|
|
June 13th-Australia's IR Laws
Australia's IR Laws are among the World's Worst -ILO Complaint
http://www.actu.asn.au/work_rights/news/1149476490_2410.html
The Australian battle for BHP
The battle for the Pilbara was a battle for workers' rights - the right to belong to a union and the right to bargain collectively.It was a battle fought on the ground and in the courts, at home and abroad, using the same winning strategy as that used by the Maritime Union during the war on the waterfront - struggle on the picket, legal manoeuvres in the courts, union solidarity here and overseas.
The ultimate victory in the Pilbara represents a victory for all workers, the Australian union movement, international labour confederations and, notably, chief strategist ACTU Secretary Greg Combet.
It all began last summer when BHP refused to enter into negotiations with the union for a new collective agreement, instead bribing workers onto individual contracts with up front cash payments of up to $60,000. Workers accepting individual contracts were paid an extra $15,000 a year in pay increases and improved superannuation - inducements described by Julian Burnside, QC, former MUA counsel representing the five unions, as financial 'sweetners'.
Less than half the 1000-strong workforce were deceived by the offer and the ACTU moved in behind the unions.By the New Year the dispute was gaining momentum with national strikes affecting BHP enterprises and shipping and the first pickets halting production at the mine.MUA members joined the struggle (including financially), with 24 hour stoppages at the nation's largest steelworks in Port Kembla, Newcastle, Whyalla and Westernport.
Within days confrontation on the pickets quickly culminating in a pitched battle, after BHP insisted that police forcibly remove men and women by brute force and batons. Many were hospitalised with arm and rib injuries, many more were arrested.This served to strengthen union resolve and support. And on January 20 the five unions involved in the bitter dispute (CFMEU, AMWU, AWU, TWU and CEPU) had issued legal action against BHP in the Federal Court, restraining BHP from offering, inducing or coercing employees to sign individual contracts or become non-union.
The court action also called for equity on the job and the right of employees to a collective agreement. Like the MUA's conspiracy case against Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith and Patrick boss Chris Corrigan, the Federal Court application alleged breaches of the freedom of association provisions of the Workplace Relations Act.Like the MUA, the unions won world backing with the International Transport Workers' Federation announcing it would take action to disrupt BHP iron ore shipments out of Australia. And like the MUA they won the battle on all fronts.
On January 31, the Federal Court delivered a sweeping victory to the ACTU and a severe blow to BHP, also discouraging other companies from attempting to introduce individual contracts. Justice Peter Gray said BHP had arguable discriminated against its unionised workers and that it had illegally offered inducements with the intention of deunionising its operations.
The court ordered the mining multinational to cease offering and entering into individual contracts with its Pilberra workforce. Within hours BHp was prepared to back down and enter into negotiations with the union for a new collective agreement. Diary of a PicketBy an unnamed union member whose identity is withheld to protect him from being victimised by the company.
Monday, January 17: This was our first day on the picket line. We set up about 1600 hours. The first bus arrived at 1730 hours with a land cruiser in the lead and two buses in toe. Four hired goons were in a land cruiser and about 12 scabs on the buses. Standing strong on the picket were about 130 unionists.After about half-an-hour of talking between union officials, police and the goons, the miners still refused to move or be intimidated. So the bus, as well as the goon squad, reversed and tried for another picket line about eight kilometres out of town in the bush. But it was already manned. And about 10-carloads of unionists strengthened our defence by leaving from the main picket line to lend their support. As the goons arrived at the bush picket line one union member proceeded to stop the car and to talk to the driver. But the driver tried unsuccessfully to run him over. With support of all unionists the vehicle was stopped.During this encounter the Great Northern Highwaybetween Pt Headland and Perthwas blocked for about half-an-hour. So the police proceeded to move the goons and the buses on. The buses then drove around Newman for about an hour in something very similar to a Keystone Cops episode. They did not knowing which way to turn or where to go. It was then that the company made the decision to send all the scabs and goons home.
Tuesday, January 18: By 0500 hours, about 130 unionists lined the main picket awaiting the arrival of the buses. So the company manned up about 20 land cruisers with scabs and tried to use snake trails, about 20kilometres out of Newman, to gain entrance to the mine site. Only a handful of these were successful due to the resilience of unionists on the main gate and the sewer/dump gate picket lines. At 1700 hours, around 200 unionists manned several picket lines, about seven in all, leaving the main gate with about 130 unionists. A company land cruiser containing three senior staff people (commonly known as the Three Stooges, at Mt Newman Mining) arrived with a bus following. The driver of the land cruiser pushed the frontline of the picketers back about two-feet level with the 130 unionists manning the main picket line. But the picket stood strong and would not let the vehicle and bus through.Half-an-hour passed with state union officials trying to diffuse the volatile confrontation. But the company refused to back away, even after the police requested a 'cooling off' period to allow discussions between representatives of the picket, the police and the company. BHP's attitude was that they would not enter into any conversations with ANYBODY now, or in the future.It was the company's insistence that police clear the picket that led to the baton charge on peacefully protesting men and women - violence which shocked the nation when shown on national TV the next day.
Wednesday, January 19: During the morning the main picket grew to 220, with about 90 people disbursing to several other pickets throughout the bush and in Newman. The company chose to drive 10 kilometres out of Newman to get 13 scabs in.That night, a senior company representative drove to the main picket and proceeded to hand Ron Keilty (CFMEU Mining and EnergyWAjoint president) his Supreme Court injunction. We already knew what was going to happen and gave Ron a guard of honour as he entered the mine site.
Thursday, January 20: In the morning, about 250 union members and supporters fronted the main picket, with 150 remaining in place while another 100 disbursed to other pickets.With no show by the company and its scabs, the majority of those on the pickets took part in a march through the town. We set off from the main picket to the Maritime Union office in town. Members of the public joined in to show their support, swelling our ranks to more than 300.
Friday, January 21: No show by the company at the picket. But they used the snake trails to get about 10 scabs into the main site.That night marked the end of our four day dispute. Those rostered on went to work with heads held high and their dignity and pride fully intact.Thanks to all the residents and unionists in Newman who came out in support of the cause and also to those throughout Australiawho sent faxes and messages of solidarity lending their support to us.
THE PILBARA IS A REMOTE REGION OF AUSTRALIA.PLEASE LET THE WORKERS THERE KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT ALONE.SEND MESSAGES OF SUPPORT AND SOLIDARITY TO:FACSIMILE: 08 9177 8107EMAIL: troyburton@hotmail.com
WE THE UNDERSIGNED
We the undersigned have read the letter addressed to BHP Iron Ore regarding the "Workers response to Workplace Agreements". We demand BHP stop harassing us both at home and at work to coerce us to sign Workplace Agreements.
We the undersigned would like to respond to the meetings, letters and videos issued by BHP Iron Ore in order to coerce us into signing a Workplace Agreement. BHP Management continually tells the media that we refuse to sign because of pressure from the Union Movement. Yet they fail to ask themselves why we choose the implied pressure of the Union Movement over the extreme pressure being exerted by BHP to sign the Workplace Agreement. The answer is WE ARE the Union Movement. This dispute is being fought and decided by members on the ground. BHP Management needs to ask themselves why we choose to face conflict every time we enter our workplace. BHP Management needs to ask themselves why we tolerate being treated by our employer as the enemy when our only crime has been not to sign a Workplace Agreement.
We do not refuse to sign because of any "Fear Campaign" directed by the Union Movement. We accept the direction of the Union Movement because they are there to support and guide us. We do not refuse to sign because we fear the loss of friends and respect in our Community and workplace. We have lost much already. BHP Management claims that the cost of this dispute is hurting us and that we are not happy with it. Well they are right. We are not happy to lose wages, friends, relationships and harmony in our Community. Our town is divided and our families are feeling the pressure also. We are also aware that the things in life worth fighting for often come at a cost. We are paying that price yet we are still prepared to stand. This is the conviction behind this dispute.
We the undersigned wish to respond to the rhetoric by BHP that it is few voices that are speaking for the masses. The signatures on this petition are proof that this is the voice of the masses. The Union, for us, means collective representation. It means we decide the action we take and consider the consequences of those actions. We are informed, active and organised. We choose representation because we are aware that those of us who dare speak out on issues that are not under the protection of being Shop Stewards or Conveners will be targeted by the Company. We would expect to be sought out, harassed and intimidated. Our Shop Stewards and Conveners are acting under our wishes, not vice-versa. We do not wish for martyrs in this dispute. We expect that our superiors will be under orders to seek out those of us who do speak out, those of us who would be labelled as troublemakers. They will follow those directives, not through choice, but because they are staff. However, this is the basis of this dispute...CHOICE. This choice is already evident in the Workplace Agreement signees who are now silent on issues. Those that have had the audacity to speak out have learnt that "You've signed, you have no choice". There are those of us in this dispute that still have a choice and we choose not to sign a Workplace Agreement and do choose to sign this petition.
We the undersigned would like to respond to the issue of industrial action. BHP tells us that strike action is disappointing and disrupts their business. Yet under current applications BHP are able to send us home for up to 5 shifts if we attend a stop work meeting for longer than 1 hour. Is this not hypocritical? Does BHP want us to strike? It seems they would prefer us to leave. Derek Miller, Vice President Operations, tells us the Conveners were surprised by BHP's protective action. Perhaps they were because this would be the first time BHP has encouraged their employees to strike! Derek Miller also claims it is possible the members were not fully informed that the company could take such action. However, we are aware that BHP will use any tactic available to them in order to turn us away from the collective. It is certainly not beyond BHP to attempt to hurt us financially in the hope that this would encourage us to sign a Workplace Agreement. Is this the choice BHP is offering....to accept or leave?
We the undersigned wish to respond to the applications in excess of 3,500 that BHP Iron Ore received for 60 advertised positions. We, in the E.B.A. are certainly not surprised that people want to work for BHP. We all do as well, for we have good benefits and conditions. Graeme Hunt, President Western Australian Operations, has explained that obviously people are happy to work under the new Workplace Agreements. Of course they are. Those conditions will not change while the majority of us hold out against Workplace Agreements. These conditions were not given to us out of the goodness of the hearts of BHP Management. They were fought for by members of unions over many years. These conditions are not in place to hurt or disrupt the business of BHP. They are in place to protect the workers' safety, security and entitlements.
We the undersigned wish to respond to the letters, memos and notices conveying that BHP will not tolerate any form of harassment or intimidation by either party in this dispute. Yet, we are still receiving letters, memos and are forced into meetings with supervision about Workplace Agreements. The latest effort is a video tape sent to our homes expounding the benefits of signing a Workplace Agreement.
Is this pressure, coercion or intimidation?
We are continually told the Workplace Agreements have increased productivity while the EBA people have not, yet we are still doing the same work for less money. Is this not intimidation and discrimination? After EBA meetings or gatherings, Graeme Hunt often tells the media that he is disappointed; however numbers attending are low in comparison to those that could have attended. Well, what else can he say? While trying to convey to the media that we are some sort of idiot fringe of the union movement, he is hardly going to admit that BHP is losing the battle.
We the undersigned wish to respond to BHP in "Building a better Future" and "Building a high performance organisation".
BHP continually states that their only option in gaining a high performance organisation with their workforce is through the introduction of Workplace Agreements. However, all they need do is look at their productivity increases between the March '99 redundancies and the introduction of Workplace Agreements in November '99. The issuing of V.E.R.'s in March '99 saw BHP appeal to their workforce that they needed a better way of doing business. The workforce responded by increasing productivity at a steady rate. Though issues were still being processed through the normal channels BHP were gaining the changes they asked for. Their workforce was happy but obviously BHP was not, as on November 11, 1999 Workplace Agreements were introduced. BHP stated that change was not happening fast enough and they needed to remove the restrictive procedures that place a handbrake on change. When we take a closer look at these procedures, they are the ones in place to ensure safety, entitlements and work arrangements are protected. Of course BHP tells us that nothing will change!!? This is the flexibility that Graeme Hunt is so proud of from his Workplace Agreement workforce. When there is so little regard for safety, procedures or taking other peoples jobs we do tend to be a little suspicious. We too have had 15 months to observe the evidence of what this new "flexibility" means.
BHP Iron Ore tell us they will respect our wishes not to sign. However, apart from still being bombarded by BHP propaganda, we only need remember the respect they displayed in the original issuing of Workplace Agreements. The workforce was at no time consulted in what they wanted or expected from such an arrangement. It was a take it or leave it offer with refusal by BHP to put into writing the conditions they have absolutely no intention of changing!!??
BHP states that "turf wars" between unions were a major reason for the removal of unions in its Iron Ore division. Yet here they have initiated the biggest turf war in the history of their Iron Ore Operations. This time its between the Unions and Workplace Agreements.
Graeme Hunt states that the Workplace Agreements will have guaranteed rewards for Communities but again he fails to explain how. The fly in - fly out arrangements of Contractors working for BHP have little benefits for the businesses and Community Clubs and Associations in Newman. But of course, once again, BHP has no intention of following that arrangement with the rest of their workforce, not that it's in writing.
We the undersigned are aware that Corporate Australia is watching us. We know there are not only Union Movements, but also individual Union members in workplaces around Australia that support us and pray we hold the line. We concede that the ramifications of our actions will not only be felt by ourselves and fellow Australians, but also by those that come after us, namely our children. We do not wish to be remembered as the generation that gave up the rights of workers in exchange for a little cash. Those rights were too hard won by those that came before us. WE CANNOT give up those rights and conditions in one simple contract that have taken generations to achieve. WE CANNOT give up our right to collective representation and leave individuals to argue their own case. All intellects will agree an individual has no power.
We the undersigned realise that the pressure on us to sign will now increase. Supervision will be under orders to apply that pressure as is now evident in the workplace. They will use all legal means available to them against the Union Movement. BHP will increase their fear campaign on what we are losing and will be likely to lose if we refuse to sign. They will try and divide and isolate us from the collective. They will try and back us into a corner and attempt to convince us that we have little choice, that our Union can do nothing. We are the Union, we are collective and we are prepared to stand.
We the undersigned have signed this petition with the knowledge that there has been no coercion or pressure to sign it. We have signed to express to BHP that we do not wish to sign a Workplace Agreement. We have signed in the knowledge that this document has been written and has had input by Union members on the ground. It has been distributed and discussed with each individual person that has signed, with no organisation, co-ordination or coercion from Shop Stewards or Conveners. There have been no directives from any Union leadership body in the compiling of this document. It has been signed out of strength, loyalty, unity and because each individual has made his/her own informed choice after reading this document.
We the undersigned, petition BHP to respect our choice. If BHP wishes to bypass and ignore the respect that they have promised, then we are prepared to stand. We are strong, we are united and we are determined. We are proud to be collective and WE ARE the undersigned.
BHP Billiton in the Philippines
BHPB Billiton is currently involved in exploring for nickel on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines. Mining activities in the Philippines are highly controversial and often involve strongly and uncompromising opposition from civil society and local communities intent on defending their resources and environments.
BHP Billiton looks set to face the same fate in the Philippines as its latest takeover victim, Western Mining Company, in its efforts to secure mineral resources from Pujada Bay. WMC was prevented from developing the Tampakan project in the Philippines in the 90s after local communites firmly opposed the project.
During the AGM held in London in October this year, Don Argus made a blanket denial of any local opposition to the Pujada Bay Area. He claimed that BHPB staff had been sent to investigate the project and met with the community and confirmed widespread support for the project. However, leading up to the annual general meeting in Sydney, over 800 local residents who received notification of Arguss AGM claims have signed a petition indicating that they are in opposition to the project and calling upon BHP Billitons withdrawal from the Pujada Bay area.
The letter states
"We alarmed by these developments. We are not a mining community. We live in the abudance of Pujada Bay, a protected seascape and landscape and Mt Hamiguitan, another protected area. Unfortunately the area you are planning to invest sits in these very sensitive environment.(sic)"
"This is amid the fact that the majority of the local government units (LGU's) in the covered areas have already passed their respective resolutions vehemently opposing the entry of the mining operations"
Background on Pujuda Bay and the Proposals for Nickel Mining
Evidence suggests that the mining proposals that have been granted are unlawful, but that is only one of a series of issues that make mining in Pujada Bay a problematic proposal. Exploration licenses have been granted in the Pujada Bay area in the Philippines to seven domestic companies under the umbrella of Asiaticus Management Corporation (AMCOR), and it has been reported that BHP Billiton is providing financial and other support to these companies.
Mining on a Fault Line
The Pujada region is delineated in the revised geology of the Philippines as on the Pacific-Cordillera fault line. Two branches of the active fault line flank the watershed on the southwest and the southeast. This area has been subjected to intense seismic activities, making containment of waste highly risky if not impossible. Inside and outside of the areas granted for mining live communities largely dependent upon their natural environment for livelihood.
Local Level Governments Pass Resolutions Against Mining
Approval for the leases was given without consent of two of the three local level government units, contrary to the requirements of the Local Level Government Code. The local level government municipalities of San Isidro and Governor Generso have both opposed the mining activities outright through resolutions passed at council meetings, and it is reported that letters that have recently been sent to the BHP Billiton Chair by the mayors of each of these units stating as much.
Proposals Overlap with Protected Forests In Violation of Philippines Law
The areas granted overlap with protected areas and the habitat of rare species. These protected areas including the Mt. Hamiguitan Range and Wildlife Sanctuary. The sanctuary is home to more or less a hundred hectares of pygmy forests, exotic plants and wild animals. It is the habitat of the Philippine Eagle. Rattan, timber and non-timber products are the sources of community livelihoods and are found here. These areas are closed to mining pursuant to Sec. 19 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, otherwise known as Republic Act 7942 (RA 7942). and this was not disclosed in the application for the leases. The mineral agreements inaccurately, and potentially fraudulently state that There are no rare or unusual plant species which can be affected by the exploration activities… or There are no rare wildlife species of animals which can be affected by the project implementation."
Pujada Bay is also a protected seascape and landscape by virtue of Presidential Proclamation 431. A biodiversity hotspot, it hosts endangered species such as the seacow, sea turtles, and sting rays.
Rivers, Water Supplies and Coastal Subsistence Resources at Risk
The leases overlap the five (5) major drainage systems and watershed found in the Mt. Hamiguitan Range. The major streams either drain towards the Pujada Bay, or the Davao Gulf. These bodies of freshwater are the main source of water supply for domestic use of the community living within the area. Impacts on water supply from exploration near a town called Magum have already led to a backlash and overwhelming opposition to the mining in this area. Pujada Bay is the major source of livelihood of the coastal communities, with thousands of families gaining subsistence livelihood as fishermen.
Growing Opposition in Local Communites
Local community opposition is growing, particularly in the area of Magum where residential water supplies, (coming from the major tributaries of Mt Hamguitan) have already been affected. The locals are complaining that their creek (which provides water supply for domestic use and for domestic animals) is smelling of crude oil. While people in this area had not previously been strongly against the mining, these impacts in the early sages of exploration have turned most of the people against the mining proposals.
800 Strong Petition Calls for BHP Billiton to Pull Out
In response to statements made by Don Argus last month at the AGM in London that there was widespread support for the mining, over 800 residents from across the three municipalities have sent a petition to the company expressing their opposition to the mining activities requesting BHP Billiton to pull out of the project and halt its operations in the region. The petition is presented by farmers and fisherfolk who are dependent on the coastal and marine resources as well as on the forest products on the Pujada Pensinula.
For more information, please contact:
Techa Beaumont
Email Techa Beaumont
Workphone: +61 2 9557 9019
Mobile: +61 409 318 406
BHP Billiton will face a barrage of concerned shareholders when it holds its meeting in Perth today.
The Mineral Policy Institute joins with other concerned shareholders of the company to query whether the companys corporate responsibility rhetoric will ever translate into reality.
BHP Billiton will come under fire for their questionable environmental and social conduct across four continents including:
PHILIPPINES: Their involvement in allegedly unlawful exploration for nickel in Pujada Bay in the Philppines. Earlier this week, BHPB Chairman Don Argus was sent a petition of over 800 signatures of residents in opposition to the mining who are demanding BHPB pull out of the operations. The petition was in response to claims Argus made at the London AGM last month that there was widespread community support for the Pujada Bay mining projects. Exploration licences for the activities supported by BHPB overlap with protected areas and endangered species habitiat in violation of requirements in the Philippines Mining Act, and have been opposed by two out of three local level governments in the region.
COLOMBIA: Failure to address the cases of long suffering communities who were forcibly evicted for the expansion of the El Cerrejon coal mine in Colombia. Dialogue has not progressed since before the last AGM and dispossessed families who have lossed their homes, lands and livelihood are currently scattered all over Northern Columbia living with family and friends as they await compensation and relocation as a result of forced, and in some cases violent, evictions that occurred 5 or more years ago.
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA : Unwilllingness to agree to a 1km safety zone from the rivers in its mining operations in the Southern Coalfields of NSW. After wrecking significant portions of the Cateract, Georges rivers with previous mining activities, the company has submitted proposals to mine at distances of only 30m in some cases. Even BHPBs own consultants say, in the subsidence management plan that was submitted on 18th of October this year that the river and 18 creeks at this site will probably be cracked. This river is a conduit for drinking water in Sydney (via Upper Canal) and Macarthur (via the nearby Macarthur Water Filtration Plant).
INDONESIA: Recent reports that BHPB are going to fight for the right to mine on Gag Island in Indonesia despite an Indonesian Constitutional court ruling that confirmed the dangerousness and negative impacts of open cut mining in protected forest areas and stated that those mines in exploration and feasibility stages must comply with the law banning open cut mining in protected areas.
PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Their broken promises to shareholders in 2001 that they would ensure the Ok Tedi mine would be well managed after their exit. Now catastrophic predictions of acid rock drainage along the Ok Tedi and Fly River systems are likely to exacerbate near life threatening food and water shortages in downstream communities, and leave the river dead for two hundred to three hundred years. A meeting of community representatives in November this year confirmed that, contrary to BHPB's claims, communities did not consent to the terms of BHPBs exit from the mine.
URANIUM, WORLDWIDE: Their entry into the uranium sector and the nuclear cycle which has seen ethical shareholders such as the Uniting Church sell their shares in the company, and includes current plans that drastically expand production and associated environmental impacts of the Roxby Downs uranium mine.
"If BHP Billiton is ever to live up to its claims of corporate responsiblity the company has to address the core issues at its mine sites across the globe. It has to take responsibilty for the mess it has dumped upon surrounding communities, and take meaningful steps to avoid creating further social and environmental harm. Lofty goals and weazel words are one thing, but the signals from their project sites tell the real story and it isn't very pretty," stated Techa Beaumont of the Mineral Policy Institute
Additional information on each of these issues is available on this site
Media Contacts:
In Perth at the AGM: Robin Chapple 0409 379 263
In Sydney (MPI): Techa Beaumont 0409 318 406 or (02) 95567 9019
Nepean Action Group, Caroline Graham 0409 447913
In Indonesia: Igor ONeill +62 81 286 12 286
In PNG : Robin Mokin, Western Province Alliance for Sustainable Livelihood + 675 548 1436
In Phillipines: Meriam Bravante
NAVAJO COAL MINERS
Navajo coal miners walk out in New Mexico (front page) BY FRANCISCO PICADO CRAIG, Colorado-We want the company to respect our Native people, said Ron Peterman, president of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 953, in comments reported by the February 6 Independent, a daily based in Gallup, New Mexico. That is more important than wages. Some 438 workers, 90 percent of whom are Navajo, struck BHP Billiton surface mines in Farmington, New Mexico, at midnight, January 31, when their three-year contract ran out. Our membership decided it was going to fight this time, said picket captain J.D. Arnold in a February 7 telephone interview with the Militant. Miners decided that we need to improve our wages and we needed an acceptable pension plan. The workers are also demanding full benefits for members on military leave, as well as better coverage for Native American healing services, since the current plan covers only a portion of the cost of those services, Arnold said. People said the 20- and 30-cent wage increases of the past are not going to do anymore, he continued. We want our share and we want parity with other miners. Local 953 also represents 200 underground miners in a fourth BHP-owned mine, who ratified a contract in May of last year. The local has represented miners in this area for more than 35 years. This is the first time workers have gone on strike. In a ballot held February 6 and 7, the surface mine workers voted 298-128 to reject the companys latest contract proposal and continue the strike. They turned it down pretty resoundingly, Local 953 business agent Don Looney told the Farmington Daily Times. They just dont think theyre getting any respect. Theyre just not happy with BHP and they think its finally time to stand up to them, he added. The miners have set up picket lines at the entrances of the three surface mines: the San Juan and Navajo mines, which are 16 miles west and 19 miles southwest of Farmington, respectively, and the La Plata mine. BHP Billiton, which is based in Melbourne, Australia, describes itself as the worlds largest diversified resources company, with 35,000 employees working in more than 100 operations in around 20 countries. Company mines produce aluminum, coal, copper, ferro-alloys, iron ore, and titanium. The company reported more than 14 million tons of coal production last year from its four New Mexico mines. BHP exclusively supplies the Arizona Public Services power plant in the Navajo Nation, as well as the P&M power plant in San Juan, New Mexico, according to union leaders. They were trying to take away much of our health insurance, Don Looney told the Militant over the telephone. But we pushed that back. Where we are way behind is in our pension plan and we really need to make some gains on that front. We have members who are in their 50s and for them this is no small question. Retirement benefits are so low, he explained, that retired workers could be forced to work minimum-wage jobs to make ends meet. Unionists told the Militant that support has come from Teamsters Union-organized UPS workers, members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Carpenters Union members, and other working people in the area, who have stopped at the picket lines to donate food, coffee, heaters, and blankets. We need the support and encouragement of brothers and sisters out there, said Looney. Many of our members in the underground mine come to the picket line after they get off work. One of them did a night shift for me, said Arnold. We have also received letters of support and visits by members of the Ute tribe. Our tribal council has also express support, he said. Im most worried about my pension. Theres more things, but thats my main worry, said Shiprock resident Phil Lansing during a protest outside the BHP building on West Arrington last Friday, according to the Farmington Daily Times. Its worth it to strike, said Lansing, who has worked in the mines for 29 years. We are standing strong, no miners have crossed our picket line and we are aware of no scabs, said Arnold. The union leaders asked supporters to send contributions to: Operating Engineers Local 953 at P.O. Box 2127 Kirtland, NM 87417, Tel: (505) 598-6634. Contributions to the miners food bank should be taken to their union hall at 4260 Highway 64 in Kirtland. Meanwhile, BHP Billiton has agreed to a new union contract with 441 miners at the Cerro Colorado copper mine in Chile. After a seven-day strike, the mining giant succumbed to the union demand for higher wages. The miners had rejected a company offer of a 3.9 percent increase, and won instead a 4 percent increase over and above the rate of inflation, along with improved production bonuses. It is a good union agreement-we are going back, said union leader Carlos Valenzuela, quoted in a report on the Bloomberg news service. The strike at Cerro Colorado was the third at a Chilean mine since August, and the second at a mine in Chile controlled by BHP Billiton. Workers at the companys Escondida mine struck for one day in August, forcing management to improve its offer.
|
|
|
