top of page

General Discussions

Public·228 members

UP v. METRA lastest

ree
5 Views

To be clear: our comments in support of a preliminary injunction do not opine on the underlying question of UP’s common carrier obligation, nor are they meant to suggest the Board’s insertion into the collective bargaining or implementing agreement process. We only seek to make the Board aware of the harm being exacted on the ridership and employees by UP’s unreasonable practices, and to support granting the injunction to preserve service as an immediate and necessary act to protect the public interest. UP’s abrupt, piece-by-piece dismemberment of commuter service has a grave impact on the riding public and employees at a time when our economy is most-fragile due to the ongoing pandemic. Doctors and nurses ride Metra; as do teachers, first responders, and other essential personnel. Stopping or diminishing UP’s Metra service does not just prevent bankers from getting to work, it would have real-world impacts on everyone’s lives and livelihoods in the Chicago region – both commuters and those dependent on their services. It’s worth noting that despite dramatic ridership and revenue losses, Metra has provided free transportation to healthcare personnel during the pandemic.1 Metra is doing their part to help people weather the pandemic. Meanwhile, Union Pacific - a Class 1 railroad with a market capitalization of $130 billion2 - is applying bullying tactics on Metra, a financially fragile commuter rail agency, merely to gain leverage in a negotiation. The Coalition believes the STB should take all of this into account when considering granting a preliminary injunction, and should choose to spare the public and employees of the hurt and cost associated with any cessation or degradation of service on the UP lines.

Join us on mobile!

Download the “SMART-TD-577” app to easily stay updated on the go.

Scan QR code to join the app
Download on the App Store
Get it on Google Play
  • Local 577 on Facebook
bottom of page