Bargaining activity light in private industry in 1985 Essay

Bargaining activity light in private industry in 1985 About 3.5 million of the 9.4 million employees under majorcollective bargaining agreements (covering 1,000 or more workers) inprivate industry and State and local government have their contractsslated for renewal or reopening in 1985. Bargaining activity in privateindustry will be relatively light, with negotiations covering 33 percentof the 7.

4 million employees under major agreements. In State and localgovernment, 55 percent of the 2.0 million employees under majoragreements are subject to negotiations during 1985, the first year forwhich data are available for these contracts. 1 The light 1985 bargaining calendar in private industry follows 3years of heavy bargaining. From the mid-1950’s to 1983, bargainingover major contracts in private industry was on a cycle of 2 years ofheavy activity, each involving about two-fifths of the workers, followedby a third year of lighter activity, involving about three-tenths of theworkers.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

This 3-year cycle was broken when contracts between the UnitedAutomobile Workers and Ford Motor Co. and General Motors were negotiatedin early 1982 to run for 2 1/2 years. They replaced contracts that wereto expire in September 1982 that, had they then been renegotiated forthe typical 3-year duration, would have expired in 1985. Thus,bargaining in autos was thrown into 1984, making it the third heavybargaining year in a row, and making 1985 a light bargaining year. During 1985, 537 major contracts in private industry, covering 2.

4million workers, and 288 major State and local government agreements,covering 1.1 million workers are scheduled to be negotiated. (Seetables 1 and 2.) These negotiations will be influenced by both generaleconomic conditions and the circumstances of the individual industries,employers, and unions involved in bargaining. The recovery in the Nation’s economy that began in 1982continued into the third quarter of 1984. Key measures of the economichealth of the country showed improvement over the previous year. Forexample, the unemployment rate of civilian workers was 7.4 percent inSeptember 1984, compared to 9.

2 percent a year earlier. The ConsumerPrice Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 4.2 percent during the12-months ended September 1984, continuing the moderate rate of priceincreases that began in 1982. The Federal Reserve Board’s totalindustry capacity utilization rate was 81.

9 percent for September 1984,up from 78.6 percent a year earlier. The composite index of leadingeconomic indicators, compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce’sBureau of Economic Analysis to forecast movements in aggregate economicactivity, suggests continuing, but slower, growth into 1985. Despite the 1984 economic growth, major contract settlementsreached in private industry during the first 9 months were historicallylow. They provided average specified wage adjustments of 2.

5 percent inthe first contract year and 2.8 percent annually over the life of thecontract. This compares with annual figures of 2.6 and 2.8 percent,respectively, for all of 1983. In contrast, when the same parties to1984 settlements previously bargained (about 2 or 3 years before), theircontracts provided wage adjustments of 8.6 percent in the first-year,and 7.

2 percent annually over the contract life. The size of settlements in 1984 reflects attempts by the parties toadjust to the economic difficulties faced by many of them, includingcompetition from abroad and from nonunion firms at home and decliningemployment opportunities. Many of the parties to 1985 negotiations facesimilar problems. How they deal with them at the bargaining tableremains to be seen. The bulk of contract expirations in the private sector will occurbetween March and September 1985. Negotiations are scheduled in severalkey industries including trucking, construction, men’s apparel,rubber, women’s apparel, electrical products, and for autoworkersat Chrysler Corp.

Public sector contract expirations are concentratedat midyear, coinciding with the end of their fiscal year. This article discusses contract negotiations, wage changes, andcost-of-living adjustment (COLA) reviews scheduled in 1985 for the 9.4million workers in private industry and State and local government undermajor agreements. The bargaining issues of the contract negotiationsare high-lighted. (See table 3 for expiration dates and wage adjustmentprovisions for selected major agreements.) Trucking The National Master Freight Agreement negotiated by theInternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen andHelpers of America (Teamsters, Ind.

) and Trucking Management, Inc.(TMI), expires March 31, 1985. TMI, the primary negotiator for theindustry, has experienced a sharp drop in the number of member companiessince the last round of negotiations in 1982. Deregulation 2 and therecession led many firms to merge, fail, and/or layoff workers, therebyreducing the number of firms and workers in the industry. Many smallerand midsize firms–hoping to exact a less expensive agreement–droppedout of TMI and are forming their own bargaining group. TMI has announced changes in their negotiation and ratification procedure. A 22-member committee composed of five members of eachregion (Eastern, Southern, Central, and Western) and a chair and vicechair is responsible for negotiation of the National Master FreightAgreement and its area supplements.

Negotiation for the National MasterFreight Agreement and the monetary package is conducted by an 11-membercommittee drawn from the larger negotiating committee consisting of twomembers from each region, a secretary, a chair, and a vice chair. Theresult of the negotiations will be submitted first for approval to theBoard of Directors of TMI, and then to the Membership Committee forratification. Each company in TMI is on the Membership Committee andhas one vote plus an additional vote for each 500 employees or portionthereof. In prior negotiations, a policy committee of TMI whichconsisted of members elected from affiliated regional associations,ratified the contract. In the past, the National Master Freight Agreement, in conjunctionwith approximately 30 local and area supplemental agreements, determinedthe compensation and working conditions of most unionized drivers in theindustry. 3 Wage changes, employer contributions to benefit plans, andmost economic benefits were determined in national negotiations. Actualwage rates, most work rules, and allocations of funds to health andwelfare plans are set in supplemental agreements. Local exceptions toeconomic terms and work rules are provided in various addenda.

The 1982 National Master Freight Agreement provided no wageincreases and modified the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) clause toprovide annual reviews in April instead of semiannual reviews. Theagreement also allowed money from COLA to be diverted from wages tomaintain health, welfare, and pension benefits. Over the last 3 yearsthis resulted in only one COLA wage increase–47-cents in April 1982.All other COLA money was diverted: 25 cents in April 1982, 33 cents inApril 1983, and 35 cents in April 1984. Supplements to the National Master Freight Agreement differed byarea but generally provided for new employees to start at 70 percent ofthe pay rate for their job and move in steps to the top rate after 3years of service. Previously, new employees generally received the fullrate of pay immediately. The supplements also provided relaxed workrules including a “nonstandard’ workweek that eliminated somepremium pay.

TMI requested further changes to the National Master FreightAgreement in April 1983 but, these were rejected by the unionleadership. In November 1983, TMI and the union, under the leadershipof Jackie Presser, agreed to a wage-and-benefit cost cutting plan aimedat aiding the industry. The plan was rejected by the union membershipby a margin of almost 9 to 1. Information on 1985 demands is not available. However, it isanticipated that the union will press for a pay increase and restraintson unionized firms establishing nonunion subsidiaries. Other uniondemands may include the restoration of semiannual cost-of-livingreviews, pension increases, and job security provisions.

TMI is likelyto seek lower starting wages for newly hired employees plus work rulechanges which will cut costs. The smaller carriers, which are no longer members of TMI, areseeking a settlement that will be less expensive than that reached bythe large carriers. The smaller carriers argue that they need specialconsiderations to remain in business. Some observers believe, however,that these carriers would agree to terms similar to those reached by TMIbecause they would be unable to withstand a strike if the largercompanies are operating. Rubber Major contracts between the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum andPlastic Workers of America (Rubber Workers) and the “Big Four’tiremakers: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Firestone Tire and RubberCo., B.F.

Goodrich Co., and Uniroyal, Inc., are up for renewal April20, 1985. In the past, bargaining has been conducted separately witheach company, after the Rubber Workers selected a “target’from among the “Big Four’ to set the pattern for the industry. In 1982, however, because of the threat of bankruptcy, Uniroyalreached an early agreement with the Rubber Workers to accept the sameprovisions as the pattern setter. Subsequently, the Rubber Workersreached an agreement with B.F. Goodrich Co.

that set the pattern forsettlements at Goodyear and Firestone as well as Uniroyal. The Goodrich contract provided no specified wage adjustments.However, the automatic quarterly cost-of-living adjustments werecontinued, calculated at 1 cent for each 0.26-point movement in theConsumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers(CPI-W). Pension and sickness and accident insurance were improved,including a 6-month increase (to 30 months), in the period during whichlaid-off employees would retain life and health insurance. However, insome Firestone and Goodrich plants troubled with possible layoffs andplant closings, workers accepted wage cuts and suspension of COLAclauses. In exchange, the Rubber Workers won the right to earlywarnings of financial problems at these plants. Since the last negotiations, the rubber industry has revitalized and capacity utilization is high.

All plants are on a flat 3-shift,7-day-a-week operation with no employees working overtime. There havebeen fewer layoffs. Since 1982, only two Firestone and Goodyear plants,both producers of bias ply tires, have closed.

The health of the rubber tire industry has always been closelylinked to the automobile industry, which is still struggling withforeign competition. Thus, although goals for upcoming negotiationshave not yet been formulated, it is expected that job security andimproved pension benefits will be key objectives. Construction Approximately 384,000 workers covered by 170 collective bargainingagreements in the construction industry will face contract expirationsor scheduled reopeners in 1985. These agreements account for 35 percentof all construction workers under major agreements, and 16 percent ofthe workers under private sector contracts scheduled for negotiation in1985.

Negotiations in the industry are often conducted by employerassociations,4 which individual companies join for bargaining and otherpurposes. Unions negotiate along craft lines.5 Settlements in theindustry generally reflect regional patterns.

Although the industry’s unemployment rate is down to 13.8percent for September 1984, compared with 18.1 percent in September 1983and 21.8 percent in September 1982, it is still high relative to otherindustries. As in recent years, unemployment and nonunion competitionincreased pressure to moderate wage demands and reduce employer costs in1984.

Many contracts provided benefit changes without affording anywage changes. Construction agreements reached in the first 9 months of1984 provided the smallest wage and compensation adjustments for anyfirst 3-quarter period since such data were first compiled in 1968.Wage adjustments averaged 0.9 percent for the first contract year and1.2 percent annually over the life of the contracts; correspondingadjustments in compensation (wage and benefit costs) averaged 1.2percent and 1.4 percent. The last time these same parties bargained,average wage adjustments were 6.

2 percent in the first year and 5.3percent over the contract life. A variety of approaches were tried by labor and management toreduce employer costs in 1984 and make union firms more competitive withtheir nonunion rivals. These included lower wage rates for new projectsthan for projects already underway; lower regular rates for new hires;modified vacation and overtime rates; modified work rules; for feitureof scheduled deferred payments, and lower wage rates for projects valuedbelow a specified amount. (This last arrangement is intended to allowunionized employers to compete with nonunion employers on smallcontracts, while, at the same time, maintain wage levels on the largercontracts for which nonunion firms may be too small to compete.) Unlessthe industry’s economic climate improves, bargaining in 1985 canexpect to follow the same trends set since 1983. Apparel Although the women’s and men’s apparel industryagreements expire at different times (May and September, respectively),and the negotiations involve different employer bargaining associationsand unions, bargainers for both sets of contracts face similar economicconditions and constraints. Average annual unemployment in apparel (andother textile products) increased from 11.

5 percent in 1980 and 1981 to15.4 percent in 1982 and declined to 12.4 percent in 1983. In 1984,seasonally adjusted unemployment has ranged from 12.

7 percent in Januaryto 8.3 percent in May, with a 10.5-percent rate for October, the lastmonth reported. Employment has remained relatively stable, decliningslightly from 1.3 million workers in 1980 to 1.2 million in 1983.

Workers in the women’s apparel industry will be represented bythe International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union which willnegotiate with several employer groups including the Affiliated DressManufacturers Association, Apparel Manufacturers Association, New York Coat and Suit Association, New York Shirt and Sportswear Association,and Popular Price Dress Contractors Association. The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union will negotiate on behalf of workersin men’s apparel covered by the Clothing Manufacturers Associationand parties to the Cotton Garments Contracts. In the last round of negotiations in 1982, the women’s apparelagreements provided for a $1.10 hourly wage increase over 3 years andestablished a cost-of-living clause. The COLA clause provided for a10-cent adjustment in February 1984 if the CPI-W rose 8.5 percentbetween June 1, 1982, and December 1, 1983, plus 5 cents for each0.

5-percent point increase in the index, up to a 25-cent maximum. NoCOLA payment was made. The men’s and boys’ clothing agreement provided hourlywage increases of $1.05 over 3 years. The automatic cost-of-livingadjustment formula provided for adjustments in June 1983 if the CPI-Wrose 4.

8 percent from December 1981 to December 1982 and anotheradjustment in June 1984 if the index rose 5.4 percent from December 1982to December 1983. The CPI-W increased 3.

9 percent in 1982 and 3.3percent in 1983, hence, no COLA payments were made. Over the past several years, the apparel industry has faced stiffforeign competition. The industry has sought to challenge the importsthrough government trade restrictions and a voluntary “buyAmerican’ campaign. However, as the industry approaches thisyear’s negotiations, serious trade problems remain. For example,the value of imported wearing apparel has steadily increased from $5.8billion in 1979 to $9.

5 billion in 1983. Electrical industry Agreements covering 217,000 workers are scheduled to expire in theelectrical machinery, equipment, and supplies industry. The largestcontracts will be negotiated at the General Electric Co. in June(covering 80,000 employees) and at Westinghouse Electric Corp. in July(covering 35,000 employees). Other large bargaining units that will beinvolved in negotiations in 1985 include: Hughes Aircraft Co.

, with12,000 employees; and Radio Corporation of America and AmericanTelephone and Telegraph Technologies, each with about 10,000 employees. Negotiations with General Electric and Westinghouse will beconducted by the Coordinated Bargaining Committee of General Electricand Westinghouse unions which represents 13 labor organizations. 6Under the Coordinated Bargaining Committee, each union negotiates itsown contract or contracts but coordinates proposals and exchangesinformation. Contract negotiations will start at General Electric.

In the previous round of negotiations, General Electric settled onJune 27, 1982, with the International Union of Electronic, Electrical,Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers (Electronic Workers) and theUnited Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers (Electrical Workers, UE).Shortly thereafter, the 11 other unions of the Coordinated BargainingCommittee reached agreements on the same terms. Later, Westinghouseagreed to essentially the same wage and benefit terms; however, therewere some significant differences in the pension plan.

The General Electric contract enhanced job security through severalcontract provisions. These included: a 6-month notice of plantclosings and 60 days notice of the introduction of new automation orrobots; 26 weeks retention of wage rates for workers shifted to lowerpaying jobs because of shutdowns or automation; an improved lump-sumseverance payment formula; job placement assistance and up to $1,800 foreducation and retraining for displaced workers; company-financed medicalinsurance for employees age 50 and over with 25 or more years of servicewho are affected by plant closings; and vested pension rights forworkers with at least 7 years service who are affected by shutdowns. The agreement also provided a 7-percent pay increase in June 1982and 3 percent increases in 1983 and 1984. The automatic semiannualcost-of-living adjustment was improved to provide a 1-cent per hourincrease for each 0.175-percent rise in the CPI-W. The pension, healthinsurance, life insurance and vacation plans were also improved.

Unemployment in the electrical products industry has steadilydecreased since the last negotiations, from 10.7 percent in September1982 to 7.3 percent in September 1983 to 5.3 percent in September 1984.However, serious problems still affect the industry: foreigncompetition is strong with some competitors building plants in theUnited States; low sales of heavy duty generators and transmissionequipment continue, as utilities are scaled back and old equipment isretained; and the new housing market, which accounts for about one-thirdof unit sales of major appliances, has been weak.

Bargaining demands will not be made final until about March 1985,but the unions have announced general goals, focusing on job securitywhich continues to be threatened by plant shutdowns and automation. Theunions intend to tighten severance and other security benefitsnegotiated in 1982 that they claim have been undercut by employeelayoffs prior to shutdown notices. They may also propose a shorterworkweek as a solution to fewer jobs and increased automation. Theindustry is expected to demand reductions in health care insurancecosts. Automobiles–Chrysler Corp. The contract between Chrysler Corp. and the United Automobile,Aerospace and Agricultural, Implement Workers of America (UAW), covering80,000 employees, is due to expire October 15, 1985.

Although there wassome attempts to seek an early agreement following the conclusion ofnational agreements at General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. inOctober 1984, contract talks with Chrysler have yet to be initiated. Before 1979, the UAW bargained individually with each of the majorauto firms, targeting one of the “Big Three’ companies (GM,Ford, and Chrysler) to get a pattern-setting agreement. On October 25,1979, the UAW accepted some deviation from the industry pattern to helpimprove financial conditions at Chrysler Corp. Further costconcessions, which qualified Chrysler for Federal loan guarantees,resulted from January 1980 and January 1981 negotiations. As a result of these negotiations, there were substantialdifferences between Chrysler Corp.’s wage and benefit provisionsand those of Ford and GM.

However, in December 1982, Chrysler agreed toa contract that reduced some of this disparity. The demand for further contract improvement was prompted by theearly pay back of the $1.2 billion Federal loan, and a $482 millionprofit for the first 6 months of 1983.

In September 1983, the UAW andChrysler reached an agreement providing wage and benefit improvementsthat eliminated the existing differences with GM and Ford. However, itdid not address contract changes that might result from the 1984 GM andFord negotiations. Reflecting concern over job security matters, the 1984 GMsettlement established a new Job Security Program, which guarantees thatworkers with at least 1 year of service would not to be laid off becauseof new technology, outsourcing, negotiated productivity improvements,work shifted from one GM plant to another, or the consolidation ofcomponent production. One specified wage increase and a $180″Special Payment’ was made, effective immediately.

Lump-sum”Performance Bonus’ payments are scheduled for October of 1985and 1986. The cost-of-living adjustment formula was continued, but willbe calculated on the 1967-based U.S. Consumer Price Index only, insteadof the combined U.S.

-Canadian CPI. Among other improvements, the pactcontained profit-sharing payments, a guaranteed income stream forlaid-off workers, and increased funding for Supplemental UnemploymentBenefits. A similar contract was later negotiated for Ford employees. At the upcoming talks with Chrysler, UAW negotiators will be facedwith the expiration of import restraints in April 1985, as well as thecompany’s goal of maintaining current levels of production withfewer workers. Of the 250,000 auto workers laid-off between 1979 and1982 as a result of sales slumps and the growth of imports, more than60,000 are still on layoff. Nevertheless, Chrysler workers may againdemand parity with GM and Ford. State and local government During 1985, 288 contracts, covering 1.

1 million State and localgovernment workers expire or will be reopened. Of these, 161 covering607,000 workers will terminate in June. Negotiations are scheduled for96 expiring contracts covering 596,000 State workers, compared with 196contracts covering 544,000 local government workers. These contractscover 75 percent of the State workers under major agreements, incontrast to 44 percent of local government employees. Seventy-two percent of the State government employees underexpiring agreements work in general administrative agencies, 10 percentin social service departments, and the remainder in education,hospitals, transportation, and protective services. States with heavybargaining calendars include New York with 26 percent and Pennsylvaniawith 17 percent of the State workers up for negotiation.

In local government, employees in education account for 61 percentof the workers scheduled for renegotiated contracts. Employees ingeneral administration account for another 20 percent and workers inhospitals, housing agencies, and protective services make up thebalance. In general, local government agreements are dispersed among manyjurisdicitions. About 14 percent of the local government workers slatedfor 1985 negotiations are employed by Los Angeles County. The remainderare distributed among other jurisdictions. Wage changes of expiring agreements Contracts expiring in 1985 will yield average annual specified wageadjustments of 4.

1 percent over their term. When COLA adjustmentsthrough October 1984 are included, the adjustment averages 4.4 percent.

The following tabulation shows specified wage adjustments and specifiedwage adjustments including COLA’s in private and State and localgovernment contracts expiring in 1985: Private industry specified wage changes average 3.7 percentannually, but increases to 4.1 percent when COLA’s through October1984 are included.

In all contracts with COLA’s, specified changeswere 3.1 percent with COLA’s raising the level to 3.8 percent overthe contract term. Assuming no significant deviations from the currenttrend in the CPI, the overall adjustment in private industry contractswith COLA’s will be less than the 4.

6-percent specified adjustmentin nonCOLA contracts for the third consecutive year. For contractsexpiring to 1983, overall average wage adjustments for contracts withCOLA’s always exceeded those in contracts without COLA’s In State and local government contracts, specified changes were 5.1percent. Contracts with COLA’s covered such a small proportion ofthe workers as to have no measurable impact on the overall data. Some contracts in both private industry and government expiring in1985 provide for COLA reviews after October 1984.

However, it isunlikely that future adjustments would significantly alter theseaverages. Scheduled wage changes in 1985 About 3.8 million of the 9.4 million workers under major agreementsare scheduled to receive deferred wage adjustments in 1985–44 percentof the private sector workers 26 percent of the State and localgovernment workers. (See tables 4, 5, and 6.) Only three bargainingunits, all in the private sector, covering 10,600 workers call fordeferred decreases. Lump-sum payments, which are not incorporated intothe wage rates, are not included in this series.

Deferred adjustments (increases and decreases) will average 52.1cents, or 4.0 percent. Adjustments in private industry will beproportionately lower than those in the public sector (3.7 versus 5.

5percent). In private industry, deferred increases alone will average3.8 percent, the smallest percent increase since this information wasfirst compiled in 1970. Contracts with COLA’s generally provide smaller deferred wageincreases than those without because they are negotiated in anticipationof the COLA generating some wage increases. For 1985, the deferred wageadjustment will average 2.7 percent for agreements with COLA, comparedto 4.

9 percent for those without COLA clauses. Cost-of-living adjustments. COLA clauses are designed primarily tohelp workers recover purchasing power lost through price increases.Some COLA clauses, however, also decrease wages if prices drop. Wageadjustments are based on a measure of price change, usually the CPI-W.The size of the COLA wage change varies, depending on the formula usedin adjustment calculations, the timing of reviews, whether or notmaximum amounts (“caps’) are specified, and if the formulaprovides for COLA decreases. As of October 1984, 45 percent (4.2 million) of the 9.

4 millionworkers under major agreements were covered by COLA clauses. (See table7.) Only 2 percent of the public sector workers have COLA coverage,compared with 57 percent in the private sector. Historical data on COLA coverage are available only for privateindustry. They show that the number of private industry workersaffected by COLA clauses has been decreasing steadily since 1977,largely because of declining employment in industries where COLA clausesare common.

The following tabulation shows the number of workers undermajor private sector contracts and the number and percent covered byCOLA clauses, 1971–85 (numbers in millions): About 3.9 million of the 4.2 million private and State and localworkers with COLA’s are covered by contracts that tie possibleadjustment to the movement in the CPI for “all cities.’ Anadditional 215,000 workers are under contracts which use an index for anindividual city. Prior to 1984, COLA formulas relating wage changes toa combination of the U.

S. and Canadian indices covered large numbers ofworkers, primarily in autos. However, the newest GM and Ford agreementscover only U.S.

workers, so the combined index was dropped. Thus, only80,000 workers (primarily Chrysler employees) currently receive COLAadjustments based on a combined index. The most prevalent COLA adjustment formula calls for a 1-cent perhour wage change for each 0.3-point change in the CPI. This formula isfound in COLA clauses for more than 1.5 million workers in industriessuch as railroads, trucking, and aerospace. COLA clauses in majoragreements in the automobile and rubber industries provide adjustmentsof 1 cent for each 0.

26-point movement in the index they use; those inthe electrical equipment industry provide 1 cent for each 0.175-percentchange in the CPI; and those in telephone communications call foradjustments of 55 cents a week plus 0.65 percent of theindividual’s weekly rate for each 1-percent increase in the CPI.

Cost-of-living reviews are made at intervals specified in eachclause. Fifty-eight percent of the workers covered by COLA clauses willhave at least one review in 1984. (See tables 7 and 8.) Annual andquarterly reviews each affect 1.1 million workers.

Annual reviews areprevalent in the telephone communications and trucking industries, whilequarterly reviews predominate in the automobile, aerospace, and steelindustries. Semiannual reviews affect workers in railroads andelectrical products. Employer cost increases from COLA’s have been limited in somecases. For example, of the 4.2 million workers under contracts withCOLA’s more than 800,000 are under clauses which have”caps’ or maximum limits.

Other approaches to limit COLA costincreases have included delays in payment and diversion of COLA’sfrom wages to help finance benefits. More than 60,000 workers are covered by provisions for minimum or”guaranteed’ COLA payments determined at the time thecontracts were negotiated. These adjustments do not depend on themovement of a price index. Therefore the Bureau of Labor Statistics treats these amounts as specified adjustments and not as COLAadjustments. BARGAINING ACTIVITY AND SCHEDULED WAGE CHANGES may be differentfrom that described here, especially if economic conditions nationallyor for individual industries or employers vary substantially fromcurrent projections. Negotiations will be carefully observed to see howemployers and unions react to the effects of expiring contracts, currenteconomic circumstances, and expectations for the future.

1 Prior to this year, this series was limited to private sectorcollective bargaining agreements covering 1,000 workers or more. 2 The trucking industry was deregulated by the Motor Carrier Actof 1980. The act reduced regulation of the trucking industry by makingit easier to be certified to operate a route, by allowingowner-operators to haul certain freight that was previously denied tothem, and by decreasing collective rate making. 3 The Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union(Ind.) and seven Teamster locals in the Chicago area have notparticipated in national bargaining in the past. Due to changes in TMI,the number of Teamsters locals not participating will increase in 1985. 4 These include the Associated General Contractors of America,Inc.

, Mechanical Contractors Association, the National ElectricalContractors Association, the Building Trades Employers Association,Painting and Decorating Contractors Association, and the Sheet Metal andAir Conditioning Contractors National Association. 5 Major construction industry unions include the following AFL-CIO affilated unions: International Union of Bricklayers and AlliedCraftsmen; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America;International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of thePlumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada;Laborer’s International Union of North America; and the Sheet MetalWorker’s International Association –and the unaffiliatedInternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs Warehousemen andHelpers of America. 6 The Coordinated Bargaining Committee was established in 1966.Currently, the committee is composed of 11 AFL-CIO affiliated unions:International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America; UnitedBrotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; International Union ofElectronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers;International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; InternationalBrotherhood of Firemen and Oilers; American Flint Glass Workers’Union of North America; International Association of Machinists andAerospace Workers; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices ofthe Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada;Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association; International UnionUnited Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers ofAmerica; and the United Steelworkers of America; and two independentunions–the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America; andthe International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen andHelpers of America. Table: Calendar of major collective bargaining activity in privatenonagricultural industries and State and local government Table: Agreement expirations, or both, in major collectivebargaining situations in private nonagriculture Industries and State andlocal government, by year Table: Duration and wage adjustment provisions of selected majorcollective bargaining agreements Table: Scheduled deferred wage adjustments in 1985 under agreementsin major collective bargaining agreements, by industry Table: Distribution of workers scheduled to receive deferred wageIncreases in 1985 under major collective bargaining agreements, byindustry and amount of increase Table: Table: Deferred wage increases scheduled in 1985 in majorcollective bargaining situations, by month Table: Prevalence of cost-of-living adjustment clauses in majorcollective bargaining agreements, October 1984 Table: Frequency and timing of 1985 cost-of-living reviews in majorcollective bargaining situations


I'm Sarah!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out