The Company has informed the union that if (the proposal) is voted down the plant won't reopen. In this last proposal, the Company has agreed to remove the language about having the ability to schedule employees 24 hours from the proposal. The Company has also agreed to start the plant back up the next day after the proposal is approved.

Date: October 30, 2009

Well, that day has come and gone. The second vote turned out to be against concessions again. How unfortunate. The mill is closed now for at least a year or two. That puts hundreds of people out of work in a medium-sized city with Georgetown County having a 12.5 unemployment rating so far.

I voted for concessions the first time. I stood against concessions the second. I voted for concessions this time. I see the writing on the wall. I will not be the one to shut down this plant for good.

We've been idle since July 2009. To the steel industry, that's a big deal. In the free market we live in, this downtime gives our customers the potential to move away from us and find what they need from other steelmakers, with the high probability of going overseas for it. Once we lose our customers, it would be hard to get them back. It's simple business. Our customers depend on knowing that we'll be there through thick and thin. They need that security. If we cannot provide it, they'll move on.

I would much rather be beat on quality - with a chance to fix - than beat on being closed down.

ArcelorMittal has done fine by me and my family. My union has as well. This situation isn't something people wish for, but it is here. The right decision, in my opinion, was to vote this in and get back to work. We could have made our own destiny, but we had to be able to work to do so. Giving the company power to shut us down for good decides our fate - a fate we cannot benefit from.

In the Georgetown Times this week, union members at ArcelorMittal - Georgetown say they weren't told of the mill closure before it hit the press. Well, I beg to differ.

The union members were told before they voted a second time the mill was indeed going to be closed. It was in black and white. Playing "chicken" with a company that has a lot more to give than lose didn't work.

What was the majority thinking? Their "no" vote meant nothing? The company would just keep coming back?

Workers fretted over no "guarantees" offered by the company. They provided a chance to get back to work and catch the market before it comes back strong. The guarantee, however, was provided by the majority of "no" voters: The mill will shut down.

I wonder whether these people realize this isn't 1980 anymore. Dealing with ArcelorMittal in this situation was our first dance with the company. Applying the same attitude applied yesteryear did not work.

Now, people who wanted to go back to work can't. Others blame the union.

The union's stance was in favor of concessions from the beginning. The workers themselves made their decision. The union did not force them to vote no. They happily voted down the chance to go back to work.

In this economy, I would take a chance to go to work over a guarantee to shut the mill down.

Unfortunately, majority rules...