|
February 25, 2016
The People vs. U.S. Steel
Crisis of Ownership -- U.S. Steel
Declares It No Longer Owns Stelco
The
People
vs.
U.S.
Steel
• Crisis of Ownership -- U.S. Steel Declares It
No Longer Owns Stelco
• Neo-Liberal Free Trade Is the Problem, Not
Cheap Steel from China
• Concessions Are Not Solutions
• U.S. Labor Department Launches Lawsuit
against U.S. Steel Corporation
Iron
Ore
Company
Suspends
Workers
for
Being
Sick
• Company Blames Workers for Problems in Iron
and Steel Sector - Interview, Ron Thomas, President, USW
Local 5795,
Iron Ore Company of Canada, Labrador City
The People vs. U.S. Steel
Crisis of Ownership -- U.S. Steel Declares
It No
Longer Owns Stelco
At this point in time, who owns Stelco? The Stelco
productive property includes mills, material, machinery
and land. U.S. Steel bought Stelco in 2007, but declares it voluntarily
relinquished ownership of the property
a few years ago.
 Ownership of productive forces necessarily
comes with
responsibilities. These responsibilities include
outstanding debts on the property, the responsibilities to produce
social product and meet commitments on
employment, taxes and social issues such as pensions, post-retirement
benefits and environmental cleanup.
Responsibilities of ownership of productive forces arise
in part due to the social nature of the concept
of ownership. Ownership is necessarily rooted in community as otherwise
ownership makes no sense. Without a
community acknowledging ownership of property and establishing it
within a government of laws then ownership
evaporates. If the community does not agree to recognize ownership of a
certain property, then the person or
persons declaring ownership would have to defend their ownership
against the community in one way or another
such as warfare.
To serve their own narrow private interests, those in
control of U.S. Steel say they decided to relinquish
ownership of Stelco eight years after acquiring the productive
property. Those who control USS say that the
Stelco property they say they have relinquished owes them $2.2 billion
and should be liquidated to pay the
debt.
To accomplish their aim of liquidation and payment of
debt, those who control USS put the property Stelco
into bankruptcy protection of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement
Act(CCAA). CCAA acts to serve
monopoly right outside the commercial laws governing ownership and
responsibilities. CCAA is similar to a Wild
West Show where might makes right and those in control dictate what is
what and that is that, outside any
established rule of law, collective agreements and contracts.
If not in CCAA, those in control of USS would have to
prove they legally relinquished ownership of the
property Stelco to some other owners who purchased or were given it,
and who now appear as the registered
owners in law. Deeds and other proof of registered ownership dating
back decades would have to be supplied
showing the actual transactions leading to the current crisis of
ownership.
The Stelco debt USS claims to own would have to be
proven with the proper registration of the debt with the
signatures and independent agreements of those who accepted the debt,
who would have to be the current owners
of Stelco or acting legally on their behalf. Otherwise, if they cannot
prove legally what they are saying with
actual documentation dating back years if not decades, the position of
those who control USS disintegrates into
a complete farce or worse.
 Outside the confines of the
CCAA, the fairy tale
advanced by those in control of U.S. Steel would soon
explode in their faces and be laughed out of commercial court as a
self-serving fabrication with no
justification in law. A legitimate process would have to be undertaken
to transfer the property to a proper
owner, which would include all the rights and responsibilities of
ownership such as certain levels of
production and employment, payment of taxes, outstanding debts and
bills, environmental cleanup and commitments
regarding collective agreements, pensions and post-retirement benefits,
and to governments and public
institutions.
The arguments of those who control U.S. Steel that the
property they own called Stelco owes them money would
be laughed out of commercial court or possibly taken more seriously as
a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud.
At any rate a new direction for the productive property Stelco would
have to arise with the governments taking
a more responsible position to defend the public interest and the
rights of Stelco workers and salaried
employees, and all those in the community and beyond with legitimate
claims on the value steelworkers
produce.
Nothing good can come from the Wild West show in CCAA.
The Stelco and other CCAA cases have brought the
government of laws into disrepute. The workers and their communities
affected by U.S. Steel's deliberate
wrecking of the productive property Stelco are in no mood to sit idly
by while this travesty unfolds without
stern intervention to keep Stelco producing and to hold all those
responsible to account for their crimes
wherever they may live.
The federal and Ontario governments must intervene on
behalf of the people to oppose monopoly right in this
matter and open a path forward to resolve the crisis in a just and
positive way. Stelco can and must keep
producing so that productive value is available to meet the claims of
retirees, active workers and all others
with legitimate claims, and to meet the Canadian economy's apparent
demand for steel.
Down
with the CCAA Farce!
Keep Stelco Producing!
Neo-Liberal Free Trade Is the Problem,
Not Cheap Steel from China
Those who control U.S. Steel are also engaged in a
chauvinist hypocritical campaign to blame the steel crisis on cheap
imported steel from China and
elsewhere. This campaign refuses to address the fact that the U.S.
ruling elite are the most ardent proponents of neoliberal free trade
and all the other practices
that cause recurring economic crises. In fact, they attack any country
that dares to develop an independent economy outside the U.S.-led
imperialist system of
states such as Cuba, the DPRK, Venezuela and others. Just this week,
the U.S. government imposed a fine on a French company for the
so-called crime of
engaging in business with Cuba.
 The U.S. ruling elite want
hegemony over others and
refuse to allow any attempt to develop a new direction for any economy
including the U.S. economy.
Those in control of the U.S. block all attempts to build an economy
based on self-reliance which does not resort to stealing from others
around the world and
trample on rights such as the rights of Canadian steelworkers. The U.S.
ruling elite are adamantly opposed to building a U.S. economy that can
stand on its
own without exploiting other countries and demanding tribute from them
and waging constant wars. Such a modern pro-social economy befits the
advanced
modern forces of production, and could guarantee the rights and
well-being of all its members if only freed from the domination of the
rich and monopoly
right.
The complaints of the U.S. ruling elite against cheap
Chinese steel ring hollow indeed because they are the biggest opponents
of any nation that wishes
to free itself from the domination and control of the global
monopolies. The U.S. imperialists have unleashed predatory war after
predatory war and violent
regime change everywhere to ensure others such as Iraq, Syria, and
Libya do not pursue an independent path free from U.S. domination and
its unjust trading
and other practices.
 Just in the past few years,
the U.S. ruling elite
deliberately flooded the world with fracked oil to wreck the economies
of Russia, Venezuela and others
including Canada. Those who control U.S. Steel were very happy to ride
the U.S. oil fracking hysteria selling the oil sector millions of tons
of tubular and other
types of steel. Now that the 3.5 million barrels per day of new fracked
oil is wrecking havoc around the world including the U.S. oil sector
and depressing the
steel it requires, the great masters of industry deny any
responsibility. It's all the fault of others, they cry, refusing to
look squarely at the mess they have caused
or allow any new pro-social direction. They prefer to do everything
possible to defend their class privilege, attack the working class and
cry foul against others
engaged in the same neoliberal free trade and other destructive
practices.
It's time for a change! It's time for a new direction!
Neoliberal free trade dominated by monopoly right has caused this
crisis. It's time for something different
that upholds public right and guarantees the rights and well-being of
the people and their collective economy.
Concessions Are Not Solutions
 The
U.S. Department of Labor has accused U.S. Steel that its overriding
"time and cost concerns" led directly to the death of two steelworkers
and serious burns to another. "Time and cost concerns" are a focal
point of U.S. Steel's brutal anti-worker "Carnegie Way" campaign to
degrade working
conditions and lower the wages, benefits and pensions of steelworkers
and salaried employees. These attacks are such in Canada that the U.S.
monopoly
has placed its wholly-owned facilities in Hamilton and Nanticoke into
bankruptcy protection of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in
a
reckless
attempt
to
deprive
workers
of their full pensions and
benefits, and deny the legitimate claims of others in the community.
USS has absconded
with lucrative Canadian steel contracts and plans to leave behind its
former competitor Stelco wrecked and near collapse.
The Carnegie Way campaign was launched under the guise
of dealing
with the current crisis in the steel industry throughout the world. In
practice
the Carnegie Way proposes no solution to the crisis but merely shifts
the burden of it onto the working class.
Severe Violator Enforcement Program
TML Daily
notes that because of unresolved issues involving workplace
injuries and deaths, the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed last year to place U.S. Steel
Corp. in the "Severe Violator Enforcement Program for demonstrating
indifference to its OSH Act obligations to provide a safe and healthful
workplace
for employees."
According to the OSHA, the purpose of the program is to
concentrate
"resources on inspecting employers who have demonstrated indifference
to their OSH Act obligations by willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate
violations."
The OSHA said in a March 2015 report, "U.S. Steel Corp.
has been
inspected 14 times by OSHA since 2009 and issued citations for
amputation
hazards, unsafe crane operation, violations associated with flammable
liquids and other hazards. The company has 15 business days from
receipt of its
citations and proposed penalties to comply, request a conference with
OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the independent
Occupational
Safety and Health Review Commission. Proposed penalties total $107,900."
In an incident report last year entitled "U.S. Steel
Corp.'s safety
shortcuts lead to fatal explosion," OSHA blamed USS for the death of
two workers
and serious burns to another citing the company's overriding "time and
cost concerns."
Deaths and Injuries in Alabama
Leo Bridges and Edward Bryant were burned to death in a
fiery explosion in September 2014, in the USS Flux Building, which OSHA
inspectors said, "occurred because U.S. Steel Corp. put workers at
risk, so as not to slow production at its Fairfield (Alabama) facility.
"The three men were opening and closing a malfunctioning
valve on a
furnace at the Fairfield Works when it erupted, and sent Bridges,
Bryant
and a third co-worker to the hospital. Bridges, 61, and Bryant, 53,
died later due to their injuries. The third man was rushed to a burn
trauma unit in
critical condition. Fairfield Works is comprised of both steelmaking
and finishing facilities.
"OSHA inspectors determined that the explosion was
caused by opening
and closing a high-pressure valve that contained oxygen and hydrated
lime.
The men were doing the work while the furnace was operating, as
directed by the department's management."
 In
the report Ramona Morris, OSHA's area director in Birmingham wrote,
"Management knew that attempting to operate the valve while the
furnace was still running placed workers at risk, yet they allowed them
to do it because they didn't want the production line down for hours.
This
employer chose productivity over the safety of its workers, and two
people died as a result of this decision."
The OSHA issued U.S. Steel, "a willful citation for not
developing
and using a procedure to control the hazardous energy to allow workers
to
operate the valves on the furnace while it is in operation. A willful
violation is one committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary
disregard for the
law's requirement, or with plain indifference to worker safety and
health."
The OSHA also issued U.S. Steel seven serious citations,
"for not
developing a procedure to prevent the furnace from releasing hazardous
energy
while workers performed maintenance; missing exit signs; an improperly
installed exit gate; and not training workers to recognize hazardous
conditions
with the oxygen system. A serious violation occurs when there is
substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could
result from a hazard
about which the employer knew or should have known."
U.S. Labor Department Launches Lawsuit
against U.S. Steel Corporation
The U.S. Department of Labor announced in a press
release on
February 22, 2016 the initiation of a lawsuit against U.S. Steel "for
retaliating
against workers reporting workplace injuries."
Government inspectors have charged USS with sanctioning
two workers
for reporting "injuries that may have resulted from worksite incidents
occurring a few days earlier. At the time of the incidents, the
employees were unaware they had suffered injuries, as symptoms did not
develop until
later. When the workers realized and reported their injuries, U.S.
Steel suspended both workers without pay for violating the company's
immediate
reporting policy."
The U.S. Department of Labor lawsuit against U.S. Steel,
"Is seeking
to reverse the disciplinary action taken against these employees and
amend
the company's immediate reporting policy."
The Labor Department said the lawsuit is necessary
because U.S.
Steel has refused to rescind its discipline of the workers or alter or
amend its
policy to give workers time to report injuries.
"U.S. Steel's policy discourages employees from
reporting injuries
for fear of retaliation," said Richard Mendelson, regional
administrator in
Philadelphia for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). "Because workers don't always recognize injuries at the time
they occur,
the policy provides an incentive for employees to not report injuries
once they realize they should, since they are concerned that the timing
of their
report would violate the company's policy and result in some kind of
reprimand," he added.
The press release explains: "Both workers suffered
injuries in
February 2014. On Feb. 12, a full-time utility technician at U.S.
Steel's Clairton Plant,
in Clairton, Pennsylvania, found a small splinter lodged in his thumb
and extracted it himself. He completed his shift without further
incident. Two days
later, his thumb and hand were swollen noticeably, and he received
medical treatment for an infection. When he reported the incident to
his supervisor,
the company imposed a five-day suspension without pay for his violating
the company's policy. U.S. Steel later reduced the suspension to two
days.
"On Feb. 15, a full-time laborer at the company's Irvin
Plant in
West Mifflin, Pa., bumped his head on a low beam. The employee was
wearing
a hardhat and didn't feel any pain or notice any discomfort at the
time. However, several days later, he experienced stiffness in his
right shoulder and
sought medical treatment, which his representative reported to U.S.
Steel as a possible worksite injury. When he met with U.S. Steel's
representative
to discuss the issue, the company suspended him for five days without
pay.
"Both workers filed complaints with the department's
Occupational
Safety and Health Administration alleging that U.S. Steel had suspended
them
in retaliation for reporting workplace injuries. The agency found that
in both cases, the company violated the anti-discrimination provision
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, or Section
11(c), when the company used its immediate reporting policy as a basis
for sanctioning
employees who reported injuries ‘late.'
"To date, U.S. Steel has failed to rescind its
discipline of either
worker in addition to refusing to alter or amend its immediate
reporting policy
to allow for a reasonable period of time for employees to report
worksite injuries.
"Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, the suit seeks the following:
• Enjoining U.S. Steel from violating Section 11(c)(1)
of
the Act.
• Directing the company to rescind and nullify its
immediate reporting policy.
• Permanently enjoining the company from enforcing an
injury or
illness reporting policy that requires employees to report their
workplace injuries
or illnesses earlier than seven calendar days after the injured or ill
employee becomes aware of his or her injury or illness.
• Rescinding the discipline and sanction of the two
employees.
• Directing the company to compensate the complainants
for any, and
all lost wages and benefits including interest, as well as compensatory
damages.
• Directing the company to post notices at all of its
work sites for
60 days stating that it will not discriminate or retaliate against
employees involved
in activities protected by Section 11 (c) of the Act."
Iron Ore Company Suspends Workers for
Being Sick
Company Blames Workers for Problems in
Iron and Steel Sector
- Interview, Ron Thomas, President, USW
Local 5795,
Iron Ore Company of Canada, Labrador City -
Steelworkers at Iron Ore Company of Canada in Labrador
report that close to 100 workers received a 3-day suspension for
missing shifts over the holiday
season. In mid-December, the company issued a memo that stated in part:
"In supporting IOC's survival during the most
challenging time we've seen in decades, you are supporting the
livelihoods of an entire community of family
and friends [...] Employees who miss a shift at this critical time of
year must understand that this choice will have an even greater
negative impact on the
business given the peak vacation at this time. Employees who miss
shifts will be subject to disciplinary measures which, more likely than
not, will result in a
minimum of a three-day suspension."
The IOC operation is managed by Rio Tinto Iron Ore and
is a joint venture between Rio Tinto (58.7 per cent), Mitsubishi (26.2
per cent) and the Labrador
Iron Ore Royalty Income Corp. (15.1 per cent).
TML Daily is publishing below an interview
conducted by Workers' Forum, its supplement, with Ron Thomas,
President of USW
Local 5795 which represents these workers.
Workers' Forum: The Local reports that
close to 100 workers got a 3-day suspension for missing shifts over
holiday season. Can you
tell us more about it?
 Ron Thomas:
Just before Christmas, the
President of the company came in with a statement stating that anybody
missing any time
during Christmas at all for whatever reason will get a 3-day
suspension. That goes against the company's own policy on discipline,
it goes against the Labour Standards Act, which allows you to
have 7
sick or family responsibility days a year, and it goes against our
collective agreement as well
because we have got processes on what you do when you are sick.
Up here in Labrador City,
we had a bad bout of gastro that went around the town and we had some
of our people who got it. Anybody that missed any
shift at all, they were given a 3-day suspension. I can give you an
example. We had one worker that was working and she got an allergic
reaction to something.
They brought her to the hospital up here in town, they put her off for
3 days and then the company gave her a 3-day suspension.
We filed a policy grievance
as soon as we got the memo
and every individual that is getting the suspension has filed their own
separate grievance. We have
our lawyers looking into it. We are also filing an unfair labour
practice.
Recently we have been meeting with members of the
government. We got the government involved. I met with the Premier,
with the Minister responsible
for the Labour Relations Agency and the CEO of the Labour Relations
Agency. We are telling the government that now is the time to step in
and to actually
enforce the Labour Standards Act
on this company. There has not been a response yet, we are still in the
process. Our International has been doing a lot of work.
Our international President Leo Gerard got in touch with officials from
Rio Tinto. We are going to have a meeting soon with all our executives
and all the
company's executives.
WF: That kind of harassment of workers
on a spurious basis has been going on for quite a while now at IOC.
RT: Absolutely. They do not have any
communication with anybody, they just do what they want to do. The
company says it is all
part of cost savings and that we need to make sure that everybody is
working and yet if somebody is legitimately sick and has to go to the
hospital then they
give them a 3-day suspension on top of that. It does not make any
sense. They come out saying we have a huge problem of absenteeism but
our numbers have
not changed since I started working here 25 years ago. The only
difference is that in early 2000 they hired a lot of female workers and
with that you get
maternity leave and they are including that in the figures.
We got so many grievances referred to arbitration, it is
hard to get the cases heard. Almost every single article of the
collective agreement is getting violated.
They do not even look at the collective agreement, they just go ahead
and do what they want to do. I met recently with the Vice-President of
Labour Relations
with IOC. He told me "we can run this company without the union."
In 2015, I have never seen this in the almost 26 years I
have been working here, we had 38 people retire, we had 12 people fired
and we had 54 people
quit. That is telling you something about the problems we are having up
here.
When the Occupational Health and Safety officers came in
to do their tours, they issued directives to the company on cleanliness
and on dust levels, two
big problems there with the health and safety at the plants. We had
another one of our members die of silicosis on January 18 this year.
WF: In its memo, IOC is suggesting you
are putting the company and the community at risk with some kind of
irresponsible behaviour.
What is your take on that ?
RT: They are blaming the workers for
what is happening. Even though we are treated poorly, our workers are
pushing as hard as they
can and even on Christmas we broke a record in one of the areas. Our
members know how bad the markets are and we want that this company
survives but
safety in on the back burner, they are not doing much maintenance and
our members are being treated very poorly.
It is frustrating. Then they keep coming back to us that
we are going to end up like Wabush Mines, they are threatening
everybody (Wabush Mines, also
in Labrador, was closed by U.S. monopoly Cliffs Natural Resources in
2014 — Ed Note). In fact, Rio Tinto is the one with other
companies that
actually drives down the price of iron which we have no control over
but Rio Tinto does.
We still want to work with this company and if they need
to do cost savings we are willing to work with them but they have got
to turn around and start
treating our members fairly. They may be preparing to shut us down but
they can't treat our workers unfairly and put everything else on the
back burner.
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
