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?

[delirium of disorder]

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. On the Metropolis Honeywell workers in particular, I suggest these two episodes of Labor Express radio. Another good source for labor news is the Industrial Worker, the paper of the IWW.

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?

[vlm]

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?

You fell for the advertising. Sorry. Don't feel bad, a lot of people are paid a lot of money to trick people like you.

This plant just converts semi-refined ore into refined fuel. Before its cooked in the reactor, reactor fuel is about as radioactive and harmful as granite. The Co-60 and Sr-90 and other nasties come from fission, not a fuel for fission. There is no serious radioactive danger from the plant, at least compared to other substances in the plant, such as HF.

The biggest problem they have is containment of hydrofluoric acid. Apparently they have a quite an astounding safety violation history. F-ing bucket chemists. However, that stuff doesn't just leap out of the carboy like a caged animal and burrow into your groundwater, it requires a tech at the lab bench to screw up. Whom by definition is not there during a lockout.

We're not talking about locking the workers out of three mile island during the meltdown. Some of the (paid) clowns in the media trying to rile things up, they might be talking about that, or as close as they can get without libel / slander suits, but that does not by any means make it true.

Reminds me something...

[Jimpqfly]

"Everything is under control, our main Technical Adviser is Homer Simpson."

What they do there

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

Re:Unions in nuclear power industry is a bad combo

[delirium of disorder]

[Citation Needed]
OK Here's some data:
Herbert Abrams’ Short history of occupational health, published in the Journal
of Public Health Policy, says: “It is important to recognize that throughout the often
tragic history of worker health and disease, the worker played a primary role as the basis
of every significant improvement in legislation, factory inspection, compensation,
correction, and prevention.”

Abrams concludes: “Labour unrest, protests, strikes, lawsuits, and catastrophes were vital
catalysts in obtaining action. Organized labour has been the essential factor central to
most workplace health and safety improvements, from the industrial revolution to the
present.”

The Canadian Labour Congress cites a 1993 study done for the Canadian Ministries of
Labour which concludes that union-supported health and safety committees have a
significant "impact in reducing injury rates".

Later studies for the Ontario Workplace Health and Safety Agency “found that 78-79 per
cent of unionized workplaces reported high compliance with health and safety legislation
while only 54-61 per cent of non-unionized workplaces reported such compliance.”

But this isn’t a Canadian phenomenon. US academic Adam Seth Litwin, then with the London School of Economics,
concluded in a review last year of health and safety in UK workplaces that unions
dramatically improve safety in even the most hazardous workplaces.
A non-union office worker was, by Litwin’s calculations, 13 times more likely to suffer
an injury than was a closed-shop union worker on an industrial assembly line.

Even in the US, with a relatively low unionization level of 13 per cent, the effect can be
seen. A 1991 study, using US data, concluded that unions dramatically increased
enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in the manufacturing sector.
Unionized firms had a higher probability of having a health and safety inspection, and
their inspections tended to be more probing, as employees exercised their “walkaround
rights” — the right to accompany a government inspector during a workplace tour.

A 1998 paper provides more evidence of the union safety effect. Researchers who
surveyed over 400 industrial hygienists and safety engineers in New Jersey concluded
“effective strategies for involving workers appear to be conditional on a number of
variables, most importantly on worker activism and the effective use of formal
negotiations.”
The researchers, writing in the Journal of Public Health Policy, add: “Findings are
consistent with studies from both the US and abroad which emphasize the role of unions
in shaping opportunities for effective worker participation."

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:Here's a video from the workers talking about i

[royallthefourth]

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.

Re:Take a guess...

[delirium of disorder]

That's a bit misleading.

I see benefit in collective bargaining, but I am against unions as they have made themselves today.
Why not support unions that are more democratic than the traditional unions? The UE and the IWW are member run and as democratic as possible.

you cannot remain outside of the collective agreement and retain your job.
In most of the US you don't have to join a union to work in a union shop. Now, you have to pay the same costs as dues to support the infrastructure (stewards, negotiators, etc) that benefits you, but you don't have to actually join the union.

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.
Sounds like democracy to me. Hell, why not have automatic elections every year for ALL workplaces where workers can choose which, if any, union they wish to join?

the union can call strike action whenever it likes.
Almost every union contract has a no-strike clause. Strikes tend to happen before a contract (strike for recognition), or after a contract expires.

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.