I was a member of Local 13 for 14 years and I don’t recall anyone ever calling the “board” the “old chalk-board dispatch system”. The whole thing sounds contrived to me. I doesn’t sound like someone who has ever worked the waterfront. Not to mention that no one from San Pedro would ever say Local 13’s from Wilmington!! This no doubt is a bit of dis-information.
We MUST remember that the basic premise of the Big Strike in 34 was over a dispatch hall. The hall serves many purposes to the longies that go there. It isn’t just for getting a job. It gives those who don’t happen to work together the chance to maintain friendships. It serves as conduit for information and rumors. It reminds us on a daily basis that we are a large and diverse Union. It is the main pillar of our strength.
Any changes to our dispatch system will no doubt greatly benefit the employer at quite possibly too great a cost to ourselves.
Tim35181
Dangerous propaganda/dangerous propagandists
Ole
14 Dec 99
Jerry wrote:
ILWU Votes 3-to-1 Against Computerized Dispatch
Members of ILWU Local 13 in Wilmington voted down a new computer system designed to speed longshore workers to the job. Final vote against the system was 1,173 to 400, according to Local 13 President Mike Freese.
Implementation of the new system was opposed by some ILWU members, who felt it could be the first step to the employers taking over the union’s dispatch function.
This is probably not going to be the end of the issue. Employers claim the old chalkboard dispatch system, which has not changed significantly since the 30s, results in work crews sometimes arriving on the job more than an hour late. They say those late arrivals end up costing waterfront companies in the Los Angeles-Long Beach harbor about $36 million a year.
The Pacific Maritime Association, which worked with ILWU dispatchers to develop the system, may go to arbitration. The current contract calls for implementation of a “feasible plan.”
... but I don’t think Jerry really wrote it! I’m going to step way out on a limb here, since I haven’t read the original, but... The dishonesty inherent between those lines sure looks like a JOC job to me! More than that, it stinks specifically like a certain B. M. By B.M., I mean the rabid JOC by-liner, not to be confused with a bowel movement, which is the result of honest labor and smells much better than the Journal of Commerce.
“Info” means information, Jerry. If you post dis-information, like this, you must always indicate the source so that people don’t think you have this Employer’s view of the situation.
There is a greater danger inherent in letting this quote stand unidentified and unchallenged.
ILWU 13 members have a lot at stake here. If they accept that shit, as it is written, with the viciously censored quote from the PCLCD, they might not even read their own contract and find out what’s really going on. Fact is, nobody but Local 13 will be concerned with, or remotely bothered by, this. Fact is, the first stage sell-out has already been made. Fact is, that the people capable of fighting it effectively, or willing to fighting it at all instead of covering their own asses, will be seriously few and far between.
READ your contract!
8.111 The Association and the Union agree that continued study shall be made in mechanizing the dispatching halls and if a feasible plan is developed it shall be instituted in a major port on a trial basis. If no agreement is reached as to a feasible plan or its institution on a trial basis, such disagreement or disagreements may be submitted to the Area Arbitrator for resolution.
READ the agreements ALREADY MADE by Local 13 about this plan.
I have serious doubts that the people who will be handling the possible up-coming arbitration(s), much less most Local 13 rank-and-filers, fully understand the ramifications of this passage.
I would like some indication that there are others who understand the framework of the problem before discussing what should (or, in my opinion, must) be done about it.
Since this is bound to be a matter of arbitration, details should not be discussed publicly. Concerned individuals, with a grasp of the situation, who would like to explore the matter further, please contact me directly with your views.
frats, ole
Yes. This was published in the JOC this past Monday. And yes, it had a BM byline. Big surprise.
Richard Van Schaick
I got it from the “Cunningham Report (Vol 4 #50)” not the JOC – -
http://www.cunninghamreport.com/TCRmember/currentTCR.htm
Jerry
