Fwd: Safety particiaption

From: Kent Psota <psota@bletonline.com&gt;
Date: April 4, 2023 at 9:33:48 AM PDT
To: Kent Psota <psota@bletonline.com&gt;
Cc: Jess Nelson <nelson@bletonline.com&gt;, Vern Gordon <gordon@bletonline.com&gt;, Jason Scanlan <scanlan@bletonline.com&gt;, Brian Fransen <fransen@bletonline.com&gt;, Luke Myers <myers@bletonline.com&gt;
Subject: FW: Safety particiaption

BLET GCA 150 Local Chairmen,

 

I am sending a reminder to all of you today to outline the GCA’s position concerning Safety Participation. On February 2, 2023, I had sent an update letter with the following notice below asking for each of your divisions comments surrounding participation in safety and whether the GCA should attempt to revisit safety conversations. The majority of the responses received stated that unless the GCA could secure a safety program which had a great deal of BLET division and member involvement, mirroring what we had in the past, they were not interested. Others were a flat no until the entire RR culture changes. And there was a small minority group that did want the GCA to entertain safety talks.

 

As it stands today GCA 150 is not involved in safety. The Carrier unilaterally cancelled our previous program (SSA) and got rid of our Safety Coordinators. They chose to do it their way despite our objections to the contrary. I am reaching out to all of you today to offer reminder we currently don’t participate nor can we support GCA 150 member involvement in meetings, blitzes, cookouts, cleanups or anything of that nature. Make no mistake, that is not to say that GCA 150 does not support a culture of safety and does not support having a safe workplace for our brothers and sisters. In fact quite the opposite is true. If the Carrier wants our involvement then we are certainly open entertaining being involved, but that will only come through meaningful negotiations and agreed to processes where both the Carrier and Union end up with an equal seat at the table. That is not currently the case. As it stands today, they want their unilateral imposed program and want our input only when it’s convenient for them, and GCA 150 is certainly not on board with that.

 

Fraternally,

 

Kent       

 

1. There have been several occurrences of our Local Chairmen, and at some locations, the Legislative Reps being asked to attend meetings on a range of various topics, only to see those meetings be a guise for or bleed over into “safety” discussions. While the BLET fully supports a culture of safety and stands ready to participate in a program we have direct involvement and input in, the Carrier, not BLET canceled the previous safety program without something ratifiable in place. When we voted and declined the proposed Transportation Safety Agreement (TSA) just one year ago GCA 150 advised the Carrier we are always open to safety discussions but the (TSA) would need modifications to get member ratification on our committee. Now comes your part as the LC, drop me a simple reply email and let us know YES my division believes the GCA should try to revisit safety with the carrier or No my division is not interested in the GCA revisiting safety with the carrier.  If the majority of our LCs instruct us to make attempts to revisit safety, the GCA will stand by that decision and make the attempts, if the majority of LCs indicate they do not want us to revisit safety the GCA is good with that decision also.