U.S. refinery strike rift grows ahead of deadline

Related Topics

A motorist fills up at a gas station in Phoenix, August 10, 2011.  REUTERS/Joshua Lott

A motorist fills up at a gas station in Phoenix, August 10, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Joshua Lott

Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:03pm EST

(Reuters) - Union and oil company negotiators resumed talks on Monday after union leaders told workers to prepare for a strike within 48 hours that could shut down 6 percent of U.S. refinery capacity and cause gasoline prices to rise at a time when the country is struggling to sustain a fragile economic recovery.

A strike by the United Steelworkers union could start as early as 12:01 a.m. EST (0501 GMT) on Wednesday on the East Coast and then spread throughout the country.

USW members are hourly employees at about two-thirds of U.S. refining capacity, but only about half of those workers would go on strike on Wednesday, when their contracts expire.

More workers would walk off their jobs when contracts at their refineries expire.

Most refiners have made plans to use temporary replacement workers to keep their refineries operating during a strike.

Oil companies used temporary workers, mostly salaried supervisors and engineers, to keep their refineries operating in the last nationwide strike by refinery workers in 1980.

A strike would likely bolster gasoline crack spreads for refiners, J.P. Morgan said in a research note issued Monday.

"The spate of refinery outages seen on the U.S. East Coast has bolstered gasoline and distillate cracks in the past week," the J.P. Morgan note read. "Further disruptions to refinery throughputs would offer additional support to cracks."

A crack spread is the difference between the cost of oil and the price refiners charge for motor fuel.

Over the weekend, USW negotiators sounded a pessimistic note, warning members that without a "more substantive response from the industry" a strike may be necessary.

The USW also notified members to begin preparations to offer a safe, orderly shutdown of refineries in the event of a strike.

Most refiners are expected to reject such a shutdown offer and begin assigning replacement workers to run refinery production units.

In the Monday note, J.P. Morgan said "the notification of members may be seen by some as a bargaining tactic."

For its part, lead oil company negotiator Shell Oil Co said on Sunday it was "optimistic that a mutually satisfactory agreement can be negotiated with the USW."

Talks for a new contract began January 17 and continued into Sunday night.

While the strike deadline is Wednesday, the Steelworkers negotiators can extend it if they think progress is being made. In 2009, talks were extended three days to reach an agreement.

Shell Oil Co is the U.S. unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

(Corrects in paragraph 3 that USW represents workers at two-thirds of U.S. refining capacity, but only workers at one-third of U.S. capacity would strike as early as Wednesday)

(Reporting by Erwin Seba in Houston; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (8)
cepivon wrote:
The Union should “settle”, because it would not look good, when so many other people are struggling with unemployment & underemployment issues in this country. It doesn’t make the oil company look as bad, as it makes the Union look too covetous. The oil workers really do have great paying jobs with great benefits. Requesting additional “work” or additional “jobs” from the companies just does NOT justify the major loss to income the workers would incur. And, how can the Union guarantee its workers will work harder, when they’re all getting paid the same amount for a particular job title? That’s something that can’t be negotiated. My sense is that there is much more benefit for the Union and workers to “settle” than to strike, because it’s the workers, in the end, that will suffer, and I think the Union will consider that, especially in this treacherous economy. Beside, all the refineries are set to go. None will be shut down. No loss of business will occur. Something to consider for the union workers is that many oil “management” personnel haven’t received pay increases over the past couple of years. So…we are in tough economic times, and we all need to pull together. I have faith the Union will “settle” with the companies.

Jan 30, 2012 3:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
usw675 wrote:
Cepivon, its not about pay increase or add another job here or there, its about health and saftey, and how the companies respond to our concerns. And i dont know where you get your information but “management” has recieved pay raises over the last couple years, which would be a great sticking point if we were fighting over pay raises. Everyone in the union understands the economy understands we have great jobs with good bennifits. We also understand that if we would strike for the above listed, no one would understand. We knew that the companies wernt going to offer great pay raises, or bennifit improvments, and we were ok with this as long as they made a commitment to the health and saftey of their workers their community and the environment. To this they said no, and now the greedy union rumors go around. Do you honestly think a union is going to strike for say a $1 an hour the membership would never. But what your looking at here is a nation strike on saftey issues. To your comment about management working jobs, that works untill there is a problem, trust me working in this industry for over a decade there are lots of problems. What would they do if a fire or leak occur, which they do quite regularly, the union is the fire fire fighters and the hazmat teams, where is their concern for the saftey of the managers staying or the community, once again this shows its not a priority, its cheaper to pay death bennifits then fix a problem and thats what the union is trying to fix

Jan 30, 2012 5:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oilworker wrote:
Seems like you know a whole lot about nothing…Just to let you know, The biggest issue is SAFETY, not money. None of us wants to strike but if we have to, to create a safer work environment, WE WILL. We have one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, so to say we have great paying jobs with great benefits is unfair. What is your life worth? We can get blown up, burned to a crisp, or smashed like a pancake at any given time without warning. Not to mention all the chemicals we breathe in daily. The main thing we want is to go home with the same health as when way came into work. Is that to much to ask for?

Jan 30, 2012 5:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.