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."

Comments

Coverage?

[Trip6]

Locked out since June? This seems newsworthy to me, where is the lame stream media on this story?

Re:Coverage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not disregard, just take in multiple sources and evaluate the truth for yourself.

Sure, unions have issues with corruption (just like every organization of humans ever), but sometimes--perhaps this case is an example--sometimes they actually do fight injustice.

Re:Coverage?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I think he may have suggested that you look at both sides and make up your own mind.

Re:Coverage?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Doesn't take a conspiracy to notice that its "only" 200 temporarily locked out, in an era of multi-thousand permanent downsizings everywhere else.

Except maybe the tiny fact that these 230 workers are being locked out of a nuclear plant with a less than stellar safety record. Who's monitoring the radioactive materials during this lockout?

Funny the government can prevent a union from striking if the industry is considered too important to our nation's infrastructure (eg. Railroads, Air Traffic Controllers), but this same government won't get involved in a labor dispute that may put a community at risk like at a nuclear plant. Funny how government intervention seems to favor the employer and not the employees.

Is that contraversial enough for you?

Re:Coverage?

[psm321]

How about quoting the whole sentence instead of selectively picking the part that makes your point?

If you want good reporting on labor from anything but a business perspective (ie how will this effect share value), you have to look at the media of the labor movement itself, not the corporate owned and controlled mainstream media.

Unions in nuclear power industry is a bad combo

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like if the union workers were to strike, the potential for a lot of damage would be high.

Re:Unions in nuclear power industry is a bad combo

[tangelogee]

Yea, we really need that slavery thing back in order to be able to run things profitably.

If the unions did what they were intended to do, instead of make the process as expensive and cumbersome as possible, I might agree with you.

Re:Unions in nuclear power industry is a bad combo

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually the worst of both worlds.

When (not if) left unchecked, greedy business owners will generally do shit that endangers the people.
When (not if) left unchecked, lazy unions will lower the drive for greatness while costing a shitload of money.
When (not if) left unchecked, government will pretty much screw up anything it touches.

In short, everybody is wrong and there's nothing we can do about it (aside from sitting back, cracking open a cold one, and watching the shit hit the fan). Anyone who tries to convince me different is probably just a shill for the left/right/center/green/pastafarian/anarchist/communist/socialist/libertarian/torry/whig/no-nothing/log-cabin movement(s),

Re:Unions in nuclear power industry is a bad combo

[delirium of disorder]

Union workplaces are, statistically speaking, much safer than non-union workplaces in the same and related industries. When you have a collective bargaining agreement, job security, and an explicit grievance procedure, you aren't afraid to report and fix safety problems. When you're non-union, you have no representation, are underpaid, and can loose your job at any time, so you won't stick your neck out for safety. I would most certainly prefer that nuclear workers (or any power-plant workers for that matter), be union.

Take a guess...

[damn_registrars]

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?

Re:Take a guess...

[jimbolauski]

If only it were that easy to get rid of union control, GM and Chrysler may have fared better.

Re:Take a guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its only illegal because that's the way the Unions bought the laws - make it expensive to switch the workforce wholesale away.

And you think that would be a good thing? If companies could just at will toss their entire workforce to find someone to do it cheaper who may or may not be qualified?

Well, in your world, when all of the jobs are offshored to Indonesia or something, and your fancy Western lifestyle is no longer viable I'm sure you will be quite happy rooting around in the muck and recycling the heavy metals from the computers in India.

I'd rather have some legal protection for Unions that have every greedy cocksucker with an MBA decide to apply their economic gutting as they see fit -- all in the name of profit and executive bonuses. If you have children, I hope they enjoy the world you imagine for them.

Re:Take a guess...

[Richard_at_work]

I see benefit in collective bargaining, but I am against unions as they have made themselves today.

I dislike the fact that in quite a few places if a union gets in at your work place you have to join or quit - you cannot remain outside of the collective agreement and retain your job.

I dislike the fact that in quite a few places a union can call a unionization vote year after year after year until they get in.

I dislike the fact that in quite a few places unionization can stagnate a workforce rather than improve it - seniority based on nothing more than time spent in the job, rather than merit based seniority? What rubbish.

I dislike the fact that the unionized workforce can withdraw their labour at any time, by following certain rules, while the employer has no equal ability - they have to wait until the contract is no longer in force before they have the right to lock out the workforce, while the union can call strike action whenever it likes.

I have seen far far too many examples of unions being the worst of two choices for all involved, I have seen far far too many examples of unions seeking to simply hurt the employer because the employer wouldn't give in to their demands lock stock and barrel.

I'm not an employer, I'm a 31 year old software developer. I have no stake in unions other than my opinion, but what I have seen of modern unions I have, largely, disliked to the extreme.

Maybe I've been improperly influenced by my exposure to union actions (largely the aviation industries woes over the past few years, as aviation is a personal interest of mine - British Airways issues with Unite are particularly disgusting imho), but then I see the same issues outside of my particular circle of interest, so I don't think its that.

And no, I'm not saying its all the workers fault, but their union certainly did fail to come to an agreement, so its not all the employers fault either.

Re:Take a guess...

[damn_registrars]

A little free advice for you here - don't feed that troll. The slashdot conservative mantra around here is "unionz iz teh evol!" and is repeated ad nauseum even when it doesn't relate to the situation. You won't get the conservatives to believe otherwise, regardless of the mountains of evidence you put in front of them; their very existence pivots on that assumption and they can't stand to consider it being even the slightest bit wrong.

Re:Take a guess...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I see benefit in collective bargaining, but I am against unions as they have made themselves today.

I dislike the fact that in quite a few places if a union gets in at your work place you have to join or quit - you cannot remain outside of the collective agreement and retain your job.

A lot of states, including the one I live in, has laws in place that establishes that all shops shall be "open" shops. This means that membership in a union can never be a requirement for a job.

I dislike the fact that in quite a few places a union can call a unionization vote year after year after year until they get in.

The workers are allowed to vote no each and every time. Most of these yearly votes are due to a few disgruntled workers trying to "stick it to the man" and inviting union organizers to meet with the rest of the work force. The work force can still vote no.

I dislike the fact that in quite a few places unionization can stagnate a workforce rather than improve it - seniority based on nothing more than time spent in the job, rather than merit based seniority? What rubbish.

Like it or not this protects more innocent workers than bad. If the employee was not performing his duties well enough then he should have been fired a long time ago. However, a senior employee is more expensive than a new hire so this rule is to prevent economic incentive from being the sole reason for ending an employee's career at a plant.

I dislike the fact that the unionized workforce can withdraw their labour at any time, by following certain rules, while the employer has no equal ability - they have to wait until the contract is no longer in force before they have the right to lock out the workforce, while the union can call strike action whenever it likes.

Not entirely true. Labor has to hold up their end of the collective bargain. An employer can lock out the workforce if there is enough evidence that labor isn't honoring the contract. But you are right, there are a few restrictive contracts that USED to exist that gave workers too much power. Economic realities have forced both sides of the agreement to make compromises. A local union used to have a rule against training for multiple job titles, which meant that if a person didn't show up for work the rest of the manufacturing shift couldn't fill in for the missing worker. That rule hasn't existed in their contract for at least a decade.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have state laws that are ironically named "Right to Work" laws. These laws give the employer the right to fire any employee for any reason with the exception of reasons that unlawfully discriminate against the worker. To make matters worse, the employers in my state are not required to disclose the reason for the termination. This provides legal cover.

I have seen far far too many examples of unions being the worst of two choices for all involved, I have seen far far too many examples of unions seeking to simply hurt the employer because the employer wouldn't give in to their demands lock stock and barrel.

So have I, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. This hurts the union workers more than the company. The company will simply move its plant somewhere else. The union's freedom to determine their working conditions isn't guaranteed to be risk free. This in theory should keep them honest. If the employer can't pull up stakes and take their business elsewhere what incentive is there that keeps the unions "honest"?

Companies risk paying too much for labor and Labor risk asking too much from companies. The point of collective bargaining is to establish a balance between the two. There needs to be a risk associated with giving too much to one side in order to incentivize the negotiations. Otherwise why bother?

Re:Have every last one of them declared terrorists

[Platinum Dragon]

...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.

Re:My Slim Annecdotal Evidence Confirms...

[azalin]

If Honeywell dares to employ untrained/unqualified people in a nuclear power plant they should be prosecuted. And sued. Into oblivion.
I would suggest that every company running potentially dangerous factories should be forced to place their ceo's offices and shareholder meetings directly downwind from said facility.
Where is the FBI when you need them?

Re:Have every last one of them declared terrorists

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.