On September 10, 1998, the MSUWC Executive Board and Labor Relations reached an agreement for the Gas SBU's Service and Distribution Departments. The agreement provides:

a) A guaranteed minimum number of Gas employees "807" for the next 5 years, with stipulation.
b) A joint committee, with equal voice, to develop training criteria, monitor replacements and look into additional job opportunities.
c) Home-site reporting for Customer Service, Gas Mechanics and Gas Lines Workers Special.
d) Posting of 25 new Gas positions.
e) Opportunities for advancement: jobs will be filled at the entry level unless there are unanticipated vacancies.
f) A new Gas Service Worker-B classification for those workers who do not wish to, or cannot perform the more complex appliance and furnace repair.
g) A new Gas Lines Worker Special position (by seniority), Labor Grade 15, to perform cathodic protection work and the establishment of cathodic work as core work of the OM&C.
h) The creation of a Gas Lines Utility Worker and a Customer Service Utility Worker position.
i) T.M.O.'s were moved from Labor Grade 9 to a Labor Grade 10.
j) Elimination of any further implementation of Workforce 2000.
k) Commitment that any employee whose job title was eliminated, will be moved to the next higher classification and no one forced to retrogress.
l) Flexibility in both departments that will provide timely service to customers at competitive cost.
m) Reduces the Company's reliance on subcontractors.

The issue of flexibility in the Gas Departments is certainly not new by any means at Consumers Energy. In October of 1991 the Council Executive Board, faced with demands for flexibility from Gas management and increased contracting (approximately 32% at that time in Gas Distribution), proposed a comprehensive plan to reduce contracting and establish a unionized workforce number guarantee of 4,400 by June of 1994. That would have been an increase of approximately 500 jobs from the 3,900 in October of 1991.

This plan called for flexibility between Lines and Service at the Apprentice Level. Labor Grade 6 and 7. This proposal was ultimately rejected by the Company because of the number guarantee and insufficient flexibility.

In contract negotiations in 1995, Gas management (Paul Preketes) renewed the demand for flexibility. After much heated debate and a commitment from the Executive Board to look into the issue after contract negotiations, it was finally pulled from the table by the Company as a contract demand.

Early in 1996 a Joint Union/Company Gas Committee was formed to again address the Company's demand for flexibility. For over 6 months the Joint Committee met. Some progress was made, however, on August 29, 1996, the Company discontinued any further consideration of that proposed agreement because of the Council's insistence that the flexibility would again only apply to the newly created Gas Utility Worker position and the demand for a guarantee. That agreement would have added 65 jobs to a workforce in Gas of approximately 923 existing employees.

In April of 1997 the Company met and unveiled its Workforce 2000 proposal. That was a (3-5 year) transition plan developed to achieve core work load staffing levels. Under this plan, staking, leak survey, cathodic and construction was not considered core work and would be contracted out. The Gas workforce was about 892 employees at that time.

The Company's goal to obtain the proper workforce was: 1) attrition; 2) promote and train; 3) hire from outside; 4) layoff in areas that the Company felt they had excess labor; and 5) better utilize existing skills. Workforce 2000 resulted in the loss of 74 jobs from July 1997 to July of 1998 in the Gas Departments.

The bottom line is that as a Union, we dropped from 975 Gas jobs in 1993 to 807 Gas jobs in September of 1998.

On September 2, 1998, management came to the Council office to inform the Executive Board that it was going to initiate a more aggressive step of Workforce 2000 the following week. The Company indicated that it intended to reduce the workforce from the present 807 to 490 during the remaining years of Workforce 2000. After much discussion, the parties agreed to clear their respective calendars and meet on September 9-10 and utilize the service of Mediator Ed Hartfield to attempt to reach an agreement.

Mediator Hartfield was available for the 9th but not available again until September 21. The Company said that the 21st was not acceptable and if we could not reach agreement by the 10th that they would implement the next step of Workforce 2000. (On September 10, 1998, we reached agreement.)

We believe that it is important that our members understand the history of this agreement. Consumers has joined many utilities throughout the country in steadily reducing the size of its workforce and instead having work done by low paid and lower skilled, nonunion subcontractors. Over this same time period, the Council has been attempting to reverse this trend.

Unfortunately, until now, we have not been able to reach agreement.

The primary objection that has been raised concerning the Gas Agreement is that members feel that it will remain in effect through May 31, 2003, three years beyond the expiration of the current Working Agreement.

The Gas Agreement, however, with one exception, expires on May 31, 2000. That exception is the workforce guarantee contained in #10, which, by its specific terms, expires on May 31, 2003. Since there is no other expiration date given for this agreement, it will expire with the Master Agreement on May 31, 2000.

The reason why the Council proposed a different expiration date for the workforce guarantee is that we did not want to have this issue open for negotiations at the same time as the master agreement. The Gas workforce guarantee would remain in effect for five years. The Council requested additional years for the workforce guarantee but this was not attainable.

Some question has been raised concerning whether those individuals covered under the workforce guarantee would be allowed to work once the contract expires on May 31, 2000, even if the Union decided to strike. They clearly would not be allowed to do so. All provisions of the working agreement expire on May 31, 2000, which under Article XX, includes this Gas Agreement. This understanding was confirmed in writing on September 25, by the Manager of Labor Relations, Greg Sando, as stated below:

"You have informed me that there may be a misunderstanding by some as to the affect on the Working Agreement of the minimum staffing guarantee contained in Paragraph 10 of the Gas Agreement executed by the Company and the Union on September 10, 1998. This will confirm our mutual understanding that the Gas Agreement does not extend the term of the June 1, 1995 to June 1, 2000 Working Agreement for gas employees."

We did not feel that anyone would object to having the workforce guarantee continue in effect beyond May 31, 2000. At a Presidents Meeting on September 28, 1998 the Executive Board stated that if a majority of our Presidents wanted us to do so, we would propose to the Company that the expiration date of the workforce guarantee be changed to May 31, 2000. However, when that question was proposed, no one in attendance was in favor of doing that.

Another concern was that there isn't any guarantee at all. This refers to the stipulation in the 807 number (that the 807 number may be reduced in proportion to any reduction in the gas business performed by the Company.) Mediator Ed Hartfield addressed this concern of the Presidents by answering in the following manner: "I can tell you with the Saturn contract, with the job security agreement that Ford and the U.A.W. passed, with the job security agreement that Xerox and Amalgamated passed, and with every job security agreement in the industry, I know of no job security agreement anywhere that prevents a corporation from downsizing in the event economic losses are incurred. Even in the job security provisions that have been entered into in the auto industry are not protected should there be a recession. As someone who participated in the process, there is no question that the parties entered into a guarantee in good faith."

When the Mediator was asked if he could give the Presidents a guarantee that the Company wasn't bluffing and if the Council had called their bluff, would they have caved, he replied, "No, but my advice, based on what I was feeling and my best assessment was that it was a serious threat. And, it would have been irresponsible and not prudent on the part of the Council to call their bluff."

National President Wightman also addressed the Presidents via speaker conference call. Some of President Wightman's remarks were as follows: ".... to give you my impression of what's going on around the country, is that this is what we're urging our Local Unions to get involved in. I think many of you have heard me say before that we are really having problems with a lot of these companies dealing with flexibility and changes in work rules. In other words, we understand clearly that we're in a different era than we were five years ago. Unfortunately, we're in a place where we've got to be more competitive. My biggest problem is not in Locals negotiating agreements, it's them just saying no to the agreements because they're afraid to get in on the give and take of this, because of what might be viewed as concessions. As we get into this era, we're going to be having to look at flexibility from a whole bunch of different areas. But my major concern is when the companies come to us and say hey look, we need more flexibility from our line workers, we need more flexibility from our meter readers or gas workers. I'm more concerned with Locals tripping over themselves to give their companies the flexibility without asking what's in it for me. This is where I looked at this agreement

, and one of the major things we're trying to do around the country, is we're trying to get some job security in some of our contracts. I'm not going to go in and pick this apart, whether it's good, bad, or indifferent. It does seem to reach the standards we're looking at - job security and increasing the workforce. This is the type of approach that other Unions aground the country have to start adopting. We're seeing it everywhere. You might not like it, we might not like our linemen doing underground work, and underground people doing linemen work. But in reality, if we don't give some flexibility, but for flexibility the quid pro quo is job security. We're not going to give them flexibility so that they can lay off people. But what we are willing to do, where appropriate, is to give flexibility as long as there's job security."

National President Wightman clearly is in a position to understand the utility industry in America today, more so than any of us. It is evident from his comments that times are changing, companies are downsizing and to exchange workrule flexibility for job security is proper. As a matter of fact, he is more concerned with Union leadership that just says no to agreements because they might be viewed as concessions, than he is with Locals who get involved. It would have been very easy and a "no-brainer" for this Executive Board to just say no to any gas flexibility as some would suggest and as has been done in the past. However, at some point, someone must address the loss of jobs and the future of our Union.

Surveys

It has again come to the attention of the Council Executive Board that several employee surveys are surfacing in the field. There are surveys the Union has agreed to participate in because they are beneficial to labor and there are those surveys which are detrimental to labor. Before filling out a survey, please contact your Local Union President to see if it is a Council approved survey.

Electric Transmission Workforce

Michigan Proposals - KNOW THEM

Proposal A: A Proposal to change the word "handicapped" to "disabled" in the State Constitution.

Proposal B: Initiated Legislation to legalize the prescription of a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill, competent, informed adults in order to commit suicide.

Proposal C: A Proposal to authorize bonds for environmental and natural resources protection programs.