UP CEO Jim Vena threatens retaliation against customers who speak out against the proposed merger with Norfolk Southern
On Thursday, under pressure from the Surface Transportation Board, Union Pacific was forced to release a video of its CEO Jim Vena coldly speaking to hundreds of railroad customers and threatening to raise freight rates on those who oppose his proposed $85 billion merger with Norfolk Southern. In the same presentation, UP’s top executive attacks industry associations and mocks federal regulators. UP’s lawyers had unsuccessfully taken legal action to suppress the remarks made during a meeting of shippers.
Vena’s most revealing statement is his last words, where he threatens to punish the audience of shippers with higher rates if they oppose him:
“[If the merger doesn’t happen], Union Pacific will still be there. And if I stick around, which I probably will, I’ll probably increase everybody’s rates that said they didn’t want a seamless railroad by 3 or 4 extra percent to teach you a lesson.”
Judge for yourself. Vengefully raising rates on shippers and by extension consumers... is that in the public’s interest?
Following the release of the video, the Stop the Rail Merger Coalition @StopRailMerger issued the following statement:
“Jim Vena isn’t just threatening retaliation against customers who speak out against his merger. He’s making American working families his bargaining chip. When Vena threatens to raise freight rates, those costs don’t stop with railroad customers. They get passed along to consumers through higher prices on groceries, energy, and everyday essentials. His own words reveal exactly why giving Union Pacific even more control over America’s supply chain is a dangerous proposition. Jim Vena’s merger is a bad deal for America and must be rejected.”
The STB this week also denied NS and UP’s request to hold so-called “ex parte” meetings with STB members, meaning the meetings would be held out of public view. While meeting topics and subsequent high-level summaries would be made public, the discussions themselves would occur behind closed doors. Many parties strongly objected to the request because such closed-door meetings would reduce transparency.
Citing UP’s heavy-handed tactics that threaten shippers and hide information that should be made public, Class I railroad CPKC urged the STB to “…terminate this poisoned proceeding now” in an October 30 filing.
In response to CPKC and the controversy surrounding Vena’s remarks to shippers, on November 4, the STB wrote:
“Independent of CPKC’s letter, the Board has serious concerns about whether Vena’s statement at SWARS [Southwest Association of Rail Shippers] —as reflected in the recording — may be influencing certain stakeholders’ willingness to participate in this proceeding or share their own views without fear of commercial repercussions. The Board will not tolerate actual or threatened retaliation against a stakeholder for participating in this or any other proceeding before the Board. Retaliation, whether perceived or actual, can seriously undermine the integrity of the Board’s processes. Any evidence of retaliation in this proceeding will be considered by the Board, and evidence of retaliation, or the threat of retaliation, may affect how the Board proceeds—”
On Thursday, under pressure from the Surface Transportation Board, Union Pacific was forced to release a video of its CEO Jim Vena coldly speaking to hundreds of railroad customers and threatening to raise freight rates on those who oppose his proposed $85 billion merger with Norfolk Southern. In the same presentation, UP’s top executive attacks industry associations and mocks federal regulators. UP’s lawyers had unsuccessfully taken legal action to suppress the remarks made during a meeting of shippers.
Vena’s most revealing statement is his last words, where he threatens to punish the audience of shippers with higher rates if they oppose him:
“[If the merger doesn’t happen], Union Pacific will still be there. And if I stick around, which I probably will, I’ll probably increase everybody’s rates that said they didn’t want a seamless railroad by 3 or 4 extra percent to teach you a lesson.”
Judge for yourself. Vengefully raising rates on shippers and by extension consumers... is that in the public’s interest?
Following the release of the video, the Stop the Rail Merger Coalition @StopRailMerger issued the following statement:
“Jim Vena isn’t just threatening retaliation against customers who speak out against his merger. He’s making American working families his bargaining chip. When Vena threatens to raise freight rates, those costs don’t stop with railroad customers. They get passed along to consumers through higher prices on groceries, energy, and everyday essentials. His own words reveal exactly why giving Union Pacific even more control over America’s supply chain is a dangerous proposition. Jim Vena’s merger is a bad deal for America and must be rejected.”
The STB this week also denied NS and UP’s request to hold so-called “ex parte” meetings with STB members, meaning the meetings would be held out of public view. While meeting topics and subsequent high-level summaries would be made public, the discussions themselves would occur behind closed doors. Many parties strongly objected to the request because such closed-door meetings would reduce transparency.
Citing UP’s heavy-handed tactics that threaten shippers and hide information that should be made public, Class I railroad CPKC urged the STB to “…terminate this poisoned proceeding now” in an October 30 filing.
In response to CPKC and the controversy surrounding Vena’s remarks to shippers, on November 4, the STB wrote:
“Independent of CPKC’s letter, the Board has serious concerns about whether Vena’s statement at SWARS [Southwest Association of Rail Shippers] —as reflected in the recording — may be influencing certain stakeholders’ willingness to participate in this proceeding or share their own views without fear of commercial repercussions. The Board will not tolerate actual or threatened retaliation against a stakeholder for participating in this or any other proceeding before the Board. Retaliation, whether perceived or actual, can seriously undermine the integrity of the Board’s processes. Any evidence of retaliation in this proceeding will be considered by the Board, and evidence of retaliation, or the threat of retaliation, may affect how the Board proceeds—”
0:24
