The vast majority in my union that I ask says they voted no, but our contract was supposedly ratified 54% yes. I do not understand why did so many union members ‘supposedly’ vote yes to contracts that did not at least equal the previous one? What happened to the determination and the will everyone had just a couple years ago to strike? Is over 50% of union members happier now than they were a couple years ago? Has anyones work conditions improved enough (or at all?) since the last contract that you accepted smaller pay increases?
17 replies (most recent on top)
UP has a total of 6GC system wide, they pass al agreements, no matter how our member vote, they are all corrupted. remember charles little president of UTU and his vice, back in 2001, when they went to prison for corruption!!
How much longer will the board keep Vena around? His probationary period must be over by now and so far none of his actions seem to have had a long term positive effect on the company stock price. At what point will they cut their losses and send him packing?
@ch need some more tinfoil for your hat?
Our contracts always pass by a mid 50's margin because our votes don't actually count. The Unions are always gonna throw out that number that way it seems legitimate. It's not and never will be
Awesome bring on the raise !!!! More money yes sir !!!
Look at all y'all bickering over politics, y'all think ANY of them give a damn about YOU??!!!??? Please, save your energy. Both sides are in it for themselves, we are the tax payers paying their way.
@ez That's your smart union that came up with that before trump was in office you SIMP. Learn to read and do research dum Ta-d
President Gavin Newsom will take care of the union members and 2 man train crews. Trump don't give a f ck
Truth is PEB under Trump would not have been beneficial.....and where does anyone think we could have ever went on strike.....must be a newer cat on the railroad! I am not your teacher, just do some cursory research and you can retain a wealth of knowledge, or are you a follower and believer of what others tell you, including those in power?
@dm What about the select shortlines taking over different parts of the UP network for switching services? What about DTL fueling contractors now being on-site at all times at many different locations in the network for simple a simple gas and go? Those are just a few, but @cw is correct about more contractors coming in. Shortlines taking over different parts of the network for switching purposes does in fact mean fewer UP transportation jobs. DTL fueling does in fact mean less servicing is being performed by mechanical personnel and less of those jobs too. I do agree all the way about some people coming on here bi--hing and screaming about politics and political affiliations. There's other dam sites for that! We're here to discuss railroading and UP issues, not political BS. Go somewhere else for that!
@cw while I mostly agree with your statement I don’t believe there are any contractors that are doing or are willing to do our jobs at half the price we’re getting paid. We can’t even recruit people off of the streets to fill positions in my craft. I could leave my job now and in a couple weeks have a non union job that pays just as good and I’d probably get treated better by the company.
1940s–1960s (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson) – More Union-Friendly
• These boards often awarded wage increases and resisted the most extreme cost-cutting demands of the carriers.
• Truman and Kennedy in particular tried to keep peace by giving unions moderate wins while avoiding major strikes.
⸻
1970s (Carter) – Mixed
• PEB 191 (1978) gave unions some wage gains but also pushed crew consist changes that carriers wanted (reducing crew sizes).
• This period was fairly balanced but began a shift toward more carrier efficiency demands.
⸻
1980s (Reagan) – Generally Carrier-Friendly
• Reagan’s PEBs (193, 195, 196, etc.) leaned toward management, focusing on wage restraint and productivity rules.
• They rejected many union demands for higher pay and work rule protections.
• This aligned with Reagan’s broader anti-inflation, pro-business stance of the 1980s.
⸻
1991 (George H.W. Bush) – Carrier-Friendly
• PEB 219 recommended wage controls, health care concessions, and flexible work rules that unions opposed.
• When unions struck, Congress stepped in and forced a settlement largely along carrier lines, using the PEB report.
⸻
1996 (Clinton) – Balanced
• PEB 229 gave modest wage increases and preserved health benefits, but also allowed some flexibility for carriers.
• More centrist, reflecting Clinton’s “middle of the road” labor approach.
⸻
2001 (George W. Bush) – Leaned Carrier-Friendly
• PEB 234 gave moderate wage increases but increased health care cost-sharing for workers.
• Carriers saw it as favorable since it slowed cost growth.
⸻
2011 (Obama) – Union-Friendly
• PEB 243 granted substantial wage increases (17% over 6 years) and preserved low employee health premiums.
• Widely seen as one of the most pro-union PEB outcomes in decades.
⸻
2022 (Biden) – Balanced, but carriers gained on sick leave
• PEB 250 recommended 24% wage increases (a big win for unions), but did not include paid sick leave, which became the major sticking point.
• Ultimately, Congress enforced the settlement, keeping most of the PEB terms.
• Viewed as split: strong wages for workers, but carriers protected on quality-of-life concessions.
⸻
✅ Summary:
• Democratic presidents (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Obama, partly Biden) tended to deliver more union-friendly PEBs.
• Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.) usually leaned carrier-friendly, emphasizing cost control and work rule flexibility.
• Biden’s 2022 case was unusual: big wage gains but no sick leave, creating a split perception.
Okay this is going to probably pi-s off a few people here, but here it goes. What do you think is going to happen if we wait out the current contract in hopes for a better one? Simple it ends up going to the PEB, then the final answer is given to us and forced to accept a contract that could very well end up being worse than the one that's being proposed. The PEB is going to respond in the best interest of the economy and the industry itself, not the workers. Regardless of what your political affiliation is, you can't project blame on any administration for intervening. The issue was brought to them, even though some will constantly tell themselves that they went looking for it. Anyways, there's different sites for expressing your grievances about politics and that is NOT HERE! Is the current contract good? No! Folks, you're trying to pick a fight with something that you just don't want to fight with. A massive rail strike is just a bad idea, no matter how you look at it. Yeah, it may make many people in the industry feel good about themselves for having a "look at what I did" moment. How do you think it's going to make other people who are not in the industry feel about paying higher prices or not being to able to get basic necessities because of the strike? I think some people are just attacking the wrong people when it comes to union contracts. Some people always want to attack the current or former administrations and it makes absolutely ZERO sense at all for doing so! When these contract proposals are presented, I don't hear too many people barking about the UP accepting the contract proposal from the unions. No I guess it's just easier to blame the president and call your unions spineless cowards. You also have to look at the current UP CEO. Do you think he cares about the workers? NOT AT ALL! If he could, he would eliminate the unions entirely. Look at all of the contractors coming in and doing the work. Why do you think he's doing that? So don't accept the contract, and he'll decide to find different ways to bring in more contractors to do the work and therefore making your position obsolete. Why keep anyone around that is willing to fight tooth and nail over union contracts that they deem is unfair, all the while there's these contractors that they can paid half of what the union workers are currently being paid to do the same work? So, you go ahead and hold out for what you think is a better contract in your eyes. Accepting a contract that is marginally better is always going to be better than accepting a contract that has no benefits for anyone.The PEB can renew that last contract where everyones pays exactly the same for the next five years. Something will ALWAYS be better nothing!
@b2 You couldnt pick a better potential candidate than the darling nephew of super corrupt nancy who’s husband meanwhile hires male escorts, takes then to their mansion, does illegal dr-gs with them, then refuses to pay them for their services?
Any way my union claimed the same thing that they feared going to a PEB bcuz they percieved this prez as not labor friendly. But how can anyone blame someone else for what they think they might do. This is america, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Other question is the previous contract I and every other union voted NO and a truly labor friendly prez wouldve let us strike. We had a chance to flex our power to the carriers and prove to management their would be no profits without labor. Why did the previous prez FORCE that contract on us? Bcuz that is what the lobbying corporations wanted. Sleepy Joe was not labor friendly.
It doesn’t matter who votes, only who counts the votes! I voted no, but I fully understand the corruption of the ibew.
Don't be a pu-s vote no for bad contracts.
Yeah good idea, vote it down and take it to Trump's PEB he is very pro labor! Just look at the way he's dismantled the FRA removing committees and rubber stamping waivers. You think he gives a fu-k about your wages? Dum--ss.