pa1778data.pdf
pa1778data.pdf
pa1778data.pdf
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
U.S. STEEL DUQUESNE WORKS<br />
HAER No. PA-115<br />
(Page 40}<br />
The animosity displayed between management representatives<br />
and union officials over the interpretation of Section 2-B at the<br />
Duquesne Works clearly reflected the state of affairs in the<br />
steel industry nationwide. Less than two months after the<br />
pipefitters' wildcat strike at Duquesne, the United Steelworkers<br />
of America struck the entire industry when management<br />
representatives, in an unquestionable reference to Section 2-B,<br />
demanded an end to language that had "frozen inefficiency and<br />
waste in the operation of steel production." Ironically, before<br />
the industry's demands the union's national leadership was<br />
confident that contract negotiations could be conducted<br />
successfully without the need for a strike. Yet, when<br />
management's position became known to the union's rank and file,<br />
the national leadership, in recognition of the members militant<br />
stance on the work practices issue, had no choice but to call a<br />
walkout. The strike, which lasted a record setting 116 days,<br />
ended in a significant victory for the union as Section 2-B<br />
remained in force within the new contract.<br />
Despite the union's victory, tensions over the effect of<br />
Section 2-B continued to haunt labor-management relations<br />
throughout the industry. This was particularly true with regard<br />
to the massive plant shutdowns of the United States Steel<br />
Corporation in the early and mid-1980s. When corporate officials<br />
first announced in 1983 that they would permanently close down a<br />
large number of mills throughout the nation, they stated that the<br />
identity of the mills in question might be determined, to a<br />
greater or lesser degree, by the ability of various local unions<br />
to cooperate with the corporation in developing new work<br />
practices and a new craft system. In response, a number of union<br />
locals throughout the nation, fearing the imminent shut down of<br />
their workplaces, agreed to workforce concessions. Union<br />
representatives at the Clairton Works, for example, agreed to<br />
eliminate sixty jobs by reducing crews at each of the mill's coke<br />
batteries from twenty-one to fifteen workers. The new leverage<br />
U.S. Steel possessed on work practices issue was especially<br />
evident at the Fairfield Works in Birmingham, Alabama. Union<br />
officials there agreed to eliminate all past practices with<br />
respect to manning, crew sizes, and job assignments while giving<br />
management the unilateral right to establish new practices.<br />
U.S. Steel was so pleased with the concessions it gained<br />
from the Fairfield agreement that it became the corporation's<br />
model for negotiating with other mills. Not all local union<br />
officials, however, were willing to make the compromises that<br />
were made at Fairfield. Many were outraged because they believed<br />
^fe Relations Records of the Duquesne Works at the Labor Archives,<br />
University of Pittsburgh.