As I understand from reviewing newspaper coverage, the BMWE point of contention is simply some fencing recently installed at Beech Grove for which Amtrak let a contract with a local contractor who in considerable liklihood employed "non-union' workers. This is hardly the first time such issue has arisen within the industry.

Nevertheless, here is BMWE's "take' on the issue:
http://www.bmwe.org/News/2003/12DEC/AMTRAK-1203[1].PDF

A carrier will usually prevail in a contracting out issue when specialized labor, material, or equipment is involved. As the BMWE press release above notes, the Carrier is required to give notice of intent to contract out and agree to meet in good faith with the Employees to determine if the work proposed is within the scope of the 'labor, material' parameter set forth above. To what extent Amtrak (the Carrier) initiated such a conference or simply picked up the phone and called in a fencing contractor, I know not. Obviously, i further know not if this was a "straw that broke the camel's back" issue, or one of "bruised egos'.

Also from newspaper coverage, I have learned that the issue involving the TWU, who holds the contract to represent Laborers (employees who do not hold 'journeyman' standing or positions in skilled crafts such as machinist or electrician), is the contracting out of asbestos removal from some railcars. Now folks, we know that asbestos is some 'pretty scary stuff', and I would think that an outside contractor who has obtained the necessary protective gear for their workers, has trained and supervised those workers to ensure the gear is properly fitted, and is prepared to assume liability in the event of an injury to the worker, would appear to meet the standard of 'specialized labor and equipment".

What is further perplexing regarding the TWU issue is that Amtrak has recalled a fair number of employees to the facility in response to the present "catch up' car repairing program.