Brothers and Sisters,
The rank and file should vote down the proposed contract. As the only Caucus delegate to vote against recommending ratification of the proposed contract, I’d like to explain my reasons. First of all, every member should read the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the Letters of Understanding (LOU) carefully. The membership should have had copies of it BEFORE the Caucus convened so that delegates could’ve had feed back from the members who they represent. If this is such a great contract, why not get it into our members’ hands as soon as possible. PMA member companies already had received copies. Why not ILWU members?
The rank and file should not have been kept in the dark during negotiations. An informed membership is key in the fight against the employers. PMA was putting out its propaganda daily – distorting the amount of our wages, maligning longshore workers as irresponsible, at the same time spouting a phony “spirit of cooperation” between them and us. ILWU should have countered these lies. It felt like being in the ring with both hands tied behind your back. PMA was taking all the shots.
Finally by Bloody Thursday the rank and file had gotten fed up with PMA’s media lies and stonewalling negotiations. They took matters into their own hands. In the San Francisco longshore local, safety- focusing on the contract demand for a signalman under the crane- became a hot issue, uniting both hall and steady workers. On July 6 as crane drivers turned to, they requested a signalman, as other ports have. Each was summarily fired for that shift along with the gangs of other longshore workers. For two days the port of Oakland was shutdown. Inspired by Local 10’s militancy, other locals on the Coast intensified their on-going actions.
Lo’ and behold the logjam that had been created by PMA in negotiations was broken. They began bargaining with a new-found enthusiasm. Clearly, rank and file action played an important part in negotiations. It was necessary in order to induce PMA to bargain, but not enough to get a good contract. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back As far as the pension and welfare provisions are concerned, I have no major disagreement. These were strike issues- bringing up the pension of the old timers, the widows and the active longshore workers and the maintenance of benefits. The Negotiating Committee did a good job with the benefits, but then again the stock market performed well (at least for the time being) creating somewhat of a windfall for fund investments.
My main concern is with the direction of negotiations and the not-so-apparent losses. Billed as M & M 2, these talks were based on the false concept of “partnership” with the employers. Every gain we’ve made to date was won by fighting the employers, not depending on their “kindness”. Six strikers died to win the union-controlled hiring hall and the coastwise contract. Both are the twin pillars on which the ILWU’s power is based. Too many negotiated items were pushed aside as “local” issues, including the hiring hall. At the March Caucus Local 10’s resolution reaffirming a coastwise contract failed. A warning flag should have gone up then. At that Caucus we were focused on “closing the gap”in wages between the highest paid workers and those at the bottom. We succeeded or so it seemed......
1) Perhaps the most dangerous part of this proposed contract is the LOU-Guarantees, Skilled Rates for All Longshore and Clerks because it undermines ILWU’s strength as an industrial union. It makes reference to Section 14, the Crane Supplement under which LA steady crane operators work. In the ILWU’s 1996 contract we fought to eliminate “side deals” or individual agreements. It’s the union’s job to negotiate collective bargaining agreements for all of its members for wages, hours and working conditions. Where employers have succeeded in busting or weakening unions, they impose “individual agreements”to keep workers divided.
The 1996 PCCCD states (page 176): “Individual side agreements, including paid hours in excess of the PCL&CA, as defined by Area Arbitration No. SC-29-94, between individual employees or local Union officials and individual member companies shall be considered a Contract violation.” This new LOU turns that provision on its head, stating: “an agreement between Area PMA, Union officials and Member Companies shall not be considered a violation...”(my emphases). In conjunction with LOU- Policy and Procedure for Adjudication of Charges Against Member Companies it can only mean that PMA is preparing to legitimize “side deals” to undermine ILWU unity, pitting local against local and longshore worker against longshore worker in a fight over more money. This Letter will create more chaos and division on the Coast, not less.
Since PMA member companies are essentially acknowledging that they have money left over after negotiating at the Big Table (they’ve done quite well because of our labor) then those surplus profits should go first to breaking down the tier system imposed on casuals and “B” men and equalizing their wages and benefits. Eliminating the tier system was a contract demand, introduced by the Local 10’s Stewards’ Council, that passed the Caucus but was not dealt with at the Big Table.
The shipowners and stevedore companies made sizeable profits. It is reasonable to demand that our miserly 7.8% wage increase over three years, which doesn’t even keep up with the cost of living here in California, be generously increased for all longshore workers on the Coast!
2) It is a fundamental principle of the labor movement to demand no reprisals or victimizations of union members and officers at the end of a conflict with employers. If we don’t defend our most dedicated members, then who will step forward for our union in the coming struggles? Amnesty is not a LOCAL issue. The LOU entitled Amnesty Agreement dated July 1, covers union president Mike Freese in Los Angeles, but leaves two union members-Ron Leistiko #81683 and Mike Glover #7735- in Portland on the chopping block. PMA is pushing for Leistiko’s deregistration and one year on the beach for Glover, a former Local 10 member. Why? PMA provoked them, then charged them with assault for attempting to uphold union principles while PMA was stalling contract bargaining. We shouldn’t even be voting until the charges are dropped. This is reason enough to vote the contract down!
3) The Industry Travel System is an integral part of our coastwide agreements, both the PCLCD (longshore) and the PCCCD (clerks). In 1993 negotiations San Francisco’s travel time, codified in the 1948 “Brown Book”, was taken away at the Big Table. A Transition Trust Fund was cynically established to gradually wean Locals 10 and 34 away from the travel pay in a sinister attempt by PMA to force us to move our hall to Oakland. But our San Francisco hiring hall and its murals carry with it ILWU’s history going back to the Big Strike in ’34. Painted on the sidewalk outside our hall are the figures of two fallen men with the inscription: “Two ILA men killed-shot in the back-Police murder.” This is not a LOCAL issue. Every major local is included in the Industry Travel System.
The hiring hall and attempts by PMA to “modernize” it should not be relegated to local negotiations, especially when it’s the largest local on the Coast. It was reported that prior to the Caucus, Local 13 went into local negotiations on automating the hall and, it was reported, defended the union’s control of the hall and and the arbitrator’s historic ’34 award that “the men shall be free to pick their jobs”. However, this is too important a question for individual locals to negotiate. The hiring hall is the basic building block in the bridge that makes us a coastwide union. If we lose it in one port, the bridge collapses. This too is a matter for coast bargaining.
4) The Ratification section (XVI) denies retroactive pay if any local strikes or slows down to obtain its just demands before the PMA has been notified of contract ratification. For example, if Local 10 took action to get back our travel time or a signalman which other locals already have before the contract is voted up, the rest of the Coast will lose retroactive pay increases. This is a hammer for the employers to push for ratification and chill out any actions by aggrieved locals.
5) Jurisdiction was, and always is, a key demand. In the LOU- Terminal-to-Terminal (CY-to-CY) Drayage reaffirms a similar letter in 1996 which was never implemented to use longshoremen for intraport drayage. It doesn’t commit the employers to anything but “discusssions”, setting up a training program for registered longshoremen in the major ports and “encouraging” pilot programs. There is no commitment to actually hire longshore workers to dray because it is unlikely PMA member companies will go into the drayage business.
One worrisome point is that employers could gimmick the provision to allow intraport drivers to drive against the ship which could jeopardize our jurisdiction if nonunion drivers were used. We need to organize the unorganized intraport truck drivers, many of whom are militant, highly-exploited immigrant workers ready to join our union. The successful ship planners organizing drive can serve as an example.
Even if this proposed contract is ratified (the industry pundits may be surprised by the opposition to it) our fight with the employers will not be over. There are the “local” issues to resolve. Beyond that, the big fight will come against employer/government attacks on our jurisdiction through industry deregulation schemes pushed by both the Democrat and Republican Parties. Unfortunately, there was no mention of the need for international labor solidarity to defend against these attacks in the Coast Committee Report. As we learned from the Liverpool dockers struggle, longshore unions around the world are being busted by government deregulation. The Caucus enthusiastically voted to affiliate to the newly-organized International Dockworkers Committee whose participating unions showed real solidarity during the Liverpool struggle, as opposed to the moribund ITF. Three years ago PMA’s Miniace came down to the waterfront ranting and raving about whipping us longshore workers into line. In 1998, PMA failed miserably in its federal suit in LA to impose a “special master” to rule on longshore work stoppages. The judge threw it out. Again, last year in the Neptune Jade Liverpool solidarity case the port of Oakland was shutdown to defend the ILWU against PMA’s witchhunting legal attack. Shortly after, the PMA dropped its suit.
What worries global shipowners( and the PMA) is that dockworkers the world over are recognizing the power they have to support each others struggles through international solidarity. The Neptune Jade and LA’s Columbus Canada solidarity action with the Australian wharfies are living proof . The International Dockworkers Committee will help to co-ordinate that solidarity. It is a welcomed step forward in fight against global shipowners’ and stevedore companies’ attacks.
Jack Heyman
#8780
