I remember that there was labor unrest that even resulted in the derailment of a train. Its a odd operation where BNSF still runs trains over the same route as MRL.
There is an implied question here but I don’t know what it is. There’s also an implied statement here and again it’s hard to interpret as to what is being said. I don’t think there is enough proof to substantiate some sort of conspiracy A oogle google search of Montana Rail Link may reveal the answer to both.[:O].
I believe what you will learn is that MRL fills a gap that was needed at the time. Hardly an organization big enough to break up the W. Buffett’s, BNSF or the Railroad Union’s…
MRL was part of BN’s effort to reduce labor costs. I doubt that even the most ardent anti union members of management thought it would break the operating unions. I heard one knowledgeable outsider describe BN’s labor relations strategy of the time as ‘rolling grenades under their chairs’. I think that is an accurate characterization and I am more a management than a union guy.
Mac
The entire ‘plant rationalization’ & Short Line movement has been a plan by the carriers to decrease the power of the railroad crafts. This is not just a BN issue.
Here is a list of the unions that cover the operating crafts and other aspect of railroading.
- AFL-CIO
- American Train Dispatchers Union
- Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen
- Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
- Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
- International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters
- Railroad Workers United
- Transportation Communications Union
- Transport Workers Union
- United Transportation Union (UTU)
- UTU Auxiliary
Don’t see a “BN” union there, so which union are you talking about?
Where in the world did you scrounge up the idea behind your thread?
I’m thinking that BN did not want to maintain two routes to the same destination. What is now MRL may not have been profitable for BN but would be so for a short line.
Agreed, with the added caveat that BN did not want to lose all of the capacity offered by the old NP line (or allow a competitor to get withing sniffing distance of the Powder River coal fields). The difficulties with the locals in Montana probably cemented the choice of the line sold, but I very much doubt that MRL was devised solely to bust the union.
The train crews on the MRL were, and I think still are, represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. That’s why the 2 crew members on the local were both called engineers.
Jeff
The route in question through Montana is probably different from most on the then BN, sparse with little industry to bring in revenues. A purchasing outfit (MRL) that would have lower operating costs (i.e. lower labor costs) made the line viable.
Interestingly, BNSF (BN + AT&SF) has NOT gone that way on the Raton Route in New Mexico (now only used by Amtrak). With NO online revenue generating businesses, it just doesn’t make economic sense for any investment group to do what BN and MRL did.
The only way it would ever work (more like halfway work) is if an investment group had several hundred railfans qualify as crews and work for free, but rest assured that wouldn’t last more than a few months, if even a few weeks.
There have been a couple of comments made regarding the MRL (perhaps on this thread) but I cannot recall the origin of the comments.
-
The lease of MRL from BN is 50 years.
-
Krebs tried to negotiate the elimination of the lease, but MRL management was not interested.
Perhaps this is covered in the article…I will read it tonight.
Ed
The 400 BLET members ratified a new labor agreement with the MRL in Dec. 2012, replacing the previous pact from 2006. http://www.progressiverailroading.com/labor/article/Canadian-Pacific-Teamsters-MOW-division-reach-tentative-agreement-BLET-members-ratify-Montana-Rail-Link-pact--33650
- 1987-2047
After MRL began operations, they separated the Livingston Rebuild Center into a separate corporate entity. There was an attempt to place the employees at LRC under Social Security instead of RRB on the grounds that LRC was not a railroad-related operation. I’m not sure how that turned out.
Separating aspects of a carriers ‘business’ departments and then declaring them not to be a part of the RAILROAD operation and thus covered by SSI rather than RRB is something that was begun in the late 80’s.
On my carrier Information Technology, Real Estate, Medical and a several other departments were set up as subsidary companies and declared to be non railroad companies with their employees removed from RRB and placed under SSI. The ‘true’ railroad employees then sought out means to return to the railroad and be covered by RRB, thus protecting the benefits they had been accumulating to that point in time. New hires had no problems with SSI as they had a higher take home pay because of not having Tier 2 RRB witholdings.
I seem to recall, perhaps incorrectly, that Tier 2 was optional at the discression of the employee.
Not so!
I beileve it was BN back then. Anyway leased lines and short lines are part of a complicated rail system that is frustrating for the people who work there and the customers. Getting rates only to find out that your industry is not served by who you thought is was served. As in Brattleboro B&M,NECR and Vermont Railway run on the same track but that does not mean that the custumer has the right to choose which railroad he gets served by. The rates are a like a 80/20 split with the originating and the terminating carrier get the bulk of the rate. Problem is that labor can only get there peice of what the Class One deems proper to charge and then divy up to the short line. The other anology to this is American Eagle or the subcontrators to US Air that serve small airports that make a fraction of what there counterparts do at the hub to hub routes. However without these conessions there probaly would not be any service to small places like Elmira NY.
“Problem is that labor can only get there peice of what the Class One deems proper to charge and then divy up to the short line.”
Ok, a guess is that this is some local form of American English?
And what are you trying to say?
In some cases, regionals or short lines pay rates are close to class one rates. The difference is in work rules. Crew size, road/yard work division, etc. At one time that could mean large savings as the less restrictive work rules meant less employees were needed for the same amount of work. Over time, the large carriers have been able to get less restrictive work rules themselves, making some lines that may have been spin-off candidates more desirable for them to retain ownership.
Jeff
In any case, the MRL is and has been unionized, so the answer to the question posed as the title of this thread seems to be “No.”