The Naples Monitor (Naples, Tex.), Vol. 76, No. 1, Ed. 1 Thursday, July 27, 1961 Page: 8 of 10
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Atlanta Public Library.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Way I See It
At Lone Star Steel
i
€
Mm
'5®
; I
THERE IS NO PRICE TAG ON HONESTY
In several East Texas newspapers, over the sig-
nature of the United Steelworkers of America, there
appeared an advertisement last week captioned as
follows:
"A Good-Faith Proposal to Lone Star Steel — A
$2 MILLION OFFER TO END FAVORITISM"
The advertisement called attention to the fact
that a labor agreement had been signed between
Lone Star Steel Company and the United Steelwork-
ers of America, and it enumerated (1) that the con-
tract assures the company of four years uninterrupt-
ed operations; (2) that it guarantees the same eco-
nomic benefits as all other steelworkers in America,
and i'3) it assures employees the same basic employ-
ment rights enjoyed by all other steelworkers in
America, except one.
The union advertisement continues:
"That one basic right, the issue left unsettled,
is the right of full seniority for those who have
the ability to do a job. That right is all-impor-
tant to the working man in a big industrial plant.
The Steelworkers at Lone Star value it so highly
they have made the most astounding offer in
labor relations history in an honest effort to set-
tle this problem — and pave the way for genuine
labor-management peace."
The advertisement then sets forth that the union
committee had offered during contract negotiations
to pass up the October 1, 1961 scheduled wage in-
crease of 8 cents per hour if the company would elim-
inate "preferred seniority." In brief, the union offer-
ed the company approximately $2,000,000 if it would
do away with certain contractual rights held by more
than 700 of our employees.
As a background for this discussion, it should be
remembered that in 1957, an illegal strike occurred
at the Lone Star plant, a strike which the company
contends was planned, condoned and executed by
union leadership. After a period of time, the 2600
men who violated their contract with the company by
refusing to work were notified that if they failed to
report for duty before a specified deadline, they
would be terminated and their vacant jobs filled with
new employees. Out of a work force of about 3300
bargaining unit workers, something over 700 loyal
employees either remained on the job or returned
to work before the deadline. The 2600 who failed to
report for work were given termination notices as
promised.
The case of the fired employees went to arbitra-
tion, and the arbiter ordered the men returned to
work but without any back pay. The company refus-
ed to accept this order because it penalized the 700
who braved gunfire, dynamite, fist fights, car wrecks,
and all sorts of threats and intimidations while living
up to their contract and while teaming with our non-
bargaining unit personnel to keep the plant operat-
ing.
To protect the interests of these loyal workers,
the company was prepared to go to the courts and
fight for them. The union then agreed to give these
loyal workers ' preferred seniority." It is a written,
binding, legal contract dated July 19, 1958, and sign-
ed by Lone Star Steel Company and the United Steel-
workers of America, David J. McDonald, president.
It gives the approximately 700 loyal employees the
right to hold the jobs they moved up to during the
absence of the illegal strikers.
In the new labor agreement signed just a few
days ago. this '"preferred seniority" contract is recog-
nized and specifically guarantees the 700 loyal em-
ployees that they will hold their present places in
the seniority program.
What the union now proposes to do is to repudi-
ate a contract it made in 1958. It would repudiate a
part of the contract it made only a few days ago. And
in an effort to make the breaking of a contract at-
tractive to management, the union dangles a prize of
$2,000,000 before the company.
Now let's get down to some of the specific points
the union mentions. It says in the union advertise-
ment that the new contract "guarantees the employ-
ees the same economic benefits as all other steel-
workers in America." THIS IS ABSOLUTELY
FALSE. There are a number of steel companies
where wage rates are higher. Among them are Wier-
ton Steel and Armco at Middletown. There are sev-
eral others where the fringe benefits vary from the
Big Steel pattern.
"That one basic right the issue left unsettled,"
the advertisement continues, is another statement
that is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. This issue was settled
by the "preferred seniority" contract signed in 1958,
and re-stated again only last week in the new con-
tract. What is unsettled about it?
The union charges the company with "favorit-
ism." This is wholly false. Preferred seniority was
EARNED by working on the job after others had re-
fused to work. It was awarded by contract agree-
ment. It favors no individual, and treats every em-
ployee who i • entitled to it on exactly the same basis.
A man's employment RECORD determines if he is
entitled to preferred seniority, not the way he parts
his hair, or ties his tie. If, by his preferred senior-
ity, he is entitled to a promotion and fails to perform
the job, he doesn't get the promotion. If he performs
satisfactorily, he keeps the job. Where is there any
favoritism in such a system? There isn't a single em-
ployee who failed to work during the illegal strike
in 1957 who would not today own preferred seniority
if only he had honored his contract and remained on
the job.
The union advertisement reads as follows: "The
company's 'preferred seniority' policy keeps alive
much of the bitterness of the 1957 strike." Is it ONLY
the Company's policy? Did the company arbitrarily
install preferred seniority, or was it bargained for
with the resultant agreement carrying the signatures
of BOTH the company and the union? Isn't it per-
fectly obvious that the company is only insisting that
a contract be ' while the union proposes to break
a contract by enlisting the help of the company?
The union advertisement points out that the
membership voted to ratify the new labor agreement
r.nd the union's so-called "$2,000,000 offer to the
company." The advertisement, however, fails to
mention the fact that while 1036 members voted
"FOR," there were 651 who voted "AGAINST." What
about the 1611 WHO DIDN'T VOTE AT ALL? Thus,
almost half of the bargaining unit members didn't
even bother to vote either way!
The union advertisement points out that the
$2,000,000 is a "saving" to be used for dividends for
stockholders or to apply on the expansic-n program
so badly needed by the company. In a press release
to a Dallas newspaper, Jim Smith, King David Mc-
Donald's hand-picked dictator of Local 4134, is quot-
ed as saying he thinks the company might react fav-
orably to the offer because the company's financial
condition is not too good.
Now, really, Mr. Smith, what is our financial
condition?
At the beginning of 1957, the year of the tragic
illegal strike, our working capital was $33,257,000.
As of June 30. 1961, our working capital had increas-
ed by more than $20,000,000 to $53,696,545. Is that
bad? During the same period, our stockholders'
equity per share jumped from $9.59 to $17.41. And
that is bad, too? Did you know that our six-month
statement just released shows the company to be in
excellent condition, that recently we borrowed $40,-
000,000 for the retiring of our federal government
loan, which incidentally, we had reduced out of earn-
ings from $87,000,000 to $32,000,000. Would it be
reasonable for anyone to lend $40,000,000 to a com-
pany on the verge of bankruptcy?
And. Mr. Smith, before offering Lone Star bribe
No. 2 which was the $2,000,000 deal, bribe No. 1 was
offered by your union's president, Mr. McDonald,
when he threatened to block our loan unless we sign-
ed a contract with his steelworkers' union. Didn't
King David know that our expansion program will
create several hundred new jobs at the plant, or did
he not care?
Just before we signed the new labor agreement,
the union leaders did propose the $2,000,000 deal.
They were advised that the offer was an insult to the
company, that we would not discuss the offer at all,
and that if it was to become a contract issue, nego-
tiations might as well be broken off for good. To us,
the $2,000,000 was an attempted bribe. It was an
effort to alienate the approximately 700 loyal em-
ployees who lived up to their contract and kept the
plant running during an illegal strike. These men
proved their mettle to us. They stood by their com-
pany when the chips were down. Some were beaten,
some had their property destroyed, some (with their
families) were threatened and intimidated. It was a
cruel, merciless treatment they got for simply being
"men of their words." They were ridiculed and
slandered, embarrassed and frightened. But they
didn't come unglued. They stuck, and as a reward
for crossing an illegal picket line that violated a
bona fide contract, they were recognized in an agree-
ment signed by both the company and the union for
their integrity pnd courage. They were permitted to
keep the jobs they so superbly performed during
the illegal strike, and to hold the places of seniority
they moved up to after others quit their jobs.
Two million dollars is a lot of money, an awful
lot. What company wouldn't like to toss that much
money into the cash register? Certainly, Lone Star
would like to earn an additional $2,000,000, but we
don't propose to make it by taking it out of the work-
ing man's pocketbook. The union didn't offer to pay
this money, nor has it suggested cutting union dues
to help share the burden! No, sir, King David and
the Pittsburgh Big Union hasn't offered to pay a
thin dime of the money. Instead, they suggest that
it be taken out of the pay checks of our employees,
not just the dues-paying union members, but ALL
employees in bargaining unit jobs, INCLUDING the
preferred seniority men.
The union ominously says it will leave the offer
on the table until October 1, 1961. It doesn't say
what it will do AFTER October 1, but the threat is
implied just the same. The union says that we must
eliminate "preferred seniority" if we are to have
labor peace, which we've had plenty of during the
past two years when our people worked with NO
CONTRACT. Failing to eliminate "preferred senior-
ity" does the union promise us WAR? If not black-
mail. a blackjack over our heads? Is that what you
mean?
Well, here's our answer boys, real straight, right
down the groove and with no double-talk. Maybe
some of the professional unioneers won't understand,
but the good East Texas employees and neighbors of
Lone Star Steel Company will understand every word
of it.
Lone Star began as a struggling youngster in a
fiercely competitive business. From the very start,
we made a good, honest, reliable product. We backed
our product to the hilt with oir customers, and when
they, the buyers of our product, purchased our goods
they knew they were dealing with a company that
would stand back of everything it sold. We have dili-
gently tried to meet our employees on the same
basis. We pay high wages, we expect high perform-
ance. We offer a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
We deal with our employees honestly, and honestly,
we think they are the greatest crew of steelmen any-
where in the world.
At Lone Star, courage is our birthright, honesty
our hallmark. Not for $2,000,000, nor $20,000,000,
is there a price tag on either!
vwww
I rea
haircu
but I
batch
Come
WWW
Mei
SUI
SWI
LAI
Mei
DRI
I
jE. jB. Qermany, ^President
Lone Star Steel Company
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
The Naples Monitor (Naples, Tex.), Vol. 76, No. 1, Ed. 1 Thursday, July 27, 1961, newspaper, July 27, 1961; Naples, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth390150/m1/8/?q=%221961-07%22: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Atlanta Public Library.