Message from the General ChairmanIn this month’s column I would like to address two issues that have been put together by rumor on the property while in reality they are not and will not be connected by our Organization. The practice of trading a work rule for a safety issue is not acceptable to our General Committee. The first issue, concerning the cab design of the new SL V, is one of the most important issues concerning the new cars to our members. I would like to take a few minutes to share some facts concerning the developments that led to SEPTA’s decision to provide the SL V with a part time full cab. The part time full cab is similar to the cab found on Broad St. Subway and Long Island R.R. M-7 MU’s. This design preserves seating throughout the train where the cab door is locked shut while providing a full cab at the operating end. Some of the talk that is being spread on the property seems like a last ditch effort to discredit our Organization by those who are still holding onto former AGM Pat Nowakowski’s management style that uses control tactics to intimidate train crews and allows personal feelings to stand in the way of making good business decisions. Providing the cab design that allows BLET to do their job safely and productively, that allows the SEPTA Departments who utilize the operating cab in the course of their normal work to do their jobs and that protects the passengers against the many hazards of our uncontrolled right of way, should not cause the BLET give SEPTA work rule concessions. The BLET has been fighting for the part time full cab design since the introduction of the original specifications in 2002. New Equipment Committee Members (Paul Osciak, Fran Wickersham and Joe Solivajs) toured equipment from SEPTA, looked at other transit railroad equipment, attended many meetings and drafted correspondence concerning the cab design The Committee Members outlined the many obvious reasons why a subway style cab does not work on the un-controlled and more extensive territory of a railroad system. At first SEPTA gave no real reason for their decision to adopt the subway style cab until finally citing passenger seating concerns then changing their story to preventing crews from conversing on the head end. SEPTA’s own Departments were also not supportive of the subway style cab. The Training Dept., with their AGM Susan Van Buren, asked for a meeting with former AGM Pat Nowakowski concerning the cab design. Some of the now retired Training Department Staff informed us of the content and demeanor of the meeting. The System Safety Department issued a memo in 2002 outlining all the safety and operational problems associated with the subway style cab. How SEPTA could ignore it’s own System Safety Department’s recommendation of the full width cab, was absurd. General Manager Joe Casey and the new AGM of Operations, Luther Diggs, have been instrumental in opening SEPTA’s eyes to the shortfalls of the subway style cab. We have had several meetings in the second half of 2008 concerning this issue. During a September 2008 meeting both GM Casey and AGM Diggs gave us their word, with an agreement to provide written assurance, that the cabs would be converted to the part time full cab. AGM Diggs informed us that the three prototype cars, which are now being assembled in Korea, would be sent over with a kit to convert the cab to the full design. He cited on time delivery concerns as the reason for not converting the cabs in Korea. The second issue, which was supposedly linked to SEPTA’s decision to provide the full cab, is the opening of the Engineer’s door at Suburban and Market East Stations. During the same time period of the two most recent meetings concerning the cab design, this non-safety related issue was also discussed with GM Casey. The General Committee continues to direct Locomotive Engineers to comply with the terms of the Arbitration Award, which build on previous awards, that protects our scope of work and prohibits SEPTA from ordering us to do the work of other crafts. The General Committee conducted three meetings with GM Casey and Labor Relations Manager Fran Keating concerning the door issue. GM Casey stated it was a passenger service issue, as it took longer to berth peak hour trains and it caused SEPTA to receive complaints due to the confusion caused by passengers not knowing when the door would or would not be opened. GM Casey instructed Labor Relations Manager Keating to draft a proposal to us. That proposal never came. During the second meeting, GM Casey asked GC Dixon to provide SEPTA with a proposal to do the work. The BLET Officers met and decided in the spirit of co-operation with the new regime and due to the fact that the SL II’s, III’s and IV’s would be gone in 6-8 years, a very modest proposal of .2 hours per day would be offered. The BLET proposal was rejected by Labor Relations and about three weeks later, all the vests were on the Center City Platforms checking compliance with SPO-43 in intimidating fashion. We have not received a counter proposal to this date. I hope this information clears the record concerning the cab design and door opening issues. The General Committee’s position remains firm concerning the separation of safety issues and a work rule changes. Your Local Officers and New Equipment Committee Members have worked diligently on the cab design issue with help from State and National Division BLET and from Teamster Officials. Fraternally Yours,Richard G. DixonGeneral Chairman
DISCLAIMER : |
News Flash
|
