LTV and Ravenswood: A tale of partial victories, partial defeats

Scan page 4

4 SOCIALIST ACTION AUGUST 1992 CLEVELAND-Hearings before federal bankruptcy Judge Burton R. Lifland on LTV's petitions to void its contract and pension agreements with the United Steelworkers of America (USWA) were slated to begin Monday, July 13. But instead of starting the hearing, Lifland ordered both parties to attempt to resolve their differences and report back to him the next morning.

On Tuesday, attorneys for both the USWA and LTV reported no progress in contract negotiations. LTV's attorneys asked the judge to limit testimony to 10 hours from each side. Steelworker attorneys stated it would take much longer for them to present their case. Judge Lifland asked both sides to present a list of their proposed witnesses and again ordered them to resume negotiations.

On Wednesday morning, attorneys for both the USWA and TV again reported no progress in contract negotiations. Lifland delivered a stern lecture claiming they didn't recognize the seriousness of the situation, that they were facing the "meltdown" or possible liquidation of the company. He said the problem seemed to be that those negotiating didn't have the power to do so, and ordered the attorneys to bring in those with the proper authority.

The judge concluded by saying he was giving them one last chance to reach an agreement, and if they did not do so, he would begin the hearing Thursday morning. He added that he was sure neither party would be happy with his ruling in such a hearing.

"No concessions"?

After a marathon bargaining session, the USWA and LTV announced a tentative agreement Thursday morning. Details will not be formally announced. until Judge Lifland approves the terms and LTV steelworkers vote on the new contract.

Despite the USWA's stated "no concession" stance, this proposed agreement is a concessionary one. In exchange for a maximum $25,000 buy-out, 218 jobs are eliminated. The company can unilaterally install expanded crafts (e.g. combining pipefitter and welder jobs). This will result in additional J0b losses.

Work rules are another area of concessions. Production workers will be required to do "minor" maintenance work. Both maintenance and operating units will be required to work on a continuous basis (i.e., elimination of any lunch, wash-up, or start-up times). The extent of these work-rule concessions will be fought out from local to local on the shop floor.

The agreement tries to force steelworkers into a new "managed care" program for health benefits. The first year, a cash payment is offered to anyone signing up for "managed care." If this bribe doesn't work, those wishing to continue their current healthcare coverage will pay a monthly fee. This fee increases over the life of the contract. The current deductibles are also increased in the third year.

Similarly, retirees who wish to maintain their current health coverage will pay higher deductibles in the third year. These healthcare cuts cannot be renegotiated when the proposed new agreement expires.

This proposed agreement-with no improvement in wages, holidays, or vacations-expires in June 1994. This also hurts other steelworkers whose contracts expire in 1993 by removing the possibility of a coordinated strike against all major basic steel companies.

The agreement includes real pension improvements. USWA spokespeople boast that the determination of the members forced the company to back down from its worst concession demands. The earlier "no concession" stand is handily pushed aside.

Workers who had made their determination clear to the company are no longer "needed," as top-level negotiators hammer out a concessionary agreement. The Steelworkers bureaucracy views the mobilization of workers as a pressure tactic to be turned off as soon as "serious" negotiations begin.

Agreement at Ravenswood

While the LTV contract has yet to be approved, the results of this approach can be seen from the strike and lockout at the Ravenswood Aluminum Co. in West Virginia. For 19 months, Ravenswood steelworkers and their spouses reached out to other workers for support. Only 14 steelworkers were among the 1300 scabs crossing the picket line.

USWA spokespeople vowed to remain out one day longer than R. Emmett Boyle, the company's president and chief executive officer. Some Ravenswood steelworkers now complain that remaining out one day longer than Boyle became the union's focus. Thus when Boyle was forced to resign and the company agreed to resume negotiations, the union ended the very membership mobilization that had forced the company to the bargaining table. Needless to say, this had a demoralizing effect on the strikers and their families.

The part of the settlement most frequently criticized by Ravenswood steelworkers is a $2000 per member settlement in exchange for dropping their back wage claims under their unfair labor practices suit. Many felt they had a good chance of winning this suit, where workers would have been entitled to an average of $80,000 each. Steelworker officials justified this $2000 settlement by stating they didn't want to force the company out of business.

The new agreement losses. Some 200 steelworkers did not want their jobs back (e.g. workers who retired or moved during the strike). Instead of hiring new workers for these jobs, the company permanently eliminated them.

Although Ravenswood steelworkers considered elimination of all scabs an essential feature of the agreement, 104 workers who failed their back-to-work physical exams have been replaced by scabs. The union claims this is contrary to the agreement and will be pursuing it through the grievance procedure.

Job combinations and speed-up have increased. Work-rule changes in the new agreement further endanger workers' safety in an already physically dangerous industry.

Many workers are questioning the union's strategy. Not only are they expressing bitterness about being shunted aside once "serious" negotiations began, but they are also pointing to the need to stop scabs from entering the plant. They explain that a favorable settlement could have been reached much earlier if all production had been stopped.

At Ravenswood, the company failed in its efforts to oust the USWA and operate a non-union plant. At LTV, the company backed-off on its demands to completely gut wages, benefits, and working conditions. In both cases, the companies responded to the determination of the steelworker membership. However, in both cases, the bureaucracy thwarted this mobilization as soon as the company resumed "reasonable" negotiations.

Although the LTV contract vote has not yet taken place, LTV workers, like the Ravenswood workers, will most likely approve the agreement by a large margin.

Both agreements include enough positive features that they can be grudgingly approved by steelworkers who don't yet recognize the possibility of reclaiming their union from the bureaucrats who put the continued well-being of the companies ahead of that of steelworkers and their families.