To: James Spinosa ILWU and Joseph Miniace PMA

We are writing to urge both management and labor to negotiate a new West Coast longshore labor agreement in the spirit of good faith and fair compromise, and without using bargaining strategies that may take advantage of current national security concerns or that rely on hoped-for government intervention.

We are disturbed by reports that the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), which serves as the multi-employer association and bargaining agent of mostly foreign steamship, stevedore and marine terminal companies, is manufacturing a "labor crisis" and undermining prospects for a contract settlement. This apparently is being done to secure U.S. government intervention to, in turn, leverage economic gains that PMA may not be able to achieve in contract negotiations with the ILWU. In this regard, we understand that PMA is, among other things:

1) Making repeated, public threats that the Employers intend to lockout ILWU workers and thereby shut down the West Coast ports;

2) Conducting contract negotiations directly contrary to its public statements to the federal government and the media. Specifically, the PMA is aggressively seeking at the bargaining table economic takeaways from employees in the areas of medical benefits, pension and wages, while it has and continues to publicly campaign for a contract settlement that would provide employees wit increased economic benefits and job security in exchange for new technologies and improved productivity in the ports;

3) Failing to provide the ILWU with requested information concerning the specific impact of proposed new technologies on the workforce, which information is necessary for meaningful negotiations;

4) Creating unwarranted alarm as to what happens in the longshore industry in the event the labor contract expires on July 1 without a settlement. While the PMA is portraying a scenario of economic doom, the past several contracts were successfully negotiated in the weeks following the July 1 expiration date without a strike or lockout. The last West Coast strike occurred over 30 years ago. Industry practice shows that contract expiration actually facilitates a negotiated settlement.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) have an outstanding record of providing efficient operations and productivity in our West Coast ports, especially in times of war, emergencies and national crisis. We understand that there has not been a West Coast longshore strike since 1971 because the parties have consistently been able to resolve their differences through contract negotiations. We also understand that this has been accomplished without the involvement of outside parties, mediators and, most importantly, the government.

We believe that to continue this record of success, all outside parties, including the government, must not interfere in the present longshore contract negotiations. It is particularly important that our current national security concerns not be used by either party as a tool to gain unfair contract advantages. Rather, the PMA and the ILWU should work together to develop security measures to protect the West Coast ports and our nation from terrorism. We understand that the ILWU submitted specific proposals on port security to the PMA within days of the September 11 attacks and that these remain unresolved in the contract negotiations. WE urge the parties to work in partnership to protect our ports and the American people.

As to other negotiation issues, it is reported that in addition to implementation of new technologies for port operations, the Employers seek several economic concessions from the Union in the areas of wage freezes, medical benefits and pension as well as significant changes in the traditional arbitration system and dispatch hall arrangements. We are informed that the Union seeks, among other things, improvements in pension benefits and specific port security measures to deter terrorist attacks. These are all formidable issues that should be resolved through traditional collective bargaining and without strategies that use current national security concerns and requested government intervention to leverage concessions.

We urge the parties not to build inflexible bargaining positions based on the expectation of government intervention to force a specific resolution as we would oppose such government action. Nor would we support the use of national security measures as a means to change long-established federal labor policy that preclude the government from restricting labor's legal rights or taking sides in a labor dispute.

We are confident that the PMA and the ILWU can best reach a satisfactory contract settlement by traditional collective bargaining "at the bargaining table" and not by means of threatened government action or public campaigns.

We wish you and your members the best in your negotiations.