After personally reading the entire Federal court order this conclusion can be drawn: there was no direct order for steady crane operators to return to the job as they were incorrectly led to believe by the companies and their walking bosses. The judge did order both parties back to the arbitrator, Sutliffe, for a clarification of the arbitrators confused prior ruling and back to the Federal court by May 25.
My interpretation: status quo until then.
Furthermore, this judge actually suggests in his decision that the former steady crane operators be denied the use of their own hiring hall. The judge asks the arbitrator whether “it would be an appropriate remedy, under the contract, in order to ’secure observance’, to order the parties to deny hiring hall assignments to any member who resigned as a steady, as a part of the mass resignation. This would seem to be a practical means of enforcing the award by providing an economic incentive to the former steadies to return to their steady positions”.
My interpretation: there was no mass resignation, just a return to the hiring hall by disgruntled individual Local 10 crane operators. The employers were free to obtain crane operators from the hiring hall and did.
My interpretation: this judge would allow the employer to starve steadies into submission by taking away the use of the hiring hall.
Further interpretation: involuntary servitude since steadys would not be allowed to quit or change jobs, other than at their employers will.
The history of longshoring is one of freedom to choose your daily occupation and employer. To work steady, or not, has been a long standing practice guaranteed by a 20 year old decision by the coast Arbitrator Sam Kagel. Local arbitrator Sutliffe’s recent arbitration and decision overrides the coast arbitrators previous 20+ year old decision on this issue.
We have always been free to choose when, where and who we work for. The issues being addressed by Local 10 in local negotiations have larger ramifications beyond this port. “An injury to one is an injury to all” or is this statement no longer true?.
If anyone would like to read this court order for themselves, log onto the PMA website at http://www.pmanet.org and hit the press release link of 05/05/2000.
Believe what you read, not what you’re told.
