Negotiations that began in November between the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), an organization of international shipping companies like Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and others, and the International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA), the U.S. based union representing 45,000 port workers at the eastern and gulf coast ports of the United States, have officially broken off. This occurs after the three-day strike in early October which was centered on union demands for pay increases and tight limits on the ability of the companies to automate port work. While it is likely that unofficial contacts are still occurring behind the scenes, the official breakdown of talks again raises the possibility of another, perhaps more significant strike on or after January 15.
In order to end the October strike, both sides agreed to a pay increase of 62%, with negotiations to follow over automation. The pay increase didn’t happen immediately, but instead would go into effect only after the details on automation were worked out. A deadline of January 15 was set, after which the union would be free to strike again if they couldn’t reach agreement on automation. The ILA leadership, however, has not announced the specific demands that they have put on the table regarding automation. As has often been the case in that union, the negotiations were conducted without worker input, without a worker-led organizing drive and outreach to other working people, and by a union president (Harold Daggett) who lives in a mansion and who has cozied up to Trump. In other words, a typical union bureaucrat who gets well paid to be a middleman between workers and the bosses. The question is, what will be the outcomes on automation, and what will the union leadership attempt to portray as a victory for their union and the workers?
Although the idea of stopping a strike for promises of further negotiations is generally not a good idea for workers, in this case the shipping company and port bosses are worried that the timing of the deadline, only days before Trump’s inauguration, will be a bad combination for them. Typically, the capitalists who run the port and shipping companies welcome government intervention, which allows them to stifle worker power. But although Trump is himself one of the bosses who has made millions by firing, exploiting, and screwing over workers, in his recent campaign he has tried to make it seem like he cares about “American workers.” If he’s faced with a strike in his first days in office, with workers at U.S. ports fighting against mostly foreign shipping companies, Trump might try to prove that he’s standing up for U.S. workers. He would then act like he negotiated a deal and stood up for U.S. workers while allowing commerce to proceed as usual, painting himself as a successful dealmaker keeping his campaign promises. If this is the case, the union might win wage increases and some temporary protections against automation for workers with a certain amount of seniority. But the process of automation will likely continue, and the union will still lack the fighting organization that all working-class organizations need to be.
At the same time, port workers in Canada, mainly at the ports in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Montreal, Quebec, are also engaged in a fight with their employers. The main issue for the workers in Canada is wages. After the rank-and-file memberships of the union locals rejected contract offers by wide margins, multi-national port and shipping companies like Dubai Ports World, and of course Hapag-Lloyd, and Maersk, intensified the conflicts by refusing to sign contracts with and then locking out about 8,000 port workers in British Columbia and another 1,200 in Montreal. Then, about two weeks ago, the Canadian government stepped in and ordered an end to both lockouts, forcing the parties into binding arbitration, which typically pulls the rug out from under workers who are either beginning or perhaps winning a struggle. Independent observers believe the government bowed to pressure from the shipping companies, who either instigate or drag out a conflict with workers with the knowledge that if it gets too bad, the state will step in to fix the problem for them. While it remains to be seen what the outcome will be, the union representing workers in British Columbia is challenging the government intervention in court. But using legal battles in place of workers’ power places them in a similar situation to port workers in the U.S., who are counting on good timing and a presidential candidate’s promises to help them win a battle. In neither case are they building workers’ power, which is ultimately the way to win.
The simultaneous struggles by thousands of port workers in the U.S. and Canada show that workers in different nations have the same problems with many of the same bosses, and have the same interests – dignified work and living conditions for themselves and their families. It also shows that the bosses, the capitalists, are often exactly the same companies, and definitely share the same interests – their pursuit of profit. These common interests across borders shows us that this is necessarily an international fight. Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and other shipping companies operate around the globe, and a strike in only one or a handful of locations might be overcome with temporary rerouting and because of profits they continue to make from their many other ports.
But a longer strike that encompasses an entire region like the east and Gulf coasts of the U.S. might eat into their profits and their ability to ship goods, especially if the strike lasted beyond a few weeks. An even larger strike, with support from or even work stoppages from port workers in other nations, would help workers in the ILA significantly in their battle with international companies. The ILA has been reaching out to get at least verbal support from other dockworkers’ unions worldwide, but because the ILA has often not supported the struggles of other port workers, these statements of support will likely be more symbolic than substantive.
An effort to develop a more collaborative pattern of bargaining would also help in future efforts to take on the shipping companies. Bargaining separately and without coordination allows the bosses to divide and conquer. But if the ILA and ILWU (the longshore and warehouse workers union representing port workers on the west coast of the U.S.) were to unite in their demands, or try to synchronize their contracts and bargaining in such a way that they could use their collective power, they might be able to better stand up to the companies. Add the Canadian port worker unions into the mix, and the potential power of port workers is increased even more. When workers and their unions build connections, and maybe even unite their actions and their bargaining on regional and international levels, then they can develop real power to challenge the big shipping companies.
In order to overcome the power of these companies and the governments that represent them, workers of all nations must organize and unite across borders internationally. Only by uniting with workers in other ports, in other nations, and in other regions will workers be able break through our restraints and build our full power to take on the capitalists.
Although the current bureaucratic leadership of the ILA isn’t up to that task, it is possible that, in the leadup to another strike, they are piecing together the building blocks of what could become a more concrete regional and international solidarity between workers’ organizations. If the workers themselves can begin to take the lead and push their organizations to go further in this direction, then the potential is there for larger, more collectively powerful fightbacks in the future.
