Settlements With 2 Growers Mark Policy Shift by UFW
For many years I’ve tried to guess when--and even whether--some labor dispute or the other would be settled. Those guesses, rarely made in print, have often been wrong because the most unexpected maneuvers can happen suddenly when unions and companies seriously try to negotiate their differences.
Just when an agreement seems impossible, one is reached. Sometimes it comes because of a dramatic, intriguing policy shift by the union, the company or both.
A few years ago, for instance, I guessed--privately--that it would be a cold day during a summer heat wave in the Imperial Valley before Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Workers would settle its particularly bitter battles with two of its largest and seemingly intractable enemies, Sam Andrews’ Sons and Abatti Produce.
My guess was wrong. The growers and the small but world famous farm workers’ union did just that last week. In what seems to be a major policy change, the UFW negotiated two precedent-setting contracts that are called “foot in the door” agreements. Such agreements result in a contract that at least gives written, legal union protections to workers even if its terms are significantly less than the union’s original goal, or even less than provided in other growers’ contracts. Under this foot-in-the-door theory, the union survives to fight later for further gains.
Until now, the UFW’s once firm strategy had been to set contract goals and make as few concessions as possible. Then, after one such agreement was reached, other growers would be expected to copy the first contract. If they didn’t, no agreements were reached.
Chavez’s critics complained that the strategy was an outgrowth of the union’s view of itself as a social, almost religious cause to help all farm workers. Therefore, the UFW set high goals and was willing to fight as long as necessary to win those goals, whether or not the battles resulted in written contracts.
In contrast, a typical union seeks compromises to win contracts and tries, over time, to improve those contracts.
It took almost nine years to reach those two UFW settlements, and they mark a basic shift in the union’s bargaining strategy. Also, they apparently grew out of the growers’ realization that the union was not going to somehow disappear and that they might avoid huge back pay awards to workers in pending legal actions if the contract disputes were settled.
About a year ago, Joe Herman, the Los Angles-based attorney for Sam Andrews’ Sons, made a new proposal. He didn’t expect it to be accepted. When it was, with only minor changes, Herman said he was “absolutely astounded.”
The union’s acceptance of a clearly inferior contract came after nearly a decade of strikes, boycotts and a near-record number of legal actions by the union charging Sam Andrews with a host of unfair, illegal practices against its workers.
The pact provides for no wage hikes for the workers, who average about $7.89 an hour but whose annual income is well below the poverty line.
Even more surprising, the pact, unlike other union contracts, requires no company contributions to some of the union’s hard-won benefit programs such as its Robert F. Kennedy medical plan or its Martin Luther King Jr. educational fund. Nor will the company have to dismiss workers who are not members “in good standing” with the union, such as those who cross picket lines.
Ben Maddox, a UFW officer, said the UFW action was necessary because “it is now almost impossible for us to win any of our legal battles with the company before the (state) Agricultural Labor Relations Board because the agency is now under the control of Gov. (George) Deukmejian and is just a tool of the growers.
“The agency that was set up to protect workers from abuses by their bosses isn’t protecting us any more. We realized our best hope was to get some kind of legal, written contract with the grower, even an inferior one, and seek improvements in it later.”
The grower’s decision to sign a contract was not based on an altruistic desire to do the right thing after so many years of fighting the union. First, the contract includes rarely made major concessions by the union. Also, it may be of significant help to the company in still-pending legal cases because if the company loses them, it could be forced to pay millions of dollars in back pay to present and past employees.
The pact could mitigate--if not eliminate--some of the most serious charges, such as one accusing the firm of refusing to bargain in good faith with the UFW. After all, company attorney Herman notes, there is now a contract that was negotiated with the union, so how can the company be charged with refusal to bargain?
However, Sam Andrews could still lose the legal arguments because the back pay litigation is based on allegations of past illegal actions, not the just concluded contract negotiations.
The other major settlement, with Abatti Produce, apparently represents an even more drastic shift in the union’s policy. Abatti’s attorney, Mel Storms, said the grower’s new contract with the union provides even lower wages than the company offered the union about three years ago.
Also, like the Sam Andrews pact, it does not contain requirements for company contributions to the UFW’s special benefits programs.
And, like Sam Andrews, Abatti’s motive for finally signing a union contract is also the threat of hefty back pay awards. The state farm labor board already has ordered the company to pay back wages to its workers, but Abatti is appealing the board’s ruling.
Thus, for the growers, the contracts could both improve relations with their workers and also set patterns for other growers.
For the union, its shift in contract negotiating strategy could win union contract protection for more workers and also increase the UFW’s dues-paying membership. It should also allow the staff more time to organize non-union workers and to concentrate on its nationwide boycott of California table grapes.
The union is still led by dedicated officers like Chavez who accept no salaries and are given only enough to provide for their housing, food, clothing and transportation. Perhaps, as that idealism is combined with a firm but realistic view of contract negotiations, the sagging fortunes of the still small UFW may be revived.
Strike at USX Likely
It looks as though workers at U.S. Steel Corp., now called USX, may go on strike Aug. 1 for the first time in 26 years. If it happens, a key strike issue could be USX’s refusal to accept a union proposal that has already been agreed to by most other major steel companies.
The United Steelworkers’ other contracts in the industry contain substantial wage cuts and other concessions for the economically strapped industry. In return, the union gets a few benefits such as profit sharing and stock options. But it also gets what the workers regard as a critical mangement concession: The companies will stop virtually all contracting out of work to other firms.
Since 1982, USX has cut its union work force by 56% (down to 21,000) by contracting out to other firms work that had been done by USX’s own employees--a damaging economic body blow to USX workers.
The union’s already negotiated contracts with other steel firms have been praised by executives of those companies. After Bethlehem Chairman Walter F. Williams thanked the union members “for their cooperation and understanding,” he noted especially the contract provision that says: “Work capable of being performed by (Bethlehem union) employees shall be performed by them.”
The provision hardly sounds so onerous that USX would rather take a strike than accept it--unless, of course, USX would callously, if secretly, welcome a shutdown to shrink steel operations that the company says are losing money.
There are more rational ways to deal with such problems and do less damage to USX workers. The giant steel firm might try asking executives of Bethlehem, National, Inland and other major companies that reached agreements without strikes.
