore said.
Additionally, some over the counter medications can be paid for using the Flexible Spending Account. United HealthCare has provided a list of medications that it will reimburse under the Flexible Spending Account:
http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/OTCMedFSA.pdf
The plan also has a “use it or lose it” provision. For example, if you sign up for $2,000 in flex spending deductions and only have expenses equal to $1,900, then you would only be able to collect $1,900 of the $2,000 you put into your account. But if you were in a 33% tax bracket, that would still net you $533 in savings for the year ($633 tax savings minus the $100 left in the account = $533 net savings).
“While I know the ‘use it or lose it’ function of the plan can be scary, you can easily meet the minimum deduction of $120 for the year just on over the counter medications, which would yield you a net savings of $40 for the year if you were in a 33% tax bracket,” Brother Gore said. “My wife and I have put the maximum in her flex spending account for the last eight years and been able to provide receipts to receive a total refund every year.
“Our over the counter medicine for our family in the year 2006 came to $217. If you are on maintenance medications this program can put real dollars into your pocket allowing you to pay your co-pays with pretax dollars.”
Side Letter 8 of the 2007 BLET National Agreement stipulates that the BLET must reach at least 5% participation by the year 2009 in order to retain this benefit. This is a big reason why the BLET is strongly encouraging its members to participate in the Flexible Spending Account program.
“This is a benefit that will put real dollars into your pockets and I encourage you all to enroll at an amount you are comfortable with to see how the plan works,” Gore said.
Enrollment opportunity for the Flexible Spending Account (FSA) should arrive in your mailbox soon from United HealthCare.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
bentley@ble.org
http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4693
1997-2008 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
http://www.ble.org

 

 

Conference Call Following Hurricane IKE 3pm Daily Until Further Notice

Brothers and Sisters

We are going to conduct a daily 3pm conference call beginning on September 12, 2008 to discuss the status of the railroad and assess the damage to our membership.  Please contact your Local Chairman to secure the conference call dial in information so that you can participate in this resource provided by your General Committee.

Fraternally,

Gil Gore