Union in BIW strike asks Navy secretary for guidance
Photo / William Hall
On the morning of the strike's first day, June 22, Bath Iron Works employees walked the picket line near the shipyard's entrance on Washington Street.
A month after walking off the job in a dispute over a new contract proposal, strikers at Bath Iron Works are asking the Navy to take a stand on one of the central issues in the negotiations — subcontracting.
The International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers Local S6, representing 4,300 of BIW’s 6,800 employees, launched the strike June 22 after voting overwhelmingly to reject a contract offer from the yard’s owner, Virginia-based defense contractor General Dynamics Corp. (NYSE: GD).
The local’s five-year contract expired June 19. A proposed three-year agreement had been the subject of heated bargaining since May 26, with Local S6 objecting to BIW’s wishes to change job seniority privileges and to use more nonunion subcontractors.
In a June 17 letter, the local’s president asked Navy Secretary Kenneth Braithwaite whether the Navy, BIW’s primary customer, encourages the use of subcontractors.
“[BIW] has made clear, both implicitly and explicitly, that their desire to increase their ability to outsource work is based heavily on the Navy’s strong endorsement of additional subcontracting at BIW,” Chris Wiers wrote in a two-page letter that was later posted on the local’s website.
“It is unclear to the union whether these statements made by representatives of BIW accurately reflect the Navy’s position … I respectfully ask that you respond to this letter with a description of the Navy’s position on this issue.”
It was not immediately clear if Braithwaite had responded to the union’s request.
Local S6 was scheduled to meet Tuesday morning with a federal mediator in the strike, after an initial meeting last week.
Little progress appears to have been made in settling the walkout, the local’s first in 20 years. On July 10, the shipyard filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board claiming the union had violated labor law by threatening members who returned to work.
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments