Ryan Hosler photo
Dale Letterly (right), member of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150 Task Force and members of Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local 149 picket in front of the Geneva Construction Company on the corner of Indian Trail and Route 25 in Aurora. IUOE Local 150 voted to strike on June 30 in response to delayed contract talks with management.

By David Weese
Staff Writer

After several months of talks that left unions feeling as if management was dragging its feet, and after working for a month without a contract, the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150, voted to strike on June 30, and have filed an Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) complaint against the contractors.
Workers from the Laborers’ District Council of Chicago also walked off the job earlier that day, which means a total of about 15,000 union members are participating in the strike.
The strike has shut down some major road projects, including the resurfacing work on the Eisenhower Expressway and I-290/Route 53. Local 150 spokesman Ed Maher said the strike will affect “a very vast range of projects throughout the 10-county metropolitan area,” including other road construction, sewer, water, schools and hospital projects. Maher says that many more workers are off the job because they are choosing to honor the picket lines.
The two sides are at odds, largely over health benefits. The Mid-America Regional Bargaining Associatoin (MARBA) contends that the unions are asking for pay raises that are simply excessive.
In a letter to its member companies, MARBA said, “At our firms, many of us have laid off staff over the past two years to survive the dramatic drop in project opportunities. Our employees that have remained have suffered cuts in pay and health benefits … Yet despite the economic conditions, the locals of the Chicagoland region are asking for significant raises well in excess of cost-of-living and a continuation of their traditional rich health and retirement plans.”
The unions contend that they are not asking for pay hikes, but instead are seeking to shore up their health benefits funds, which have been dwindling over the past few years. Maher explained that union members who used to work an average of 1,600 hours a year are now only averaging 1,000 hours per year, meaning that the contributions to the benefits fund have dropped dramatically. He said the funds are also suffering due to the effects of inflation.
“Our proposal does not include wage increases over the next three years,” said James Sweeney, president and business manager of IUOE Local 150. “But with health care inflation estimated at 10-12 percent annually over the next three years, we have costs that need to be covered. Local 150 is going to use its reserves to cover the approximate $150 million health care shortfall over the next three years caused by the reduction in hours worked.
“Local 150 members took money out of their pockets to stabilize these funds last year, and now we are using our reserves,” Sweeney said. “We have done our part, and we are asking employers to share the burden. These funds are administered jointly by labor and management, so they have a responsibility as we do to ensure that these funds are stable.
“Contrary to the employers’ rhetoric, we understand full well the pain this economy has caused for construction workers. We are feeding 1,000 families a week with boxes of food. We are covering COBRA payments for 1,200 families who have lost health care coverage. We have spent millions upon millions of dollars to make sure that our members are provided for, so for them to insinuate that we are not aware of the economic conditions is insulting,” Sweeney said.
“We are not seeking to unrealistically increase wages in this difficult economic climate,” said James P. Connolly, business manager of the Laborers’ District Council, “but what they have come to the table with represents a significant cut to our members and jeopardizes the stability of our fringe benefit funds, and we will not settle for that.”
When asked to respond to Sweeney’s statement, MARBA spokesperson Lissa Christman said, “That’s negotiating in the media, and we’re not going to do that. They are more than welcome to bring those comments to the next negotiating session on July 7, but we do not want to negotiate the terms of what they’re asking for in the media.”
Christman said, “Their last offer to MARBA was five percent, five percent over the next three years, so 15 percent. MARBA has countered with one percent for this year, one percent for the second year and one-and-a-quarter percent for the third year, which is much higher than your friends and my friends are even getting. Many people we know haven’t gotten raises in a few years; are taking unpaid furloughs or are unemployed.”
Maher said that the unions have also come down on their original offer in response to MARBA raising their offer.
Maher said that traditionally, labor negotiators will start higher than what they hope to get, and the employer’s negotiators will start lower that what they’re willing to give. “They started at zero, zero and zero,” Maher said, meaning that they were offering no wage or benefit increases over the next three years. “We opened negotiations around five percent [per year], which would have all gone towards benefits. In negotiations, you work your way towards the middle, but because they weren’t willing to sit down and negotiate, we never made it to the middle,” he said. “If they say we’re far apart, it’s because they haven’t spent enough time at the bargaining table.”
“In this tough economy, it’s really tough to do business,” Christman said. “They’re asking for a 15 percent increase in wages and benefits over the next three years. That is much higher than the cost of living increase. We’re not asking for cuts; we’re not asking for concessions, we’re asking for a very modest increase so we can retain the jobs that we have. The jobs that we have are very valuable. We do not want to see anyone lose their job. If there was a great wage increase, it could possibly limit the number of jobs that are out there because cuts have got to come from somewhere. The cost of doing business is expensive. The cost of construction is going up. Where are the cuts going to come from? We don’t want to make any cuts. That’s why we want to sustain the jobs that are there. They are very important jobs to this economy.”

Ryan Hosler photo
Two members of LIUNA Local 149 strike outside of Waubonsee Community College in downtown Aurora, July 2, after IUOE Local 150 voted to strike on June 30. A total of 15,000 workers are affected by this strike, which spans various Chicagoland area projects from construction at Waubonsee to road work on the Eisenhower Expressway.
MARBA Chairman Tom Nordeen said, “Unemployment in the trades is as high as 40 percent, yet MARBA negotiators have been struggling to engage union representatives in an agreement that reflects the reality of the worst economic recession in 80 years. We are all competing for work at prices far below what we were able to secure in years past. But so far, the unions have been unwilling to reconsider their demands for substantial increases in hourly wage packages—15 percent over the next three years—that far exceed cost of living increases and health benefit plans available to the average Illinois worker.
“The hourly increases that the unions have proposed simply do not reflect the truth of what has happened to the industry. And they don’t reflect the reality that these increased costs would ultimately be borne by the taxpayers on publicly funded jobs.”
“It’s a difficult economy, and we understand that,” Maher said, “but the contractors are trying to use that difficult economy to strip us of what we spent decades negotiating for, and we’re not going to do that. We’ve got widows, and we’ve got members and we’ve got retirees who depend on this health care, and we’re fighting for them.”
The former agreement between the unions and the contractors required that the two sides meet three times a week during the 30-day cooling off period after the contract expired, but the groups representing the contractors, MARBA and Excavators, Inc., only made it to the table four times during that period.
“In the contract, it states ‘three times a week on mutually agreed upon dates,’” Christman said. “Of the almost 30 people on MARBA’s side attending these negotiations, coupled with the 10 to 15 or 18 people that they have on their side, it is virtually impossible to schedule 48 people on a mutually agreed upon date. We have met seven times since the beginning of April. We took this very seriously, very early, and started meeting early.”
Christman said that her side would often block-off a half day or an entire day for negotiations, but “mutually agreed upon dates are hard to come by. We are not walking away from negotiations. We always entertain the dates that they want to negotiate on, and we are looking forward to the July 7th date.”
On the last scheduled negotiating day, which was June 28, MARBA showed up at the meeting only to announce that they would not be willing to meet again until July 7, fully aware that the union had a strike vote scheduled for June 30, then left without giving the unions a “last, best, final offer.”
“They literally ran out the back door,” Maher said.
“MARBA did not walk out on the negotiations,” Christman said. “In fact, a negotiations date was floated for July 7, which was mutually agreed upon, so we are above and beyond astounded that they could walk out when they could continue to earn $58 to $68 dollars an hour working while we are still planning on negotiating on July 7.”
The figures Christman gave are somewhat misleading. A letter sent to MARBA members contains a graph illustrating that the figures Christman gives also include all benefits. A worker making the $68 dollar figure she quotes actually earns $45.10 per hour, and those making the $58 figure actually earn $40.03 per hour.
“We’re not at an impasse,” Christman said. “We had another negotiation date set, and we have no idea why they would not want to continue working towards our next negotiation date.” Christman said, “It’s unfortunate that they felt the need to go on strike, because we don’t understand why it’s necessary.”
Maher said, “Now they’re saying, ‘Just wait another ten days.’ No! If you didn’t spend time at the bargaining table when you were supposed to, we’re not going to wait another ten days. There’s got to be a deadline here. You can’t keep stalling. There’s too many jobs on the line, and too many people’s livelihoods on the line. We’re not in the mood for games and neither are our members.”
“We made ourselves available 24 hours a day, and the employers only agreed to meet four times in the entire month,” said Sweeney. “The livelihoods of thousands of working men and women depend on these negotiations, and while we have made ourselves available, the employers are running out the back door of meetings.”
After the strike vote was taken, Sweeney sent a letter to MARBA asking for a meeting before the July 7 date. In that letter, he made it clear that his negotiators would be available throughout the holiday weekend.
“Perhaps the fact that it’s coming up on a holiday weekend is the reason that many contractors will not be available to meet, but the union leadership will be in town this weekend working, and waiting for them to set up a meeting with us,” Maher said.
In a statement released to the press, Sweeney said, “They have not made themselves available to meet with us over the last month, and when they walked out of the last meeting, they dictated a meeting in ten days. The employers wasted a month, and they are now wasting another week. This is no time for games. Why would they want to wait? It is a disservice to the contractors that they represent to let a strike linger on until then.
“Our members are on strike, and we want to get back to negotiating,” Sweeney continued. “Why wait? With so many workers and contractors out of work, both sides should be equally dedicated to negotiating an agreement. We want to meet, but we cannot make them sit down.”
In a somewhat terse response letter, the company rejected Sweeney’s offer. “Late yesterday afternoon, MARBA received a request to meet before the mutually agreed upon negotiation date of July 7, 2010. MARBA will meet with the Laborers Council and Operating Engineers on July 7, and not before.
“In response to head of Operating Engineers Local 150 James Sweeney’s quote, ‘Why wait?’
“Why strike?”
Sweeney responded, “This further supports our charges against the contractors for unfair labor practices. They are simply not attempting to bargain in good faith.
“MARBA has stated in the media that they want everyone to return to work, yet they refuse to negotiate with us for six more days. They are neglecting their responsibility to the contractors they represent to work toward an agreement.
“All those who are affected by this strike want to see progress made in negotiations, and we are being flatly denied in our efforts to get to work on a contract. MARBA wasted the last month by not showing up to negotiate, and now they are wasting another week. They are stalling, and we do not appreciate it.
“If July 7th is the next time that the employers are willing to negotiate, we will be there to meet with them, but it is shameful that they are unwilling to sacrifice their holiday weekend when 15,000 workers’ jobs hang in the balance,” Sweeney said.