U.S. STEEL ACQUISTION BY NIPPON STEEL - USW PRESIDENT McCALL'S MISINFORMATION TO HIS MEMBERSHIP AND COMMUNITIES

A SERIOUS READ IF YOU REALLY WANT TO CHECK THE FACTS ON McCALL'S STATEMENTS IN REGARDS TO THIS PENDING ACQUISITION OF U.S. STEEL BY NIPPON STEEL

So on December the 8th of 2024, the USW President sent this letter into the homes of the bargaining unit employees that work for U.S. Steel in an attempt to explain some things.? This writer may not have access to these members like McCall does, but there may be someone that reads this Article that will have access and will get it into the hands of the employees, the communities, politicians, Nippon, U.S. Steel.? Again, my goal is not to gain notoriety, but to simply set the record straight as there are many misstatements in this document and they need to be exposed for being disingenuous by providing inaccurate information to everyone listed above.? The following is McCall’s letter and this Writer’s responses to those inaccurate statements are in bold italics to provide a better way of tracking each statement by the USW International President:?

McCall writes:

December 8, 2024

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We know that for the past year you have been bombarded with letters, interviews, videos and meetings with the various USS management and leaders from Nippon, along with a sea of ads, on TV and billboards, at sporting events and airports, and even mailed into your homes. USS and Nippon have done their best – and spent top dollar – to try to convince you that this potential sale is just as good for workers as it is for stockholders.?

Writers response -The shame of it all is that while Nippon seems willing to listen to the employee(s) who will be most affected, the USW isn’t listening to its membership about their desires, wishes, or most importantly their own jobs.

McCall - This doublespeak is the same tactic that CEO Dave Burritt employed in the past when he tried to get concessions from you during the last two rounds of negotiations. We all know Burritt is good at twisting the facts to help him achieve his goals. When he said publicly during our most recent?round of bargaining that he’d like to pay out more in profit sharing, what he really meant is that he wanted to claw back the wage increases. In every set of negotiations since he became CEO of U.S. Steel in 2017, Burritt has tried to slash your health care benefits and make you pay monthly?health care premiums. He has demanded concessions in every round of bargaining, and he’s doing his best to do it again.

Writers response - The USW International President seems fixated on U.S. Steels CEO, Dave Burritt and what he’s done in the past, but Nippon Steel DOES NOT employ Dave Burritt nor should it as it is with most acquisitions, the sitting CEO, doesn’t get to stick around and McCall knows this and in fact if he’s so concerned that Burritt might remain in the picture if Nippon is the successful bidder, then McCall should side bar with Nippon and tell them that Burritt cannot and will not be part of this deal moving forward.? It’s been done numerous times in the past so there’s no reason to believe that it can’t continue to happen again.? As to what Burritt has attempted to gain in the last two (2) rounds of bargaining, so what.? Hasn’t the USW attempted to gain improvements that were far-reaching in the beginning to posture itself for what they really wanted to obtain in the end.? It’s called negotiations McCall and while the average worker doesn’t necessarily concern themselves with the “sausage making” process, this is how the art of contract negotiations goes.

McCall - Lately, USS and Nippon have rolled out a full court press to secure your support and the support of community leaders for their proposed transaction. The companies made both empty promises and real threats to local community leaders, our USW members and anyone else who will listen.

Writers response - McCall states that Nippon has made “empty promises and real threats to local community leaders, its members….” So McCall, why don’t you share with your membership what promises that CEO Goncalves of Cleveland-Cliffs has made that convinced YOU to jump on their bandwagon early on and despite what Nippon may offer, YOU have not budged on YOUR POSITION.? Tell YOUR members exactly what promises Cliffs has provided to the USW that “trumps” Nippons commitments that it has made publicly and privately to YOU.? Surely YOU have something in hand to go to the extreme that YOU have in order to not only give this Company that clearly has the wherewithal to actually meet the commitments set forth in the BLA, (not so sure that Cliffs can however) but be more transparent with your own members about this.? Unless of course it will ruffle the feathers of YOUR CEO buddy, Goncalves which you seem to be taken up with like the USW did with Wilbur Ross of ISG.? Remember, Ross ultimately bailed on you and your members in the end making not millions, but billions off selling all those steel plants the USW helped him sweep up on.

McCall - But in spite of all the lofty rhetoric, it’s clear that Burritt still does not care about workers. All he cares about is the $72 million he’ll get cashing in on the deal and the dollars per share that the stockholders (including him) are going to receive.?

Writers Response - Again, McCall you and your team seem to be fixated on the $72 million that Burritt will get but YOU and the USW didn’t seem nearly as concerned about the fact that Wilbur Ross made 12.5 times his initial investment in ISG.? So in other words, Ross put together a few hundred million dollars, bought up several steel companies that were in bankruptcy, only after dumping their “legacy costs” (pension plants and retiree health care plans) and made several billion dollars profit when he sold them less than five (5) years after he and the USW screwed the USW membership and their families out of concessions that they absolutely had to take in order to have jobs.

McCall - When this deal was announced, Nippon Vice President Takahiro Mori publicly stated that?Nippon would follow the USS plan and would eventually transfer production from current?facilities to Big River. Since then, he’s never walked back that comment, deepening our?concerns that Nippon will be no better than USS.?

Writers Response - So McCall, if YOU are so concerned about this possibility, then negotiate an Addendum to the current BLA that restricts Nippon’s ability to do this.? It is a mandatory subject of bargaining, or better yet, insist as part of a deal that Nippon agree to allow the Neutrality Provision for organizing the “Big River Plant” be applicable and organize this group of non-union employees.

?McCall - We all know that USS has a history of broken commitments, resulting in shutting down steelmaking and other operations at both Great Lakes and Granite City. It broke its promise of more than $1 billion in new and updated technology in the Mon Valley, and then instead decided to buy Big River.

Writers Response - Now McCall, you really must be called out on this statement about USS breaking its promise of spending $1 billion in new and updated technology in the Mon Valley, and instead, buying the Big River Plant.? If what you claim were in fact true, how did the Arbitration Hearing go when the USW grieved the fact that USS broke its promise, or in other words, violated the BLA, how big was the Arbitrators Award for the USW? ?In all transparency, there was no Arbitration or grievance filed over this broken promise because in both the previous BLA and the current BLA, while there is a provision that addresses making capital expenditures at the facilities covered by the Agreement of no less than $1 Billion during the terms of the BLA’s, there is another clause that follows it that YOU seem to NEVER mention to the press or your members.? That clause states, “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company’s Board of Directors shall be entitled to disapprove any level of capital expenditure which, in its reasonable judgement, would be imprudent.” ?So in all fairness and full transparency here, there was not Grievance filed and there was no Arbitration because USS didn’t violate the BLA as you keep claiming “they broke their promise”.

McCall - It shut down the East Chicago Tin Mill, the UPI Tin Mill and then idled tin operations at the Gary and Midwest plants. In addition, USS shut down Lone Star Steel, the Lorain, Ohio plant and coke batteries at Clairton.?

Writer Response - While the shutdowns of the plants you reference may be true, the real question is, have you asked Nippon what it intends to do about these idled plants or even better yet, has Cleveland-Cliffs CEO Goncalves committed to YOU that HE will re-open these plants for operation if given the bid?? These are legitimate questions that need to be answered up front and full transparency should be given not only to YOUR membership, but to these same communities and families that you are blasting Nippon for reaching out to and talking to about what their intentions are!

McCall - In our initial information request to Nippon, we asked for a list of pending and approved capital investment projects and which projects, specifically, Nippon Steel would approve and implement. We also noted the $1 billion capital investment commitment under the 2022 Labor Agreement. Nippon replied that USS had already satisfied its investment commitment and that it would “be in a position to review any potential additional capital expenditures” only after its purchase of USS was completed. In March 2024, Nippon Steel announced it would make capital investments of no less than $1.4 billion during 2024-2026. It was not until the August 29, 2024 press release that Nippon Steel acknowledged that the initial $1.4 billion included only sustaining repair and maintenance expenditure and no growth capital investment.?

Writers Response - Once again, McCall must be called out on misrepresenting the facts as they truly are.? Nippon has not only stated that they would honor the $1 Billion in capital expenditures at the facilities covered by the BLA’s, but it also committed to an additional $1.4 Billion to be used as it should be in bringing the old antiquated equipment that is currently not able to allow the Company to compete against other steel companies by investing in this equipment first.? What’s wrong about that approach McCall.? You don’t currently enjoy that commitment from USS and if Cliffs CEO has committed differently, again, this Writer implores you to be more transparent.? In other words, YOU don’t live in a glass house so YOU shouldn’t throw stones without expecting to get some thrown back at YOU.

McCall - When USS and Nippon received letters from the government in August 2024 saying the deal was in jeopardy due to national security concerns, Nippon issued a press release announcing that it would invest another $1.3 billion, though it never offered that commitment to the union. This announcement was for a new or upgraded hot mill in the Mon Valley and $300 million in #14 blast furnace in Gary without timelines or specifics.

Writers Response - McCall, are YOU truly going to look a “gift horse” in the mouth and not take advantage of an additional $1.3 billion simply because Nippon didn’t tell YOU first?? I mean is that your best representation for your membership to question this additional investment from an acquiring purchaser.? Wouldn’t YOUR time be best used actually sitting down with the representatives of Nippon that have full authority to have full and frank discussions and come up with at the very least a “framework Addendum” to the existing BLA that provides all the “reasonable” guarantees that YOU are hoping to get?? Or could it be that YOU are so tied to the hip of CEO Goncalves of Cleveland-Cliffs that YOU are simply not even willing to make it appear that YOU are actually entertaining the idea of working out a deal with Nippon? I mean, YOU and your legal team filed a grievance against USS and took the matter to Arbitration and lost.? In other words, the Panel of Arbitrators ruled that USS had in fact not violated the BLA as the USW had asserted but instead had met the very requirements that YOU relied upon to assert this silly notion that the USW has “VETO POWER” in this BLA to block the sale.? This Writer would challenge YOU to point out the specific provision by Article, Section, Paragraph, and Sentence to support this ludicrous argument.? As much as YOU and your predecessor Tom Conway want to “tout this argument”, there simply isn’t language to back up this claim.? In fact, to the contrary because while if there was precedent setting cases as Conway once claimed, then provide evidence of such because it is this Writers opinion that just the opposite precedent exists whereby it may have been attempted but when challenged on it, backed off and didn’t insist upon it being what the USW is claiming it does.? In fact, the same holds true on the issue concerning the “Party to the Agreement” being the “Parent Company”.? This Writer concedes that while the “Parent Company” may commit that they are in fact the owner(s) of facilities purchased under this very same successorship language, there’s no requirement in the BLA that requires them to become the signatory party to the BLA.? Again, if YOU differ from this opinion, then bring forth the evidence to support such position as this Writer knows of just the opposite being the case from his employment with the USW for nearly twenty (20) years and his dealings with both domestically owned and non-domestic, foreign Companies acquiring Companies in the United States that the USW had BLA’s with and there was no mandate or requirement of insisting on getting the “Parent Company” to become the “Party to the Agreement”.

McCall - Even if Nippon, in fact, follows through, this leaves us with urgent questions: If the only investment is the hot mill in the Mon Valley and #14 blast furnace what happens to the downstream operations? What about the rest of the assets at Irvin? What about the coke operations at Clairton? What about the blast furnaces, BOFs and casters at Edgar Thomson? What about the hot mill, cold mills and tin operations in Gary and the midwest? What about the other two blast furnaces and BOFs and casters in Gary? What about blast furnaces in Granite City and the ongoing operations in both Granite City and Great Lakes? What about the Fairless plant? What is the future of tubular in Alabama? What is the plan for sustainability of the mines??

?

Writer - McCall, I will grant you that these are important matters that the USW should want some clarity, some commitments on but I will ask you this.? Have YOU asked Cleveland-Cliffs CEO the same questions and if so, have YOU shared what his answers would be to the same questions?? If not, then YOU ARE NOT holding Cliffs to the same standard that YOU chose to hold Nippon to.? Better yet, I’ll ask this question.? Have YOU sit down and really looked closely at the duplicity of work that will overlap (particularly in the auto industry with tin steel used for making car parts) ?Do YOU really think that if Cliffs were to be the successful bidder that this would pass the Justice Departments Anti-Trust Division?? YOU have to know that this Company would not look the same as it does now and YOU have to know that the Auto Industry has been lobbying against Cleveland-Cliffs acquiring USS because of the market and the fact that the prices of automobiles would go up and thus passed on to the buyers, YOUR members.? YOU DO KNOW THIS, RIGHT???? Additionally, I find it very interesting that you make no mention whatsoever about what some of YOUR REAL CONCERNS are with this transition.? I mean why are YOU not raising the Pension and Health Care issues that YOU’VE stated all along that YOU are so fearful of losing?? Could it be that you know that what is guaranteed by the PBGC (Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation) and ERISA that YOU know that they are protected by law?? Also YOU make no mention about the USW Pension Trust that many employees of USS are participants in.? Why is that?

?McCall - When the union asked about these operations, Nippon’s response was we would talk after the sale. This is not how we work. We don’t bargain contracts on faith, and we don’t accept promises that don’t come with enforceable guarantees. There are real opportunities to expand the market and increase the amount of quality products that USW members make efficiently and safely. But this will only happen if the people managing USS have the willingness to meaningfully invest in our facilities and our workforce.?

Writers Response - Once again McCall, I must call YOU out on this position from a legal standpoint.? Just so we are crystal clear about something because YOUR members, their families, and the communities affected deserve to know the truth about this issue.? Now I know that YOU know this and I’m quite certain that your Chief Legal Counsel for the USW, David Jury knows this as well.? NIPPON STEEL IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN WITH THE USW UNTIL AFTER THE CONSUMATION OF THE SALE! Nippon is not the current Party to the Agreements in question.? U.S. Steel still is and therefore, it would be illegal to entire a Contract negotiations with a “potential Buyer” when THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY TOLD YOU, THE USW THAT THEY ARE ASSUMING THE CURRENT BLA’s.? Now as for anyone that doesn’t know this, here is the reason why.? NIPPON DIDN’T SELECT THAT OPTION UNDER THE CURRENT BLA!? Instead, Nippon chose the option of “assuming all agreements applicable to the Plant(s) acquired.”? Therefore, if their attorneys are labor lawyers that understand Labor Agreements and dealings with the NLRB, then they should be advising Nippon that they DO NOT have to bargain anything with the USW involving this acquisition.? Secondly, I have to believe that YOU have been advised by USW legal counsel to not even suggest opening up the current Bargaining Agreement, because if you did, then it makes everything in these BLA’s open to bargaining. ?That being stated, what Nippon and the USW can and should do is meet and discuss openly what issues are most important to them both and make a genuine attempt to come up with the framework of an “Addendum” to the current BLA’s that would include some of the items YOU have expressed concern over.? But don’t get too greedy as this type of situation is similar to when a plant or operation is going down and “effects bargaining occurs”.? The same holds true here that would in that situation and that is that the leverage that the USW has in bargaining a new or renewal contract is the withholding of labor if an Agreement cannot be reached.? In this situation, any attempt to strike while there is a BLA in existence would be considered an illegal strike and couldn’t be sanctioned or supported by the USW.

McCall - It’s our obligation to press USS and Nippon on future plans, just as it has always been our responsibility to protect the long-term future of steelmaking jobs in our country. Based on Mori’s statements it won’t be long before Nippon implements its plan and transfers production from our facilities to Big River.

Writers Response - Once again McCall, I am going to provide some insight on this statement you make.? First of all, while you may feel it’s the USW’s obligation to press Nippon on future plans, you’re incorrect in that statement.? Nippon Steel is not party to the BLA yet so they aren’t obligated to tell you anything more than what they are willing to offer up, whether YOU like it or not.? Now, YOU and the USW can press USS on future plans because of two (2) things: 1) USS is still in a contractual relationship with the USW and so by them being “a Party to the BLA”, they have certain obligations; 2) In accordance with such BLA, there exists a provision, Article 6 – Joint Efforts which does require USS to provide the USW with short and long term operating and financial results and forecasts including inputs relevant to the development of them….Additionally, USS and the USW are required under this Article to hold regular meetings at the very highest level of each of the respective Organizations. As to Nippon implementing some plan to move work that is currently being performed at Union shops to Big River, then when the renegotiations of the BLA occur, negotiate a provision that will restrict such from occurring.? Dave, that is such a simple solution yet YOU are using it to scare your members away from Nippon.? YOU, Dave McCall are doing the very thing that you are accusing Nippon and U.S. Steel of doing.? While I have spoken often as to your methodical and genuine approach to situations, I find this hypocritical coming from YOU.

McCall - As a union, our primary concern is the future of our jobs and the communities we live and work in – not just this year, but also for the foreseeable future. We’ve seen job losses in the past, and we must do everything we can to avoid it in the future. We have to reject the empty promises and irresponsible threats that have many community leaders clamoring for the deal. We need to stand up against the devastation Nippon’s long-term plans will bring to our communities and reject the short-term monetary gains for USS executive management and the stockholders.

Writers Response - The USW has gone to bed with more CEO’s than I care to recall but just to name a few: James Wainscott of AK Steel was promised something of great value to the membership that once worked at AK Steel in Ashland, KY.? It was the strongest seniority provision with a guarantee of jobs at that particular site for as long as there was a need for that product.? The Company shut down part of that operation and the case was taken to Arbitration and the Union prevailed with a favorable opinion.? There was a deal made shortly thereafter that at the next round of contract negotiations the Company could “buy” that language out of the Contract if it offered enough money.? Sure enough it happened despite warnings of the end result if they accepted it.? That plant is now gone, these jobs are now lost, and the land is cleared off as if it never existed.

The same holds true with the CEO of Century Aluminum and some of their top Executives where the Steelworkers bought their story "lock stock and barrel" only to be challenged by the Local Union leadership and the membership that determined that they were not going to buy what the Company or the USW was selling and voted against a Contract that the USW supported 100% and it was still voted down, even after the USW assured the membership and their families that it was the Companies Last, Best, and Final offer. That membership and Local leadership never believed the USW again for it wasn't the Company's BLF and they, the Local leadership called both the Company and the USW on it and prevailed. So in other words, there is a track record of the USW not presenting all the facts.

Additionally, this same Local Union and its members were ready to hang all of us at their next negotiations after putting a FASB-106 letter in place and making commitments to them and then not living up to our commitments. Trust with the USW must, or should be at an "all time low" with some of the situations that have occurred throughout the years in bargaining their livelihoods of their families away.

Wilbur Ross of ISG should have taught a very valuable lesson to the USW but instead of admitting it was a bad deal that only made the rich, richer and it all happened on the backs of the employees and retirees, the USW acts as if they’ve learned nothing from it at all.

As to short-term monetary gains for upper management at USS, are you certain that this is your main worry or could it be that you care more about the International Unions revenue losing income due to what you perceive to be job losses. ?Dave, YOU of all people are aware of these “golden parachutes” for certain identified positions that help guide Company’s navigate through these types of situation.? YOU shouldn’t act as if YOU’RE not aware that these happen every day.? Additionally, If Cliffs has given you employment level commitments, then McCall, you should be more transparent about what type of arrangements you seem to have with what appears to be your new best friend, Lourenco Goncalves, CEO of Cleveland-Cliffs. ?What guarantees has he given you that make YOU so determined that his Company is a better deal than Nippon because your own rank and file members and many of your own Local Union Leadership are against YOUR idea of what’s best for them, their families, and their communities.? Dave McCall, you claim the following: “We need to stand up against the devastation Nippon’s long-term plans will bring to our communities…”in other words what guarantee can YOU provide YOUR own members with that Cliffs purchase doesn’t end up causing this same devastation?? Better yet, are YOU attempting to “bully” Nippon Steel into agreeing to something long term that YOU fully know doesn’t exists with any other Company that the USW has Labor Agreements with.? As you know McCall, the only guarantees are what is within the four (4) corners of the Collective Bargaining Agreements and such guarantees have “time limitations” on them.? It’s called “the lifetime or the length of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.”? Unless there are certain items that are protected through a Government Entity, it’s not guaranteed for life.” YOU know this.? David Jury knows this. Director Millsap is aware of this.? Director Flippo is aware of this.? So why are YOU and others trying to intentionally mislead the membership, their families, the communities and all others that it works any other way?? When a Contract Expires, everything is up for re-negotiations as I am certain that YOU and the aforementioned individuals named above are well aware of this.

MEETINGS UPDATE

McCall - When we first met with Hiroshi Ono, President and CEO of Nippon Steel North America, and his team, he said directly he would not amend or modify the BLA to provide relief for our concerns regarding Nippon’s ownership.

?Writers Response - Once again McCall, you must be called out and corrected on this statement.? Nippon Steel has indicated to the USW and you personally that they are “assuming” or in other words, adopting the current BLA.? This is their right under the Terms of the current BLA in Article 6, Section D (b) and if “THEY” were to stray from that approach, the USW could and would claim that Nippon mislead everyone about assuming the current BLA’s.? If you want to change or get the acquiring Company to do “anything” that changes any provisions in the four (4) corners of the BLA, then YOU and the USW have two (2) options and it is, 1) Either agree to an Addendum to the existing BLA’s setting forth the changes YOU want to see, and; 2) When these BLA’s expire, then is the time to negotiate whatever it may be that YOU want to change.

?McCall - Since that time, Nippon management made either worthless public statements or sent the union letters that are full of wiggle words and escape clauses. We have not received a single enforceable guarantee that our jobs and facilities will be a priority for the long haul.?In short, for every commitment that Nippon claims to make, it provides itself a way to walk away from the commitment without recourse.

Writers Response – McCall, YOU have repeatedly claimed that “We have not received a single enforceable guarantee that our jobs and facilities will be a priority for the long haul. In short, for every commitment that Nippon claims to make, it provides itself a way to walk away from the commitment without recourse.”? McCall, just so we are clear on this, when YOU reference the “long haul” are YOU referring to the term of a negotiated Bargaining Agreement or is it YOUR intent to mean beyond the expiration of such BLA?? Because if YOU are stating the latter of the two, then YOU and YOUR TEAM have to know that the USW doesn’t have those guarantees anywhere else in Labor Agreements primarily because its illegal but secondly any Company would be stupid and fiscally irresponsible to negotiate certain benefits that they have to carry forward on their balance sheets to show their shareholders, their lending agencies, but most importantly, in their filings with the Government.? Therefore, if YOU have this “Guarantee” in other BLA’s that the USW has with other Employers, produce them to Nippon in support of YOUR position.? We both know that they simply DO NOT EXIST, ABSENT THE PARTIES RENEWING THEM AT EACH BARGAINING SESSION WITH EITHER INCREASES OR REMAINING "AS IS".

McCall - Nippon management continues to claim that the USW international union refuses to meet with them.

Writers Response – McCall, isn’t it a fact that when YOU have been asked by Nippon Management to meet, YOU have refused to do so.? That is what the record shows but if YOU can provide differently, then that’s what YOU should do in order to “set the record straight”.

McCall - What we won’t do is agree to support this ill-conceived deal without real guardrails.

Writers Response – Again McCall, these “guardrails” that YOU keep referencing. Are YOU suggesting that they provide the USW with something outside the four corners of the current, existing Labor Agreement that they have already agreed to assume?? Secondly, if that is so, can YOU provide any other Labor Contracts between the USW and any other Employer that provides what YOU are referring to as “guardrails”?

McCall - We met and had discussions, both in person and in writing, with Nippon and USS. We discussed the needs and desires of our members and the ongoing concerns about the economic sustainability of future employment for the communities where we continue to operate. We continue to ask questions about the future of our operations, and we continue to get the same responses that we got at the first meeting: we will talk about it after the sale. Nippon doesn’t have any answers, just empty promises.

Writers Response – When YOU say things such as, “economic sustainability of future employment, and future operations” are YOU suggesting that Nippon must have a crystal ball and be able to discern what the future holds for the steel industry and even if not, are YOU looking for certain levels of employment guarantees? ?McCall, NO COMPANY can provide the level of security that you seem to be demanding from Nippon Steel.? Even when I worked for the USW and we had a contract in place between the USW and the “SRU” (Staff Representative Union), while we assumed that while we had a Contract in place, the Executive Board of the USW, (which YOU happened to be serving on) came to the SRU and demanded concessions from us) This occurred in the middle of the Contract when SRU wasn’t even obligated to meet and bargain with the USW.? The point being is that even the United Steelworkers “USW” wouldn’t provide the very promises that YOU now are wanting or expecting Nippon Steel to agree to.? Again, McCall, this is such hypocritical BS that YOU are demonstrating for those of us who know the real USW.

McCall - WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE FUTURE OF U.S. STEELMAKING

Since December 18, we have asked our elected representatives to ensure that the proposed transaction be subject to strict government scrutiny for its impact on global trade and on domestic steelmaking. Through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), our government must also scrutinize this investment by a foreign steelmaker for its potential impact on national security and supply chain reliability.

Writers Response – McCall, YOU really couldn’t be any more hypocritical with this statement.? YOU of all people know that there truly are no issues for the CFIUS committee to find.? McCall, don’t use this facade as an excuse.? Early on back in 2023 YOUR predecessor, former USW President Tom Conway made it abundantly clear from the very beginning that the USW was against this acquisition if it involved anyone other than Cleveland-Cliffs.? YOU too have taken the same position and the USW has employed politicians from both sides of the aisle to raise as much a ruckus over this company falling into the hands of Nippon Steel and have done all this “saber-rattling” getting everyone all confused, scared, threatened, and yet here YOU are accusing Nippon of following the USW’s own playbook. ?SHAME ON YOU and I really had YOU in a different category than your two (2) most recent predecessors. ?

McCall - As you all know, the USW for decades has fought to enforce our trade laws against bad actors in the global steel market. And while Japan is a political ally, it is also an economic competitor, one that has proven time and again that it is willing to promote its steel industry at our expense. The USW has repeatedly argued that dumping steel into our country suppresses our domestic capacity, causing grave national security concerns. We must have steel for our critical infrastructure and our military – now and during any time of crisis that might arise in the future.

Writers Response – While this Writer won’t deny the fact that for decade’s cheaper manufactured steel has flooded our borders, but here’s the real question YOU should answer regarding this since YOU bring it up.? When the “ITC” (International Trade Commission) determines that in fact a particular Country has committed such a violation, what actions has the USW taken to ensure that it ceases? ?Does the USW file legal action against the ITC for not imposing some form of disciplinary action to deter future behavior?? Isn’t this an option? Or do you just sit back and say well the ITC ruled in our favor but that’s as far as it goes?? Surely there has to be a mechanism in place for someone to use to deter future violations, so what does the USW do about these matters?

McCall - WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE FUTURE OF U.S. STEELMAKING

Since December 18, we have asked our elected representatives to ensure that the proposed transaction be subject to strict government scrutiny for its impact on global trade and on domestic steelmaking. Through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), our government must also scrutinize this investment by a foreign steelmaker for its potential impact on national security and supply chain reliability.

Writers Response - – Redundant Statement by McCall

As you all know, the USW for decades has fought to enforce our trade laws against bad actors in the global steel market. And while Japan is a political ally, it is also an economic competitor, one that has proven time and again that it is willing to promote its steel industry at our expense. The USW has repeatedly argued that dumping steel into our country suppresses our domestic capacity, causing grave national security concerns. We must have steel for our critical infrastructure and our military – now and during any time of crisis that might arise in the future.

Writers Response – Redundant Statement by McCall

McCall - Nippon, however, has flouted our trade laws for nearly as long as we’ve been sounding the alarm. Nippon has been subject to no fewer than 12 recent antidumping orders on steel products, including a determination just this month in which the Commerce Department found Nippon was dumping hot rolled product.

Some of these orders against Nippon go back more than 20 years and have remained in place because Commerce repeatedly found that revocation of the order would lead to more unfair trade, while the International Trade Commission repeatedly found that the resumption of unfair trade would lead to continuation or recurrence of injury to U.S. jobs and facilities.

Writers Response – McCall, in all fairness, isn’t the situation with Nippon committing this violation and the Commerce Department’s inaction the result of the thinking process that if we stop Nippon and or Japan (one of our closest NATO allies), it would simply open the floodgates to non-allies like China, Russia, North Korea and many more of our enemies getting their foot in the door so in Nippon’s case, wasn’t it decided to simply “look the other way?”

McCall - U.S. Steel makes many of the products currently under order, including seamless pipe, tin mill, cold-rolled steel, and hot-rolled steel. In these cases – or any others where U.S. Steel may have an interest – Nippon may promise that it will not oppose action under our trade laws, but there is nothing to require it to file needed trade cases to protect U.S. Steel’s domestic operations and fight for our domestic industry. We will also be at the mercy of its global operations competing for capital with its subsidiaries around the world, even if there is, technically, no dumping.

Writers Response – Isn’t it true that when the time comes to sit down and negotiate a renewal Bargaining Agreement with Nippon, that the USW can propose and insist throughout bargaining that Nippon CANNOT ship “steel products” in any form into the United States UNLESS all of the U.S. Steel manufacturing Plants are producing at 100%, no employees are laid off, displaced, and negotiate staff/manning levels based on productivity standards so if the demand exists, the product will come from U.S. Steel domestic plants and not shipped from Japan any steel that was manufactured in Japan.? This is a mandatory subject of bargaining so why not address it at the appropriate time when this Bargaining Agreement is set to expire? If all these items that YOU are raising are so critical and important to the members that YOU represent, then why would YOU not have these issues set forth in your next set of contract proposals, educate your members as the necessity of them, negotiate over them and if they cannot be achieved at the bargaining table, use the only leverage that YOU, the USW truly has at their disposal and strike this Company until YOU can achieve it in the Bargaining Agreement?? Isn’t that how negotiations work?

McCall - All of this is on top of the damage Nippon could inflict from within our market: its capacity to harvest the current assets as it transfers production to Big River.

?Writers Response – McCall, negotiate protectionary provisions that will not allow this to happen.? This isn’t rocket science, it is simple negotiations on issues that YOU are claiming is so important but your membership is not backing you on this AT THIS TIME.? READ BETWEEN THE LINES!!!

?McCall - It may promise to limit its exports of slabs to the United States, but what happens if it reduces the capacity to actually produce steel here? If Nippon is permitted to acquire USS, and this happens, our nation would not be able to undo the damage.

?Writers Response - McCall, negotiate protectionary provisions that will not allow this to happen.? This isn’t rocket science, it is simple negotiations on issues that YOU are claiming is so important but your membership is not backing you on this AT THIS TIME. As for what our Nation may and may not be able to do regarding shipping slabs produced at its Japanese facilities to ship over to the USA for processing? Create a “Third Party Agreement” between USW, Nippon Steel and the United States that will bar this from happening.? This is doable if YOU will let loose of Goncalves hand and stand on your own two (2) feet.

McCall- Both Republican and Democratic administrations have reinforced the fact that steel production is vital to our national security, our economic security and our critical infrastructure. The challenges our nation faced in recent years shined a spotlight on how vital it is to ensure we have the capacity to meet our own needs rather than relying on shaky global supply chains. This is doubly important now that the national security threats we face are greater today than they have been in decades.

Writers Response – McCall, this is simply more saber-rattling that the USW got its political friends and some across the aisle to start running with to simply support YOU and their constituent’s that live and work in the respective areas that they represent.? Based on what this Nations needs for steel product are and will continue to be for years to come, in part due to this infrastructure legislation that President Biden signed into law, we will need all the steel we can make in this Country and then some.? Wouldn’t you rather get it from a NATO ally like Japan than continue to see cheaply made steel coming in our borders from China or Russia?? Again, McCall this is a no-brainer here.

McCall - Altogether, the proposed sale is bad for workers, our communities and the domestic industry – as well as our national security, critical infrastructure and domestic supply chains. We must continue to resist it – together.

Mike Millsap District 7 Director & Chairman of the Negotiating Committee

David McCall International President

Writers Response – McCall, YOU and the USW have an obligation to not only your members, but as well as to the communities that will be impacted based on the outcome of this.? YOU, McCall should have prepared a side-by-side chart of how this sale going to Nippon Steel is so much worse than if it were to go to Cleveland-Cliffs.? In case YOU wonder why this Writer would state this, it’s because if it doesn’t go through and instead Cliffs or someone besides Nippon doesn’t ultimately prevail, YOU should prepare yourself and your labor organization for a “class action lawsuit” that will include not only prior employee(s) and their families, but also by communities that will dry up and die because YOU, as the USW President insisted on people “resisting it – together”.

This Article is being submitted on December 10, 2024 by Tim Dean, Dean Labor Management, LLC

?