In what direction is our membership headed with each passing ACRE contract?

ACRE stated in their Spring 2000 Newsletter “On our property we have demonstrated that the operating crafts working and negotiating together can produce a much better working environment.” It is time to sit back and reflect on what has transpired these past seven years and upcoming second contract to see where and how far we have come as an Independent Rail Association.

In Mike Doyle's contract ratification letter dated July 12, 2007 he states, “More often then not events have preceded the negotiations which impact the final outcome. Pattern bargaining is an accepted principle in the Railroad Industry and pattern bargaining exists not only within Metro-North Railroad but also between MTA constituent agencies.” The TWU accepted a zero in 2003 and once the UTU on the LIRR also accepted a zero in 2003 “we were placed in a situation where this pattern was not going to be broken”. What Mike failed to mention was that for taking a zero percent wage increase in 2003, the TWU received a bailout of their health and welfare plan to the tune of 380 million dollars and the LIRR received day one sick time at 100%. ACRE members received absolutely nothing for taking a zero in 2003.

Mike mentions the odyssey of the “so-called Coalition of Unions at Metro-North for not reaching an agreement for the 2003-2006 round of contract negotiations. The reason why the Coalition of Unions couldn't reach an agreement was because of the “Historic” ACRE Deal. No other union on Metro-North could accept or impose such an agreement on their membership. It would have been political suicide on behalf of the Coalition leadership. The Coalition fought Metro-North Labor Relations for over four years to break the contract pattern that ACRE officers established on Metro-North property. The Coalition of Unions was ultimately successful and did not have to accept the ACRE deal.

Concerning the zero percent wage increase for the first half of 2010. It is what it is. All of our agreements prior to this have run from January 1 st through December 31 st . The last year of this contract goes to June 15, 2010. No matter how ACRE would like to sugar coat it (we could very easily have back loaded the wage increase), the fact remains that the ACRE membership will not receive any wage increase for the period January 1, 2010 through June 15, 2010.

Concerning raising the pension retirement age for new hires from age 55 to age 62 with a 20% cap on overtime earnings to avoid having all ACRE members co-paying for medical benefits. How is this even an issue for ACRE members at all? What was it that ACRE officers stated in the last contract when ACRE became the first union on MTA property to agree to co-paying for health and welfare benefits? “Doesn't this co-payment open the door for payments by all employees in the next round of bargaining? No, it is our position that it closes the door. The carriers stated goal had been to get a co-pay on health and welfare payments. They have achieved their goal by receiving payments from new hires in a negotiated settlement. They could not go in front of a PEB in any future negotiation and claim they didn't achieve their goal because they willingly negotiated the settlement”. Where is the actuarial study and report in determining the costs, benefits and savings from raising the retirement age from 55 to 62? ACRE claims to have done an actuarial study in going from the Vanguard to the MTA pension plan (which was never released to their membership). ACRE should have had another actuarial study done to make these major changes to this plan. What was ACRE's labor attorney's reaction and recommendations for making these changes to the MTA pension plan? The 20% cap sidebar agreement is a smokescreen. Mike Doyle has informed this membership many times that Metro-North has total control over the run book and hiring of Engineers. ACRE members always complain that they get a 3% pay raise, but Metro-North takes 5% out of the runs. Can Mike Doyle predict in 2037 how many Engineers will be on the roster or what the runs will look like? Mike had a lot of how to questions. How does Mike expect these new hires to fix this issue in the future? Why would you negotiate a contract with terms and conditions that you know will have to be corrected and addressed down the road? M-N Engineers have very few important work rules left. What has Mike really left them to bargain with?

Concerning the two very important pension improvements ACRE negotiated. The first being the 10-year cap. In the last agreement ACRE signed a sidebar that stated “MTA's consulting actuaries determined that the cost of limiting the 3% employee contribution for 10 years of service was .009 of the affected payroll (.9%)”. ACRE just exercised their option and the membership just picked up the tab. The second issue dealing with the early retirement incentive for employees being able to retire at age 60 without having to incur any penalties. Once again the ACRE membership just picked up the tab for this option. As stated in an ACRE sidebar agreement “It is understood by and between the parties that in order to fund a portion of the Retirement Incentive, this Collective Bargaining Agreement has been extended for two and one half months beginning in 2010”. The entire ACRE membership takes a zero percent wage increase for the beginning of 2010, which will be compounded throughout the rest of our careers to give a few members just another expensive retirement option. ACRE officers just dangle the carrot (better jobs and vacations) in junior members faces. ACRE claimed this when they signed their last contract. How many Engineers actually accelerated their retirement plans and left? Why do ACRE members have to pay for the over hiring of Engineers by the MTA?

ACRE and Metro-North agree to go before the National Mediation Board to resolve the sick time issue and the medical departments return to work policy. Mike Doyle acknowledges that it is the obligation of every employee to maintain a satisfactory attendance record and that Metro-North's efforts to reduce levels of unsatisfactory attendance through progressive discipline are legitimate. As General Chairman of ACRE Local 9, it is the responsibility of Mike Doyle to uphold and enforce our work agreements and contracts. As long as the sick time work rule has not changed, and employees abide by the agreement, Metro-North has no legitimate gripe. The sick leave policy (rule 44) section 2 A-1 states: effective January 1, 1996, each employee will be provided an annual allowance of twelve (12) sick days. 2-Employees shall be able to utilize any and all sick days in their bank for personal illness or injury or to care for any sick or injured family members provided that the employee is primarily responsible for the care of such family member. 3-There is no waiting period or exclusionary period prior to payment. There are no other constraints attached to this rule, nothing about exceeding 4 occurrences within 6 months. If Doyle is in agreement with Metro-North's position, then how does he expect to argue and protect the membership rights and interests before a board?

Concerning the Grievance Mediation – Return to work issue, why would Mike Doyle allow and make part of this contract the companies position that until the mediation process is completed by September 2007, that in the intervening time period, employees who are deemed qualified for duty by the OHS after an on-the-job injury will not be paid sick pay if they fail to return to work and they will be brought up on charges for unauthorized absence if they fail to continue to refuse to come to work? Is Mike Doyle paid to protect his membership rights or Metro-North's Labor Relations position?

Mike concludes his letter with members will be in opposition to this agreement for purely personal or political considerations. These individuals will not show up at informational meetings to debate and by large measure these discredited members continue to work to undermine the current elected leadership but refuse to step into the arena and run for elected office. Opposition to this agreement has nothing to do with politics or personal gains. Opposition to this agreement is called “the survival of our craft and pension”. Once again Mike cannibalizes the junior and future members of this craft for some minor short lived senior member options. He wants members to show up and debate him; the debates should have taken place prior to his initializing of this agreement. The debates are scheduled at times when few ACRE members can attend. Not one informational meeting was scheduled over the weekend. It appears that Mike does not want anyone to be able to show up. ACRE dues maintenance members are not allowed to attend any ACRE meetings. Bin Laden wants to undermine the leadership of the United States of America; I do not recall seeing his name on any election ballot for elected office. Why does ACRE give its membership 8-10 weeks to decide their ballot for elected officers, while providing less than two weeks to decide their ballot on a contract? Which ballot decision is more important and critical to the membership? Is the time concerns based upon the fact that ACRE doesn't want the membership to make an informed and educated decision, or is ACRE afraid of any opposition and does not want to give time for its membership to express their opinions? Mike states, “all of the elected leaders of ACRE Local Division 9 support the ratification of this agreement, yet Mike is the only one to sign the letter. Not one mention of support from any member of the ACRE Executive Board? It appears that Mike Doyle is the only one behind this deal. Maybe that is why he needs to receive a large majority of ACRE members to approve this deal. This would help keep his ego up and prove to the MTA that he still has total control over the ACRE membership.

In 1999 Mike Doyle and his committee turned down the MTA pension plan and said that the Vanguard plan was the way for our futures. They split the workforce into two distinct groups; the membership with over 19 years received 7% and the membership with less than 19 years received 4%. He even went on record and stated “The only way to lose your Vanguard is to negotiate it away. If we elect union representatives willing to do that, we should have our heads examined .”

In 2004 Mike Doyle and his committee give up the Vanguard and signed on to the MTA pension plan so members could retire with 30 years of service at age 55. They signed our Vanguard accounts back to the MTA; they signed on for a zero percent wage increase (first time in our history); they approved a co-payment for health and welfare benefits (first time in our history); they did not cap the 3% salary contribution at ten years; they gave up the $100,000 life insurance policy; they gave up a choice holiday; they did not get the 55/10; and implemented the vacation wheel. They left out two sidebar agreements, one for union pay for ACRE officers marking off union business and the other was that ACRE would work in harmony with the MTA on the merger of the LIRR with M-N.

In 2007 Mike Doyle and his committee increase the MTA pension retirement plan for all new hires to work to age 62 without any provisions for early retirement and place a 20% cap on overtime earnings for the calculation of their retirement benefits. They extend the length of the final year of the agreement from December 31 of 2009 through June 15, 2010. (A 5 ½ month zero percent wage increase). They cap the 3% salary contribution at ten years; they eliminate the medical contribution agreed to in 2004. They are having the NMB decide the sick time issue and fate of employees who get injured on the job (basically who is in charge of their medical care return to work evaluations, the MTA or their personal physician). They signed on for an early retirement incentive that expires on June 15, 2010 and the membership has to take another zero. They forgot to include their sidebar agreement for the defined benefit retirement program for represented employees of the commuter rails with the ratification package. (In 2003 the membership had to take a zero percent wage increase, in 2003 the retirement package salary increase for union officers was raised by $3,706.33.)

In what direction is the membership headed with each passing ACRE contract? In the span of three contracts over 9 years; Mike Doyle has change direction three times concerning our craft, our retirement, and our futures. The only constant that has remained the same is the cannibalism of the newly hired engineers into our craft. Under ACRE it seems to be a race to the bottom. Gary Dellaverson was the negotiator for New York City overseeing the Fire and Police Departments. Look at where their new hires stand today. The NYC P.D. has starting salary of around $25,000. ACRE's attitude concerning new hires is working at the NYC P.D. If you don't like the starting salary and benefits then go elsewhere. NYC has a hard time filing positions within the P.D. They use to receive more applications than they could hire. That is not the case today. Do you really believe the caliber of new recruits the NYC P.D. is receiving today is the best that is out there? Is this what you want M-N will look like in a few contracts?

What about the real issues concerning our MTA pension, the Tier Two offset and the funding inequity that ACRE members contribute into the plan (members that gave up their Vanguard account and paid 3% salary contributions for ten years VS members that had no Vanguard account and just contributed the 3% salary contribution for 10 years). The MTA will not let the medical co-payment go away. In 2010 the issue will be back. What happens when we have to contribute and the new hires cannot retire until age 62. What then, did this contract really accomplish? Why after getting the co-payment of medical from ACRE in the last contract did the MTA suddenly backtrack on the co-payment of medical issue? It must have been more cost advantageous for the MTA to get the retirement age moved back to age 62 with the 20% salary cap then it was to have all ACRE members co-pay for their medical. Gary “D” did his due diligence, what about ACRE officers?

ACRE ballot envelope #94 was returned with the no box checked. I ask all of my fellow engineers to do the same. I believe we must stop the cannibalism and the great divide (special interests) between members (Senior VS Junior) of our craft that always comes out at contract negotiation time. We must and need to protect our future Engineers for the survival of our craft. If the ACRE membership truly believes that no other alternatives can be negotiated, and it boils down to everyone having to co-pay for medical benefits, to keep everyone on an equal footing concerning the retirement age and our benefits, then so be it. To continue down this path will only make future contract negotiations more difficult. How much of a financial burden can we place upon the new hires (entry rates of pay for five years, phasing in of employee benefits, different retirement plans and payouts)? How much resentment can they be expected to shoulder? When does our craft reach the breaking point? Do we have the courage and determination to make the hard financial decisions and choices to preserve what we have or should we take the easy way out and ride on the backs of the new employees? Will we be able to look the new employees in the eye and say that we did everything possible to preserve our craft? Not under this contract we can't. With your ratification vote, you must decide in what direction is our membership and craft of Locomotive Engineer headed with each passing contract.

Mike Doyle is on a full time union release position that he privately negotiated with MTA Metro-North. M-N does not pay him to operate trains; they pay him to work exclusively on union matters. Metro-North has gone on record concerning both Anthony Bottalico and Michael Doyle's release from train service and their job assignments with regard to their duties and responsibilities for these release positions. M-N has also stated on record “Metro-North benefited from these job assignments, which resulted in substantial cost savings to the company .” Now, Mike states that if a better agreement were to be made, he would make it. He also states that a pattern has clearly been established on this property by the acceptance of these terms by the non-ACRE unions. How then can he explain away the clearly two distinct agreements and pension terms which were signed by the Coalition and the Teamsters? The LIRR does not have the ills which ACRE caused on M-N property with their ‘Historic” contract in 2004. I suggest we wait until after the LIRR settles with the MTA and see what they sign for. What is the rush with this agreement? A final interesting note, Mike states the 1996 contract agreement “was hailed at the time as the best collective bargaining agreement in the railroad industry in the past twenty years”. Remember that agreement was negotiated with the support and backing of an International, the BLE.

                  Fraternally,

                  Jim Ekberg

                  ACRE Member