I was just reading about the longshoremen strike on cnn and they make a butt-load of money… it seems like it would be easy to round up a bunch of qualified people or at least competent people who could be trained quickly to fill the positions. So why don’t they do this? Is there some law that prevents the cargo companies from hiring new employees during a strike?
here is the cnn article:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/07/labor.port/index.html
Have you ever wondered why they make so much money? It’s because they are highly skilled laborers. Most of the “qualified people” in California are participating in the strike. That’s why strikes work. 
There is no law that I know if that would prevent a company from hiring temporary replacements during a strike, though the companies may have agreements with the unions to not do that.
HOLD ON THERE!
That mess on the west coast is a port operator’s LOCKOUT—NOT a Longshoremen’s strike!
I can’t speak to the specifics of longshoreman skills, friedo, but I would point out that another reason strikes sometimes “work” is that the striking workers use various extra-legal means, harrassment and the like, against the would-be replacement workers.
I have no idea if that is happening or may happen here. But the global “that’s why strikes work” line deserved at least some rebuttal.
This has the potential to erupt into a debate, so let me lay down the ground rules. The question here is whether there is a law or contract that prevents the hiring of replacement workers. Secondarily, we can discuss here the ease of training potential replacement workers. We will not discuss in this forum whether replacement workers should be hired, or whether the workers deserve the level of pay they receive. Those are topics for Great Debates. Hint: if your post includes words like “greedy” or “scab”, it doesn’t belong in this forum.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
Expressed in an article I saw yesterday was the thought that operators have generally acquiesced to union demands because the volume of shipping combined with the “just in time” modus operandi of many companies today makes any delays quite costly and they’d rather get the union back on board while so much shipping remains dependent on the West Coast docks than let a serious disruption drive the development of alternative methods of transport.
The lockout seems to be a result of Management (Pacific Maritime Association) wanting to introduce technology such as barcodes and scanners to increase efficiency of the flow of goods. The Longshoreman Union wants to protect the number of jobs, and wants to ensure none are lost. They did not agree when the new contract was up for approval and the Union was signing daily extensions after the last one expired July 1. Management claimed an organized work slowdown has happening, and shut out the Union.
Running the cranes is extremely touchy and dangerous.
I suspect that there is a range of skills represented in the Longshoreman Union. From lower paying jobs that might be affected by barcodes and scanners, to the very high paying crane operators and such. Those high paying jobs require extremely high levels of skill and experience, if a crane operator makes a mistake, a great deal of cargo will be lost, and potentially lives as well. When they all strike together, you must replace all the skills at the same time, a very difficult task.
Okay, so maybe some of the jobs are touchy and dangerous…however, how dangerous could a “marine clerks” job be? And according to the CNN article they currently make $128,421 and were offered an increase to $137,000. I would like to make an offer to any PMA managers out there looking for marine clerks to fill vacant positions: I will do the job…I will take a crash course in marine clerking and I will work day and night to become the best marine clerk you’ve ever seen… and I will do it for the paltry sum of $100k/year…how about that?
I don’t remember the exact figure from yesterday’s article, but I think they said there are only about 10,000 people involved. Anybody know what their union dues are?
And, yes, the article I saw did note that hiring replacement crane operators is not something easily done in a quick and prudent manner.
I think the main issue is that the barcode and scanners (which is ongoing) and other future improvements will eliminate some jobs and create new ones. The union wants the new jobs to be union jobs, management doesn’t.
The counterclaim I’ve heard from the union is that they were routinely expected to work two and three shifts in a row. The union representative said they had not slowed down, but had simply refused to do that anymore. They said they’d no longer accept being made to work in an unsafe manner. Whether that’s an excuse or not, it makes sense to me.
So they refuse to work double shifts, and they refuse to use tools that would help avoid double shifts…
I detect a pointy haired boss in there somewhere…
You can’t hire new crane operators, as an example, because it is a highly skilled job and the only ones who can do it in anywhere near sufficient numbers are union members. While there are overseas people with equivilent skills, they don’t have and won’t get green cards. Nor do they need them, as they are paid even more compared to the average wage in their own countries.
Second, this is not a strike, but a lockout. The workers are quite willing to work their shifts, but not the enormous overtime, unless future productivity improved jobs are included in the collective bargaining unit. A lockout is where the business owners refuse to let the workers come to work unless they agree to some new term of employment. In this case, the PMA wishes to further computerize their operations, and the ILWU (International Longshore Worker’s Union) has insisted that these positions, which include some current union functions, be part of the collective bargaining unit as they are modernized.
Third, it is not true that unions use “extra-legal” methods. Their rules, and the law prohibit it, and they have very strong incentives to police themselves. In the rare instances that this does occur, the force of law comes down with full impact on those caught stepping even slightly out of line. I know this because my daddy once was sentenced to six months for participating in a union sit in. On the other hand, management illegal tactics, such as the motherfucker caught terrorizing and stalking my mother for management during the same strike had charges dropped by the district attorney. (And I personally picked up a number of the masher phone calls and saw him tailing my mother’s car, because I was in it.) The police, all union members, investigated with gusto, the DA was an establishment lap dog. While the word “scab” is yelled at line crossing workers during the time that they are actually crossing the line and line crossing union members are shunned by non-crossers for the rest of their lives, no other harassment occurs. I do wish to emphasize that this silent treatment is entirely legal, moral and ethical. (Once a strike is over, middle management is treated quite warmly.) The myth of unions terrorizing people are based on a few incidents of completely rogue operations, sometimes even sponsored by management to make the union look bad. The lengths that unions go to in order to prevent “extra-legal” methods are “extra” ordinary in order to avoid the taint of illegality. The Grapes of Wrath accurately depicts John Steinbeck’s research into some of the more simple ruses, including a marvellous little dance number.
The over the top methods being used by management in this lockout include bringing goons toting guns into a negotiating session. Had the union done this, it would have been denounced in every news outlet across the country, and charges would have been filed. The major media in this country is run, unsurprisingly, by management.
Replacing the ILWU workers would be less effective than replacing major league baseball players. Who would you take the crash training course from? The management personnel are people managers, not clerks, drivers, operators, walking bosses, etc. Assuming that you were in a non-dangerous position such as clerk, who is going to teach you to do the manifests and routing? The PMA owns the capital and the equity, not the expertise. This is a lockout that they cannot possibly win.
Spoken like a true greedy scab…
(d&r)
greedy scab!
(d&r)
The President could always send in federal troops to do the job. It’s not as if there’s no precedent and, of course national security is at stake here.
The President could always send in federal troops to do the job. It’s not as if there’s no precedent and, of course national security is at stake here.
The Taft-Hartley act empowers the President to obtain an eighty-day injunction against any strike that endangers national health or safety.
“of course national security is at stake here.”
How so? A bunch of fruit & holiday presents are national security?
Anyway, the prez is supposed to talk tonight about what he is doing.