By Nicolee Ambrose
A union’s most important responsibility is to improve the lives of the people it represents. That requires negotiating for good wages and benefits while recognizing that workers’ long-term security depends on the strength of the businesses employing them. Ongoing contract negotiations between U.S. Steel and the United Steelworkers (USW) offer an opportunity to put that principle into practice.
The stakes extend beyond the communities surrounding U.S. Steel’s mills. American steelmakers compete in a global market distorted by subsidies and excess capacity, more than half of which now comes from China. Trade enforcement can give domestic producers room to compete, but it cannot modernize aging facilities or produce higher-value steel on its own. That takes capital, technology and a workforce committed to making those investments succeed.
Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel has brought those pieces within reach, but the union’s effort to stop the transaction still hangs over the contract talks. Many steelworkers supported the deal because they saw the promised investment as essential to preserving their jobs. Yet USW’s previous leadership, which backed rival suitor Cleveland-Cliffs, remained “unalterably opposed” even after Nippon presented a higher all-cash bid and increased its investment and technology commitments. Once union leaders had committed themselves to stopping the acquisition, defending that position seemed to become an end in itself. Their institutional priorities had become separated from the practical interests of the workers they represented.
That history makes these negotiations Roxanne Brown’s first test as USW president. She can repair two relationships damaged by the acquisition fight: one with management and another with members who did not believe they were being heard. Doing so requires bringing the union to the table as a partner prepared to work with management on an agreement that rewards workers while allowing the company to grow and compete internationally.
The immediate opportunity is substantial and would represent a major influx of capital into USW-represented facilities. Since the acquisition, U.S. Steel and Nippon have outlined $14 billion in growth capital, including $11 billion to be invested by the end of 2028. Plans include up to $2.5 billion for the Mon Valley and $550 million each for projects in Indiana and Alabama.
In return for this commitment, U.S. Steel is seeking a five-year labor agreement. That is a reasonable request. Major industrial projects take years to plan, build and bring online. No responsible company would commit billions of dollars to long-term projects while accepting avoidable uncertainty around the workforce needed to complete and operate them.
However, if USW prolongs negotiations or refuses a reasonable contract duration, there is a risk that capital winds up elsewhere. Nippon is committed to investing in U.S. Steel, but not every dollar must go to a facility staffed by USW members. The company has other operations competing for capital, and labor uncertainty can influence where investments are made.
That concern should be familiar to steelworkers. During the acquisition fight, union leadership favored its own position even as members saw the Nippon deal as their best route to investment and job security. Rank-and-file members now have reason to worry that some of the same voices and assumptions continue to influence the union’s posture behind the scenes. Brown can dispel that concern by making clear that this negotiation will be driven by workers’ long-term interests.
U.S. Steel’s proposal provides ample room to do so. It includes approximately 18.2 percent compounded wage growth over five years and a $4,000 ratification bonus, while leaving the identified pension plans and profit-sharing calculation unchanged. Those benefits reflect gains won through union negotiations and would allow workers to share in the company’s growth.
USW has objected to proposed health-care changes, arguing that they would shift some additional costs to workers. Those concerns merit consideration, but the union should not let one point of contention outweigh the offer’s other significant benefits. The fact of the matter is health-care costs continue to rise for employers and employees, and refusing to discuss how benefits are structured will not make that pressure disappear. That’s why U.S. Steel has proposed a joint benefits committee through which management and union representatives could examine costs and seek ways to preserve strong coverage. That is precisely the kind of problem a collaborative relationship should solve.
This is why these negotiations matter beyond a single company or sector. Government can enforce trade laws and companies can commit billions of dollars, but America cannot rebuild its industrial strength without productive labor relations. USW can show that organized labor knows how to secure gains for members while giving manufacturers the stability required to invest and compete. Or it can carry yesterday’s fight into decisions that will shape steelmaking and the downstream manufacturers that depend on it for decades.
The parties took one constructive step by extending the existing contract for 30 days after it expired to keep employees on the job. Brown should use the remaining time to turn the page from past fights and ensure the largest influx of capital U.S. Steel has seen in decades becomes a real gain for her members. By working towards a mutually beneficial five-year agreement, she would protect steelworkers, provide the certainty these investments require, and offer national labor leaders a model for placing hardworking Americans – the backbone of our country’s success – at the center of America’s industrial renewal.
Nicolee Ambrose previously served as a Presidential appointee and senior official at the United States Department of Labor.
