Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
(What follows is a reprint from an important UTU International website article published today, March 22, 2010.)
The historic healthcare reform bill that President Obama will sign into law has provisions that affect UTU members and retirees. Notable provisions, as reported by The Washington Post, The New York Times and Reuters, include:
EMPLOYEES OF CARRIERS OFFERING HEALTHCARE INSURANCE: For the overwhelming majority of UTU members whose employers provide healthcare insurance, there will be minimal, but meaningful, changes: 1) The lifetime cap on benefits will be eliminated; 2) employees, their spouses and children with pre-existing conditions, or new illnesses, cannot be dropped from coverage; and, 3) insurers must allow children to remain on their parents' policy until their 26th birthday.
EMPLOYEES OF SMALL CARRIERS: As small-group premiums are higher than premiums for larger employer groups, small businesses will be able to buy insurance coverage for employees through the legislation's created "insurance exchange," and the employer may be eligible for a tax credit to cover a significant share of the healthcare premium expense.
The insurance exchange will consist of regulated insurance marketplaces administered by individual states, in which small businesses and those without employer provided healthcare insurance may shop for, compare and buy healthcare insurance meeting federal standards.
Posted by jel on Thursday, January 07 Eastern Standard Time (380 reads)
(What follows is a reprint from the UTU International website of an important article for furloughed members)
COBRA, which stands for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, has long enabled many people who lose their job to keep their insurance, generally for 18 months, at 102 percent of the full cost, meaning the portions paid by both the employer and employee, reports The Los Angeles Times.
But such coverage is expensive, and many people can't afford it. With so many Americans unemployed at once, the subsidy was deemed necessary to prevent the percentage of uninsured Americans from growing dramatically.
The subsidy was launched in March 2009 and paid 65 percent of the health insurance premium cost for nine months for workers laid off between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009 -- saving families an average of $722 per month on average health insurance premiums of $1,111.
Posted by jel on Friday, November 06 Eastern Standard Time (488 reads)
The UTU International issued an important announcement yesterday, November 5, 2009, regarding a cost free vaccine for the H1N1 virus (a.k.a. "swine flu"). Finding this to be an important announcement a link to that article is being reproduced by the General Committee here.
The question has been posed to this General Committee as to whether we believe that single person RCO operations, or any single person train operations for that matter, are safe. Our answer is a resounding “NO” and we in the UTU are doing something about it!
In a letter dated March 10, 2009 General Chairperson Lesniewski wrote to D. R. Menefee, CSXT Director Train Accident prevention…
“As you know, in and around 2002 RCO Operations were pitched to both this Organization and, more importantly, to the FRA as a safe and efficient means of operation illustrating and emphasizing a two-person “pitch and catch” operation. Since that time however, no doubt due to financial consideration only, RCO operations at several locations throughout CSXT are evolving into a yard foreman/conductor only operation; which carries with it an all new set of challenges. While Crew Consist contractual provisions may permit the use of yard foreman only yard crews under stipulated conditions, I’m not so confident that safety considerations offer the same latitude.”
Since that time the parties have debated the safety of single person Remote Control Operations in subsequent correspondence and meetings, with yet another meeting in the offing. In the mean time, however, the General Committee has taken their concerns regarding this issue to higher level soliciting the assistance and advice of International President Mike Futhey and National Legislative Director James Stem. Both have responded with swift and decisive action. In a response letter dated June 8, 2009, National Legislative Director Stem responded challenging CSXT’s response to this General Committee’s concerns and writing:
“I will formally ask FRA what level of approval and partnership they have exercised in the establishment of CSX single person remote control assignments. Without a regulation covering Remote Control Operations, the general requirement of providing a safe place to work will provide the only common sense approach to a safety for these operations.”
International President Futhey was also already right on top of the issue. On June 11, 2009, President Futhey signed a joint petition to the Federal Railroad Administration in collaboration with BLET President Rodzwicz calling for “… an emergency order to prohibit the use of one-person operating crews, including remote control operations.”
A copy of the joint Futhey/Rodzwicz petition for an Emergency Order by the FRA can be found here.
National Legislative Director Stem’s June 8, 2009 response to General Chairperson J. E. Lesniewski, along with GC Lesniewski’s correspondence exchange with the Carrier regarding this issue, can be reviewed here.
(What follows is an important announcement regarding continuation of Health and Welfare coverage under COBRA for furloughed employees found on the UTU International's website.)
COBRA subsidy info available soon
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009, may temporarily reduce the premium you have to pay to purchase Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) continuation coverage under the medical, dental and/or vision plans for yourself and your qualified dependents, if you meet certain criteria.
All potentially affected employees will be receiving a notice from United Healthcare that will be sent by April 18, 2009, if they experienced a COBRA qualifying event at some time from Sept. 1, 2008, through Feb. 16, 2009.
Only employees who are losing coverage due to involuntary termination, which means that the employee stopped rendering compensated service due to a dismissal, a suspension or a furlough from employment, are eligible for the COBRA premium reduction. Involuntary termination status is determined by your former employer.
This group of employees may be eligible for the temporary premium reduction for up to six (6) months, and in some cases nine (9) months, beginning in March of 2009.
To help determine whether you qualify for the ARRA premium reduction, you should read the notice from United Healthcare carefully.
Members who either declined an earlier opportunity to enroll for COBRA, or elected COBRA but chose to discontinue the coverage, may be eligible for a second opportunity for enrollment and be eligible for the reduced COBRA premium.
The criteria for eligibility will be set forth fully in the notice from United Healthcare, and you are urged to read this notice very carefully, as there are certain timeframes in which you must elect this coverage.
If you are eligible for COBRA coverage for any reason other than the involuntary termination of the employee, including, but not limited to, resignation, retirement, disability, pregnancy leave or other voluntary leave of absence, then you will NOT be eligible for the reduced premium rate.
If you qualify for the reduced COBRA premium rate, you will be responsible for only 35 percent of the current COBRA monthly premium. The federal government will pay the remaining 65 percent of the cost.
This reduced cost would only be available to you beginning in March 2009. It is not available earlier, even if you were enrolled for COBRA coverage prior to March 2009.
If you were enrolled for COBRA continuation coverage in January and February of 2009, your payments for those months would remain at the standard COBRA premium rate and your rate for March and any subsequent months in which you were eligible for the premium reduction, would be at the reduced 35 percent premium rate.
Once you are no longer eligible for the reduced premium rate, you may continue your COBRA coverage at the standard premium rate, for up to the remainder of your COBRA eligibility period (18, 29 or 36 months).
You should note that although you may now be eligible for this second opportunity to enroll for COBRA continuation coverage, and elect COBRA coverage beginning on March 1, 2009, when the reduced premium rate took affect, your COBRA continuation coverage eligibility date does not change to March 1, 2009.
For purposes of determining how long you may continue your COBRA coverage (18, 29 or 36 months), your original COBRA eligibility date will govern.
The information to be received from United Healthcare will fully set forth all the details about the manner in which to enroll for COBRA at this time and how to obtain the ARRA subsidy.
Also, while the initial notice only pertains to those members who were involuntarily terminated and eligible for COBRA between Sept. 1, 2008, and Feb. 16, 2009, those employees involuntarily terminated after Feb. 16, 2009, will also receive a notice setting forth similar details.
Any questions members have regarding the ARRA COBRA subsidy provisions should be referred to United Healthcare at (800) 842-5252, or contact them at the following address: United Healthcare, Railroad Accounts, P.O. Box 150453, Hartford, CT 06115-0453.
During the course of the entire FMLA fiasco wherein the Carrier was unilaterally requiring employees to take paid vacation and personal leave days in lieu of FMLA leave the General Committee was encouraging members to file a penalty claim for each day so affected (see articles here and here). Hopefully everyone followed these instructions, because those claims just may come to a positive fruition.
As you are by now aware (see article posted here), the Organizations have prevailed both in the court system and at arbitration in this dispute. The only remaining issue is to determine the proper remedy for the Carriers' violations. The Organizations contend a penalty day’s pay is appropriate for each day the employee(s) were denied their contractual right to schedule their own vacation and/or personal leave days (assuming the employee submitted his/her claim in a timely fashion). The Carriers contend that no penalty is warranted because, according to them anyway, they “…acted in good faith.” If any penalty is appropriate, the Carriers argue, the affected employees should be given unpaid leave in reparation for the paid leave they were forced to take as FMLA leave… a resolution the Organizations find totally unacceptable.
Attached here you fill find a copy of both the Opening Submission and the Reply Submission of the rail unions in the remedy phase of the FMLA arbitration. The same three (3) arbitrators who decided the merits portion of the case will hear the remedy arbitration on April 21, 2009 in Washington, D.C. The arbitrators will then issue their award within 60 days thereafter.
Posted by jel on Tuesday, December 09 Eastern Standard Time (1022 reads)
(What follows is an important Article that appears in the UTU News December 9 ,2008 regarding arbitration over the Carrier's forced substitution of paid Personal Leave days and/or vacation time for FMLA leave.)
A three-person arbitration panel ruled unanimously Dec. 2 (published Dec. 8) that the nation’s four largest railroads, which control some 90 percent of U.S. intercity rail freight traffic, no longer may require employees to substitute paid vacation and/or paid personal leave for unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
It was a stunning blow to BNSF, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific -- carrier parties to the arbitration who had been ignoring collective bargaining agreements and the law in an attempt to maximize employee availability. Other carriers likely will abide by the arbitration ruling.
Under the FMLA, employees may elect to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to deal with a family emergency, or a personal serious health condition. The law also provides that if employees have a more beneficial arrangement with the employer, the more beneficial arrangement shall take precedence.
Based on this provision, and the carriers' blatant violation of it, the UTU and 11 other rail labor organizations challenged the carriers, who agreed in July to arbitrate the issue.
The arbitration award becomes effective Dec. 22, at which time the carriers must "immediately discontinue" the invalidated provisions of their FMLA policies.
Myth #1: Union wages are responsible for companies relocating to foreign countries.
It’s not inaccurate to say that some jobs (e.g., manufacturing jobs) have been moved from the Midwest and Northeast to the South in order to take advantage of a non-union environment, a lower standard of living, and less stringent government regulations regarding environment protection and workers’ rights. It’s a fact. And there’s no arguing that unions are partially to “blame” for that. Even auto manufacturers in faraway Japan have heard about the built-in benefits of setting up shop in the American South; that’s why they install their factories down there.
Replacing a union forklift driver earning $17.50 per hour in Cleveland, Ohio, with a non-union driver earning $10.50 per hour in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, might be enough of an inducement for a factory owner to pick up stakes and relocate to Dixie, particularly if he had a large number of employees. Moreover, there’s not much a union can do about these wage differentials, other than try to organize as many sites in the South as possible, in order to level the playing field.
But a company that moves its operation to a foreign country isn’t doing it to avoid paying a union wage; it’s doing it to avoid paying an American wage. Where being able to pay a non-union forklift driver $10.50 per hour instead $17.50 per hour represents an opportunity to trim costs, the prospect of moving abroad is seen as a shrieking bonanza.
Moving an operation to Asia or Latin America is not a case of union vs. non-union. It’s a case of a decent standard of living trying to compete with the permanent underclass of a fledgling economy. It’s no contest.
And to suggest that it’s somehow organized labor’s fault that businesses are forced to exploit the foreign labor market is to perpetuate a lie. The United States could go non-union overnight, and you’d still have businesses seeking foreign labor. Why? Because the wage differentials are simply too staggering, too alluring, even compared to work being done in the U.S. for the federal minimum wage.
Posted by JEL on Tuesday, January 15 Eastern Standard Time (1046 reads)
What’s going on at the International? Why hasn’t the SMART merger gone forward? Does our General Committee support this challenge of the merger? These are the questions that have come pouring into my office since the impending SMART merger did not take place on January 1, 2008 as planned.
What’s going on at the International is that we have elected a new International President in Mike Futhey, an Assistant President in Arty Martin, and a GS&T in Kim Thompson who have a sense of integrity and a moral conscience.
During the buildup to the SMART merger vote the UTU Board of Directors, our General Chairpersons, as well as the entire membership were told that our UTU Constitution would remain “intact” and moved into the Sheet Metal Workers’ Constitution as Article 21B to form the new SMART Constitution. We were led to believe that the SMART merger would have no affect whatsoever on General Committees, Locals, Local Committees of Adjustment, and the Legislative Boards would actually be enhanced by the merger. Any member that attended a Region Meeting in 2007, followed the UTU News in 2007, or reviewed the disk sent with their SMART merger ballot information can attest to hearing this time after time.
In our view the UTU would maintain its’ own shop under the former UTU Constitution. Our involvement with the former Sheet Metal Workers would be restricted to merely sharing facilities, International funds, political resources, and our Railway Labor Act experience with the Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA). Other than that, it was our understanding we would do our own thing and the Sheet Metal Workers would do theirs. That is what was portrayed to each of us officers by the former UTU administration, and that was what we, in turn, portrayed to our membership as well (note that I, myself, released an endorsement of the SMART merger based on this propaganda).
During his transitional briefing then-International President Elect Futhey apparently learned that all was not as it was portrayed in speeches and releases regarding the impending merger. Although nothing had been settled, there were a number of questions in dispute regarding the integration of our UTU Constitution into the SMWIA’s Constitution. Apparently SMWIA President Mike Sullivan wanted these constitutional conflicts resolved, and was not content to allow our UTU Constitution to remain “intact” within the new SMART Constitution indefinitely. There were several changes he intended to make and, if these changes could not be negotiated, the SMART Merger Agreement required that the conflicts be resolved through an arbitrator appointed by the President of the AFL-CIO. The proposed changes to the former UTU Constitution, if they came to fruition even through arbitration, would have decimated much of what we currently recognize as the UTU Constitution including, but clearly not limited to, our craft autonomy, autonomy of our General Committees, term of officers, timing and conduct of conventions, as well as eliminating our UTU Executive Board and Board of Appeals.
To his credit, our newly elected International President did not sit idly by and accept this to merely get along with SMWIA President Mike Sullivan and collect his paycheck at the expense of our membership. He took one look at the conflicts in dispute and, recognizing the membership was not even aware these issues were being contemplated, he informed Mr. Sullivan (paraphrasing) … this is not what our membership voted on, and it is not acceptable. President Futhey has a big problem with deceiving the membership. Isn’t that refreshing?
