Labor Lockout Lingers At Honeywell Nuclear Plant 252
Hugh Pickens writes "Federal News Radio reports that in Metropolis, Illinois, the nation's only site for refining uranium for eventual use in nuclear power plants, some 230 union workers locked out by the company since last June take turns picketing and warning of possible toxic releases into the community while they're not at their jobs. Even in better times, the plant has been a source of concern. In September 2003, toxic hydrogen fluoride was released in an accident. Three months later, seepage of mildly radioactive gas sent four people to the hospital and prompted the evacuation of nearby residents. Now a recent safety inspection by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that temporary workers brought in by Honeywell weren't properly trained and were cheating on tests, and that Honeywell had neglected to report liquids that were released into the air. Metropolis' troubles began last spring when efforts to negotiate a new contract broke down at the Honeywell plant. Honeywell opted not to let the union employees work without a contract, citing the lack of bargaining progress and what it called the union's refusal to agree to provide 24 hours of notice before any strike."
My Slim Annecdotal Evidence Confirms... (Score:4, Informative)
Honeywell didn't train the guys who came to my business to repair the alarm system (they later sold their alarm business).
People showed up with no testing equipment to check for open lines, bad connections, etc.
Re:Coverage? (Score:5, Informative)
If you want good reporting on labor from anything but a business perspective (ie how will this effect share value), you have to look at the media of the labor movement itself, not the corporate owned and controlled mainstream media. On the Metropolis Honeywell workers in particular, I suggest these two [archive.org] episodes [archive.org] of Labor Express radio. Another good source for labor news is the Industrial Worker [iww.org], the paper of the IWW.
Re:Have every last one of them declared terrorists (Score:3, Informative)
The employer unilaterally decided the workers weren't worth their pay, and isn't letting them come back to work until they capitulate and give the employer everything they want. The people in charge are playing hostage games, not the people who were staffing the plant.
What they do there (Score:5, Informative)
They convert uranium ore [globalsecurity.org] -- usually in the form of uranium oxides ("yellow cake") -- into uranium hexafluoride [wikipedia.org] by eventually dissolving it in hydrofluoric acid. That gas is then what gets run through centrifuges [wikipedia.org] or gas diffusion plants to isotopically enrich the U-235. So, it's a lot of messy chemistry (see links) with mildly radioactive materials (uranium isn't strongly radioactive). HF is particularly nasty because although it is a weak acid it reacts with almost anything and it is quite toxic.
Here's a video from the workers talking about it (Score:3, Informative)
See http://blip.tv/file/4535436 [blip.tv]
These guys are hard core and fighting the good fight. Their struggle against corporate greed should be our struggle.
"liquids that were released into the air"?!? (Score:3, Informative)
What did they do, release an aerosol? I hate imprecise reporting.
Anyway, the primary source (the safety report from the NRC) is available from the union local web site [usw7-669.com]. (I confirmed that the same document is available directly from the NRC, but couldn't find a URL that didn't include my personal information.)
Re:Coverage? (Score:5, Informative)
Except maybe the tiny fact that these 230 workers are being locked out of a nuclear plant with a less than stellar safety record. Who's monitoring the radioactive materials during this lockout?
You fell for the advertising. Sorry. Don't feel bad, a lot of people are paid a lot of money to trick people like you.
This plant just converts semi-refined ore into refined fuel. Before its cooked in the reactor, reactor fuel is about as radioactive and harmful as granite. The Co-60 and Sr-90 and other nasties come from fission, not a fuel for fission. There is no serious radioactive danger from the plant, at least compared to other substances in the plant, such as HF.
The biggest problem they have is containment of hydrofluoric acid. Apparently they have a quite an astounding safety violation history. F-ing bucket chemists. However, that stuff doesn't just leap out of the carboy like a caged animal and burrow into your groundwater, it requires a tech at the lab bench to screw up. Whom by definition is not there during a lockout.
We're not talking about locking the workers out of three mile island during the meltdown. Some of the (paid) clowns in the media trying to rile things up, they might be talking about that, or as close as they can get without libel / slander suits, but that does not by any means make it true.
Re:Unions in nuclear power industry is a bad combo (Score:5, Informative)
[Citation Needed]
OK Here's some data:
Herbert Abrams’ Short history of occupational health, published in the Journal
of Public Health Policy, says: “It is important to recognize that throughout the often
tragic history of worker health and disease, the worker played a primary role as the basis
of every significant improvement in legislation, factory inspection, compensation,
correction, and prevention.”
Abrams concludes: “Labour unrest, protests, strikes, lawsuits, and catastrophes were vital
catalysts in obtaining action. Organized labour has been the essential factor central to
most workplace health and safety improvements, from the industrial revolution to the
present.”
The Canadian Labour Congress cites a 1993 study done for the Canadian Ministries of
Labour which concludes that union-supported health and safety committees have a
significant "impact in reducing injury rates".
Later studies for the Ontario Workplace Health and Safety Agency “found that 78-79 per
cent of unionized workplaces reported high compliance with health and safety legislation
while only 54-61 per cent of non-unionized workplaces reported such compliance.”
But this isn’t a Canadian phenomenon. US academic Adam Seth Litwin, then with the London School of Economics,
concluded in a review last year of health and safety in UK workplaces that unions
dramatically improve safety in even the most hazardous workplaces.
A non-union office worker was, by Litwin’s calculations, 13 times more likely to suffer
an injury than was a closed-shop union worker on an industrial assembly line.
Even in the US, with a relatively low unionization level of 13 per cent, the effect can be
seen. A 1991 study, using US data, concluded that unions dramatically increased
enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in the manufacturing sector.
Unionized firms had a higher probability of having a health and safety inspection, and
their inspections tended to be more probing, as employees exercised their “walkaround
rights” — the right to accompany a government inspector during a workplace tour.
A 1998 paper provides more evidence of the union safety effect. Researchers who
surveyed over 400 industrial hygienists and safety engineers in New Jersey concluded
“effective strategies for involving workers appear to be conditional on a number of
variables, most importantly on worker activism and the effective use of formal
negotiations.”
The researchers, writing in the Journal of Public Health Policy, add: “Findings are
consistent with studies from both the US and abroad which emphasize the role of unions
in shaping opportunities for effective worker participation."
It's worth checking both sides info (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps it might be worth you checking both sides' information before coming a conclusion as well? Though I am afraid your line "No thanks - I've had enough of union rhetoric for one life time" suggests you'll only "disregard one sides propaganda in favour of the other sides propaganda".
Sounds like you're both equally at fault here.
Re:Here's a video from the workers talking about i (Score:5, Informative)
I'm so angry for at the corporate world that pays me all year long
You should be! The only way the shareholders make any money is by paying you less than the full value of your work and keeping the rest for themselves.
Re:Take a guess... (Score:5, Informative)
That's a bit misleading.
I see benefit in collective bargaining, but I am against unions as they have made themselves today.
Why not support unions that are more democratic than the traditional unions? The UE and the IWW are member run and as democratic as possible.
you cannot remain outside of the collective agreement and retain your job.
In most of the US you don't have to join a union to work in a union shop. Now, you have to pay the same costs as dues to support the infrastructure (stewards, negotiators, etc) that benefits you, but you don't have to actually join the union.
I dislike the fact that in quite a few places a union can call a unionization vote year after year after year until they get in.
Sounds like democracy to me. Hell, why not have automatic elections every year for ALL workplaces where workers can choose which, if any, union they wish to join?
the union can call strike action whenever it likes.
Almost every union contract has a no-strike clause. Strikes tend to happen before a contract (strike for recognition), or after a contract expires.