May 9, 2007

To My Brothers and Sisters:

I write to express my outrage and opposition of the contract that is soon to be voted on by you. I oppose the contract for the following reasons:

As a long time labor person, I believe it is the wrong message to send to management that we are willing to give back benefits that were bargained for and gained in the early years of the labor movement. We all know the history of unions and how difficult it was to gain any rights. How can one call oneself a union person, when you allow management to control the rules of the game? Management decided that our precious retirement was a subject for bargaining. It appears that our representatives at the bargaining table agreed that the terms of our retirement was fair game. ACRE surrendered an important benefit and what did we gain? Where is our quid pro quo(something for something). It is anti-union to say that because the surrender of the right to retire at 55 is painless because it applies to people who are future hirees. ACRE has negotiated and is strongly promoting a provision that increases the retirement age to 62 for anyone hired after the contract is ratified. I say this is unacceptable .

Every right that we had in 1974, when I joined the railroad had been fought for and gained by railroad men who have long since retired or passed on. If those labor members had not been aggressive in their bargaining our salaries and working conditions would be as bad as the workers at the New York City Transit Authority. I am grateful for their sacrifices.

We should also keep in mind that even members of the New York City Transit's TWU refused to tamper with pension rights. They resisted despite being attacked by the press and by our own ACRE. The TWU recognized the importance of protecting one of the benefits that is vital to any union, the ability to retire early enough to enjoy the benefits that you worked so hard to earn. Our brothers at the Long Island Railroad also refused to tamper with pension rights. Why is labor at Metro North willing to be the only union that caved in to management?

I also oppose the contract because our bargaining unit has failed to negotiate for the Martin Luther King holiday. Martin Luther King was a strong labor man. In fact he met his death fighting for the rights of the sanitation workers who were on strike in Memphis, Tennessee. It is unbelievable that ACRE refuses to include it in the bargaining.

My final reason for opposing this contract is we should not accept another zero. Whether it is on the front end or the back end is irrelevant. This will be the second time that our representatives at the bargaining table has accepted and promoted a “0” increase for its very loyal membership. Most of you have families and live with the same increases in gas prices and taxes that I live with. Management is not suffering. We have watched the ridership of the railroad increase along with fares. Where are all of those profits?

My protestations over the lack of an increase on the front end may be quieted by having lifetime medical coverage. How about it ACRE, isn't what is good for management good for your members?

Yours in the Struggle,

Michael Humble