I think Brother Mulcahy is right on lifetime benefits. He did a diligent job researching the question with verifiable quotes from The Dispatcher and The ILWU Story. For that he should be commended. In exchange for the controversial M & M agreement, in which the union gave up jobs and working conditions, longshoremen and their dependents received pension and welfare benefits for life. That’s not a good trade off for the union but once its in place it should be protected, make sure it’s funded. If you’re eligible for a benefit, but the employers haven’t funded it fully, then when the funds run out so do your benefits. That’s what happened in the ’71 strike. When ERISA came into being in the mid-70’s, it established funding requirements. But the ILWU didn’t demand then that PMA fulfill its fudiciary responsibility.
I think Mulcahy is wrong when he draws his conclusion that McWilliams “gave away” our lifetime benefits. The ILWU should have demanded funding for those benefits in the 60’s and 70’s. That’s when Bridges was president. But it’s easier to blame Brian McWilliams than Harry Bridges. Another point: the International Executive Board is on record stating that the “lifetime” language in the Summary Plan Description (SPD) was removed before McWilliams became president, during Dave Arian’s adminstration. But that doesn’t make Arian the culprit either. The employers did it unilaterally, without the union’s knowledge.
The key question now is how do we get the language and more importantly FUNDING back. There are three ways: 1) a court suit; 2) an arbitration 3) negotiations or a strike, if necessary.
In the first place it’s highly unlikely that any court, especially the conservative Supreme Court, in this big business-controlled government will force the PMA to ante up some one billion dollars. Yes, it was foolish for McWilliams to co-sign the letter with Miniace stating removal of the “lifetime” language wouldn’t affect benefits. But that letter wouldn’t make or break our case, nor did it “lose” us any benefits.
Secondly, it was generally recognized at the May Caucus that the Coast Arbitrator Kagel will not rule in the union’s favor. And thirdly, there was little sentiment at the February/March ’99 Contract Caucus for a strike demand in negotiations to reinstate the “lifetime” language or its funding, which could have meant an “illegal” strike for what’s rightfully ours (like the Pittston miners). Mulcahy’s strategy for recovering our welfare funding appears to lie solely with the lawyers and courts, not with rank and file action.
In Brother Mulcahy’s June 21 posting he mentions “irreparable damage” that McWilliams has done and mentions his “all time top three sellouts”.1) the 26th amendment to the pension plan – I didn’t like the way in which it was done either, i. e. without informing all of the incumbent union trustees and the newly-elected but not yet sworn in trustees. One Columbia Rivers local union official acknowledged that the 26th amendment wasn’t really a “sellout”, just another way to “ hammer McWilliams”. Yet, allowing PMA to sell stocks (which funded the pension) while the market was high saved PMA companies millions of dollars and ironically enabled Spinosa, who headed up the union’s negotiating committee, to claim credit for the big increase in pension benefits for actives and retirees. We should have demanded more in exchange for the 26th amendment like giving widowers of pensioners 100% rather than 55%; or making whole the longshoremen who were robbed of pension credit because of low work opportunity in the ’70’s. Furthermore, PMA companies have not been released from their pension liability contributions which could have permitted them to leave the PMA.
Mulcahy is absolutely correct in stating that letters were signed by McWilliams prior to our contract expiration and sent to the governors of Alaska and Hawaii assuring them that ILWU longshoremen will move cargo to those states in case of a strike.
Unions historically have done that to assure the public that emergency supplies will get through and win their sympathy in case of a strike. It was done in ’34 in both the West Coast longshore strike and the Minneapolis teamster strike. Bridges exempted military cargo in the ’71 strike during the Vietnam War. Furthermore, Bridges signed similar letters to the governors of Alaska and Hawaii before longshore negotiations. Whether it was Bridges or McWilliams, I disagree with this tactic because it sends the wrong message to employers.
McWilliams is not a great speaker or an effective negotiator, but the longshore Caucus always elects its negotiating committee and spokesman anyway. It’s McWilliams’ program and record that count. He’s genuinely concerned with ALL divisions of the ILWU. He’s done a good job on organizing. And has a decent record on solidarity.
One of my main criticisms of McWilliams is that while he supports building a labor party he continues to support big business Democratic politicians like S. F. mayor Willie Brown and presidential candidate Al Gore.
I’ve never voted for McWilliams before, but I will this time. The stakes are too high. Do we continue with McWilliams broad vision to lead protest marches of labor and oppressed minorities with our banner,“An Injury to One Is an Injury to All” or do we reverse direction, follow Spinosa and his narrow focus, begging Miniace and our bosses to “take us along” with them?
Many who have criticized McWilliams, and for good reason sometimes like Jack Mulcahy, conclude that anyone is better than McWilliams. That’s not true. Spinosa’s program and public statements are pure “business unionism”, like so many of the elitist, highly-paid craft unions that are unable to mount a defense against employer attacks. He doesn’t see it as a working class struggle, but rather as currying favor with his partner, the boss, in a “spirit of cooperation”, something both Miniace and Spinosa are fond of saying.
When Spinosa was Coast Committeeman (’91-’94) he seemed to spend more time in LA on his real estate business than he did in ILWU headquarters. And during his tenure as Vice President (’97-’00) his presence in his International office didn’t change noticeably.
Whether McWilliams or Spinosa gets elected, we need to build a rank and file movement based on a program to fight PMA and the other bosses, exposing union betrayals. The ILWU desperately needs a younger, stronger and militant leadership. Hopefully this election will be the wake up call to begin to organize such a movement.
Jack Heyman #8780
