Longshore lockout

[REDWAVE]

Major class struggle is underway on the west coast ports of this great country, where the employers, banded together in the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), have locked out the longshoremen, who belong to the International Longshore Workers Union (ILWU). In the background lurks the Bush regime, which has threatened to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act and use troops as strikebreakers. This labor dispute is of great importance, as it is costing the U.S. economy an estimated $1 billion/day, and is cutting off much of the normal flow of goods by sea into and out of the U.S.

So what do you think? Whose side are you on-- labor or management? Should Bush intervene, and if so, how? Normally I state my own opinions right up front, but this time I think I'll sit back and wait for others to comment first. (You probably can guess which side I'm on, anyway.)

 

[HeavyStick]

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115802

 

[HeavyStick]

Is this gonna be another thread where people from the left and right debate and you feed off of their intelligence and when you are cornered with a query, you start another thread?

 

[70/30]

Maybe he is honing his talents for reporting the alternative news, I hear more and more people are abandoning the biased mainstream press. That career path would look to be a glowing one.

 

[REDWAVE]

Anyone care about the topic?

Hey, 70/30. The mainstream news reporting, especially on TV, is pretty disgusting, isn't it? Blatant war propaganda, mainly. You can get a lot more real information from the Independent Media Center (IMC, or "indymedia") network.

It would be nice, though, to have a comment that's on topic.

 

[Pagliacci]

Major class struggle is underway on the west coast ports of this great country, where the employers, banded together in the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), have locked out the longshoremen, who belong to the International Longshore Workers Union (ILWU). In the background lurks the Bush regime, which has threatened to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act and use troops as strikebreakers. This labor dispute is of great importance, as it is costing the U.S. economy an estimated $1 billion/day, and is cutting off much of the normal flow of goods by sea into and out of the U.S.

So what do you think? Whose side are you on-- labor or management? Should Bush intervene, and if so, how? Normally I state my own opinions right up front, but this time I think I'll sit back and wait for others to comment first. (You probably can guess which side I'm on, anyway.)

Ok,so why are the longshoremen on strike ?
What is the dispute about ?

Give me some background and I'll give this a shot.

 

[HeavyStick]

redwave should be in favor of the lockout, it could help collapse the Capitalistic system he hates so much.

 

[REDWAVE]

Some background

It's not a strike, it's a lockout. The workers didn't refuse to work; the employers refused to let them come to work. The employers claim the longshoremen were engaged in a slow-down. The union says they were just following safety guidelines to the letter. The longshoremen have been working without a contract for about three months now. The dispute is primarily about the employers introducing new technology to eliminate jobs, and whether the new jobs created will be union or non-union.

For more information, there's plenty of news articles, on the NYT and elsewhere.

 

[SilvaTungDevil]

capitalism sucks

 

[Pagliacci]

Re: Some background

It's not a strike, it's a lockout. The workers didn't refuse to work; the employers refused to let them come to work. The employers claim the longshoremen were engaged in a slow-down. The union says they were just following safety guidelines to the letter. The longshoremen have been working without a contract for about three months now. The dispute is primarily about the employers introducing new technology to eliminate jobs, and whether the new jobs created will be union or non-union.

For more information, there's plenty of news articles, on the NYT and elsewhere.

Ok,based on what you say,which I'll take as a recap and I'll not doubt it,I'll fire from the hip.

This is what happens when a country hasn't got a strong labour union or federal laws that regulate workers rights enough to safeguard them.
It is what happens when a country is Capitalistic in it's nature and has doesn't utilize even part of the Socialist safety net for the common man/woman.
Now a company works to make money and with a large unemployment they can treat workers any way they want because there'll always be people prepared to work when others won't. The Union and workers always try to maximize their "profit" by getting paid as much as possible for doing as little as possible.

BUT the fact of the matter is and always will be that people unaffected by hardships or conflicts such as this lockout will continue to support the system since it's good enough for them and works for them.Someone hit by a conflict of this kind will cry bloody murder because all of a sudden he's suffering,though as soon as the conflict is settled he'll be pacified.

People make their choice,in Democratic elections,one man one vote,so there'll always be flare ups like this that in the end doesn't amount to anything.

Regarding the Federal Govt sending in troops,all Prez Bush sees is that something that is important to the country isn't working and the main problem being the workers,based on the information he gets,thus he uses the means given to him through the laws that restrains him.

This isn't a rising of the masses or a workers revolution,it is ordinary people that are not politically aware nor motivated that just want what others have:
Money in their pocket.

 

[Ishmael]

Press Release

SOURCE: Pacific Maritime Association

Pacific Maritime Association Responds to Alleged Misrepresentations by ILWU

SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 7, 2002--The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), through spokespersons and written
statements, has released information to the media and government officials that contains what the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) considers to be serious misrepresentations about the bargaining that has taken place with the PMA since talks on a new coast-wide labor agreement began on May 13, 2002. PMA feels it must correct the record and provide factual information to those interested in these issues.

Allegation #1: PMA has refused to negotiate seriously, instead waiting for the federal government to intervene on its behalf.

Facts: That allegation is false. It is the PMA's perception that the Bush administration, citing the interests of the U.S. economy and national security, has placed a tremendous amount of pressure on the PMA. The PMA has been the party most willing to negotiate, while the Union has chosen to stall. The PMA's most recent contract proposal would increase overall compensation
by 17% over a five-year period, raising the annual
wages of full-time longshoremen to $114,500, and
full-time marine clerks to $137,500. The health,
pension and other benefits per employee would cost PMA employers $57,839 per year by the third year of the new contract, and $63,897 by the fifth year.

Allegation #2: The ILWU has negotiated seriously and given the PMA everything it asked for.

Facts: Unfortunately, that is far from the truth. The Union has shown little, if any, movement. The ILWU submitted two demand packages, one on May 13, the day the negotiations began, and the other on July 1, the day the contract was due to expire. The May 13 package would have resulted in labor costs of $103.75 per hour, which is 70.32% greater than the current cost. The ILWU's July 1 package had a contract cost of 56.9%, not including the estimated costs of new demands, such as minimum manning quotas and jurisdictional expansion.

Over the 85 days since negotiations began, the ILWU has chosen to meet only 28 times for a paltry 53-1/2 hours. At the ILWU's insistence, a dozen meetings, stretched out over 35 days, focused solely on health benefits to the exclusion of all other issues. A month has passed since the ILWU made any proposal whatsoever, and at the Union's request, talks were suspended for three weeks following its Caucus' rejection of the PMA's offer. For 18 months, the PMA sought early negotiations to discuss technology. The ILWU refused. Further, the Union agreed two years ago
to prepare a proposal to address technology
implementation. Nothing ever materialized.

Allegation #3: The PMA is trying to cutback employee benefits.

Facts: That allegation is false. The PMA accepted the Union's demand for "maintenance of benefits" and has added new benefits requested by the Union. The health care plan is provided to ILWU members without monthly premiums and provides 100 percent coverage as long as members stay within the PPO network or elect HMO coverage. Union members who decide to go outside the PPO network will continue to pay no more than 80/20 up to a maximum of $1,300 for family coverage.

New ILWU members would have HMO coverage with no
monthly premiums or out-of-pocket costs for the term of the new collective bargaining agreement. This is the same HMO program enjoyed by over 40% of the current and retired union members. In portraying the PMA health care offer as a take away, the ILWU is attempting to mislead the American people, many of whom either pay substantial amounts as a shared cost of health care or have no coverage at all.

The PMA will pay $21,997 per employee per year for health care coverage, increasing to $34,939 per employee per year in the fifth year of the contract. This is one of the most comprehensive health packages in America today.

As it relates to pension, the PMA plan provides
increases in the pension plan for all employees, as well as a special early retirement incentive window for clerks impacted by the technology proposal. The pension proposal would increase the maximum annual benefit to $40,740. This is a lifetime benefit, and comes in addition to the employer contribution to the 401(k) plan offered by PMA. An ILWU official is quoted as saying the Union considers this a take away because
the pension increase is not as large as was expected.

Allegation #4: The PMA's technology proposal will cost ILWU members jobs.

Facts: To the contrary, the PMA's proposal would protect all active registered union jobs. Further, the PMA is guaranteeing every registered marine clerk the full opportunity to work as a marine clerk until retirement. The PMA proposal also includes a pay guarantee of 40 hours of work each week for registered marine clerks who have no work to perform. The ILWU has approximately 10,500 registered members on the West Coast. The job ranks for the ILWU have grown 19.5 percent over the past five years. While the number of registered union members may decline slightly through attrition as technology is implemented, job growth is expected to catch-up and exceed current levels in 5-7 years.

Allegation #5: The PMA wants to introduce technology to outsource jobs.

Facts: That allegation is false. The PMA proposal does not deprive the Union of the work that can be performed by union members within that jurisdiction. The PMA written proposal guarantees that technology will not transfer marine clerk work to others and that, when new technology eliminates or changes a marine clerk's job function, any new work created from the technology
linked to that function will be marine clerk work.

Further, the Union's assertion that planning jobs, which they claim are their jurisdiction, have been given to others is in direct conflict with an arbitrator's decision on this very subject. In that case, in a decision issued over two decades ago, the arbitrator ruled that the work in question is not marine clerks' work.

Allegation #6: The ILWU technology proposal will save PMA members millions of dollars.

Facts: Not true. On July 16 -- two weeks after the contract expired -- the ILWU presented a technology proposal in name only. The additional cost of that proposal significantly exceeds the potential labor cost savings from the implementation of the technology.

The Union's plan provides for minimum manning quotas for marine clerks regardless of technology, and expands union jurisdiction to include management jobs and other jobs outside its jurisdiction. This additional jurisdiction and the minimum manning quotas outlined in the Union's technology proposal would add substantial estimated costs to the ILWU's July 1 proposal that would have increased costs by 56.9%.

Finally, the ILWU proposal is void of a procedure for resolving disagreements between the parties over technology implementation, thereby allowing the Union to block implementation by failing to agree to it. The ILWU proposal would guarantee added manning requirements, eliminate management's right to employ technology, and give the Union the right to choose when or if technology is introduced.

-------------------------------------------------

Two sides to every story.

Ishmael

 

[Problem Child]

The PMA's most recent contract proposal would increase overall compensation
by 17% over a five-year period, raising the annual
wages of full-time longshoremen to $114,500, and
full-time marine clerks to $137,500. The health,
pension and other benefits per employee would cost PMA employers $57,839 per year by the third year of the new contract, and $63,897 by the fifth year.

Where do I sign up? Someone please outline what these guys do for that much money.

Please say something besides "they load ships".

 

[Ishmael]

Where do I sign up? Someone please outline what these guys do for that much money.

Please say something besides "they load ships".

They're just 'oppressed' workers under the thumb of an uncaring capitalist system. Slave wages really.

Ishmael

 

[HeavyStick]

They're just 'oppressed' workers under the thumb of an uncaring capitalist system. Slave wages really.

Ishmael

They do have that pesky "CEO" garnishment kicking back 65% of their pay, that would put them at 40K a year.

 

[REDWAVE]

CEO compensation

Let's talk about CEO compensation, which on the average is over 400 times as much as that of workers.

Also, I'd be very interested to hear from anyone personally involved in this. Any longshoremen reading this? Anyone want to present the union view, in rebuttal to Ishmael acting as the press agent for the PMA?

 

[70/30]

Where do I sign up?

Ease in at the local Bally's, 24hour Fitness and Gold's Gym, then make the final pitch at the nearest biker bar.

 

[Aquila]

the companies locked them out of work because they where trying some bullshit work slowdown or something... kind of like a massive suspension of the companies workers..

Kinda funny really.
Unions getting a dose of their own.
Makes me giggle like a ten year old catholic schoolgirl

 

[Problem Child]

Ease in at the local Bally's, 24hour Fitness and Gold's Gym, then make the final pitch at the nearest biker bar.

dork.

 

[REDWAVE]

ILWU website

For the union point of view:

http://www.ilwu.org/main.html

 

[Hot4Heels]

Damn I am in the wrong Union.

Most of their proposals go against my locals current contract. I am in a construction trade Union so it is understood that if we are not productive/competitive our contractors will loose work and we will loose jobs. I have never understood ANY Union that demands garunteed jobs. Once a company starts loosing enough money they shut the doors and go belly up and NOBODY works.

 

[miles]

"Union work slowdown" is an oxymoron right up there with
"redwave's honest answer."

 

[miles]

Where do I sign up? Someone please outline what these guys do for that much money.

Please say something besides "they load ships".

They spend eight back breaking hours every day is trying to shed the yoke placed on them by the oppressive, white male Republican management pigs.

Don't you know anything?

 

[Aquila]

They spend eight back breaking hours every day is trying to shed the yoke placed on them by the oppressive, white male Republican management pigs.

Don't you know anything?

Don't forget the arduos (sp?) mandated 2 hours out of that 8 for paid breaks besides lunch.

damn the man they should get 6 hours besides lunch!

 

[Spinaroonie]

capitalism sucks

You do know that there is a trend for those bars on that graph you made to become even.

Unfrotunately, it's going the wrong way.

Men's wages are dropping. Women's are staying the same.

 

[SilvaTungDevil]

You do know that there is a trend for those bars on that graph you made to become even.

Unfrotunately, it's going the wrong way.

Men's wages are dropping. Women's are staying the same.

That's a graph of percentage of wealth held not wages. Plus I thought the colors were pretty.