Socialist Action /August 2002
Labor Department Dares Western Dockers
to Strike
By CHARLES WALKER
"For the past several years PMA President Joseph Miniace has
been pushing hard for an increased role of the federal government in the
maritime industry. The agenda: restrict trade-union power on the docks by
banning the right to strike. Since Sept. 11 their lobbying has borne strange
fruit."
- ILWU Business Agent Jack Heyman
(Op-ed, S.F. Chronicle, July 23)
OAKLAND, Calif.-"Why should the PMA negotiate seriously when the
Bush administration says, 'Don't worry, we will take care of these guys
at the ILWU.' That's the situation we are facing," said Steve Stallone,
media spokesperson for the West Coast longshore workers union, according
to a report carried Friday by the Montclarion, a neighborhood paper.
The paper reported, "After a recent exchange of proposals failed
to move dock workers and shippers closer to settling current contact negotiations,
federal officials have threatened to step in with measures that could severely
curtail the maritime union's bargaining powers.
"Calls from the Department of Labor threatening the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) with legislation that could impose
binding arbitration-measures that would force the union to give up its collective-bargaining
powers and the right to strike-have alarmed unions throughout the state,
according to Steve Stallone."
Stallone was further quoted as saying, "The Bush administration
is using the 9-11 scare as a way to try to take away union rights and come
after the ILWU, because we are one of the stronger unions in the country.
That's why we had a demonstration today [July 23] to say it is a top priority
for the labor movement and for the sake of all workers in this country."
For weeks the talks have been complicated by the attempted intervention
on the side of the shipping and terminal bosses first by Homeland Security
Director Tom Ridge and then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
At the rally outside of the PMA's upper floor offices in San Francisco's
financial district, ILWU President James Spinosa condemned the Fed's meddling,
saying, "The government has to get out of these negotiations."
Speakers from other union bodies, including Linda Chavez-Thompson, executive
vice president of the AFL-CIO, echoed Spinosa's militant stance.
However, militant speeches at such labor rallies are expected by the
ranks, and they're seldom disappointed. Given the Fed's backstopping of
the PMA's play at the bargaining table, it seems certain that the shipping
interests are not likely to be persuaded to back off by a noontime rally
of some thousand unionists, especially when work on the docks was proceeding
as usual at the same time.
As we go to press talks are expected to resume, but at what pace remains
to be seen. To date the longshore negotiators have made a critical concession,
agreeing to the abolition of several hundred dock jobs; but the bosses have
not responded to the union's concessions by offering their own concessions
on jobs, as demanded by the union.
A union report to its members described the ILWU's concession as "a
sweeping technological package that would save the employers millions in
cost savings and increased productivity. The union was asking for jurisdiction
over all remaining work and planning positions that have been outsourced
to other workforces. ... The gains that the employers have been offered
far outweigh the union's demands."
The result should be embarrassing to the union. Normally, union bargainers
don't move on such a key item without determining (if only in a hallway
sidebar discussion) that the other side is prepared to offer the union a
quid pro quo. Now that the union has offered the concession, the genie is
out of the bottle, and the union's bargaining options are diminished.
Given the union's history, it's hard to predict that the ranks, nearly
11,000-strong and controlling a critical crossroads for the yearly trans-shipment
of some $300 billion of goods, would agree to the one-sided concession without
a strike to test their strength.
But a strike or an employer-led lockout seemingly means that the government
would then intervene, and the entire labor movement would be put to a test,
not unlike the test the labor movement failed when the government smashed
the famous air controllers strike and broke the controllers union.
It's hard to believe that the ILWU officers really expect the AFL-CIO
to back them up all the way. Yet that may well be what the dock workers
will need to avoid a humiliating loss, the imposition of a concessionary
contract.
There is one other option if the AFL-CIO doesn't go to bat for them;
that is to attempt to go over the heads of the AFL-CIO and appeal to all
workers, unionized and not, to do whatever it takes (much as workers did
in 1934 when the union won its right to strike) to successfully fight off
the bosses and the governmental authorities.
Of course, that's going to sound radical and risky to some workers. But
then there's a lot at stake for workers. In the words of the ILWU's Stallone,
"Everybody knows if the ILWU gets hammered, every other union contract
is in jeopardy."
Ultimately, it's up to the ranks to decide to strike. Of course, they
could be so boxed in by tough bosses, phony politicians, and unreliable
allies that they have no realistic choice.
Socialist Action /August 2002 |