The negotiations on a new contract between the United Steelworkers and ArcelorMittal labor agreement are being watched by Wall Street as well as Main Street.

The question continually being asked by members of the investment community, the local community and the USW is whether the union would take punitive measures -- such as a workers' strike -- if an agreement isn't reached by the Sept.1 expiration date of the current contract.

It's a query that can't be answered with any degree of certainty.

The presidents of the 12 USW locals covering about 14,000 workers at ArcelorMittal facilities are returning to Pittsburgh for a strategy session today. Negotiations with the company are scheduled to resume Monday.

Although agreements were reached on some issues, talks broke off Aug. 8 after the company rejected what the USW said was its final proposal, and the union rejected the company's counteroffer.

The USW negotiating team for ArcelorMittal had hoped to reach an agreement that would set the pattern for the industry. Their hopes were dashed Monday when the union approved a tentative agreement with U.S. Steel Corp.

But the locals' presidents specifically were asked not to take a strike authorization vote when they returned from Pittsburgh last week, according to a message one sent to his members.

Jim Robinson, USW District 7 director, said Thursday the union "has every intention" of reaching an agreement with ArcelorMittal next week.

"I feel pretty good that's going to happen," he said. "If it doesn't, we have to assess what we have to do to get an agreement we can accept."

ArcelorMittal officials have said they're committed to reaching an agreement before September.

The ArcelorMittal agreement should follow the pattern set by U.S. Steel's, Robinson said.

"It's not written in stone, but historically that's been what it is," he said. "There will be some differences, but overall, we want to keep it a level playing field."

An industry analyst, who asked not to be identified, said Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel's labor, raw material and interest costs are much lower than ArcelorMittal's.

"(Arcelor)Mittal has $38.8 billion in debt while U.S. Steel has only $3 billion," he said. "ArcelorMittal is paying much more in interest charges, so it can't afford to give the union what U.S. Steel did."

Thus, he contends ArcelorMittal won't find it palatable to accept a pattern agreement with the same terms as its competitor.

Steel analyst Charles Bradford, of New York-based Bradford Research/Soleil Securities, agrees it will be a difficult process, but said an amicable agreement is possible.

"Neither side wants a strike," said Bradford, who is often called the dean of the steel analysts. "Both sides have come too long a way to have hard feelings again."

Outstanding economic issues in the USW/ArcelorMittal negotiations may include those dealing with retiree health care benefits and profit sharing.