"Since 1900, the by Armco Steel, the fifth largest steel producer in the country."

Scan page 5

SOCIALIST ACTION FEBRUARY 1987 5 nothing more than a pro-company watch -dog. The union had never had a strike.

Year after year, contract after contract, things were quiet. The AEIF contract would consistently follow the national USWA contracts, obtaining basically the same benefits.

But concessions demanded by the company in early 1986 brought an end to the tranquility of labor-management relations in Middletown.

Not willing to give up their relative economic prosperity without a fight, the membership of the AEIF elected a whole new executive board, throwing out those past leaders tainted with a concessionary attitude.

The anger of the rank and file was amplified and given direction by this new leadership. Capitalizing on the mistakes, false claims, and arrogance of the company, the union executive board, led by its new president, Ray Back, united the once docile membership against concessions.

The union set out to learn-and learn fast-how to wage an effective fight against the company's concessions demands. Representatives of the AEIF were sent to the founding conference of the National Rank and File Against Concessions (NRFAC). The AEIF became a founding member of that organization in December 1985.

The AEIF also sent representatives to the two national rallies that were held in Austin, Minn., to support members of Local P-9 in their strike against the Hormel company. The AEIF invited a represent -ative of Local P-9 to speak to its executive board in Middletown. It also became active in the Adopt-A-Family program to financially aid the striking Hormel workers.

A union newspaper was started. Contacts were established with other union locals in point. Armco, still insistent upon major concessions, had set a final deadline of Aug. 31. At that time, if no agreement was reached, the company would implement its own terms.

The concessions the company wanted included:

• a.$0.50-per-hour wage cut;

• a $0.25-per-hour cut in incentive base pay;

• a two-tiered wage system;

• Sunday work to be paid at time quarter—instead of time and a half;

• a cut in vacation pay;

• the institution of a sham profit-sharing system.

Union officials estimated that the concessions would cost each worker from $3000 to $5000, depending on the length of service.

The company was dealing from a position of strength. Concessions contracts won by other steel companies from the USWA guided Armco's strategy. Armco threatened to declare bankruptcy and to leave Middletown, which would throw the entire region into economic chaos.

Armco also seemed to think that the old way of thinking about the company as a stern but kind father still prevailed in large sections of the work force.

For its part, the only sure thing the union had going for it turned out to be the the company implemented its own contract, the union would be forced to declare a lockout by the company.

An Ohio appellate court ruling in 1983 had found that if an employer imposed a contract on its employees in which the pay and benefits were less than the previous contract, the employees were thereby being locked out by the company. This ruling would make AEIF members eligible for unemployment benefits in Ohio.

Firm and well prepared A union meeting was called for Sept. 2 to discuss whether to work under the company-implemented contract or declare a lockout and stop work. The vote was to be carried out during the next three days. Some 3000 union members attended the meeting in another show of union strength.

On Sept. 3, the first day of the voting, 2000 members showed up to cast their vote. Local newspapers reported that voters were marking their ballots publicly—not in the voting booths—as a demonstration of their commitment.

The next day, as the voting continued, the company's threats became more shrill. Economic catastrophe, bankruptcy, and the destruction of the community became the basic company themes. Armco also threat -ened the benefits of the retired workers.

On the evening of Sept. 5, the final day the final position of the union.

The existing contract was extended to March 31, 1990, with no concessions. The contract was retroactive to the first day of the walkout. The contract still allows for wage reopeners in 1988 and 1989 if the company suffers losses. But in no event can the company unilaterally implement any wage reductions.

That evening, AEIF President Ray Back announced the terms to a cheering crowd at the union hall. In keeping with the democratic character of the strike, the agreement was read at the union hall and printed for distribution to the membership. It was voted on Sept. 13.

With the ratification of the contract by the membership came a realization of the pride and strength shared by the members. While no major economic gains were made, the walkout was an overwhelming victory.

One small union, with support from the community and from individual union locals-but with no help from any international or the AFL-CIO—had finally stopped a major company dead in its tracks.

AHMLO LOCKED

----- pull-quotes -----

"86" FR