ANALYSIS
By Stephen Franklin
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 6, 2006
In an era when union victories seem like a mirage, the Laborers Union relied
on an old and well-tested strategy in its dispute with Chicago-area contractors.
The result: The union did better than just staying on its feet, which is usually
not the way these stories end.
It's a simple strategy. The union puts the boss out of business when business is
booming, and the boss begins thinking differently.
The problem is that sometimes the boss is willing to endure the pain, and lately
some unions, having seen previous efforts fail, have not been eager to take that
risk.
But the laborers were. And so, in the midst of a busy summertime construction
season with building cranes swooping everywhere, the Chicago Laborers District
Council struck Thursday, its first walkout in Chicago since 1991.
Dozens of projects across the Chicago area, many of them high-profile ones, were
shut down, and thousands of workers besides the laborers were idled.
But over the weekend, the two sides sat down with federal mediators and agreed
on a four-year contract, not the two-year package proposed by the contractors.
From the union's viewpoint, it got almost everything it wanted.
It won a 7 percent hike in wages and benefits over the term of the contract,
which is the highest percentage increase scored by any Chicago-area building
trades union in the last year, said Robert Bloch, the laborers' attorney.
In terms of dollars and cents, the union will get a $12 hourly increase in wages
and benefits over the four years. Chicago-area laborers currently average $30.15
an hour in wages alone.
Randy Larson, a spokesman for the Mid-America Regional Bargaining Association,
the contractors group that faced the laborers, didn't agree that it was a
victory just for the union.
Larson likened the situation to a war, in which both sides shared in the gains
and losses from their month of negotiations and four-day standoff.
But he didn't deny the significance of the contractors facing a widespread
stoppage during what is typically their busiest season.
"If the contract had expired in November, you might have seen something
different," Larson said.
Union officials, however, weren't the only ones who noticed the payoff from
their strategy. So, too, did Robert Bruno, a labor expert at the University of
Illinois at Chicago.
Bruno was especially intrigued by the willingness of the laborers and other
building trades unions to show some muscle, as well as to inflict economic and
physical discomfort.
"This strike struck me as going against the grain," he said.
More often, Bruno explained, local building trades unions have been willing to
cooperate with city and corporate leaders to show that Chicago works.
But there are other ramifications from the dispute, say labor and business
officials. By winning a higher-than-normal settlement, the Laborers, who are
among the lowest-paid building trades workers, nudged the bar higher for other
Chicago-area construction unions.
Similarly, the union's deal with MARBA affects about 100 contractors that agreed
to have the association represent them. And the repercussions will be felt by
about 900 others who have me-too agreements with the union, said Bloch.
What will happen when contract talks roll around next time?
Will MARBA repeat its tactic of giving the union a contract deadline, and then
saying it cannot bargain beyond that date for their members?
Will Chicago-area building trades unions put aside the divisions in their ranks
and show as much solidarity as they did with the laborers?
One thing is for sure: The laborers won't forget what worked this time.
----------
sfranklin@tribune.com
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune