In 1999, Bottalico and Doyle, then UTU and BLE General Chairman, agreed to a contract after the LIRR unions settled their contract and set the contract pattern. In 2004, firmly established as a company union, ACRE settled after the LIRR unions set the pattern for collective bargaining. ACRE did not do as well as the LIRR's agreement in 2004 Bottalico and Doyle's 1999 contract was not as good as the LIRR's 1999 agreement. In 2007, ACRE is accepting the Metro-North Coalition's pattern. The Coalition rejected ACRE's 2004 contract and was placed in a very difficult bargaining position because of the MTA's insistence that the Metro-North Coalition accept the ACRE agreement.

It is ironic ACRE follows the Metro-North Coalition this bargaining session and because of the Coalition's refusal to accept the ACRE contract and progressing their dispute to a Presidential Emergency Board, ACRE now has the opportunity to address their mistakes in ACRE's previous agreement, capping the 3% salary contribution for the pension plan at ten years and elimination of the co-payment of health and welfare benefits for new hires, which was at 18% of the cost of the medical plan. The solution for these issues may not prove beneficial for all ACRE members, but the opportunity was available mostly because of the Metro-North Coalitions position to reject ACRE's contract and progress the dispute.

A major component of Bottalico and Doyle's platform when they promoted ACRE in early 2000 was their claim to be able to do better in future contracts than the Internationals. Instead ACRE members received excuses why ACRE cannot out perform other unions in this important area of representation. In 1999, before ACRE was in operation, Bottalico and Doyle contended the LIRR pattern restricted their ability to obtain a better contract. In 2004, Bottalico and Doyle blamed the LIRR pattern again and then proceeded to modify the LIRR agreement beyond recognition, setting the stage for the current contract proposal. The LIRR received a better contract in 1999 and in 2004, what excuse will ACRE come up with and use in agreeing to this contract proposal?

If Bottalico and Doyle truly believed the two previous agreements and possibly the current proposal were inferior, why agree to these contractual restraints? Simple, a company union never says no to the carrier. The Metro-North Coalition said no to the ACRE deal for over four years. TWU Local 100 said no to the MTA in their last contract and went out on strike. The major dispute was increasing the retirement age for new hires to age 62 for their pensions. The LIRR unions are currently saying no to the current contract proposal.

ACRE members have been without a contract for four and a half months, why the rush for a contract settlement? Simple, ACRE will not say no to the MTA.

The officers of UTU Local 77