Now this strike has dragged on much longer than it should and much longer than anyone directly involved would have expected.

The most unfortunate aspect of this strike as I view it is that the union members walking the picket lines do not have a direct voice in the negotiations. Even their elected representatives have only limited opportunity to comment or contribute. The negotiators for the Steelworkers are union executives who are not getting strike pay. They continue to draw their regular generous salaries with accompanying expense accounts whether the strike lasts for one week or one year.

A key issue in the negotiations, and one that the local rank-and-file focused on early in the strike, was that they were not going to accept a restructured wage schedule that would reduce their pay by as much as one-half. I cannot find where that was ever on the table, but it circulated among the rank-and-file as wildfire. Of course the members would not and could not agree to anything that egregious. This possibility was floated by the union execs to solidify the membership. It was never a threat or proposal by the company. What is on the table is a proposed wage for new hires of $13 per hour, which is approximately one-half current wages for existing production personnel. The company has agreed to maintain existing pay scales for current or laid-off employees and provide for some increases in certain job classifications in the future.

The next and seemingly most intractable issue is plant closings. I suspect that if the Steelworkers were not adamantly opposed to any closings whatsoever, the company would attempt to shut down more than one U.S. factory in the next few years. So, in an effort to be reasonable, the company has offered to close only one. “Offered” is perhaps a misnomer. The company insists that it will close the Tyler, Texas, plant and there will not be further discussion. The union has dues-paying members at the Tyler plant who fully expect to be looked after at the negotiating table. They should not be sacrificial lambs. They paid their dues and deserve the same consideration as all of the others.

Now back to the real world. Goodyear does not need to keep the Tyler plant open. It is a money-loser. The hard work and dedication of its employees notwithstanding, it is a drain on the company’s profitability. But the union execs see the issue much differently. If Tyler goes, which plant is next? Never mind that the company has clearly offered to include a “no close” clause in the contract, the union cannot let one group of members be lost. It sets a threatening example.

So the talks stall on this point as Steelworkers all over the country walk picket lines and worry about personal finances. Christmas is coming soon. Tire workers are middle-class Americans. They are not accustomed to hard-candy Christmases. They don’t deserve the stress and pain caused by this strike. Sadly, they are not positioned to do much more than reassure each other and hope that the union fat cats will concede the Tyler plant closing for the greater good of the membership.

The issue of job security goes beyond plant closings and always involves layoff or termination agreements. As I wrote about in my previous article, Goodyear must strive to maintain a cost-competitive position in the global tire manufacturing playing field. To do so means it must be more productive. This is another way of saying more work outputs with fewer work inputs. The company has indicated that about 10 percent of the existing work force could be affected as cost-reduction efforts are implemented. This has to be agreed to by the union or else the members will be working for a truly moribund enterprise. That possibility is more threatening than anything else being discussed.

The above op-ed piece was written by David Wilson, retired former president of Fasco Industries’ consumer products division. It appeared originally in the Fayetteville Observer on Nov. 30.