Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, June 13, 1993                   TAG: 9306150371
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: D-3   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: B.R. BROWN
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

WHY ARE MIDWEST MINERS OUT ON STRIKE?

Negotiating a labor contract is like walking a tightrope. Provisions of the contract can favor one side or the other. But if the provisions lean too much in favor of one side then, like the tightrope walker, it will be out of balance and fall.

That's what happened in the negotiations between the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association and the United Mine Workers of America. The tightrope we are walking concerns jobs.

The UMW has demanded that every new coal-mining job be given to UMW miners - even jobs with companies that have never been a part of the national labor contract with the UMW. This demand put the negotiations badly out of balance. Further, it is in excess of what the union agreed to in contracts not negotiated with the BCOA. As a result, there is no agreement, and we have strikes.

BCOA has proposed specific hiring formulas that will offer job opportunities to UMW miners at both union and non-union mines. Not every job. But considerably more than under the old contract.

The old contract required that any company who signed the labor agreement must offer three out of every five jobs to laid-off union miners at its new or expanded mines.

Note two things. First, job opportunities under the old contract were offered only to laid-off miners. Second, the job opportunities provision applied only to companies that signed the national contracts.

That's what makes this BCOA proposal so significant. First, we have proposed to expand the job-opportunities provision to include active workers. Second, BCOA members obtained the authority from its parent companies (who have not signed the national contract) to offer job opportunities to UMW miners at their affiliated companies who are not members of BCOA and that have not signed the contract.

To hear the union tell it, there is no difference between these affiliated companies and BCOA companies. Both, they say, should be bound by the national contract. But in today's modern corporation, that distinction is real. Corporations today exist as a network of affiliated but often independent businesses.

In the coal industry, many corporations own companies that have signed the national contract and whose employees are represented by the UMW, and also own companies that never had a relationship to the UMW or the national contract. Though the union might wish it were otherwise, the fact is that those companies with no relationship to the UMW are under no obligation to offer jobs to union-represented employees.

Thus, the BCOA proposal to expand the number of miners eligible for job offers and to expand the opportunities for jobs to companies not currently part of the national contract represents a real gain for UMW miners.

What we haven't proposed is that every single new job that is created at every mine, union or nonunion, be given to UMW miners. But that is exactly what the union has demanded . . . that every job be a union job! So the negotiations are out of balance, and talks have broken off.

To walk on the tightrope, the union is going to have to restore some balance to the negotiations. Asking for everything won't do it. BCOA has made a jobs proposal that balances job opportunities for UMW miners with job opportunities for others who also may be qualified. Are we willing to negotiate further on the specifics? Absolutely!

Has BCOA asked for anything in return for these new job opportunities? Yes. We have asked for the increased flexibility in contract work-rules that the union has already given to other companies. We asked for this so that BCOA members can improve the efficiencies of their existing mines. Our productivity, on average, still is lower than the rest of the industry. And we have proposed ways to reduce the cost of providing health care under the contract. We are willing to negotiate further on these issues as well.

We must cross the tightrope together. We must keep our balance and get to the other side. But the union must decide if it wants to walk the tightrope or the picket line. My hope is that they will choose to get back up on the tightrope; that they will return to the bargaining table.

B.R. Brown, chairman, president and chief executive officer of CONSOL Inc., is chief negotiator for the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association.