The union has asked President Trump to intervene on its behalf.
“Mr. President, we believe the railroads’ actions to give the jobs of American workers to foreign workers run counter to your own trade goals, and to your commitments to all American workers,” Dennis Pierce, the union’s national president, wrote in a July 10 letter to the White House.
KCS has said that shifting the cross-border crew-change point 9 miles, from the International Bridge to Laredo Yard, will not result in layoffs of American workers at subsidiary Texas-Mexican Railway.
KCS says the move – which began this week – improves service, creates capacity on the single-track bridge, and boosts safety and security by keeping trains moving in congested areas of Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
The bridge over the Rio Grande, which also carries traffic Union Pacific interchanges with KCS de Mexico, is a bottleneck at the busiest U.S.-Mexico rail crossing.
The union noted that the North American Free Trade Agreement prohibits American crews from operating trains in Mexico.
“A 10-mile retreat from our borders, as the railroads intend to do as this is written, is certainly inconsistent with keeping work in the hands of American workers,” Pierce wrote. “On behalf of our nearly 37,000 working members – and particularly those who stand to lose the work they perform today – I respectfully request that you assist the affected American workers by giving this critical matter your personal attention.”
In a ruling last week that barred the union from striking over the crew-change shift, a federal judge dismissed several concerns that the union raised regarding the training and qualification of Mexican crews. But Pierce nonetheless brought those issues to the president’s attention.
Trump has used Twitter to criticize companies in a variety of industries, including pharmaceuticals, airlines, automakers, defense contractors, and retailers. A railroad has not yet been the subject of one of the president’s tweetstorms.
In NAFTA negotiations, the Trump administration has aimed to tighten restrictions on Mexican truck drivers operating in the U.S.
Currently Mexican truck drivers are effectively limited to short cross-border moves into the U.S., where they exchange the loads with American drivers for long-haul moves into the U.S.
I don’t know the specifics to this situation, but I would speculate union’s action may in part have something to do with the legal term ‘setting precedent’. Sure, it’s only 9 miles today, but maybe it will be another 20, 50 or the remaining 100 miles next time. If you don’t ‘Officially’ protest on the 9 mile change, a future judge or arbitrator may take the position ‘Union/workers did not take exception to the previous change(s), so the new change is not unreasonable’. Bore yourself reading labor disputes and you will see where this has occurred. As far as reaching out to POTUS, I’m guessing someone is wanting the POTUS to ‘put his money where is mouth is’, as they used to say when I was a kid.
A question of which I don’t know the answer – How many miles are now the 8-hr standard? How many miles are crews paid from Laredo or the Bridge to the next crew change point? Years ago I knew it was that 130 miles represented an 8-hr day. If the above miles are less than 130 (or if there are a new standard) it is possible KCS (TexMex) crews make the same pay either way. This makes the above moot.
If indeed it is the case that US railroaders are not allowed to operate in Mexico but Mexican crews may operate in the US, then this is a poor agreement. There must be more to this than has been reported. I am curious about what type of grievances that the union filed on behalf of the US railroad workers. It seems that in essence that Mexican crews operating on the KCS or any other US railroad amount to a scab endeavor. Something is grossly wrong with this scenario.
I think we can all agree that labor unions have accomplished a lot of good things. But they also have many times taken positions that are short-sighted, unreasonable, and economically harmful in the long run both to their members and society in general. And in this particular instance, their stance seems to be indefensible. Stopping trains on a single-track bridge to change crews (on the bridge!) and in the process blocking road crossings is ridiculous. If it were required for customs inspection, it would be necessary (but still a stupid way of doing things). However, apparently there are agreements for customs inspections in rail yards near the border. The most reasonable approach would be for both U.S. and Mexican crews to take trains across the border to the designated yards. If indeed NAFTA precludes U.S. crews taking trains into Mexico, then that is just one more flaw in NAFTA. Overall, NAFTA is a good idea, but “the devil is in the details,” and it seems NAFTA includes more than enough “devils.” (Could Trump perhaps renegotiate the elimination of some of the devils?)
This could be interesting. On one hand Trump seemingly hates NAFTA. Therefore he should support the union. On the other hand Trump seemingly hates unions. Therefore he should he should support the Mexican train crews.
Which will prevail? Stay tuned to this channel.
The above remarks are general in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They are not legal advice. I am not your attorney. Go find your own damn lawyer.
Jim; I was typing a more lengthy comment but, deleted it after seeing yours. Your last sentence summarizes very nicely what I had planned to say.
“The union noted that the North American Free Trade Agreement prohibits American crews from operating trains in Mexico.” No surprise here at all. Trump is right. We have made very, very stupid trade deals.
No Bob, I got the pay and benefits I earned. Union had nothing to do with it. I got the same pay and the same benefits as non-union workers of comparable responsibility and comparable accomplishment.
Correct me if I am wrong Mr Landey, but if you worked in a union shop you received all the benefits of a union member. I am pretty sure you did not complain about benefits, vacation time or any pay raises you may have gotten. But then again, a man of your principle probably refused all of those benefits. Lighten up please, while I will agree with you that there are problems with unions, we would be a lot worse off without them.
STEVEN BAUER I couldn’t possibly disagree more with your post. The workers are NOT the union. I would know. I was at various times in my working life a union member, against my will. At no times did the unions speak for me. How can you say that by disrespecting the union I disrespect the workers? That couldn’t be further from what I believe. When I see a train go by, I always silently thank the T+E crew for the awesome work they do. The union couldn’t possibly be further from my consciousness. It’s like the union doesn’t even exist.
I don’t like deadheading crews if it can be avoided. Better to have “turn jobs” half staffed by Mexican crews and half staffed by US crews. Sounds like enough traffic (modulo this stupid trade war) that few of these turns need to be light engines either.
Union/non union, Mexican, US crews aside changing crews on a bridge seems a bit foolish. I would think that a crew change arrangement that is favors neither countries crews would be possible. Maybe run US crews to a point in Mexico and vs versa.
Charles, you are a walking contradiction. Pick a side would you and take your lumps either way please? You blast the Unions, calling them a sick rotting corpse in a previous post in another article, but then you turn right around and always say how the workers are great and somehow you know what all of us are thinking. Charles, the workers ARE the UNION! Without the workers the Union doesn’t exist. Yes, we may have our differences from time to time, and not always agree on everything but we are still a Union. So if you badmouth a Union, you are also badmouthing the workers in that Union. If you called the Union a sick, rotting, corpse, you called the workers a sick rotting corpse. And as you said in your post here, if you have no respect for the Union then you don’t respect the workers. You can’t have it both ways in an effort to soften any backlash on your rhetoric.
As for the deal with the KCS? I don’t know as I don’t have all the specifics. But if there was wording in there as a previous post mentioned that layoffs wouldn’t happen UNTIL the dispute was resolved, that language appears to say that yes, people will be laid off. And why not an agreement where the US crews in turn can run a train into Mexico?
I’m sure the individual T+E crews, as opposed to the union that purports to represent them, understand that Mexico, an ally of sorts and something resembling a democracy, is the reason their railroad even exists. If I still had any respect at all for any union I lost it when reading this article. Mexican T+E crews have the same right to come into Laredo that Aeromexico flight crews have the right to land at O’Hare. BTW my car was built in a non-union plant in USA. It’s a fine product built by great American workers in a technologically advanced factory in a right-to-work state.