The bosses’ Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) is seeking to erode union control on the job, introduce advanced technology to help move work to nonunion operations, enforce takebacks on health care, and eliminate the union hiring hall.

Some 10,500 members of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehouse–men’s Union (ILWU) at 29 major Pacific ports remained on the job as union officials extended the contract on a day-by-day basis. The union tops say they have no plans to organize a strike vote.

A June 27 rally of 500 longshore workers at the Port of Oakland won the support of Teamster truck drivers and Service Employee International Union members who work at the port. Similar rallies were held in Long Beach, California; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; and Tacoma, Washington.

West Coast ports handle $260 billion worth of cargo a year, making them crucial export and import hubs for major U.S. corporations. Federal and state governments have spent tens of billions on the waterfront facilities for the companies, including upgrading docks, cranes, and rail links to increase efficiency and the flow of commerce.

Because of the bosses’ unrelenting productivity drive and antiunion assaults over the past decade, many dockworkers know the importance of the union and the conditions the companies would impose if they could get away with it. The fact that it took a major strike battle in 1934 to organize the docks and impose some union control over safety and the pace of work is also widely known among longshore workers. Strikes also shut down ports in 1936–37, 1948, and 1971.

With the expansion of containerized shipping, the bosses have sought to use more and more nonunion labor to move goods in and out of the ports, sparking a response among workers. Thousands of truck drivers who were paid a pittance to haul containers between the ports and rail terminals mobilized in 1996 as part of an organizing drive at the Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, the two largest in the nation. Together the two facilities make up the world’s third busiest port. In 1999 truck drivers in Tacoma went on strike, also demanding union recognition.

A feature article in the Los Angeles Times on the eve of the contract expiration gave readers a glimpse of the ways in which the bosses seek to erode past union gains. Writer Nancy Cleeland was given a tour of the port by one of the bosses. Under the heading "strict work rules," Cleeland described a "noisy, outsized, and frenetic" scene at the port. "Then, at 11:30 a.m., it came to a sudden halt. Time for lunch. Industry consultant Frank Hanley, who was leading the management tour, chuckled and shook his head. He couldn’t have asked for a better demonstration of the union’s power."

"As the average U.S. workweek grew through the 1990s, and 24-hour operations and staggered work shifts became routine, the ILWU managed to maintain work rules much as they existed a generation ago," the Times continued. What are these outrageous restrictions on the bosses? "They include a common hour-long lunch break, double-pay for night shifts and the guarantee of a work pace that the union calls healthy and sustainable, but the shippers deride as simply slow."  
 
Threatened lockout
In the days leading up to the contract expiration, PMA president Joseph Miniace threatened to lock out workers if they engaged in a work action. Calling a work-to-rule campaign a "strike with pay," Miniace said if slowdowns occurred the bosses "will be forced to consider a defensive shutdown."

The Los Angeles Times reported, "Shipping lines say longshoremen staged slowdowns just after the last two contracts expired--in 1996 and 1999--while both sides remained at the table, cutting productivity in half at some port terminals."

"They worked the way they were suppose to work," said union spokesman Steven Stallone. "They just didn’t bust their butts overtime. And that is what the PMA describes as a slowdown."

A big issue in the strike is the introduction of new technology to increase productivity. "They have the right to introduce new technology," said Peter Peyton, a third-generation longshoreman. However, he said, it can’t be used to make the work more difficult or move it outside union jurisdiction.

ILWU business agent Jack Heyman stated, "The big thing is the hiring hall. The PMA wants to computerize the hall. Longshore workers died in the 1934 strike for the hiring hall. It dictates who controls distribution of jobs, who controls the waterfront."

Under the guise of national security, the Bush administration has intruded into the dispute. In an article entitled "Strikers as Terrorists?" the magazine CounterPunch reported that Thomas Ridge, the director of the Office of Homeland Security, has phoned Jim Spinosa, head of the ILWU, "saying that a strike would be bad for the national interest."

Jack Heyman told CounterPunch that "Spinosa has been talking not only to Ridge but also to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld." Spinosa reiterated these points when he spoke at the Port of Oakland rally.

The New York Times reported that the Bush administration is being lobbied by some retail businesses to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act to prevent the longshore workers from striking. Bush could impose an 80-day cooling off period in the event of a possible strike.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home