Chaos in the Mines

"This union's falling apart. We've got no unity, no leadership. We're at the mercy of management. If you vote for me, I'll make the union great again." Having delivered that pitch, Harry Patrick, one of three candidates for president of the United Mine Workers, wipes the sweat from his brow and circles the spartan bathhouse of the Eccles mine near Beckley, W. Va., looking for another hand to shake. The miners, encrusted with coal dust and bathed in the harsh glare of mercury-vapor lamps, eye him as they change shifts at midnight. "Don't make no difference who gets elected," grumbles Jim Pavlik after Patrick passes by. "They all promise you everything and produce nothing."

That cynicism is rampant in the nation's coal fields as the 280,000 working and retired members of the U.M.W. prepare to vote next week. Yet the election could not be more pivotal. With its leadership preoccupied by bitter intramural power struggles and its membership caught up in a seemingly endless series of wildcat strikes, the U.M.W. has reached the brink of disintegration--just when President Carter's energy policy calls for a two-thirds increase in coal production by 1985. If the election fails to produce peace and competent leadership for the mine workers, the forthcoming coal boom could well bust the union. Companies will either start negotiating contracts at a local, rather than national level, or simply turn to nonunion mines. Non-U.M.W. mines already provide 40% of the nation's coal.

The campaign pits incumbent President Arnold Miller, 54, a taciturn, pallid veteran of 22 years in the mines, against an old friend and an old foe. The former ally is Patrick, 46, a fiery reformer who helped Miller oust the corrupt regime of W.A. ("Tony") Boyle five years ago; Patrick is now U.M.W. secretary-treasurer. The longtime Miller opponent is Lee Roy Patterson, 42, a onetime crony of Boyle's and a member of the union's executive board. Miller appears to be the front runner; Patterson, benefiting from a split in the reform vote between Miller and Patrick, seems to be second and gaining.

Personal Abuse. All three have run their campaigns on shoestring budgets with limited staffs out of dilapidated headquarters in West Virginia. Seeking to shake hands at shift-change times, they often must show up at one mine at midnight, at another many miles away eight hours later, at a third in midafternoon. Their campaigns have consisted largely of personal abuse. Patrick accuses Miller of wasting union funds by spending excessive time at a motel in Charleston instead of going to his home 30 miles away; he is careful to go no further than that. Miller says that Patrick lost the union millions of dollars by setting up a computerized dues-accounting system that does not work. Patterson calls both Miller and Patrick "clowns"; Patrick terms Patterson a "scab."

The underlying issue is who can best put the battered U.M.W. back together again and bargain most firmly with the coal operators for a new contract. The present agreement expires in December. Miller, by all accounts, lost control of the union when opposition to his administration developed in the executive board. He argues that, given a new vote of confidence from the rank and file, he could silence his opponents and take firm command of the U.M.W. If anything, however, anti-Miller forces are consolidating their grip on the board in district elections, presaging still more trouble for Miller, even if he is reelected. On economic issues, Miller reminds miners that the contract he negotiated in 1974 gave them a hefty 54% wage-and-benefit increase over three years.

Patrick and Patterson both charge that Miller, a poor administrator, is incapable of managing a major labor union. Patrick promises to restore order while maintaining the democratic reforms instituted by Miller, including rank-and-file ratification of contracts. Patterson emphasizes a strong presidency. "I want democracy," he says, "but to have it, you have to have responsibility and strong leadership."

Explicit Right. The coal industry and the Carter Administration are watching the race with more than casual interest. Bargaining for a new coal contract will begin in the fall, and all three candidates are calling for increases of 50% over three years in wages alone. They also believe that the present labor-management grievance system is unworkable. Instead of sending disputes to arbitration, they want to write into the national contract a clause giving locals an explicit right to strike over grievances. The coal operators are adamantly opposed, fearing still more walkouts. In 1976, wildcats cost the companies more than 2 million man-days of labor and 20 million tons of coal.

A national coal strike next winter, of course, would be a severe setback for the Carter Administration's plans to increase use of coal. Unfortunately, a strike seems almost inevitable. So does further chaos in the U.M.W.--no matter who wins. Either Miller or Patrick would face a nearly impossible task of overcoming deeply rooted antagonism toward reformers among conservative miners, while Patterson would antagonize younger miners who have no wish to go back to the authoritarianism of Boyle and John L. Lewis. "We're crying for leadership," says Miner Earl Lucas, "and it just ain't there."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.