(Editor’s note: The UTU opposed remote control operations [RCL] as long as it was able. As Kenny Rogers sang, “You got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.”

(It became clear the Bush Administration would support the carriers’ desire to introduce RCL. No union ever stopped new technology. The UTU negotiated unprecedented protection for its members. The UTU offered similar protection to engineers, but the other organization refused to accept it.

(Since then, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen [BLET] has sought unsuccessfully to take the work from the UTU.

(Following is an excellent statement of the facts, delivered recently to lawmakers in North Dakota by State Legislative Director John Risch.)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John Risch. I am the elected North Dakota legislative director of the United Transportation Union. The UTU is the largest rail labor union in North America. Our membership includes conductors, engineers, switchmen, trainmen, and yardmasters.

I’m not happy about being here at this committee hearing today. This is the first time I have appeared in opposition to something that other railroad workers have wanted.

These fellows are my union brothers and coworkers, and it saddens me that we’re here to talk about something that is essentially a jurisdictional dispute between two labor unions and the railroad industry.

I am here to testify in opposition to this resolution, but at the outset I’d like to say that I don’t like remote control locomotives (RCL). I wish they did not exist; I wish they were not used; and I wish they had never come into being on America’s railroads.

I don’t like them because they eliminate jobs. When I hired out on the railroad, we had five people on both switch crews and freight train crews. That number soon dropped to four, and then to three, and now we have two-person crews on the road, and, with the advent of remote control locomotives, two person switch crews in the yards.

The issue before you is jobs. It has virtually nothing to do with safety. Remote control locomotives, if they are operated in a safe manner, are as safe as or even safer than conventional switch engines; however, with the railroads saying they’re safe and the BLET saying they’re unsafe, you might be wondering which is true.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which oversees safety in the railroad industry, has proclaimed RCL operations are safe.

A May 2004 FRA report to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee states: “RCL train accident rates were found to be 13.5 percent lower than the train accident rates for conventional switching operations over the same period, while employee injury rates were found to be an impressive 57.1 percent lower for RCL operations than for conventional switching operations.”

Neither the UTU nor the BLE wanted remote control locomotives to be used in the first place. We both would prefer to have a locomotive engineer and two switchmen on yard crews. But with the advent of remote-control technology, which had already been in use for a number of years in Canada, on the Red River Valley & Western here in North Dakota, and on the Montana Rail Link by BLE members, we were forced to address the issue.

Our national rail agreement explicitly states that we cannot reject new technologies and we must negotiate the conditions of new technology as they come up. So when the railroad industry sought to implement remote control technology, the UTU asked the BLE to join with us to negotiate with the nation’s railroads to find an equitable solution.

Our offer to the BLE was that together we would negotiate to preserve as many jobs as possible. If RCL reduced switch crews from one engineer (represented by the BLE) and two switchmen/conductors (represented by the UTU) to two RCL operators, we would work with the BLE to see to it that one RCL position would be from the engineers’ ranks and one would be from the ranks of train service; and, further, that any RCL extra work or vacancies would be manned from engineer extra boards.

Our offer essentially meant that the UTU-represented train-service employees would lose positions and the BLE-represented engineers would actually gain jobs.

The BLE leadership flatly rejected our offer, insisting that they should get 100 percent of all RCL jobs. That was unacceptable to our side, so the UTU went ahead and negotiated the implementation of remote control technology without the BLE.

After the negotiations ended and RCL operations began, the BLE cried foul and threatened to strike. The railroads prevented the strike by obtaining an injunction from a federal judge. The judge ruled that the question of which railroad employees are authorized to operate RCL fell under the “minor dispute” definition in the Railway Labor Act, and remanded the disagreement to arbitration.

In January 2003, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the railroads and upheld their agreement with the UTU.

The BLET lost on the issue of remote control because their leadership made some poor decisions. Their leadership demanded all or nothing, and in the end got nothing for their members.

Some union leaders go through their careers just saying “no,” and telling their members, “We sure told them.” Other union leaders confront complex issues and deal with them head-on. These leaders may not always get what they want, but they get the best deal possible out of some bad choices. That’s what the issue of remote control represents -- our leadership getting the best deal out of what were some bad choices.

Since the BLET lost the work, they have been going from city to city, county to county, and now to state legislatures, appealing to those bodies of government for help. In North Dakota, they proposed a resolution to the City of Mandan that was reviewed and rejected.

Some cities and counties have passed resolutions similar to this, and they will have little or no impact on remote control technology. (This is because only the federal government, through the Federal Railroad Administration, may regulate railroad operations.)

If the North Dakota Legislature passes this resolution, it is not likely that the FRA will declare, “My, we overlooked the RCL issue, we’d better act on this.” Rather, what will happen to this resolution is the BLET will proudly display it on their website and in their national newspaper declaring that North Dakota sides with them that RCL is unsafe.

We recommend you “do not pass” this legislation.

(The North Dakota legislature rejected the BLET legislative request.

(Also, recently, an attempt by the BLET to have the National Conference of State Legislatures pass a resolution opposing remote control operations was defeated by a 7-to-1 margin.

(UTU’s Georgia State Legislative Director Danny Boyles and South Carolina State Legislative Director Jack Ramsey spoke similarly as Brother Risch. That conference of state lawmakers from throughout the nation then rejected the plea of BLET officer John Tollman.)