|
Administration
should keep clear of dock fight Turmoil
and conflict between employers and workers mark this Labor Day. From
teachers in public schools, machinists at Boeing, graduate students at
the University of Washington, to Mariner baseball players, worker unrest
has been seemingly pervasive. The Bush administration remains
preoccupied with fighting terrorism and threatening unilateral warfare
against Iraq, with little heed given to domestic ferment among workers,
except in the case of West Coast waterfront workers. Bush
administration responses to the current impasse between longshore
workers and their employers give little cause for reassurance, and
instead are poorly timed, ill-considered, inflammatory and
counterproductive. The
specter of pitched battles on the waterfront haunts West Coast ports
handling cargo shipments critical to the national economic recovery. A
work stoppage would cost the nation an estimated $1 billion per day,
equaling 7 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Relative
peace over the past 30 years might soon give way to the first waterfront
strike since 1971. Current negotiations between the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), representing waterfront workers,
and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), representing ship owners and
terminal operators, are stalled. There is no evidence of a slowdown in
cargo handling, but both sides have stockpiled strike funds and made
strike contingency plans. Some
issues still on the bargaining table are familiar: wages and benefits;
retiree pay and health benefits; contract work rules; and outsourcing
union jobs. The PMA also wants to abolish the local arbitration system. The
PMA demands introduction of new technologies to enhance productivity.
Projections have trade between Asia and the U.S. doubling in the next 10
years, but West Coast ports are land-scarce. Already congestion is
frequent, as truck and train compete for port access. New information
technologies (IT) promise quicker gate check-ins and electronic
cargo-tracking, thereby replacing union workers. The ILWU insists that
the new, information-based jobs created by IT fall within its
jurisdiction. The
ILWU has a reputation as adaptive to new technologies, dating to the
widely heralded "Modernization and Mechanization" agreement in
the early 1960s that launched the new container shipping technology. In
return, the ILWU secured agreement that longshore pay would rise with
productivity gains, and existing workers would receive guaranteed pay as
their numbers declined. The numbers went from 100,000 workers in 1960 to
10,500 in 2002, and the current compensation ranges rose to between
$80,000 and $158,000 annually, making them the highest paid blue-collar
workers in the country. This is a proud and prosperous union: The former
"wharf rats" are now "lords of the dock." Why
no agreement on new technology in return for concessions this time? A
first answer is that the complex PMA change proposals require time and
deliberation to reach agreement. A
second answer points to the ham-handed behavior of the Bush
administration. Prior
administrations wisely stayed clear of bargaining between the powerful
PMA and the militant ILWU. But not the Bush administration. Here
is the story. A third party, calling itself the West Coast Waterfront
Coalition (WCWC), whose shipper members feared a slowdown, strike or
lockout, turned to the Bush administration for intervention. The White
House formed an initially secret task force. Members of the task force
threatened to: invoke the 80-day cooling off period under the Taft
Hartley Act; place the ILWU under the Railway Labor Act; use U.S. Navy
personnel to work and the National Guard to patrol the docks; and break
up the ILWU master contract. The master contract dates to the famous
1934 strike and covers the entire West Coast longshore workforce: It is
near sacred to the ILWU. Any attacks on it are fighting words to the
ILWU members. If the fight comes, chaos will rule the waterfront. The
ILWU responded to Bush administration interventions by organizing large
demonstrations in West Coast port cities and it mobilized alliances
previously formed with the Teamsters, the International Longshore
Association on the East Coast, and dockworkers from abroad. It
is Bush administration fantasy that Teamsters will haul hot cargo worked
by non-union workers, and ignorance to believe a West Coast work
stoppage won't trigger ILA action on the East Coast. Recruiting
replacement workers will be difficult, and, once on the job, their
productivity will lag as they lack the skills and training of the ILWU.
Nor will the ILWU wilt. Priding itself in its international orientation,
democratic practice and racial integration, this is a globally oriented
union with historical and reciprocal alliances ensuring boycotts of
scab-loaded ships. The
timing of the Bush intervention interrupts the bargaining process, and
its threats inflame workers' passions. Just why should workers bargain
in good faith when the government has already forecast its position in
case of a slowdown or a strike, and has sided with employers regardless
of the outcome of negotiations? The
sane course for the Bush administration is to back off, leave well
enough alone, allow the bargaining process to resume and retire to the
sidelines, rather than interject itself into labor disputes with bluster
and threats. David
J. Olson is professor of political science at the University of
Washington and Harry Bridges Endowed Chair, Emeritus. |
|
This unofficial site was created and is
maintained by rank and file ILWU members ©1999/2009 ilwu19.com |
