|
UE Presses
New Proposals,
Reiterates
Wage Demand
NEW YORK, June 3 — As bargaining resumed for the third week, the UE committee raised a broad new set of
proposals, covering benefits, union representation and health and safety, as well as issues pertaining to apparatus
service shops. A company presentation called attention to UE progress in negotiating wages in previous contracts. In
response, union members reiterated their determination to win a substantial raise in pay.
The UE committee made further proposals for improvements in benefits covered under Article XXIII. The company should
substantially increase severance pay, the Voluntary Layoff and Retirement bonuses and the Education and Retraining
Allowance, union members said. They pointed out that these benefits are in need of updating—particularly with the
threat of further job losses. Based on the company’s presentation last week, economic trends and company statements,
GE workers can expect these benefits will be used more heavily over the next three years. UE’s Steve Tormey called
attention to CEO Jeffrey Immelt’s statement that the company intends to reduce employment at a 12% annual rate.
"We have to take that threat seriously," he said.
The company’s own data indicates that none of these items are costly, Tormey said, and noted that the Voluntary
Layoff and Retirement bonus benefits represent an insignificant cost to the company. "The Voluntary Layoff and
Retirement bonus may save a younger person’s job," Tormey said. Although increased during the 2000 negotiations,
these benefits are still a "nominal amount," said Patrick Rafferty, Local 506. "I don’t want to
encourage a situation where I represent fewer members, but I do want to see young families protected," he said.
"These bonuses should be increased substantially."
In response, GE’s John Curtin said, "We’ll be looking at improvements in these areas. Our job and income
security package is overall among the best in the industry. This is one of those we hope we won’t have to use too
often, but it does provide assistance."
Commented UE President John Hovis, "We don’t deny it’s a good package but it needs to be improved."
Lower-service workers who lose their jobs are of particular concern because they don’t have the cushion that
longer-service people have, said Pat Rafferty, Local 506. The erosion of the government safety net worsens the plight of
short-service employees, he said. The union committee noted that severance pay for younger workers with up to 15 years’
service who are affected by plant closings remains below that of higher-service workers. UE proposed that this disparity
be rectified.
The union committee proposed that the Individual Development Program (IDP) allowance be raised and that the program
cover any career-related courses under IDP to the maximum allowance even if unrelated to GE employment. That requirement
may have once made sense, but does no longer, as GE careers become more tenuous, suggested Tormey. IDP costs are too low
to merit their own line in company benefits cost data, but are lumped in with various "other plans and
programs" such as the suggestion plan. Altogether they represent little more than half of one percent of payroll.
Marco Coeur, Local 1010, reported that at the Ontario, California jet engine repair facility, the least senior hourly
employee has 21 years—and when workers are laid off, "they have no place to go." After performing this kind
of work for the military and then for GE for 30 or more years, these workers face a major challenge in learning a new
trade. "This package could use a big improvement," he said.
Bob Brown, Local 332, agreed. Workers laid off from the Fort Edward, New York, plant are not young people, and are
often single parents with heavy personal responsibilities. "Preferential Placement stinks, it doesn’t work,"
he said, and with little job opportunities in the area, former GE workers find themselves in minimum-wage jobs.
"This program needs improvements," Brown insisted.
UE members next brought proposals for improving Income Extension Aid (IEA) before the GE representatives. They
proposed that the total amount of IEA should be based on 1.5 times years of service; the minimum benefit be
substantially increased; the waiting week eliminated; and that IEA be untied from unemployment compensation.
"The waiting week is a real problem," suggested Tormey. Given the frequency with which layoffs have wracked
several locations, many workers have lost that week each year, he said. Tormey reminded the company that a week is 2% of
a year—so workers who lost one week’s pay due to the waiting week lost their real (after inflation) wage increase
for the year. "We think this is a very important proposal, one that will help as people hit the pavement," he
said. The union committee responded to GE concerns that their proposals will uncouple IEA from unemployment
compensation.
President Hovis protested that the waiting week has never made sense. "I can see it from the state’s point of
view, in terms of the paperwork. But GE doesn’t need a waiting week, you’ve got the payroll information, you’re
the ones responsible for the layoff." Pat Rafferty, Local 506, pointed out how "ripper" bills have left
Pennsylvania’s unemployment compensation system in a mess. The company’s waiting week hits the laid off twice, he
said. Bob Roberts, IBEW, said the company’s waiting week creates a disparity in treatment, because not all states’
unemployment compensation systems require a waiting week.
The union committee also called for deletion of the next-to-the-last sentence in Article XXIII, Section 2(b)(3),
which would get rid of the IEA offset against severance pay. UE members argued that plant closing announcements are
typically preceded by layoffs. When the plant closes and there is no chance then of recall, why should early victims of
a plant closing be further victimized?
The union members proposed that rate guarantee benefits and Special Placement be extended to those workers indirectly
affected by work transfers. They pointed out that when bumping takes place, there are others who are as directly
affected as those formerly employed in a closed department or on a discontinued product line. "There is no reason
the company shouldn’t afford those benefits to everyone affected by the company’s decision," Pat Rafferty
insisted. GE’s Curtin said the company prefers to limit benefits to the first group impacted. "They’re all
affected," declared Bob Brown, Local 332. "Someone who ends up losing a job is directly affected—and being
lower-service, they’ll find fewer benefits," he said. Tormey noted that a worker without Special Placement may be
worse affected than the "directly" affected.
Overall, Tormey said, "We’re going to try to defend people economically as much as we can and to make job
elimination as expensive for the company as we can."
The UE committee called for the automatic recognition of the union and continuance of the existing contract by the
successor employer in the event of plant sales. Union members also demanded that affected employees be given the option
of taking plant-closing benefits.
UE’s Tormey reviewed a number of GE plant sales over the last two decades which were fraught with difficult
negotiations with new owners, and sometimes later plant closings. The importance of this proposal, he said, is
underscored by the company’s presentation last week, in which GE Vice President Bill Cary forecast the sale of
businesses not reaping double-digit profits, and the tenuous status already of some divisions. "We have very little
interest in a successor clause," responded GE’s Curtin. "We have nothing to do with what the new company
bargains with you. We try to start out with comparable wages and benefits."
Tormey quoted an "interview" with GE benefits specialist Barbara Beckmann, who said that the company
endeavors to make sure that new employers supply a package of benefits similar to that provided by GE. Tormey and Hovis
said this has not been the union’s experience; Curtin said it is longstanding company policy.
Workers who face the sale of their plant should have the option of taking plant-closing benefits, union members said.
"If the successor company offers comparable wages and benefits there should not be a problem of a mass exodus, but
experience shows there’s generally not a bright future for those businesses likely to be sold," Tormey commented.
The UE committee next considered improvements to Article XV, Union and Local Representatives and Stewards. The first
proposal: update the contract language by lowering the threshold for 12 union officials from 5,000 to 2,001 employees
for purposes of layoff deferment and processing grievances. In Erie, the number has fallen below the 5,000 threshold,
while the duties of elected union representatives have arguably increased, the committee said. "The burden has
shifted to the shop floor on things that go far beyond the grievance procedure," said Rafferty. "The stewards’
knowledge of the benefits book is almost as importance as their knowledge of the contract," added Frank Fusco,
Local 506.
The committee called for greater opportunities for GE workers to work for the union by substantially increasing and
liberalizing organizing leaves under Appendix "K" and through the deletion of the outdated phrase "who
represent the Union in labor relations with the Company" in Section 2. Affecting GE workers who take leaves of
absence for union business, this language limits their activities to the GE chain. This might have been practical at one
time, Tormey said, but it’s not practical now. In many other contracts, he said, there is language that allows for
leave to for union activities or office without this kind of restriction, he said. "We need flexibility," said
Rafferty. "We’re merely asking for an opportunity to give people a chance to do what we need them to do,"
said President Hovis.
The union called for company payment to local union executive boards or negotiating committees, under Section
3(a)(2), for up to eight hours a week for any legitimate union business, including Step 3 meetings; currently, the
language limits payment to processing Step 2 grievances. Also, the UE committee called for an increase in paid stewards’
time from 1.5 to 2 hours a week. Union members pointed out that there has been no change in this provision for many
years, many department stewards have experienced an increase in the number of members they represent.
The UE committee raised health and safety issues under Article III, Working Conditions. The union said that at all
large locations, the medical dispensary should be open on a 24-hour basis. In Erie, Frank Fusco of Local 506, pointed
out, after 6 p.m. those with a medical problem have to go to the guard shack. That’s where a determination will be
made if they are to go to the hospital, he said. Lynda Leech, Local 618, spoke from personal experience with the
inadequacy of the on-site medical aid. In Ontario, Bill Wossum, Local 1010, said, workers have to go to a clinic they
refer to as the "dog and cat hospital" — and these incidents are therefore recordable. They wouldn’t be if
workers were treated by nurses on-site. "If it’s a recordable, it’s a recordable," commented GE’s
Curtin.
The union said the company should supply at no cost to employees any required protective equipment or clothing,
including but not limited to safety shoes. The data for the contract term suggests that quite a number of GE workers
have been getting hurt or suffering occupational accidents or illnesses, stated Steve Tormey. At Fort Edward, related
Bob Brown, Local 332, the union had to file a grievance to get protective clothing for welders who sustained burn
injuries and damage to their clothing. GE’s Curtin said the company believes "allowances of this nature are best
handled at the local plant level," as conditions vary. Specific conditions may vary, but when the need is there,
the company has a responsibility to provide assistance, Tormey insisted. And local management has not always been
sympathetic, he added. "Whether they are building locomotives or light bulbs, people either need protective gear or
they don’t," he said. Tormey noted that the union contract covering GE’s plants in Canada has extensive
language on health and safety requiring the company to provide without cost to the employees protective clothing and
equipment and adequate lockers.
UE called for new language under Article IV to insure full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
including the guarantee of "reasonable accommodation" where appropriate. Union members protested that the
company has not been proactive on this issue and instead takes a restrictive view of the need to make reasonable
accommodation. People have been lost in the system as a result. GE’s Curtin assured the union committee that the
company complies with the law when it comes to reasonable accommodation, but UE members were skeptical. Rafferty cited
an Erie case in which a worker out on workers’ compensation could have been placed on four different jobs. However,
the union was never contacted. Tormey argued that the contract shouldn’t be limited to what’s in the law. President
Hovis said that too often local management prefers to take the easier path of ignoring the problem.
The union proposed that right to return to work after illness (guaranteed in Article XII, Section 10) be expanded by
six months, to 18 months in the case of illness and 24 months in the case of a work-related injury or illness. All
leaves under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) should be included in this provision, UE said. These changes, too,
will prevent people from falling through the cracks, union members said.
In the afternoon, the union committee heard a presentation by Daniel Gilbert of the company’s compensation
department. He was accompanied by Ronald Nagle, a retired company compensation specialist. Gilbert reviewed UE wage
rates and charted their growth since the 1991 negotiations. Tormey interjected that the relatively high wage level of UE
members compared with other GE workers is likely due to elimination of lower-paid assembly jobs and emphasis on
high-tech, high-value-added work. Gilbert contrasted UE wages with those of manufacturing and electrical and electronic
equipment manufacturers recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He also examined "roll-up" — the
automatic increases in wage-related benefits. Finally, Gilbert pointed out that the number of contracts with
cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) has declined considerably from a highpoint in 1976.
UE members were underwhelmed by the array of numbers. "With all that," said President Hovis at the
conclusion of the presentation, "the company is still making more than $44,000 in profit per employee." The
wages have gone up, but so has productivity while the numbers of workers have gone down, commented Bob Brown, Local 332.
"We’re making more but we’re doing twice as much work," he said. The key thing, suggested Tormey, is not
how much the company is paying but how many people are being paid. He pointed out that as the number of employees has
declined, so too has GE’s total compensation bill—and a growing portion of that is claimed by exempts.
Tormey objected that the comparisons with all manufacturing companies and with electrical equipment employers are not
appropriate. None of them are close to GE’s position, or to the Fortune 100 companies GE used as a measure when
revising the exempts’ vacation schedule.
GE’s Curtin stated that he could understand that "although union members are doing well, that doesn’t mean
you’re satisfied with your wages. As you mentioned to us, this not a one or two-issue negotiations, there will be
improvements." President Hovis responded that the size of the improvements is "relative" to the company’s
profits and productivity and needs of the people.
If the company took just a billion dollars of the $35 billion it spent over the past three years to buy businesses,
divided that by the approximately 40,000 hourly workers affected by these negotiations, that would be more than $25,000
per person, Tormey said. "We’re fighting about tenths of a percent, about a few pennies and dollars of the
overall GE universe, the billions in stock buybacks, quantities that dwarf anything that we’re haggling about
here," he said. "The company says it doesn’t bargain on the basis of its ability to pay. If it did, we would
be the highest-paid workers in the world."
Pat Rafferty said Local 506 members identified increased wages as a priority for these negotiations. Work in Erie is
not enviable, he said—it’s physically demanding, dirty, and stressful. Erie workers have had to become better
educated in technology and have learned to interface with new hardware and software, under constant pressure. They face
the mid-career pressures of sending their children to higher education and preparing for retirement. "People in
Erie deserve what they have and more—and they are expecting large wage increases," Rafferty said. Lynda Leech,
Local 618, said her bargaining unit has been badly eroded. The remaining members face great emotional and mental
demands, doing the work formerly performed by two or three workers. They are also trying to send their kids to college,
while tending to the needs of elderly parents, sometimes caring for grandchildren.
Tormey stressed the importance the union places on COLA. GE’s Curtin responded that nothing in the presentation was
meant to signal an intention to eliminate COLA. "It does point out the value of COLA, and that GE employees
continue to benefit from it," Curtin said.
The company has repeatedly stated in negotiations that it can "hire anybody," Rafferty noted. Perhaps CEO
Immelt could have been retained at a cheaper rate, but the board chose to reward him. "That’s all we’re asking
for. "You can get another CEO or another drill press operator," he said, but the higher pay recognizes
contributions to the company.
The union advanced several proposals on behalf of apparatus service shop workers. The company should provide for a
daily meal allowance of at least $35 when workers are on outside jobs, or the IRS allowance if higher. The present
minimum is inadequate, Tormey said, and the union’s experience is that management has been "hardnosed" in
bargaining local supplements. Bob Roberts, IBEW, said his union has also been "stonewalled" at the local
level.
The UE committee called for a substantial increase in the safety shoe and tool allowances for apparatus service shop
workers. The union also called for one day off for workers who return from an outside job lasting three weeks or longer.
UE said the company should pay a 10 percent differential on outside jobs where overnight lodging is required. Work
leader pay should be based on the highest rate of employees in a work group, regardless of what shop they are from. Bob
Roberts pointed out that work leaders are derived from an ever-decreasing number of shops; sometimes work leaders do not
make as much as those to whom they are giving direction. Roberts also raised a demand that employees required to be on
call 24 hours be compensated at four hours pay at the applicable rate for holidays and weekends.
Representing the union today were General President John Hovis; UE-GE Conference Board Secretary Steve Tormey; Bob
Brown and David Dennison, Local 332; Frank Fusco and Pat Rafferty, Local 506; Lynda Leech, Local 618; Ed Baran, Local
751; Marco Coeur and Bill Wossum, Local 1010; Jeff Ogg, American Flint Glass Workers Union; and Bob Roberts, IBEW.
|
