Thanks Hank - No Night Work at Concord Naval Weapons Station
Steve Anderson
20 Oct 2000
2 gangs were ordered for the night shift at Concord Naval Weapons Station. The foremen (Local 91) and clerks (Local 34) filled their allocation with members who had taken the appropriate weapons training. Local 10 was not able to fill 2 gangs because members who had the weapons training did not answer their plug. From the men dispatched, one gang was put together and work commenced. We were short 3 men from having a complete gang. One of the union brothers from local 10 called the business agent - Henry Graham - who arrived at 10:00p.m. and, after some conversation, pulled the men off the ship and sent them home, stopping the operation. He was afforded the opportunity to dispatch additional weapons trained members to the job site, but refused.
Military personnel inquired as to what happened, and were told “its Friday night, we couldn’t get enough trained men to do this work - but tomorrow night we will be able to fill 2 gangs”. Business agent Henry Graham said - you will only get 1 gang tomorrow night. In response to Henry’s actions Friday night, and his statement about Saturday night, the colonel in charge of the operation said there will be no gangs Saturday night and all plans for future night work at Concord Naval Weapons Station were cancelled.
Thanks Hank - you sure showed the military who’s the boss.
And thanks to all Local 10 members who took the weapons training and didn’t answer the call to work. If you want the work, you have to be willing to do the work.
My point being - If we want to increase the work in this port, grow new jobs, and secure a better future for ourselves and the workers who come after us - we have to show up, do our jobs, and make compromises when necessary so that we all can benefit from the work that we have.
Last night we all lost. Tonight, Saturday October 21, 2000 we’re all losing because the military made good on its promise and the approximately 45 night jobs at Concord Naval Weapons Station were, as promised, not ordered.
To the Leadership and Membership of Local 10. Please make better decisions in the future. Your actions affect all of us.
nitewinner
Steve Anderson 13472
Thanks Hank - For Defending the Contract
Jack Heyman
31 Oct 2000
Steve,
Your charges that Local 10 Business Agent Henry Graham “lost” the night work at the Concord Naval Weapons Station don’t hold water. First of all, you should have checked with your union, ship clerks Local 34, or longshore Local 10 before putting out the company’s position over the internet.
When the gangs were dispatched and didn’t fill Marine Terminals (MTC) agreed to turn the men around. Instead the company reneged and tried to make up a gang with skilled men, a walking boss and men doubling back – all working in the hold. Not only was this UNSAFE but it was also in clear violation of the longshore contract. Maybe you didn’t know that 320 Navy longshoremen (mostly black) were killed and 390 injured in an ammunitions explosion during World War II. Local 10 is not about to jeopardize the lives of longshoremen, clerks and walking bosses now.
If the gangs don’t fill, MTC needs to train more longshore workers for Concord Naval Weapons Station. We’ve been having difficulty filling jobs because of PMA’s refusal over the years to agree to the necessary registration to provide adequate manning. The new intermodal terminal, expected to be operational next year, will require even more longshore workers, which we must get by registration and organizing. Rather than worrying about “growing jobs” it would make more sense to protect the jobs we already have. Clerks like yourself and longshoremen need to get together around a program to fight the threats to our jobs, especially clerk jobs, posed by electronic technology, like the MODAT computer placed in top picks by the same MARINE TERMINALS at Berth I in Oakland.
Finally, BA Graham was right not to compromise on the question of safety. Apparently, you think that by compromising the union can “grow jobs.” In fact, caving in to the employers, compromising, when San Francisco was designated a “Low Work Opportunity Port” is why this port has some of the worst manning and working conditions on the Coast. We had too much compromise on contractual issues and not enough fight.
Jack Heyman
Local 10 #8780
Steve Anderson
2 Nov 2000
Jack:
With all due respect for your brilliant argument, I was at the Concord Naval Weapons Station the night we lost the work.
The opinion I expressed is mine (not MTC’s), I was there, and it’s the same opinion held by the vast majority of the membership that was there. I don’t need to go to local 34 or local 10 to find out what I should think about a situation, I’ve been taught to think for myself. I believe we would have less problems like this one if more of us thought for ourselves.
The job was not unsafe. It was by far the safest discharge operation I’ve seen in the Bay Area. We were discharging approximately 1 container every 30 minutes. We had discharged 5 containers when Local 10 business agent Henry Graham shut the job down at 10:30p.m. We had six tractor drivers, one of whom did not make a single pull.
It would have been a simple solution to pull one man from a tractor and put him on the dock and take one tractor driver and one top pick driver (we had 3 to do those 5 containers) and put them in the hold to make the night. MTC was willing to pay time-in-lieu payments for any unfilled jobs.
I’m also aware that 320 longshoremen were killed in an explosion at Port Chicago in WW II. That accident was a direct result of a speed-up program to get the work done quickly. As you well know, speed-up was not an issue this night.
Look, I understand that you have to defend your business agent, and you’ve done it well. We still need to make better decisions in the future.
If Local 10 doesn’t think enough people have been trained for a specific job, don’t take the order and demand more training.
But after you’ve taken the order, dispatched the men, and the men are working slowly and safely, pulling them off the job to satisfy a B. A’s ego is bullshit. As you say, is it any wonder we’ve lost so much work!
I’m all for being part of a solution to protect the jobs we have and creating more. Let me know how we can best accomplish that.
nitewinner
Steve Anderson 13472
Hunny Powell
03 Nov 2000
Steve, I’ve been very upset by your “opinion” of the incident in Concord. I not only see you as being selfish and disrespectful, but not a brother acting with any union solidarity. By the way Steve would you happen to be shopping at Safeway? There’s a Boycott, and you may have to drive a little further to shop. Yes, I’m being sarcastic.
Brother Anderson in your original message I really appreciated your “point of being” with the exception of YOUR idea of compromise. As a matter of fact you could go on days and get all the Concord you like, hey, that’s compromise.
Question? When was the last time you were dispatched as a Supervisor or Supercargo and to keep the operation going YOU took a basic clerk? No one is happy about the decision the Navy made about no night work. If your really concerned use the machinery that is available to you. For the last couple of weeks the energy uses to blast Local 10 and it’s Officials could have been used to look for a solution on how to get the work back (not impossible).
By the way Steve I’ve spoken to a couple of people that were there that night and the only view’s they share with you was the lost of pay for the night, which is reasonably understood.
Sincerely,
Hunny Powell 8907
Reis Santana 03 Nov 2000
I have a question. Our dispatchers know what’s going on with who. Why did Local 10 dispatch men who were on a double back in the first place?
Fraternally,
Reis Santana
Local 34 13453
Jack Heyman
03 Nov 2000
Steve,
The night operation at Concord was not only in violation of the PCLCD, but was unsafe as well. You say it was “by far the safest discharge operation I’ve seen in the Bay Area”. You reduce safety to the speed of the operation. Safety is much more. It’s alertness, paying attention and making critical judgement calls. When you have longshore workers doubling back and handling explosives, that’s unsafe. It only takes one slight oversight loading ammo to jeopardize the lives of you and your fellow workers.
I think the best way to defend our jobs on the container terminals (MODATs, etc. ) is for our two Stewards Councils to meet jointly to discuss the common problems we face with MTC and other employers. I’m particularly concerned about the Oct.24 Journal of Commerce article stating that ILWU President Spinosa is “striking a conciliatory tone with waterfront employers regarding the development of new technology at West Coast ports”. I’d hate to see top pick drivers and tractor drivers using computers to make the night because the clerks couldn’t fill. Or maybe you are taking the bait that computers will make more work for clerks. Hopefully we can agree that talk of the Coast Committee reopening the current contract without convening a Special Caucus prior should be opposed.
