On September 4, the head of the East and Gulf Coast-based International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), Harold Daggett, bluntly rebuffed the shipping bosses’ invitation to return to the bargaining table. The longshore contract expires September 30 and covers 45,000 workers. The union has so far stuck to its initial demands for a 10% wage increase for each year on a six-year contract. The bosses have only offered 6.25%, and negotiations have been stalled for months. Perhaps even more critical is the ILA’s refusal to agree to more automation on the docks.
The ILA’s president has repeatedly said the union will strike if there is no agreement by the expiration date. A strike would significantly impact shipping companies’ record profits and cost all of corporate America an estimated $5 billion a day, or about 3.4% of daily economic activity. Industries like auto, portions of which are heavily dependent on imported parts, would quickly face crippling shortages.
The ILA has not called a strike at all its ports since 1977. The union’s top leadership has a long record of keeping its members in the dark regarding national contract negotiations, although some locals operate more democratically. The militant stance ILA leaders are presently taking is at variance from their past behavior, but is certainly in tune with the members’ demands for a wage increase sizeable enough to compensate for their loss in buying power during the current contract.
Perhaps the most significant issue is the port bosses’ job-killing drive to automate port operations further. Bosses complain that automation in the ILA’s jurisdiction is far less advanced than in the West Coast ports organized by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). Negotiations broke down in June when the ILA said it had discovered bosses at the Mobile, Alabama port had automated some operations in violation of the existing contract. Daggett has said the union will strike to prevent further automation, and automation could be an even bigger issue than wages.
Trade associations representing industries that depend on imports urged the White House to bring a Taft-Hartley injunction against the ILA if they strike, saying that the impact on diverse sections of the economy would constitute a “national emergency.” In response to the threat of a Taft-Hartley injunction, the ILA president said members would engage in a slowdown, predicting that bosses could expect productivity to drop “from 30 [container] moves an hour maybe to eight”. The White House said it was not contemplating bringing an injunction, but this could change if the ILA calls a strike that runs past election day.
The ILA is up against a coalition of companies called the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), representing worldwide shipping interests that generate profits from global operations. They include carriers like Maersk Line, whose subsidiary operates 70 ports on five continents. CK Hutchison Holdings, another USMX member, not only runs 50 ports but also retail chains, power plants, toll roads, water supply systems, and telecommunications companies in Europe and Asia. Up against companies with diverse ways of making profits on a global scale, the ILA and its members are in a difficult position.
The ILA says it has solidarity agreements with longshore unions in Europe and with the ILWU, but these agreements are limited to not handling cargo diverted from ILA ports. These agreements to boycott so-called hot cargo diverted from struck ports are valuable, but do not stop the biggest USMX members from making profits from their global operations even if the ILA strikes ports in the U.S.
A short strike may not hurt the major companies enough to win meaningful concessions, yet a strike that lasts past the election may be enjoined as a “national emergency.” Militant ILA members need to organize, through their locals if possible, to keep the pressure on the top leaders and to reach out for active support from dockworkers in non-ILA ports where USMX companies have operations. Otherwise, the defiant stance of the ILA leaders may turn out to be just a bluff that sets the stage for a big defeat, opening the way for the bosses to carry out their plans for maximum automation of the docks.
