Tim wrote:
Actually Brian a post by me questioning the statements of the two new officers and one reply (well yours makes two) does not a discussion make.
Well, ‘actually’, a post by one person and replies to that post from others DOES indeed (in every case) make a discussion. This would true even if that conversation was about someone trying to redefine the word “discussion” – think about it.
Another point from Tim:
It bothers me that – “Its a different Union now, were people who are educated.” (Peyton quote) Different how?? And different since when?? Educated?? In what context?? Since the advent and demise of the T. A. B. E. ?? Or that our learned vista are now further than San Pedro High School?? One wonders how we got along the previous 65 years.
To begin with, I agree with Brian, Let’s remember that this is written by Monge-loser for the JOC and that, therefore, none of the quotes have any guarantee of being accurate or in context.
In his previous posting on the matter, Tim had further complicated the issue here by misquoting what may well be a misquote in the first place. Now we are back to what Peyton was originally quoted (out of context) as saying, namely: “It’s a different union now, we’re people who are educated.”
The education to which Pete refers might be an education in the new ways of the Employer, an education in how we can better use our influence for public relations, or a multitude of other things. Again, out of context, we have no way of knowing.
The statement is perplexing, but I have always felt Pete’s heart was in the right place and I think that he is way too bright to have intended such a statement in the elitist manner Timmy seems to suggest in his first post. This conviction is further born out by our heritage. In his previous posting, Tim had mentioned “Harry, Louie (sic) and the rest of the boys”. Assuming that he referred to Brother Goldblatt, it is only fair to point out that Goldblatt was well educated – as were a number of “the rest of the boys.” The challenges (especially from Local 10) to the propriety of having such “intellectuals” in the leadership of the ILWU have been mentioned by more than one Union historian. This is also our legacy.
Tim takes further umbrage:
“We not only have a responsibility to our industry, but to our country.” “We represent the two largest ports. These ports feed America.” “Commerce has changed. We have a responsibility to that cargo.” (Mitre quote) Great talk for the mom and apple pie crowd and its not even the 4th of July. But what about the rank and file that he represents?? One would think that his first responsibility was to the rank and file he represents, then to the ILWU and its principles.
This would seem to be a simple misreading of the pronoun ‘we’, which Mitre is entitled to use when he speaks for Local 13. Tim seems to have confused it with the pronoun ‘I’. He takes Mike to task for “his” (individual) responsibilities rather than what the responsibilities of the local (we) might be.
I have read nowhere in the International Constitution (nor is it in Local 13’s) that the ILWU has a responsibility to our industry or our country. Let alone the cargo. The ILWU’s responsibility is to its members, period. Our responsibility, as individual Union members, to the employer is that we do the best job we can when we are on the payroll, and to uphold our end of the contract. Because that is what good Union people do. And that’s where our responsibility to the employer ends.
I read nothing in the article that contradicts Tim’s statement here. Of course this is partially because the apples of the constitutions mentioned do not readily mix with the oranges of the contract mentioned. That contract, along with its appended arbitrations and LRC minutes, certainly DOES address obligations to cargo (you can’t even take a coffee break without considering the flow of cargo – look it up)
As to where that responsibility ends – that is not a constant! The agreement allows a lot of leeway for changes in operations under the authority of the Joint Port Labor Relations Committees.
Changes in methods of operation under the current agreement are processed through a port’s JPLRC members – that IS what is being proposed here – and those ARE the people who are doing it.
And the ILWU are the best longshoreman in the world. We put more tonnage over the bullrail with less damage to cargo and with less injuries to workers then anywhere in the world. ANYWHERE!
Since I cannot link the meaning of that statement to anything previously mentioned in the discussion, for the moment, I will assume it to be MOM and UNION PIE stuff. However, I can (and will) link it to the discussion later.
That’s also our legacy. Not photo-ops and quotes in the JOC.
WHOOPS! With the exception of Jimmy Hoffa, Harry Bridges was arguably the most photographed and quoted union leader in recent history – and Tim thinks he wasn’t quoted in the JOC? If you are going to pump up your writing with such (apple pie) terms as ‘legacy’ – you mustn’t (however convenient it may be) forget such things as accuracy. You run the risk of having your nose rubbed in the pie.
The employer has a contractual responsibilities also though lately he tends to forget that we have a grievance procedure in the contract and is getting into the habit of taking us to Federal Court every other week. Though every officer in the ILWU it seems can’t wait to be seen and share a stage with Miniace as he slowly bleeds us dry and cripples us. Why aren’t Mitre, Peyton, McWilliams, Spinosa, etc. holding Miniaces feet to the fire on that??
Bad question. Questions based on an untrue premise cannot be answered. At the town hall meeting in Long Beach they used the opportunity to do just that!
These statements bother me. I think they are ill-timed, untrue, miss-representative, and hopefully miss-quoted and out of context. But who knows?? I am sure if either Mitre or Peyton would care to respond Richard would print what they have to say.
With the Convention and Caucus going on for the next couple of weeks I doubt that any such replies will be immediately forthcoming.
But either way, I or anyone else in this Union, has a right to comment what they or anyone else that is a member of this Union has to says to the press.
I must be missing some postings – did ANYONE – EVER – EVEN VAGUELY hint that Tim had no write to comment on union statements in the press? If anyone did, SHAME on them! That’s not what free speech is all about! If nobody did, shame on Tim for even implying that anyone who might disagree with or question what he has to say is impugning his right to free speech.
Mitre’s statements, as quoted in the JOC, seem to be a carefully derived attempt on Mike’s part to combat both the employer generated bad press to which we have recently been subject. . . and the shameless groveling aspect of McWilliams’s last quoted speech. I, personally, think that this was clever of Mike – and long overdue.
As quoted in the article, Mitre says: “We not only have a responsibility to our industry, but to our country,” “We have a responsibility to that cargo,”
Regardless of what the “employers deem” these responsibilities are they are certainly not to be denied. Take off your blinders, we’re running on a muddy track here and have to watch our footing. We are working for trilateral employers in a free trade world. The gains we have made and the standard we have set in wages, hours and working conditions (very much including safety mentioned above) DO have a national significance and exclusivity. All of these are now in danger. While the US is by no means the country which provides the best environment for trade unionists, it beats the majority of other countries all hollow. As such, and as a matter of survival, we must work not only expand our influence within this country, but to expand this country’s influence on labor/human rights to those countries where workers enjoy lesser rights throughout the world.
No. I don’t mean we should do this by sending the CIA to kill off democratic unionists and replace them with Yalies (again).
I mean that one of the (many) ways we have to do this is by making the United States shipping industry a successful role model. This means working with technology and, in the proper context, working with our employers. That proper context is a tightrope.
The proposal written up in the JOC is one of the few attempts that I believe strikes that context propriety balance, starting with the fact that when we are proactive (for a change) the employer is put in a reactive, defensive position (for a greater change).
Aside from the PR aspects that I previously mentioned, the responsibility to cargo = the responsibility to the work, and, by extension, the responsibility to the work = the responsibility to jurisdiction
Above all other considerations here should be that the proposal the Union puts forth involves new jobs and expanded (off-dock) jurisdiction. In that context (in my opinion) Tim, in his first posting on the subject, puts the cart way ahead of the horse.
You can have all the principles in the world and no way to get them across and the most unprincipled people in the world
our power does NOT = our principles
our power = our jurisdiction
The power derived from that jurisdiction (horse) is what allows us to express those principles (cart).
The most important change in longshore history is: While it is still true that 0 cargo = 0 work IT IS NO LONGER TRUE THAT more cargo = more work
I, for one, welcome long overdue and creative ways to approach that problem.
You can’t do ANY job action without a job – 0 jobs = 0 action Ergo, the more jobs you have, the better the job action is. more jobs = more effective action
Considering how far the employer has pushed complaints about alleged Illegal Work Stoppages on my part (Coast referrals, named on injunctions etc. ) my job action credentials would seem to be in order.
I have never had any experience in the so-called “new math” but the equations I have mentioned here seem valid when applied to any situation I have seen in several years of practical experience.
The push for this kind of drayage is into its second decade.
We have often felt a twinge of response from the employers when bridging the subjects of expedited gates and drayage.
The employers have, more than once, expressed that their price for backing such a project will be some sort of concession on clerk jobs – probably yard and/or gate jobs.
The fact that the clerks are joining the longies in presenting this proposal would seem to indicate that they are accepting the inevitable loss of some clerk jobs and regrouping in order to create new ones.
Despite the equipment and labor cost, the concept has advantages for the employer:
a) Rather than actually release equipment and cargo to other parties, their own employees (we) could begin the process of moving stuff off the docks with minimal paperwork and delay (or none at all) at the dockside terminal gate.
b) By using the dispatch hall and its constantly available work force, the employer could run such an operation with very little notice and would only have to pay for this drayage at those times it was needed.
c) By designing a system for that could be used in conjunction with the monthly UTR program, the employer could have people available for a variety of jobs in a manner which would relieve some of the stress on the dispatch hall.
d) Further savings could be achieved by individual companies joining forces with each other or by setting up co-operative PMA and/or Port of LB or LA yards.
Then again, there is the (hitherto seemingly ignored) concept that the project could bring about (if implemented just in this port) the greatest coastwise gain in longshore jurisdiction (except for mechanic jobs) in the last 60 years!
A successful model down here could, of course, lead the way to good jurisdictional things for every other container port.
All in all, I think the thing is an ambitious, exciting and achievable project.
I support it whole heartedly, with two reservations:
1) I believe the clerks’ co-operation (mentioned above) is essential in making it economically sound and
2) I am afraid (for the same reason) that foremen probably have to stay out of these off-dock parking lots altogether
frats,
ole
