The work slowdowns by members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union are having the desired impact on West Coast ports, at least as far as the union is concerned.
Cargo is backing up at major containerports during the busy peak shipping season.
At least eight vessels have been diverted from Oakland, costing that port more than $250,000 in lost revenue not to mention the costs to shippers and carriers. Frustrated truck drivers are sitting in lines for four or five hours in Los Angeles-Long Beach. Shipping executives and terminal operators are getting anxious. They are pushing for a successful conclusion to longshore contract negotiations that have been dragging on since mid-May.
All is fair in love and war and, presumably, contract negotiations. But if the powerful West Coast dockworkers union steps back and looks at the impact of its job actions, it will see that innocent people and companies are suffering because of this bargaining tactic. Waterfront employers who are attempting to make a statement by playing hardball with the union should also take a closer look at what is happening to the nation’s retailers, the already fragile intermodal transportation chain and the truck drivers whose livelihood is threatened by the go-slow actions at West Coast ports.
Go-slow actions by longshoremen are nothing new on the waterfront. The ILWU in the past has used this strategy to win contract concessions or to prevent an undesirable development, such as the threat of a nonunion operation starting up at a West Coast port.
Crane operators, who normally average 28 to 30 container lifts per hour, suddenly do no more than 12 to 15. Operators of yard equipment chug along at a snail’s pace as they spot containers at the marine terminals. Workers show up late for their jobs. They turn down all requests to work extended hours. They stop work repeatedly with allegations of health and safety infractions at marine terminals.
The ILWU contract that was negotiated in 1996 expired on July 1. The work slowdowns began two days later and have continued as the union presses its demands for an improved wage and benefits package and an extension of its jurisdiction. The Pacific Maritime Association, which represents shipping lines and terminal operators, resists the union’s demands as being too costly. Employers are pushing for greater freedom to implement productivity-enhancing technology.
The issues involved in labor talks are complex, and it is not our intention to comment on the wisdom of either party’s position. However, the tactics being employed by dockworkers are having a devastating impact on the nation’s foreign commerce. The ILWU headquarters in San Francisco says it is not orchestrating the work slowdowns, but this is hard to believe.
The owner-operator truck drivers who wait for hours at congested marine terminals certainly aren’t buying that argument. Harbor truck drivers are at the bottom of the intermodal food chain. In order to pay the notes on their trucks and cover other expenses, they need four or more round trips a day between the harbor and local intermodal yards and receiving warehouses.
In Los Angeles-Long Beach, they are getting only one or two. Harbor haulers, many of whom are recent immigrants, struggle even in the best of times to make a living. It is truly ironic that a union which fights for the rights of dockworkers in England and Australia is inflicting so much pain on low-paid laborers in this country.
Cargo is backing up quickly at West Coast ports. Terminal operators are starting to experience a shortage of intermodal rail equipment. During the 1997 peak shipping season, a shortage of rail equipment and chassis, compounded by a shortage of longshoremen and labor problems in Los Angeles, sent the nation’s intermodal transportation system into gridlock. The gridlock lasted for several months. The 1999 holiday shipping season, which is already under way, is expected to be the busiest ever. A repeat of the 1997 situation would be disastrous for importers and retailers who depend upon holiday season sales for the bulk of their annual business.
The ILWU and the PMA should bargain hard for a three-year waterfront contract that is good for both parties. But waterfront labor and employers should confine their fighting to the bargaining table. The rest of the nation should not have to pay such a dear price for the problems that the ILWU and their employers have brought upon each other.
