There are numerous erroneous assumptions leading to conclusions such as we see in the April 24 JOC editorial, THE ILWU’s WORD.
Among those FALSE assumptions:
That the ILWU International President has read and/or understands the coastwise contract – when he has repeatedly demonstrated little or no understanding of, or regard for, that document
That he somehow represents the Longshore Division of the ILWU – although he was forced to waive his representation regarding its contracts by the Longshore Caucus (The Caucus is the highest governing body of the Longshore Division, endowed by the International Constitution with “full authority” to deal with it’s collective bargaining problems)
That his word is somehow good for anything – when the fact is that the action taken by the Caucus was due to his habitual practice of meeting privately with the Employer and agreeing to things contrary to what the Union had previously agreed to in bargaining sessions
Regarding Illegal Work Stoppages under the ILWU/PMA Contract, the PCL&CA:
There is a penalty for illegal work stoppages in that document. There has been for decades. Workers in a port guilty of an illegal work stoppage penalty lose Pay Guarantee (PGP) during the period of the illegal work stoppage. Since that penalty amounts to the Employer NOT paying money to individuals in those ports, there is really no way the Union can stop the implementation of that penalty.
International Vice President Jim Spinosa and PMA President Joe Miniace were on a panel at the recent Town Hall Meeting in Long Beach. (Jim, by the way, is the guy who is actually authorized to speak for the Longshore Division in the manner to which McWilliams pretends)
I directly asked them whether there had been a new penalty sought or negotiated during the last coastwise bargaining session.
Neither of these AUTHORIZED representatives of the parties to that contract even hinted at such an item being either bargained or even presented as a demand or proposal. Neither of these AUTHORIZED representatives denied the existence or status of the contractual penalty.
Since, on the one hand, the Union did not bargain that penalty away and, on the other hand, the Employer did not bargain a stiffer penalty, it would seem that both parties reckoned they could live with the arrangement as-is, and as it has been for at least a generation.
Given that, it sure looks as if the parties are willing continue to confront their differences through their contractual agreement. What is more, they seem to be willing to do that eye-to-eye, with neither party “looking the other way” as McWilliams suggests (begs?).
Why then would McWilliams ask our employers to ignore actions covered under our collective bargaining agreement with them? What’s worse, why would he stoop to this shameless groveling in public? What’s far, far worse, why would he break his word to the Longshore Caucus about dealing with it’s contractual matters to do so?
The ILWU “legacy” of which most of us are justly proud is one of STANDING upon our hind legs – NOT tucking our tails between them.
What appears to be McWilliams’s cowardly attempt to duck out of that part of the agreement might be just that. It also might just be yet another case of monumental ignorance compounded by terminal foot-in-mouth disease. Then again, it could be a calculated effort by a displaced, disgruntled, would-be spokesman to embarrass the Division that wants nothing to do with him.
Before anybody says the predictable “Nobody could be that stupid!” I would like to suggest that there might be a political motivation for contributing directly to the Employer’s illegal work stoppage propaganda.
Consider this. The Longshore Division voted against McWilliams by a 2 to 1 margin in the last election and that was BEFORE the Caucus prohibited him from dealing with the contract! Politically he has to have written the Longshore Division off.
Could it be that, with the election coming up, he’d like to make the Longshore Division look as bad as possible, perhaps even in the eyes of the rest of the Union? Could this be the prelude to an attempt to rally others in the Union behind McWilliams and against the nasty Longshore Division?
It matters little. Cowardice, ignorance, deceit or dirty politics the effect’s the same-we (once again) look bad.
Not one of these possibilities is an excuse for publicly dealing with the contract after he promised not to in his pact with the Longshore Caucus. How will he try to justify this display? Will he say that he never agreed not to bargain in the press? Will he say “I forgot.” as he did when it was discovered that he had met privately with the employers AFTER the 96 negotiations and secretly agreed to delay a pay raise for clerks?
More importantly, what will WE do within the next month?
Will we convene a cluster of cupcake conventioneers who also believe in “looking the other way” (any other way) or will we have folks at the convention that feel indignant about having people they represent once again betrayed in such a shameless manner – and are willing to do something about it?
Frats,
ole
