Dear Brothers and Sisters,
As an old-timer and veteran of the 1946, 1948 and 1971 strikes, I agree with Brian Nelson completely regarding the 5 million dollar outrage. My experience has been that we never had any benefits secure unless they were written down in a signed contract between the union and the employers. If this is not true, why would our Negotiating Committee always insist, first and foremost on “Maintenance of Benefits” and why would “Maintenance of Benefits” be a strike issue in every negotiation?
A hoax was perpetrated on ILWU members, especially the pensioners – and unaccounted thousands of dollars of the coast’s and local money spent. In my opinion this is being used as a phoney campaign issue by Vice President Jim Spinosa and Coast Committeemen Bob McEllrath and Ray Ortiz.
The best proof that benefits are only secured by a contract was what happened in our last longshore strike in 1971. We oldtimers who were there remember what happened. Our Coast Committee wanted our benefits to continue to be paid through the money already accrued in the Welfare Fund. The PMA wanted to cut off our benefits, so we took it to arbitration and Sam Kagel ruled that the Welfare Fund should continue to pay benefits UNTIL ALL THE MONEY WAS USED UP.
The fund was depleted in January 1972 and then Harry Bridges and our Coast Committee worked out an arrangement with our health care providers for the union to pay the costs of continuing coverage for us. At the end of the strike, the next month, we were all assessed a special fee to pay off that debt. How could PMA cut us off when the contract had expired and the fund was spent if we had guaranteed lifetime benefits? Why wouldn’t Bridges have arbitrated that? Why did we have to pay for our own coverage after the Welfare Fund was depleted? Our vested pension benefits were continued, no questions asked.
But, why would Spinosa, McEllrath and Ortiz bring an ambulance-chasing lawyer to the Caucus and try to spend up to $5 million of our members’ money in pursuit of a case that three law firms, with expertise in this area, have already advised them they couldn’t win? For me, there is only one answer. They need an issue to try to beat up on President Brian McWilliams in their campaign against him. They need something because they don’t have a principled political program or vision to propose in place of the one of international solidarity and organizing the unorganized that Brian has been successfully implementing for the last six years. They were willing to waste huge amounts of our members’ money so they could say that they were going to get a benefit Brian would not pursue – all the while having to know they couldn’t get it in the end.
Brian was the only officer of the International or the Coast Committee with the courage to stand up, speak the truth and say what people didn’t want to hear – that they don’t have guaranteed lifetime health benefits – they have “eligibility” for them. We still have to fight and win them with every contract. Brian would not waste the money or energy to have the courts reiterate that.
Brothers and Sisters, this is what the election is about. Do you vote for a bunch of liars who play on the fears of pensioners and are willing to waste the union’s money for their own political gain? Let’s stick with Brian McWilliams, a man of integrity and honesty with a proven progressive program.
Asher Harer, #2436
