Brock’s First Appointment Wins Union Praise

Secretary of Labor William E. Brock’s appointment last week of a staunchly liberal, pro-union deputy undersecretary drew cheers from most union leaders and denunciations from conservatives.

Naming longtime United Auto Workers attorney Steve Schlossberg to this key post could be a shrewd move by the Reagan Administration, since it will help reduce some of the harsh attacks by liberals and labor leaders. On the other hand, strong conservatives have so bitterly denounced the appointment that it could backfire.

But, since Schlossberg almost certainly will have no significant effect on basic labor policies, the conservatives’ anger should dissipate. As a result, the move, on balance, will end up being a wise one politically.

There has been increasing opposition to the Administration on labor-related issues, and the appointment of the moderately conservative Brock, a Reagan loyalist, was itself hailed by many labor and management leaders as a move that will diminish some of that dissension.

Labor and liberal groups have attacked the Administration for reductions in enforcement of health and safety laws and the appointment of the extremely conservative Donald Dotson to head the National Labor Relations Board, among other things.

The Administration has also been hurt by the continued legal troubles of former Labor Secretary Raymond J. Donovan, who, after nearly four years of feuding with top labor leaders, resigned March 15 after a New York state judge refused to dismiss larceny and fraud charges against him.

Under Donovan, and at the insistence of key Reagan executives, the Labor Department’s budget has been cut nearly 30% to about $27 billion, and 5,000 department employees have been laid off since Reagan took office.

In addition, the Reagan team has come under what one Administration official called an “incredible outpouring of outrage, even among some conservatives,” against the recent decision by Robert A. Rowland, the Labor Department’s director of national safety and health, not to adopt federal standards requiring clean drinking water and toilet facilities for farm workers.

Brock is said to be considering the removal of Rowland, who owns an estimated $1 million worth of stock in chemical, pharmaceutical, petroleum and agricultural companies. At the request of the House Education and Labor Committee, the federal office of government ethics is looking into possible conflicts of interest.

Brock himself, who has been a U.S. senator and representative as well as special trade representative, is highly regarded by most labor and management leaders as a man of integrity who tries to build bridges between conflicting forces.

Schlossberg was Brock’s first appointment since he was sworn into office April 29. Brock insists that he expects the attorney to be a bridge between the Administration, management and organized labor. But Schlossberg will not be a policy-maker.

Brock has at least six more key appointments to make, and it will be easier to see what course he favors for the department once those choices have been made.

One prospect for the post of assistant labor secretary for policy is Mike Baroody, who was an aide to Brock when he was chairman of the Republican National Committee and is now a deputy assistant in the Reagan White House. That appointment is unlikely to elicit strong feelings from conservatives or liberals.

Some conservatives haven’t been so reticent about Schlossberg. They say his appointment confirms their worst fears about Brock.

“It is a message to the hinterlands of the nation that Brock is turning the Department of Labor into the Department of Organized Labor,” said Reed Larson, head of the anti-union National Right to Work Committee.

Larson said Schlossberg “once referred to us (the committee) as dogs” and noted that Schlossberg has been the lead attorney in a 12-year-old suit filed by unions to stop the committee’s legal arm from helping workers file suits against unions.

The unions argued that the committee is controlled by employers and so is legally barred from representing workers in suits against unions. The case is on appeal, but Schlossberg has withdrawn because he is beginning his new Labor Department job this week.

Steve Antosh, head of the conservative Center for National Labor Policy, said he was “surprised that Secretary Brock has sold out to the dark side of the Force so completely and so quickly” and that Schlossberg is “philosophically opposed to everything that Reagan has stood for.”

But David Demarest, a Brock aide, said that, if Brock does want to build some bridges, “that means collecting a group of individuals that represents a fairly wide spectrum.”

Schlossberg’s job as deputy undersecretary for labor-management relations will be primarily to work with management and labor on collective bargaining relationships, with what he said will be a “strong emphasis on cooperation between the two sides.” He cited as an example of such cooperation--between the United Auto Workers and General Motors--the Saturn small-car project.

Schlossberg said he knows that he is “not going to change the course of this Administration. I will not be working for the (John F.) Kennedy Administration, and I will not make rules.”

Some of Schlossberg’s union friends have warned him that his new role might only soften criticism of the Administration without helping unions or workers.

“I say that is wrong,” Schlossberg said. He contended that workers’ lives are being lost because of inadequate enforcement of laws and that the department is not fulfilling its responsibility to workers. He also said that, because of their feud with Donovan, most top union officials, “who represent millions of American workers,” have not been in Labor Department offices for four years.

“That is a terrible state of affairs. But I know Bill Brock, and I know he will listen to arguments, even if he doesn’t agree with them. That communication is important.”

Schlossberg stressed, however, that “I am not changing any of my principles by accepting this job, and I will not be trying to make unionists into Reaganites.”

Unions Push U.S. Tuna

In an effort to save the 1,400 tuna-canning jobs left in the continental United States, unions have decided to try to help sell tuna canned on Terminal Island.

Boycotting non-union products is a fairly common union tactic, and there had been some talk in labor circles of a boycott of tuna canned in other countries by U.S. companies looking for cheap labor.

But William R. Robertson, secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County AFL-CIO, said that, instead of trying to launch more boycotts, labor will put on a campaign to push C.H.B. Foods’ new brand, American Chunk Light Tuna, canned in the last of the tuna canneries still operating on the U.S. mainland.

The campaign will consist initially of mailings urging members to buy the product and distribution of discount coupons at union meetings.

“We are trying to help because C.H.B. is the only U.S.-based company willing to buck the tide of corporate flight to get cheap labor in Pacific Rim countries,” Robertson said.

Before 1982, there were almost 7,000 workers employed by such companies as Starkist, a division of H. J. Heinz Co.; Castle & Cooke, which has the Bumblebee brand; Ralston Purina, with Chicken of the Sea, and C.H.B. Foods, which for more than 20 years marketed its tuna through other companies.

Because of increased foreign competition and cheaper labor costs in such countries as Thailand, the Philippines and Taiwan, all mainland U.S. canneries except C.H.B.’s on Terminal Island have closed since 1982.

C.H.B. Vice President Bob Allen said his company decided recently to put out its own brand in a red, white and blue, star-studded package. “Even with our higher labor costs, our prices are competitive,” he said.

Members of the United Industrial Workers, an affiliate of the Seafarers International Union, agreed recently to take a pay cut to $6.49 from $7.37 an hour, with a company promise to go back to the old rate within three years and, in addition, to share company profits, if any, with the workers.

Steve Edney, head of the union, said that the wage cutback was part of the workers’ effort to keep some tuna-canning jobs here and that his own union, aided by others, will help push the “Buy American” marketing campaign.

C.H.B.’s canning division, Pan Pacific Fisheries, lost about $3 million last year, but Allen said it hopes to become profitable soon. “The fact that our workers are more productive than the foreigners helps offset their lower wages,” Allen said.

Cannery workers in many other countries earn as little as 50 cents to $3 a day, while workers in American Samoa and Puerto Rico make about half of what the Terminal Island workers get.

Picket Lines at Ralphs

The war of words between the Ralphs supermarket chain and the United Food and Commercial Workers is escalating, with both sides in agreement on only one key point: that the outcome of their argument could have a major effect on the entire Southern California retail food industry.

The union complains that Ralphs has been cutting the workweek for many full-time employees or giving their jobs to workers in categories with lower wages. Ralphs insists that it must make the changes to cut costs.

If Ralphs, which employs about 16,000 workers in 126 stores, wins the argument and other companies follow its lead, all 70,000 workers in the Southern California supermarket industry could be affected.

The union now says it will step up its campaign by setting up “informational” picket lines at Ralphs stores. The first demonstration will be at 10 a.m. Sunday at 3rd and Vermont. Mother’s Day was chosen because “working mothers at Ralphs are among those suffering the brunt of the changes at Ralphs,” said Rick Icaza, head of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770 in Los Angeles.

Eugene Brown, Ralphs’ spokesman, says that the personnel changes it is making are allowed under the current contract and that the dispute should be resolved by arbitration. But he added that, if the union strikes, as it has threatened, the food retailer not only will sue the union for damages for violating its no-strike contract provision but will also permanently replace striking workers.

The union says Ralphs has laid off nearly a thousand workers within the last two years and has threatened to lay off others who refuse to work fewer hours. The workweeks for many employees are being cut to just 16 hours a week, the minimum allowed under the contract.

The union also says Ralphs is giving many food clerks’ jobs, which pay $11.80 an hour, to general-merchandise clerks, who earn about $7.73.

Brown said only 172 workers have been laid off since Jan. 1, 1985, and added that the number of total layoffs over the last two years was not immediately available.

He also said there has been no significant cut in the average number of hours worked. The average was 30.7 hours a week during a sample period last year compared to 30.1 hours for the same period this year, he said.

Brown acknowledged that there has been a major shift of workers into lower-paid categories. In 1981, he said, only 2.1% of Ralphs’ workers were general-merchandise clerks, compared to 12.3% today. In 1981, 50.7% of all employees were in the higher-paid food-clerk category, compared to only 37% now. (The rest are in other job categories, such as clerks’ helpers.)

“There is no doubt that new ground is being broken,” Brown said, because the general-merchandise category has been expanded to include employees in the liquor, bakery and floral departments.

But the union’s Icaza said Ralphs “has taken our willingness to add a few more general-merchandise clerks to help supermarkets compete with non-union liquor stores, for instance, as an excuse for a wholesale reduction of food clerks’ jobs, and that cannot be tolerated.”