By Barry Sheppard
SAN FRANCISCO — On March 25, at the beginning of what turned out to be my last shift as an operator at the Unocal oil refinery in northern California, the forewoman told my crew to collect our personal belongings at the end of the shift and report to her. At that time, we would be told if we had a job or not.
Unocal was selling its four refineries in California to another company, Tosco. Unocal terminated all its employees on March 31, and Tosco picked and chose those former workers it wanted to hire.
One by one we were taken into an office and given the news. As one worker was going in, he said, "Dead man walking". When I went in, my forewoman began to read a letter from Tosco saying I wasn't being offered a job. No discussion was allowed, and no reasons were given. She wouldn't even make eye contact.
I turned in my badge, and was escorted out of the plant. Even those who were offered a job were told to go home. I guess they didn't want anyone to talk to the next shift about what transpired.
Along with about 50 others who were not hired, I was put on administrative leave with pay through March 31. Approximately one sixth of the work force was "let go". About the same percentage lost their jobs in another facility in southern California.
Such a drastic reduction was a big blow to the union, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers (OCAW). It is bad not only for those of us who were dropped, but will mean greater hardship for those hired, as Tosco plans to do the same work with a much smaller number of workers.
This can only mean that safety will be compromised, both for those on the job and for the surrounding communities.
It appears that the majority of those sacked were older workers, plus some who were in the militant wing of our local. Many had worked for a long time at Unocal.
I was probably sacked for both reasons. I am 59 years old. But also an article of mine that appeared in Green Left Weekly criticising Tosco and Unocal was posted on the union bulletin board. In addition, I had put out a well-received leaflet that attempted to put pressure on our union negotiating committee not to capitulate to Tosco.
The better organised and not as timid OCAW in southern California did much more organising of the rank and file to fight than my local. The network of union militants was decimated in the firings there.
For some time before the buy-out, OCAW representatives from the four California refineries were negotiating a contract with Tosco. The company refused to negotiate on the basis of our Unocal contract, or on the basis of its contract at another refinery near the one I worked at. They wanted to impose much worse conditions, and succeeded in doing that.
Tosco also insisted on a five-year contract. We have had three-year contracts, and our next one with Unocal was to be in 1999, when most oil companies would be negotiating new contracts with the OCAW.
The five-year contract means the union will not be able to renegotiate any of the onerous terms in its present contract, and can not legally strike in 1999, even if there is a national strike or a strike at other Tosco facilities.
In California, there will be four Tosco plants acquired from Unocal, and one that already existed. Workers at that refinery have a pretty good contract now, but Tosco will be playing hardball there in 1999. Workers at this refinery will be confronted with the fact that if they strike they will be out on a limb, with four other Tosco refineries in California still producing, unable legally to strike.
The failure to win the demand that Tosco hire all Unocal workers and the five-year contract are the worst aspects of the deal. In addition, Tosco plans to reorganise so that operators will have to cover more sections of the refineries, and also do 36 more jobs that used to be done by maintenance people. The contract reads like the charter of a dictatorship, increasing management's prerogatives and decreasing union power.
In the refinery where I worked, Tosco is considering shutting down a section that makes lubricating oil and other products. Workers there then will be on the streets, unless they become qualified to work in another area and have seniority over workers in that area.
Becoming qualified is not easy. Tosco says it will not organise training for anyone. At best, the "lube stream" workers will have to find someone to train them on their own time, and then bump lower seniority workers from their jobs. This will pit lube oil workers against lower seniority workers in other areas.
The statewide negotiating committee recommended that this poor contract be accepted, as did the leadership of OCAW International. As a result of this default of leadership, a majority of the members who did vote accepted the contract.
One member of the state committee told me that it was impossible to win the demand that Tosco hire everyone. This is false. It depends on the relationship of forces, and the union leadership folded without a fight.
Another rumour was that Tosco would shut down permanently the refinery where I worked, and this scared the negotiating committee.
Threatening to shut down plants has been used by many employers to force concessions. But workers have to understand that often the threat is a bluff, in which case knuckling under to it is really stupid. And if the company is really considering shutting down, experience in other industries has demonstrated that the plant most probably will be shut down anyway, even if the workers accept a concessions contract. The decision to shut down is made on the basis of many factors workers don't control, like excess capacity, or outmoded equipment, or market conditions.
In any case, it is better to put up a fight, and lose and be forced to accept a rotten deal than to capitulate without a fight. Could we have won a better contract by fighting? We'll never know.
The complicity of the International OCAW leadership in the affair is troubling from another angle. This leadership talks a good talk when it comes workers' rights, and on social issues like racist or sexist discrimination. It was the main force initiating the embryo Labor Party last summer. But if it counsels capitulation on the ground, as it did, what credibility will it have on other questions?