the story from the other side !

[growler]

this is what uss is saying about the new offer !

open letter to the editor .
We have been following the accounts of our current labour dispute with interest. We were amazed to read recent statements in the media that the leadership of USW Local 8782 had offered a “stand pat” agreement for three years, and that the company’s final offer was full of concessions. Those statements are simply not true, yet consistent with the campaign of misinformation from local union leaders. Union members — our employees — should be able to trust the information coming from their union leaders.

The union’s last proposal included a number of significant economic demands that were not part of the 2010 agreement, including a ratification bonus of $2,500; a 6% increase to RRSP contributions; wage rate increases for all trades; and, a substantially more generous profit sharing plan. It also demanded lump sum payments to pensioners in contravention of an agreement they signed in December 2012. Describing this proposal as a “stand pat deal” is complete fiction.

U. S. Steel Canada seeks nothing more than a competitive agreement that is fair and balanced. Our offer included the roll-in of $1.01 of accumulated Cost of Living Allowances (COLA) to base wage rates. Not a single employee would have made one cent less than they are making today as a result of our company's offer. In fact, most would have received a raise from the revised wage structure that was part of the proposal. Not one employee would have ended up with any fewer days of vacation than they enjoy today and all employees would have received a $2,500 ratification bonus.This offer was hardly a concessionary proposal.

Ultimately, the union leadership is trying to obscure its demand that the present COLA formula be maintained. This formula, using a 1971 base year, results in unwarranted and ridiculous inflation payments that are ultimately rolled into base wage rates. Union leaders argue that changing the base year from one that is 42 years old to 2002 is unreasonable. Frankly, this is an untenable position and a complete corruption of the purpose of a COLA provision.

For the union leadership to take a fundamentally responsible and rational change to the COLA formula that is prospective only and tell our employees how much they would “lose” prospectively if the 1971 base were not continued and then portray our entire offer as “concessionary” is simply disingenuous and wrong.

The represented employees at Lake Erie Works enjoy some of the highest, if not the highest, wage rates among steel manufacturing workers in North America. They could have maintained that status had they accepted our offer. Demonizing the employer as an evil foreign presence that practises bad labour relations does not change that fact. Nor does it change the fact that Stelco, under Canadian management, was driven from business in no small part because of onerous labour agreements.

Our employees need to ask themselves whether they think they are getting the truth from their union leadership. The facts above would suggest otherwise.

Trevor Harris

Director, Government and Public Affairs