[Hoot Gibson]

Union workers by definitiion, are more highly skilled. When clients invest huge sums of capital to build plants, factories, mills, hospitals, schools and the like, they normally prefer the surety that is represented with union construction firms and labor. Getting down off of the soap box for just a minute, I can speak to the matter of unioin built versus non-union built structures from first hand experience. Sometimes, even going in and tearing out structure that failed to meet specifications. I can't imagine anybody allowing a non-union entity to construct a nuclear facility for example. Being able to count on professional craftsmen is the calling card of union labor. It's about training, skill level and management. I have said for years, that we union folks risk too much with our efforts to manipulate the market and legislators. What we can buy, others can certainly up the ante on.

Union members are not more skilled by definition. Maybe that is generally the rule in construction but it is certainly not true in coal mining. Unions have many highly skilled members but they also carry a lot of dead wood that would never be tolerated in a non-union shop. I have not looked at the numbers in a few years, but non-union coal mines operating in similar conditions tended to be much more productive than their union counterparts. Part of the reason was the strict work rules that the BCOA contract required mine operators to follow.

For example, in underground coal mines where continuous miners are used, the skill of the continuous miner operator can make or break an operation. I worked in a mine where the best continuous miner operator was, because of seniority, classified as a continuous miner operator's helper and the only time that he was allowed to run the miner was when the more senior operator was absent. The operator was not incompetent but he was just not nearly as good an operator. Everyday that the operator ran the continuous miner, it cost the company money.

On a surface mining operation, the same is true of the front end loader operator who cleans coal. Some guys have a knack for cleaning coal with a minimal loss of the product and some do not but on union operations, management did not have enough control over the work force to match people to equipment to maximize profits.

I saw the same thing with mechanics and electricians. Men had jobs because of seniority who were far less competent than others having more skill but less seniority. Sometimes mines would set idle for entire shifts until the best man for the job arrived, who might be a second or third shift electrician or mechanic. Union contracts required everybody to be offered overtime on an equal basis, so to call out a more competent electrician would result in a union grievance and likely loss by the company in arbitration.

In my experience, non-union coal miners had equal or superior training to their union counterparts but the loss of companies' right to effectively manage their employees was the biggest factor that accounted for the non-union mines having higher productivity rates.

Maybe Old School can comment on the productivity of UMWA vs. non-union coal mines.