Unions OK Nassco Pact Despite Grumbling

Striking unions approved a 49-month contract with National Steel & Shipbuilding Co. on Thursday, despite complaints from some workers that the agreement does not provide them adequate wage increases and job security.

The six unions that have been on strike against the shipyard since Aug. 10 voted to ratify the contract by a 66% majority. A seventh union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 569, ratified a slightly less favorable contract Aug. 9. The unions, representing a total of about 1,200 workers, had worked without a contract for almost 11 months.

“People felt that it was as good as they were going to get. It’s time to get back to work,” said Peter Zschiesche, business agent for the International Assn. of Machinists, Lodge 389. “I didn’t like it. I never said that it was a great contract.”

Still Earning Less

The agreement calls for journeymen to receive $11.40 an hour, followed by two hourly pay increases of 25 cents each in the final two years of the contract. Unskilled workers’ wages will range from $5.64 an hour to a little more than $7 an hour. Workers could also receive up to $1.20 an hour cost-of-living increases over the life of the contract, which expires in 1992.

Even with the pay raise, workers will still be earning less than when the old contract expired Sept. 30. A few days later, Nassco unilaterally cut wages, from 17% to more than 50%. At the time, journeymen were earning $12.80 an hour and unskilled workers $12.05 an hour. Nassco officials said the cuts were necessary in order for the shipyard to compete with yards on the East and Gulf coasts.

“It’s hard for anybody to accept a wage cut of over one dollar an hour, and in some cases more,” Zschiesche said. “But we had a good struggle. I really think we were on the brink of threatening the life of the company. We didn’t buckle in.”

On Thursday, some workers angrily complained that the company had gotten the upper hand in the contract talks, and even some of the workers who helped negotiate the agreement said they voted against it.

“I hope that we’ve got enough votes to vote it down. I feel that we could have gotten more from the company if the (union) leadership had held out,” said Kenny Johnston, a member of the Ironworkers Union, Local 627, and one of the negotiators.

Pete Cordova, an ironworker and Nassco employee for 16 years, also voted against the contract. Cordova said he did not agree with the unions’ acceptance of a lower-paid “helper” category because he fears the company will use unskilled workers to displace the higher-paid journeymen. Helpers will be assigned to work with ironworkers, carpenters and machinists.

‘Too Many Things Wrong’

“We’re afraid that the company will make these guys do some journeymen’s jobs and they will eventually displace them. . . . There are too many things wrong with this contract. My philosophy is not to run away from the problem. I’m doing my part to change things by turning down this proposal,” Cordova said.

He said ironworkers expressed “mixed sentiments” when they discussed the contract before the vote. All of the votes from the six unions were taken to the machinists union hall in Kearny Mesa and counted. Union officials declined to say whether any locals had rejected the contract.

The contract also includes an early-retirement provision that will allow workers to retire at age 62 rather than 65. This proved attractive to some workers, and union leaders said that as many as 100 are immediately eligible for early retirement.

“I voted to accept it, even though there are many things that I don’t like about the contract,” said machinist James Emerson, who has worked at Nassco almost 10 years. “. . . But the retirement at 62, I love that.”

The agreement also includes a profit-sharing clause that takes effect next year--if Nassco turns a profit. Manuel Ruiz, the Ironworkers Union secretary-treasurer, vowed that the workers will do their part to make the shipyard profitable and suggested that the company shake up its management team.

“We’re going to see how much profit we can generate for the company. . . . But it wasn’t us who were responsible for the $20-million loss. That’s not something that management can pin on us; we didn’t bid for the contracts that ended up a disaster,” he said.

Ruiz was referring to the $20 million in losses Nassco reported for the second quarter of 1988, which the company blamed on cost overruns. Nassco has won only one new construction contract in the past three years. The company now has only a $290-million contract for the AOE, a speedy Navy combat support ship, and a $60-million repair job for two Navy destroyers, which is scheduled to end in November.

Ruiz said striking workers have until next Thursday to report to work or risk losing their jobs. Some were expected to report to work at midnight yesterday for the graveyard shift. The six unions plan to march into the yard together, in a display of solidarity, Tuesday morning to begin the day shift.