Socialist Action /July 2002
Feds Threaten Dockers who Strike
By CHARLES WALKER
"Officials with the shipping companies insist that their role
is to run an efficient port, not to protect the jobs of the unborn"
(The New York Times, June 21).
OAKLAND, Calif.-On June 27, about 1200 trade unionists and community
supporters rallied in the heart of Oakland's seaport to back the West Coast
longshore workers in their seemingly tough struggle to get a new contract.
Although the spirited rally featured key labor officials such as Teamsters
president James P. Hoffa and International Longshore Workers Union (ILWU)
president James Spinosa, only youthful workers might have been stirred by
the speakers' rhetoric. While long on solidarity and defiance, their speeches
were devoid of plans to organize the widest possible union and community
resistance to the shipping industry's intransigence at the bargaining table.
Still, even veteran unionists had to be taken aback to hear some speakers
say that the federal government-under the cover of so-called war on terrorism-had
sent a clear message that it opposes a dock strike, when the present contract
expires July 1, which could see 11,000 stevedores and other related workers
virtually halt the reportedly $260 billion of export and import commerce
that's shipped through the West Coast's 29 major seaports.
The rally, one of several held on both the West and the East Coasts,
was told that Tom Ridge, director of homeland security, had phoned the international
longshore union and in no uncertain terms told the union leadership not
to call a strike.
The government's scandalous intervention can only be designed to insure
that the terminal owners and private shipping interests come out on top,
which is far less likely if the union can use its full muscle at the point
of production.
There hasn't been a Western coastwide strike since 1971 and work has
been steady; that means that the bosses can't count on easily starving the
longshore workers into a concessionary defeat.
Moreover, the longshore union has long had an unique popularity, largely
owing to its successful 1934 strike during the depths of the Depression,
the government's failed attempts to deport Harry Bridges (its principal
founding leader), and its recognition as a bulwark for racial justice. It
seems likely that the union could count on an out-pouring of popular enthusiastic
support should the government go so far as to use military force against
the dock workers.
The ILWU isn't looking for a breakthrough contract; apparently a status
quo settlement is what they are seeking. The bosses, on the other hand,
have presented the union negotiators with a long wish-list of demands, some
of which would erode the union's strength by reducing the unionized workforce.
The bosses say that the Pacific ports are running out of room, and without
technology to increase waterfront capacity, business will be lost to Mexico
and Canada: "For months before negotiations began on May 31, management
officials said the crucial issue was technology. They said greater use of
technology would save money, reduce the two-hour lines of trucks waiting
to enter the ports and increase security in cargo-handling when the nation
fears new terrorist attacks" (New York Times, June 19).
The bosses' agenda for a new contract was laid out in the Washington
Post on Jan 5 by their labor reporter, Frank Swoboda: "The shippers'
association wants the ILWU to agree to computerize and modernize its operations
to allow a quicker turnaround of cargoes. PMA [Pacific Maritime Assn.,
the main bosses' group] officials say all job reductions would be made through
attrition and that no one would face a wage cut."
Swoboda added, "In Hong Kong, the use of computer technology means
the docks can handle an average of 15,000 cargo containers per acre because
they can move cargo so quickly. That compares with the West Coast's average
of 3000 cargo containers."
Still, if anything, dockworkers might right think that the bosses are
already short-changing them. "Longshoremen's pay adds up to slightly
more than 1 percent of the cargo value they handlecosts that are 'negligible,'
a top PMA official" revealed to Swoboda.
If the contract expires and the dockworkers report for work, the companies
might call a lockout, themselves shutting down the docks. That's because
the union could decide to "work to rule," by scrupulously observing
safety regulations and strictly enforcing "past practice," hard-won
unwritten on-the-job procedures and understandings between workers and their
immediate supervisors.
"Everyone now believes the unions will engage in slowdowns around
the 6th of July," according to the bosses' West Coast Waterfront Assn.
"There is a huge probability PMA [Pacific Maritime Association, the
main bosses' group] is going to lock them out" (Seattle Post,
June 10).
An employer-led lockout, then, would allow the feds to impose the Slave
Labor Act-that is, the Taft-Hartley Act-ending the lockout; and allowing
the Congress, after a "cooling-off period" of up to 80 days, to
dictate a settlement. But before Congress would act, the workers could be
sure every possible pressure and trick would be used to demoralize them
and take the fight out of the union.
But the union has some valuable allies that have benefited from the ILWU's
past support of dockers' beefs here and overseas. On the day before the
rally, the Australian Maritime Union (MUA) pledged its solidarity, stating
that the "MUA and other maritime unions are determined we will not
be stood over by multinationals slashing our job conditions."
Further they said, "Any solidarity action will be two pronged, as
both dockworker unions and seafaring unions have pledged their full and
unequivocal support," at a June meeting of the International Transport
Workers' Federation.
Last year the ILWU led a successful international fight by maritime unions
to defend five International Longshore Union members of Charleston, S.C.,
who were facing serious prison time on trumped-up rioting charges. The threatened
refusal of dockers to work a ship in Spain owned by a targeted firm seemingly
led to the five union members regaining their liberty.
It's been noted that although there's only been three coastwide strikes
since the historic San Francisco general strike that put the future ILWU
on the map, its negotiations with the waterfront bosses, said the Seattle
Post (June 10), "are often full of dire predictions, veiled threats
and fiery rhetoric yet rarely leads to walkouts."
Even with a looming contract deadline days away, it's impossible for
longshore workers to know what's in store for them. Will they squeeze a
settlement out of the bosses; or will they be forced to work with a bayonet
pointed at them? What they can be assured of is that they are making labor
history that will impact U.S. workers, unionized or not, for some time to
come.
Socialist Action /July 2002 |