Slashdot Mirror
Labor Lockout Lingers At Honeywell Nuclear Plant
Hugh Pickens writes "Federal News Radio reports that in Metropolis, Illinois, the nation's only site for refining uranium for eventual use in nuclear power plants, some 230 union workers locked out by the company since last June take turns picketing and warning of possible toxic releases into the community while they're not at their jobs. Even in better times, the plant has been a source of concern. In September 2003, toxic hydrogen fluoride was released in an accident. Three months later, seepage of mildly radioactive gas sent four people to the hospital and prompted the evacuation of nearby residents. Now a recent safety inspection by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that temporary workers brought in by Honeywell weren't properly trained and were cheating on tests, and that Honeywell had neglected to report liquids that were released into the air. Metropolis' troubles began last spring when efforts to negotiate a new contract broke down at the Honeywell plant. Honeywell opted not to let the union employees work without a contract, citing the lack of bargaining progress and what it called the union's refusal to agree to provide 24 hours of notice before any strike."
Locked out since June? This seems newsworthy to me, where is the lame stream media on this story?
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
"Everything is under control, our main Technical Adviser is Homer Simpson."
Honeywell didn't train the guys who came to my business to repair the alarm system (they later sold their alarm business).
People showed up with no testing equipment to check for open lines, bad connections, etc.
A lockout strike at the grocery store is one thing, but a nuclear plant? When people living nearby could get hurt? Good grief.
Seems like if the union workers were to strike, the potential for a lot of damage would be high.
All privately employed people, be they doctors or nuclear plant employees or anything else, should have the right to withhold their labor.
Otherwise, you have a situation known as "slavery".
Now, these guys may very well be in breach of contractual obligations to show up for work.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Time to call Superman...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
A lockout strike at the grocery store is one thing, but a nuclear plant? When people living nearby could get hurt? Good grief.
From TFA: some 230 union workers locked out by the company
All privately employed people, be they doctors or nuclear plant employees or anything else, should have the right to withhold their labor.
They do - its called "quitting". In this case, they essentially quit because the fixed term labour contract their union has them working under has expired without a replacement or formal temporary continuation in place and the employer does not want an informal temporary continuation to act as the basis of continuing employment.
However, heres the kicker - I'm not 100% familiar with the jurisdiction that covers this particular dispute, but quite often due to labour law even though the union contract has expired, the employer cannot replace the work force within a particular time frame (several months). The union (and the workers) have the power here, its far from slavery.
The workers didn't choose to quit.
The employer unilaterally decided the workers weren't worth their pay, and isn't letting them come back to work until they capitulate and give the employer everything they want. The people in charge are playing hostage games, not the people who were staffing the plant.
Locked out since June? This seems newsworthy to me, where is the lame stream media on this story?
Hmmm. Union workers are locked out of their jobs by their employer. I wonder why that didn't make the news, when any case of a union considering a vote on talking about thinking about announcing the possibility of maybe polling to take a vote on a half-day strike makes the news immediately?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
They convert uranium ore -- usually in the form of uranium oxides ("yellow cake") -- into uranium hexafluoride by eventually dissolving it in hydrofluoric acid. That gas is then what gets run through centrifuges or gas diffusion plants to isotopically enrich the U-235. So, it's a lot of messy chemistry (see links) with mildly radioactive materials (uranium isn't strongly radioactive). HF is particularly nasty because although it is a weak acid it reacts with almost anything and it is quite toxic.
...ok, you know there is a difference between a lockout and a strike, right? The employer initiates a lockout, the workers/bargaining unit initiates a strike.
So you're saying the plant management should be declared terrorists? I just want to make sure I, and possibly you, understand what you're typing.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Wrong - the employer didn't unilaterally decide anything, they *and* the union failed to reach an agreement, so there are two parties responsible for the current situation, not one. The union is as much at fault here as the employer.
See http://blip.tv/file/4535436
These guys are hard core and fighting the good fight. Their struggle against corporate greed should be our struggle.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Seriously? We're watching Iran's nuclear progress EVERY SINGLE DAY.
But in "the nation's only site for refining uranium for eventual use in nuclear power plants", we have an ominous signs of an inevitable accident, and not one single large media organization is regularly following it.
What did they do, release an aerosol? I hate imprecise reporting.
Anyway, the primary source (the safety report from the NRC) is available from the union local web site. (I confirmed that the same document is available directly from the NRC, but couldn't find a URL that didn't include my personal information.)
These guys are hard core and fighting the good fight. Their struggle against corporate greed should be our struggle.
Yes, we should feverisly try to bite that hand that feeds probably ~70% of the people on this site. I'm so angry for at the corporate world that pays me all year long and then expects to tell me when/how to work. Where the hell do they get off bro?
I'm with you! Where do I sign up for this "good fight" with these fellow "hard core" guys?
Wrong. The employer is playing hardball and chose to lockout the employees. They could have agreed to continue working without a contract but still under the old contract terms until an agreement is reached for a new contract.
Someone needs to look up what "locked out" means.
I'm not assuming that the union workers are being reasonable. I just think that placing blame solely on the unions and make an argument against their existence is just as much bullshit as to blindly accept everything a union says as gospel. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
...it's the people producing it that are dangerous.
BAH! You're just another dead Reagan, right wing troll. You work for the union busting Pinkertons?
While other poster(s) indicate that you are wrong, that's irrelevant. The employer absolutely ought to be able to do such a thing.
The NLRB and federally guaranteed union powers in the USA are really disgusting. I think unions are a fine thing and every employee ought to have the right to join a union -- and every employer ought to have the right to say "fuck off, you're fired immediately and forever, we will NEVER allow union labor here"
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
The plant is in Metropolis. Why don't they just call Superman? I understand there is a reporter there who wears glasses who knows where he is.
Guys, wait... WAIT! the chick's a ROBOT! Hold On!! Didja hear me?? THE CHICK'S A ROBOT!!!
Perhaps it might be worth you checking both sides' information before coming a conclusion as well? Though I am afraid your line "No thanks - I've had enough of union rhetoric for one life time" suggests you'll only "disregard one sides propaganda in favour of the other sides propaganda".
Sounds like you're both equally at fault here.
I'm so angry for at the corporate world that pays me all year long
You should be! The only way the shareholders make any money is by paying you less than the full value of your work and keeping the rest for themselves.
Depends what the hand that feeds you wants you to do for your money.
The pay you receive for the work you perform is by definition the value of your work. If you accept less pay than you think your work is worth, than it is you who is devaluing your work not the shareholders.
This is _exactly_ the sort of thing that shouldn't be done by private companies. Private companies will _always_ cut corners and compromise the health and welfare of local citizens. The ones that don't get run out of business by the ones that do. Take a look at dialysis clinics. The private ones have a 25%-30% higher death rate. Google it, it's all over the (independent) news.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I know what the term means, and I am guessing that you read the summary and the article (and perhaps other material on the internet or elsewhere) and have informed yourself...? The employer wanted certain guarantees before agreeing to an informal continuation of the contract, the union refused to give those guarantees - now the employer has to staff the station to mitigate any risk of an immediate walk out, so if they are doing that anyway, why not use that as pressure on the union and tell the workforce their labour is no longer needed?
The union certainly bears some of the blame here - the employer made the decision to "lock out" the workforce, but they are not unilaterally responsible for the situation that has lead to that.
And if that hand that feeds you is paying you less than your worth then you have the ability to cease working for said pay. Is there not a single business owner on this website?
Nuclear power is at the very base of the modern economy. Fossil fuels won't supply our energy needs for long. Renewables can't make up the difference in the short term. We can't afford to dismantle our energy production and ship it off to the third world the same way we did with toy manufacturing.
The Honeywell CEO was on the news just a few days ago saying the only reason US businesses are hoarding cash and aren't hiring is that they don't have "certainty". How could you possibly not have "certainty" in the production of something as basic as nuclear fuel? It has a payback of something like forty-to-one. From a purely material perspective, you'd have to be a complete retard not to make obscene profits in nuclear power.
Of course, the reason US industry doesn't have certainty is obvious: their competitors cheat. Thanks to globalization of trade but not of governance, other countries subsidize their businesses, operate under substandard environmental and labor standards, ignore human rights, and block US businesses from competing fairly. In the mean time, with our free trade and open borders, US consumers are exporting real wealth to developing nations, propping up their growth.
So how can US businesses get "certainty"? There's only one way: by making all competitors operate on the same, level playing field. That means one of two things: either import/export tariffs, or global government.
The downsides to global government should be obvious.
Personally, I think the US will be better off if we choose tariffs. Hell, we could completely seal the borders if we wanted to. We are still the wealthiest nation on Earth. We have more resources per capita than anyone. The US spans nearly every climate zone. We can have a completely self-sufficient, world-class standard of living. In the long term, no other nation could come close. Totally free trade is not in our best interests. The founders knew this, and wrote tariffs right into the Constitution. It is only in recent decades that politicians have sold out this power to the WTO and globalist institutions. It didn't improve the lives or earnings of the average American over the last thirty years. And it's high time for the farce to end.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The only way the shareholders make any money is by paying you less than the full value of your work and keeping the rest for themselves.
Not true. A company could very easily make plenty of money by paying one well above their "full value". It is more about total expenses vs. total revenue.
mr burns and homer simpson
Of course it isn't. Corporations create value by centralization and specialization. This generates risk, which is ultimately transferred to the rest of society when the corporation inevitably fails. The value of individual work is much greater otherwise, than the wages paid by the corporation, due to this transfer of risk.
Parent and GP represent a microcosm of every argument between engineering types. Everything is either a 1 or a 0, and which is which depends on your personal politics. There couldn't possibly be some sort of sweet spot in between...
I've said it before. The idea that the news media has a liberal bias is bullshit. News media has a corporate (and therefore conservative) bias. The bias is often (as in this case) not demonstrated by spin they put on a story, but by the lack of coverage on important issues that the media's sponsors don't want you to hear about.
The workers have been locked out, not locked in.
The only way the shareholders make any money is by paying you less than the full value of your work and keeping the rest for themselves.
You mean they want a return on the capital they put at risk up front, so that I could have a job? How dare they.
If you want to get a bigger return on your wages from a publicly-traded company, buy shares.
If you want the whole pie, then start your own company, with your own money.
~Idarubicin
...ok, you know there is a difference between a lockout and a strike, right? The employer initiates a lockout, the workers/bargaining unit initiates a strike.
So you're saying the plant management should be declared terrorists? I just want to make sure I, and possibly you, understand what you're typing.
That won't happen until there is a release of fissionable materials to the environment ala Deepwater Horizon. Somehow I believe that Haliburton will be implicated.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
What makes some workers think that because they help produce something, they somehow own a part of that product?
Why not simply open your own processing facility if you'd like to own the output.
You can't?
Then please take a healthy spoonful of STFU, and get back to work, or find another job.
Love and kisses,
Chris Christie
The workers didn't choose to quit.
The employer unilaterally decided the workers weren't worth their pay, and isn't letting them come back to work until they capitulate and give the employer everything they want. The people in charge are playing hostage games, not the people who were staffing the plant.
You just described free market. Are you saying the free market is bad?
Basically the workers (union) didn't want to work. The company decided to replace them with people who did want to work and at the rates/benefits the employer wanted to pay. I'm pretty sure the pay rate is above minimum wage and seemingly, temp workers seem happy to be there.
So what's the complaint here?
I'm so angry for at the corporate world that pays me all year long
You should be! The only way the shareholders make any money is by paying you less than the full value of your work and keeping the rest for themselves.
Well said, comrade!
I think unions are a fine thing and every employee ought to have the right to join a union -- and every employer ought to have the right to say "fuck off, you're fired immediately and forever, we will NEVER allow union labor here"
And next time the union will form in secret. It's not like you can control who your employees assemble with in private, right? You won't know about it until the strike.
"Aha!" you say, "I'll fire them all then!" Sure. And next time they won't just strike, they'll lock themselves to their machines.
"But that's illegal!" you exclaim. Sure it is. But who's going to arrest them? In your hypothetical world, what're the odds that you're willing to pay enough in taxes for the police force to be from the upper class? They're most likely worker class folks too, just like your employees (and probably related to them as well). Even if you do manage to get them arrested, what are the odds that they'll be convicted by a jury of their peers? And, even if convicted, why do you think that would matter? People are willing to die to improve the lives of their families - what's a misdemeanor trespassing conviction?
"If I sue them they'll lose everything. That's not protecting their families." you pronounce. What exactly would you sue them for? Their house? Their car? Their retirement savings? In your hypothetical world your workers have none of those, because all of those things became possible because of unions.
Or maybe instead of a sit-in strike, it just so happens that your plant catches fire a few hours after the strike starts and burns down, since the volunteer / worker class firefighters are a bit slow protecting an empty factory. Shucks. One hothead employee gets caught and spends a dime upstate, while his family is the best taken care of in town. Meanwhile you're out of work, too.
In short, your idea has been tried. It failed. Miserably. So something else was tried. It worked at the time. Maybe it's not working as well now, but it hasn't failed yet. If you come up with something better maybe we can try it next.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Oh, and what if you create a safe working environment for your employees, pay them a fair wage, and give them job security in the case of illness or workplace injury?
Then it's not likely your workers would form a union in the first place. Also, you'll be put out of business by the guy down the street who doesn't do any of those things and can undercut your prices - at least until his workers strike.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
At step 2 I would have started shooting.
If the people don't beleive in justice, if there are no fair juries to be had, if we truly live in the mob rule of pure democracy, then I won't shed a tear over dispensing with monsters.
Union initiated violence by far has the worse record in this country.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
some 230 union workers locked out by the company since last June take turns picketing and warning of possible toxic releases into the community while they're not at their jobs. Even in better times, the plant has been a source of concern.
Logic check: The summary laments how terrible it is that some union workers with a bad safety record are locked out of a plant, and are being replaced by workers with a bad safety record.
Hmmm?
So?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Unions are a poor substitute for good management.
Yes, unions have their place to prevent the re-occurance of 19th century labor practices. But two things: Right to Work (no closed shops) must be the rule of the land to prevent inevitable union corruption. Once a union gets large enough (especially in a closed shop), the robbery of ever-increasing union dues by the 'leadership' is a fait accompli. Secondly, based on my experience of working both for the state and private companies, most union leadership falls into two categories: fanatics that even the ghost of Marx would beg them to calm down, and (by far the largest category) sociopaths who are constantly on the lookout for reasons not to actually work, but instead, grieve. Or perhaps more accurately: grief.
It would seem likely that the safety problems that had previously occurred were side effects of having a unionized workforce.
First, the title is very misleading. This is not a nuclear power plant. This is a chemical processing facility, that works with uranium (a fairly stable isotope with a half life of 704 million years). That is a big difference. If you leave a chemical processing facility in a safe condition, it tends to remain in a safe condition. If you walk away from a nuclear power plant that has had any significant power operation, then the decay heat continues to heat the core until it melts or action is taken to remove the heat. The risks of walking out on a chemical processing plant are far less than walking out on a nuclear power plant. This is just another example of yellow journalism, trying to sensationalize a story. Slashdot is better than that.
Next, this is not the only site that produces enriched uranium for use in nuclear power in the United States. As a worker in the industry I personally interviewed at two other site which do this kind of work: USEC inc. and Nuclear Fuel Services. In fact a quick search at www.nrc.gov provides a list of several fuel cycle facilities in the US: www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/fuel-cycle.
dont_forget
That's all true, except that I bet the occasions where someone has started a company just so they could employee people is vanishingly rare.
Nuclear Unions are some of the laziest bunch of scheming SOB's I have ever worked around. Let them lose their jobs and compete with actual working people. Having worked at several nuclear facilities I have found the same unionized craft symptoms of inaction and procrastination till holiday overtime hours are available to pad the pay. let them discover what average working people do for a living, ... work! Safety wise, as with all nuclear facilities, federal law has already mandated passive failsafes into the designs of every facility for at least 3 decades or more by now. So when they talk about there being a sitiation where they 'have to be on the job' to prevent a release, they have probably violated operationg protocals to shortcut the job. When I can walk into a unionized nuclear craft shop and regularly find them sitting around a table playing games I have NO SYMPATHY. Any releases that occur would be from their own lazy inattention to procedure and detail or resulting from their shortcuts. Their blaming non-unionized competition for flawed work is a red herring when they will go out of their way to not support job completion and in effect sabotage the job.
I have had several coworkers who have had endless trouble with nuclear unions refusing to get the job done with threats of grievances if people try to find another way to do the job. Blindly blaming the Corporation when project completion is stymied time and again by the union troublemaking is what has helped kill most nuclear jobs here in the United States. One friend of mine complained that the union crafts gave threats tried to intimidate on of the non-union craft workers because he refused to join the union in a right to work state, ironically this guy was a star performer on the job willing to learn new things.
If we fail to address this issue we might as well shut the plant down for good and buy our fuel from Areva, at least the French have figured out how to operate a sustainable nuclear industry.
the complaint, as I understand it is that baboons with zero training in the skills required for the job (the ones willing to work at the employer's preferred labor rates) are more likely to cause more injuries due to being completely incompetent to operate the equipment that runs at the plant, or handle the materials used in said plan.
Only I can judge you.
He is a shareholder, dumbass.
Yes, we should feverisly try to bite that hand that feeds probably ~70% of the people on this site.
It's easy to feed many with scraps from your table, when you first hoard that much for yourself. Why, you can even give away a loaf or two occasionally (still a drop in your bucket) - then they will call you a "philanthropist".
Let's try this in terms of the real world, not in terms of an industry where people are in short supply. You see in the real world there are an awful lot of people applying for one job, especially now when unemployment in your country is at around 10% and around 7% in mine. Now changing your job is easy in the IT industry where demand tends to outstrip supply. Where supply outstrips demand, and there is no protection for workers, those workers are exploited and can do fuck all about it. Hate your job? Try to find another one which will be just as shit for about the same money or less.
Now in your world making employers to treat employees properly would destroy businesses, but in the century since they were forced to do this didn't happen. In fact the opposite did. They and their employees have done spectacularly well in the last 100 years. Why? Must have been luck.
Who decided to put the nation's only site for refining uranium for eventual use in nuclear power plants in the nations most corrupt state?
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
Your ignorance is astounding...and that's why you would be a complete failure in any attempt to run a business.
At step 2 I would have started shooting.
If the people don't beleive in justice, if there are no fair juries to be had, if we truly live in the mob rule of pure democracy, then I won't shed a tear over dispensing with monsters.
That's been tried too. It failed, miserably. Hint: after a while it's the aristocrats that end up on the receiving end of a bullet, or a large falling blade.
Then the rest of the people would change the law to implement federally guaranteed union powers, and things would be back just like they are now. Except without you complaining about it.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.