Further to Fred Green's Comments

May 9, 2007

Brothers and Sisters,

It seems that everyone has an opinion of Fred Green and his recent statements about the maintenance of way service at CPRail. The feeling seems the same from everyone and I will say it isn't positive.

I would like to elaborate a few points on Mr. Green's behalf. As insulting as his comments are, you have to remember that this is a guy who is fairly far removed from us and the work that we do. He will get his information from others who are also fairly far removed from the work that we do. I would think that most of his information about the actual day to day work of the engineering department would come from the Vice President of Engineering. And, I think, that speaks volumes about the accuracy of the information that he is getting.

There was a time that the vice president of engineering actually oversaw the whole of engineering. But under the current VP that has changed and his actual realm of responsibilities has shrunken considerably. Which we can't really fault, as an individual should only have the responsibilities that are consistent with his abilities. However, I believe this may explain the credibility of the data that Mr. Green's inaccurate words could be based upon. I can't believe that any President of a major railroad really believes that they do not need their MofW forces. The ramifications that this implies are devastating. Is the integrity of the track not important? The safety of the country, the employees, the public? Can they run their railway without a safe and secure right of way? Can they be on time "all the time" with impassable track and 10 mph slows?

You also have to understand that Mr. Green's words were for the media, the investors....potential shareholders. False bravado, whistling past the graveyard.... that all is fine and 'we will weather this slight problem'.

The words were also for the "scabs" that they are lining up in the event of a strike.

What Mr. Green may not recall (or even know about) is that when the MofW went on strike in 1995 they tried using the office staff and supervisors to fill in for us. That was a time with a lot less trains and the track was in far better shape. It was also between winter and washout season (which we are fast approaching) when the weather is pretty easy on them. And do you recall getting legislated back to work? They started losing traffic, trains slowed and even stopped. They barely held on and they also lost a lot of money. The government quickly got involved and they breathed a sigh of relief.

Oh yeah, after the '95 strike and the 'scabs' went back to work at their desks (they weren't replaced while they were out playing railroader), the company realized that, they really weren't needed. I believe there were 30% of their jobs cut shortly thereafter. But I think they were allowed to keep their nice, shiny new work boots.

But the real point here is that they could not run a railroad without us. They couldn't then and they can't now.

Remember Fred Green's insults the next time some manager or VP is flipping burgers for you because your hard work increased their bonus. Remember Fred Green's comment the next time a manager is telling you what a great job you did cleaning up a derailment or slide..... or better yet remember it next time they are calling to mobilize you to clean up a derailment or slide.

At least on the Union's side, this isn't about egos or challenges . It is not about philosophies.

This is about fairness. This is about simple human decency and fairness. You deserve more than they are offering. You have earned it. You should not have to give up seniority territories, assembly points or your self respect, so that they can give you their paltry 'pattern' increase.

Mr. Green also speaks about how we are bargaining under the philosophy that you deserve more than the other Unions got. He says that CPR is unwilling to do this because it would insult other Union leaders. What an idiotic comment that is. Is Mr. Green saying that if one company does things a certain way and makes a certain profit and another company does things differently and makes more profit, that they shouldn't be allowed more profit because it would insult the first company? We bargain for you, not another Union. We didn't bargain the 'pattern' they talk about and you didn't ratify it.

Besides, how can someone walking away with over $4,700,00.00 a year truly understand the worth and the needs of someone making $40,000.00?

The CIRB certifies Unions to bargain for their clearly defined membership. That is our right under law. Different Unions bargain differently. But each has the right and the mandate, under law, to bargain for its membership to the best of its ability. Each makes its own arguments based on its own needs and circumstances. We have made our own arguments and we are told that they are of no consequence, that the particulars of our contract has already been bargained by another Union.

And we have never been told the company's arguments (even though we have asked repeatedly) that were used to persuade the other Union nor were we told what the other Union's contract was worth (only that our demands exceeded it) and after over ten months of bargaining, we have not even been supplied with an accurate (or semi accurate) cost of the company's offer to us or of our demands to them.

The company has not bargained in good faith. They have not been reasonable. They have wasted time and wasted patience and have been unable or unwilling to offer arguments for their positions. All I can assume is that they also realize their positions are indefensible.

We have tried to get you a fair and reasonable contract. We are still trying and will continue, strike or not, until there is a deal, whether imposed or bargained. I apologize that, so far we have been unable, but we will not stop trying.

As I have stated previously, it takes two to negotiate a contract and both parties have to be willing. Both parties have to not only understand the other's position, they have to understand their own. Sadly, that has not been the case so far, at this round.

Does the fact of possible legislation (CN/UTU back- to- work) hanging out there concern me? Of course it does. Because I know that the company is glad that possibility is there, I can see that it seriously affects their willingness to bargain. A strike looks like it is inevitable. We are ready. We are willing and we are more than able. Its all a matter of timeliness now, unless they can alter their position.

Stay strong, stay safe, stay united.

Bill Brehl
President
TCRC MWED