Members of the bargaining team for United Steelworkers Local 8378
thought they had a deal April 30 with Schnitzer Steel Industries,
owner of Cascade Steel Rolling Mills in McMinnville. But as this
issue went to press, it appeared to have unraveled.
The previous contract, which had been extended day by day, expired
April 28. Cascade announced it would stop collecting union dues
as of May 4 and start advertising for replacement workers —
a move the union interpreted as a provocation. But then the two
sides reached a tentative agreement after an all-night session with
a federal mediator.
In the tentative agreement, management backed off from its demand
for a wage freeze, and union bargainers agreed to accept annual
increases of 3.5 percent over the four-year contract as part of
a package deal in which both sides made concessions on other issues.
Local 8378 President Joe Mungersaid the 3.5 percent wage offer was
the best the union had seen in 30-some years, but added that some
members weren’t happy with it. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills
is highly profitable right now, and the stock of its parent company,
Schnitzer Steel Industries, is up to $95 a share, double what it
was a year ago.
Besides the annual wage hike, the deal increased starting pay, sick
pay, and life insurance; committed the company to use all existing
employees before contracting out for maintenance, and promised to
bring contractors in-house if they continue for an extended time;
improved safety training and the functioning of the joint labor
management safety committee; extended the company’s production
bonus to workers on light-duty or who work less than full time because
of military obligations; and gave the option of automatic payroll
deduction to members who want to contribute to the union’s
political action fund.
The union didn’t get the increase in the boot allowance it
had sought, and gave up its proposal that the contract continue
if the mill is sold.
The union announced April 30 it would recommend the deal to the
local’s 400-plus members and set a ratification vote for May
9. But shortly before the vote, management said it hadn’t
agreed on one item the union thought it had agreed to. The vote
was canceled, and the two sides scheduled a meeting May 12 to see
if they could resolve the disagreement. At the meeting, management
stuck to its version of the offer. A new date of May 15 was set
for members to vote on management’s last offer; this time,
the union would be recommending a “no” vote. The results
of the vote weren’t known as of press time.
