There are numerous false rumors about remote control. Let me set the record straight.

It begins in Canada a decade ago, when the carriers sought to negotiate remote control operations jointly with the UTU and the BLE. But, soon after negotiations began, the BLE declined to meet and talks broke down. That was unfortunate, because the UTU had proposed the two organizations work closely to put an emphasis on job protection for both train and engine service employees. After the BLE refused to negotiate, the issue was decided by a third-party arbitrator.

The separate UTU and BLE arbitration hearings were handled simultaneously. The UTU focus was on safety, mitigation of adverse affects and measures to protect jobs. The BLE's primary focus was who would "own" the work.

The arbitrator ruled that the work of a yard foreman would not change if the foreman, instead of giving hand signals to an engineer, sent signals via a belt pack to an on-board computer.

The ink was barely dry on this award when the carrier served notice to establish conditions for extensive use of belt packs. The carrier said if both the UTU and the BLE would jointly negotiate an all-inclusive belt-pack agreement, benefits would be superior. Again, the three parties met. And, again, the BLE walked out - this time refusing to sit with the UTU because of the arbitration award.

By letting a third party determine its fate, the BLE lost all of the yard engineer positions in Canada, and UTU-represented employees were given the remote control work.

When the UTU became aware that the U.S. carriers were considering remote control operations, President Boyd sought to avoid a repeat of the Canadian situation. He hoped a UTU-BLE merger would unite the two organizations to work solely for the benefit of all train and engine service employees. I know, because I was present when President Boyd explained this situation to then-BLE President Clarence Monin and later to then-BLE President Ed Dubroski.

Both Clarence and Ed agreed that all train and engine service employees would be better served by one organization working to protect all members.

When the U.S. carriers signed a letter of intent with the UTU regarding remote control operations, President Boyd immediately alerted newly elected BLE President Don Hahs. In fact, on President Hahs' first trip to Cleveland after his election, President Boyd brought me, General Secretary and Treasurer Dan Johnson and General Counsel Clint Miller to an Oct. 3 meeting with BLE President Hahs, First Vice President Ed Rodzwicz, General Secretary and Treasurer Bill Walpert and BLE General Counsel Harold Ross.

President Boyd showed the BLE officers the letter of intent. They discussed how a UTU-BLE merger would protect train and engine service jobs as U.S. carriers sought to implement remote control. President Boyd specifically promised President Hahs that the UTU would demand from the carriers a seat for the BLE at the negotiating table and equal job protections for all train and engine service workers.

President Boyd also told President Hahs that the UTU had cancelled all negotiations over remote control with the carriers until after the BLE voted on the merger. This would allow BLE officers to sit with the UTU at all remote control negotiating sessions. The BLE officers present at that meeting personally assured President Boyd they would openly support the merger.

The BLE officers did not openly support the merger. And, once it was voted down by the BLE members, the BLE walked down the same path it had walked in Canada. The BLE chose to fight remote control and not negotiate.

The BLE contended it was a "major" dispute and the BLE could engage in a work stoppage. A federal judge said, "no." The BLE was left to submit the issue to arbitration, the same as the BLE was forced to do in Canada, thus again giving a third party control over their members' destiny.

Meanwhile, the BLE is demanding all the remote control work. The BLE is not fighting to stop remote control. It is fighting to take the work from the UTU. The BLE has a history of taking work from train service employees in favor of engineers.

On Montana Rail Link, where the BLE represents train-service employees as well as engineers, the BLE on March 12, 2001, negotiated a remote control agreement that gives remote control operations to two engineers. When only two engineers are on an assignment without train-service employees, the two engineers receive an extra 45 minutes pay.

So if you wonder why the UTU negotiated this issue with the carriers, you need look only at recorded history.

You might also ask why the UTU didn't simply fight remote control technology. The answer is that we have repeatedly learned - in Canada with remote control and in the U.S. with radios and end-of-train devices - that technology cannot be stopped. Moreover, the U.S. carriers have the Canadian arbitration award on their side, which says belt packs are simply communication devices. They further argue that they have a right to unilaterally implement remote control.

While the UTU believes the carriers do not have the right unilaterally to implement, we know from experience that we are better off negotiating rather than having a third party, whether it be an arbitrator, court or Congress, make decisions for us - especially since most of those third-party decisions have not been good ones for our members.

I think we have negotiated solid and valuable protections for UTU members in the tentative agreement you will see shortly. In fact, the tentative agreement provides substantial protections for buy-outs and/or reserve board positions for engineers as well as train service employees. President Boyd is to be commended for looking out for all operating employees.

It is too bad BLE officers do not share a similar desire.