Union-buster turns campaign around
Service Steel gets every
public benefit, but pays
felons $10 an hour to
cut plate steel for the
military
Apprentice Roofers compete
Aldo Lopez (foreground), Sergio Guerrero, and Owen White compete in
single-ply torch down roofing at the 2012 Northwest Roofers &
Waterproofers Apprenticeship Competition. The event, held May 5, was
hosted by Portland-based Roofers and Waterproofers Local 49.
Apprentices competed in a variety of timed tasks, and were scored
according to quality of work. In addition to single ply, apprentices
competed in built up roofing, hand-nailing shingles, and an obstacle
course that comprised all of the above skills. In the intermediate level,
Daniel Bogatko won in the categories of single-ply and built up roofing.
Igor Bogatko won hand-nailing with a perfect score of 100. In the advance
category, Ryan Slipher won in all three events — built up roofing, hand-
nailing, and single-ply. He also was the overall winner. Other Local 49
apprentices competing were Alex Aguilar, Arturo Pena, Daniel Zurita,
and Harold Blackwolf. The Roofers apprenticeship coordinator is Clint
Mapes. The Portland training center currently has 265 apprentices in the
program, under the tutelage of 13 journey-level instructors.
MAY 18, 2012
Sheet Metal Workers Local 16 had
support from a majority of workers
when, on March 27, it petitioned the
National Labor Relations Board for a
union election at Service Steel, a Swan
Island steel processor, and its labor con-
tractor, Aerotek. But Aerotek hired out-
side consultants and ran a by-the-book
anti-union campaign. When the elec-
tion was held May 10, the result was a
43-90 defeat for the union.
That’s despite the fact that when or-
ganizers talked with workers, the pic-
ture that emerged was of an employer
that keeps the rewards for its owners,
while getting every public benefit.
Service Steel’s Swan Island factory
is located in a state-defined “Enterprise
Zone,” in which capital improvements
get a property tax abatement. Its biggest
contract comes courtesy of the U.S.
military — a five-year, roughly $60
million deal with Oshkosh in which
Service Steel makes armor plate for
U.S. military vehicles. When Service
Steel got that contract in January 2011,
the State of Oregon stepped up with a
NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS
“forgivable” loan of $150,000 from the
Governor’s Strategic Reserve Fund, so
that the company could buy new equip-
ment valued at close to $1 million. In
return for that help, the state agency
known as Business Oregon announced,
Service Steel agreed to “remain” in
Portland and provide “good paying
manufacturing jobs for Oregonians.”
But Local 16 union organizer Joe
Harris found that those manufacturing
jobs pay $10 an hour, and few of the
workers make more than $12 — for a
job that can require hard physical labor.
At that income, most would qualify for
food stamps. Harris said $15 to $16 an
hour is more standard for such work.
And in fact, very few of Service
Steel’s 150-plus workers are direct em-
ployees. Instead they work for Aerotek,
a labor contractor.
A sizable portion of them — as
many as half — are felons, which sug-
gests that their employer could be mak-
ing extensive use of a federal tax credit
that pays 40 percent of their wages —
up to $2,400 per employee. CEO Ed
Westerdahl said Service Steel itself has-
n’t used that tax credit, which he only
recently learned of.
Harris says felons are an insecure
workforce, because the stakes are high
if they lose a job. They have a hard time
finding housing and employment, and
may face a return to prison if they vio-
late conditions of parole, one of which
can be that they maintain employment.
When management learned em-
ployees were talking with a union, a
union-avoidance consultant based in
Rancho Cucamonga, California, ap-
peared on the scene. In the weeks that
followed, workers were called, in
groups of eight to 13, for mandatory
anti-union meetings led by the consult-
ants. If they unionized, they were told,
Service Steel could drop Aerotek in 72
hours, and they’d be out of a job.
A 2009 Oregon law purports to ban
mandatory anti-union meetings, but the
law has yet to be tested. To test it, a
worker would have to refuse an em-
ployer’s order to attend, be disciplined
for it, and then sue for damages.
CEO Westerdahl said the company
was against unionizing, primarily be-
cause they didn't want a “third party.”
It’s common for employers to say
they prefer to deal with employees di-
rectly, not through a union “third party,”
but it’s an odd point to make for a com-
pany that already employs seven-
eighths of its workforce through a third
party staffing agency.
Local 16 Business Manager John
Candioto said that while workers voted
not to unionize, the campaign still
could be a win, if the employer takes
the experience as a wake-up call and
improves pay and working conditions.
PAGE 5