Lab workers being urged to unionize

0 Comments | Oakland Tribune, Nov 10, 2006 | by Betsy Mason

Two decades after scientists tried to unionize the Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons lab and went down in flames, they're trying again.

This time their efforts are bolstered by the looming privatization of the lab's management and the loss of job protections as University of California employees.

The Society for Professionals, Scientists and Engineers launched an e-mail campaign this week to organize not just scientists as in 1983, but the entire lab of almost 6,500 full-time workers with the exception of top management.

SPSE conducted a survey recently to see what parts of the lab's workforce would support a union. According to physicist and SPSE board member Jeff Colvin, found broad support labwide. "We said let's just go for everybody and see what comes out of it," he said.

It marks the first time anyone has tried unionizing an entire U.S. nuclear weapons design lab.

SPSE needs 50 percent of lab employees plus one to sign a petition card to gain collective bargaining status.

"We're aggressively pursuing getting employees to sign cards," said Sue Byars, a Livermore lab site planner and SPSE board member.

She said there is a sense of urgency because of the impending management change. Contract bids were due last month, and a new manager will take over Oct. 1.

"We need to do it now before the transition so we can negotiate with the new contractor," Byars said. "Then we'll at least have a seat at the table."

Adding to the urgency is the fact that organizing is much easier at a public or nonprofit enterprise than at a privatecompany.

The Department of Energy will require the new manager to form a private company to manage the lab. Employees of a private institution must put to a vote the question of whether to organize.

"A vote makes it much more public and open," said Richard Montoya, a manager at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Los Alamos workers tried unsuccessfully to unionize ahead of the management transition in July from UC to the new private company run by UC and Bechtel Corp.

"We got too late of a start, and people were too fearful," Montoya said. "They didn't see the writing on the wall."

If what has happened at Los Alamos is any indication, Livermore can expect new uncertainties about jobs, as well as new costs for pension payments and state taxes that could be paid in layoffs.

"People see that happening at Los Alamos and see it coming this way," said Colvin. "Employees are worried that our job security and job rights go away as of Oct. 1 of next year. People are angry and upset about this."

"My advice to them was that their only real defense against whatever the new contractor might want to do is to have a contract of their own in place," he said.

During the 1983 union push, executives fought the union, said Colvin, and spent by his estimates $2 million on posters urging a "no" vote. Scientists and engineers rejected the union by more than three to one. This time will be different, he said.

Livermore lab executives have not settled on a position on the unionization bid, said lab spokeswoman Lynda Seaver.

"The laboratory will not stand against any union coming into here but will try to answer any employee's questions," she said. "They're going to look where they can for answers but until a new contractor is picked, there's going to be some uncertainty."

About a third of UC's

170,000 employees are represented by system-wide unions, and many campuses have local unions as well.