With the announcement last week that Pratt & Whitney plans to close two of its plants and move 1,000 jobs out of state, questions linger about the future of the remaining unionized workers at the company.
Pratt & Whitney officials said high labor costs were a chief factor in their decision to close, pending a legal battle, the Cheshire Engine Center by 2011 and the Connecticut Airfoil Repair Operations in East Hartford by the second quarter of 2010.
That would shrink the company’s presence in the state to about 10,000 employees, and its unionized work force would drop to about 2,700.
At the same time, the collective bargaining agreement for the remaining union workers expires in December 2010, leading some to wonder what’s in store for their future if Pratt can find cheaper labor elsewhere.
“I don’t believe that any job is safe,” said Jim Parent, the local chief representative of the International Association of Machinists. “No one expected them to make the announcement that they were going to close the Cheshire facility, so who knows what the company is up to? When Cheshire is gone, the concern is who is next.”
Greg Brostowicz, a spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, said the company remains “committed to keeping work in the state of Connecticut.”
“This decision is specific to the Cheshire and CARO situation,” Brostowicz said. Brostowicz noted that since 2003, United Technologies, Pratt’s parent company, has increased its employee population in the state by nearly 3.5 percent, including adding 500 union jobs at Sikorsky.
Pratt & Whitney officials say current shop costs at the Cheshire plant are about 40 percent higher than what they would be in Georgia, where the work is expected to be moved.
Meanwhile, current shop costs at the East Hartford plant are about 40 percent and 170 percent higher than what the company will have to pay at its facilities in Japan and Singapore.
Parent is particularly concerned about Pratt’s East Hartford Repair Operations facility (ERHO), which employs about 500 people, and is used to repair engine parts from the Cheshire plant. Once the Cheshire plant closes, he fears those jobs could be in immediate jeopardy.
“I don’t see Pratt & Whitney shipping the parts back to East Hartford to get them repaired,” Parent said. “I’m sure the company will have some suppliers that will do the work over there. They have not made that announcement yet, but logic says that’s the case.”
On the future of unionized workers at Pratt, John Ogilvie, associate professor of management at the University of Hartford, said he doesn’t think “it’s a very optimistic scenario.”
“Ever since 1981, there has been a gradual decline in the influence of unions,” Ogilvie said. “Connecticut is still a fairly unionized state, with work rules that are favorable to them. But companies are biased to get rid of them.”
Ogilvie said that when their contract runs out in 2010, union workers will likely be asked to make major concessions.
“I think they are going to keep nibbling away at the union,” Ogilvie added.
Pratt officials say commercial airlines worldwide are expected to lose more than $11 billion this year, “representing an unprecedented downturn that is forecast to get even worse.” When the market does recover, the company says its customer base will shift to the Asia-Pacific region, where Pratt will be moving some Connecticut jobs.
Nathan Smith, an aerospace and defense analyst with Texas-based Frost & Sullivan, said aircraft engine manufacturers and providers are less likely to see growth for the short-term as airlines continue to reduce aircraft capacity to meet travel demands, and as many global airlines are extending aircraft delivery dates, as well as deferring and reducing aircraft orders.
“Understandably, Pratt & Whitney must reduce costs where necessary in the current economy,” Smith said
Union workers have filed suit against Pratt & Whitney, trying to halt the plant closings, arguing that the company failed to make every reasonable effort to keep the jobs in Connecticut as required by its contract.
Parent said that if the suit is successful, he thinks there is a good chance that they can keep the jobs in Connecticut long term. That’s because when the current collective bargaining agreement expires next December, they would be able to engage in full negotiations, which could give them more time and flexibility to address the wage and benefit concerns of the company.
In its recent negotiations, Pratt said there was a $23 million gap between the $53.8 million annual savings it sought and the $30.8 million package offered by the machinists’ union and the state.
Further layoffs at Pratt will have a wider economic impact on the state. Parent estimates that for every job loss in the aerospace industry, another 3.5 to 4 jobs will be lost in the state.
The state Department of Economic and Community Development predicts that 2,000 jobs could be lost with the planned 1,000 layoffs.
Reader response:
“I am a Pratt bargaining unit employee that will lose my job when C.A.R.O. is closed. I have been employed by Pratt for less than 5 years. I don’t work in C.A.R.O. but the way the contract is set up I will be affected because of seniority. The Union protects and rewards the non-worker, if it wasn’t for them we would not need the union. What I have seen and experienced is unbelievably disgusting. I would guess that 20% of the workforce does 80% of the work. Many of the bargaining unit employees do one or more of the following things; sleep, lunch/dinner breaks in excess of an hour, read books/newspapers, leaves company property for hours at a time, basically do everything but work, etc. When confronted by management in regards to any policy infraction the first thing that is said is “Get me a steward” The most common greivances are herassment, discrimination. I do not understand that being told to do your job has anything to do with the excuses I have listed. If these excuses don’t work than an over abundance of medical restrictions come into play. We are paid approximately $30.00 per hour to do our jobs. When the good employees are gone Pratt is sure to fail when left with an upper middle class welfare program.” — Bill
