The Port Operators are sketpical about Taft-Hartley being invoked because they think that the longshoremen will still engage in a work slowdown, which is the reason the port operators have given for the lockout.
You can be ordered back to work, but you can’t make everyone work efficiently.
I think we should all talk to union boss Johnny Lively or perhaps Terry Malloy.
From that article:
"* Increase the average annual pay of longshoremen from $106,833 to $114,000.
Increase the average annual pay of marine clerks from $128,421 to $137,000.
Provide a health care program entirely paid for by PMA with no premiums or deductibles for employees.
Make a $1 billion contribution to the union pension plan, increasing the average annual retirement benefit from $40,000 to $50,000.
Guarantee “not one worker would lose their job” because of the introduction new technology.
“We tried our best to reopen these ports,” Sugerman said. “Amazingly [the union] said no.”
Union said no…wow, I wish I made that much money.
The purpose of a union is not merely to negotiate the highest wages for its members; it’s to obtain fair treatment for all of its members. That includes those who aren’t members yet. Sure, the PMA says no worker will lose his job; will they guarantee that every worker who leaves will be replaced? What concessions did they require? And there’s this:
That means that the PMA wants the right to violate union work rules for these employees; they can easily guarantee that they won’t lose their jobs if they can make them leave “voluntarily.”
Stg. J, what part of bibliophage’s parameters did you have a problem understanding?
What we have here is a suprising collection of well thought out and clearly spoken responses to a valid question. All posters had appearantly read bibliophages’ post before they hit the send key. Except you.
How do you figure your two cents is in any way fighting ignorance?
Now I’m not opposed to a little jokey-jokey now and then, nor a tongue in cheek slap in the face once in a while. We’re all grown ups , here. I feel you may want to elaborate on your position.
I look forward to hearing your unabridged version.
Weeks
I’m have no idea what the law is here, but it seems to me that it would not allow the President to send federal troops to do the job of workers who aren’t actually on strike. Not to mention that the federal troops wouldn’t have the training to do the job safely or efficiently.
Again, I’m not sure of the specifics, but if a job pays $100K+ per year, it generally means that not just anyone can do it with a little training. Heck, the PMA seems to have figured that one $128,421 union member is worth more than 4 unskilled laborers at $30,000. I have no idea of how much the job actually is worth, but if you could take a crash course in it right off the street, people would be doing it for about $30,000.
There’s a long history, back to 1877, of presidents using federal troops to settle labor disputes.
According to the Washington Times the administration is considering sending troops in.
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20020809-9789485.htm
While story may or may not be true, I’d be surprised if Bush couldn’t rustle up a couple hundred skilled crane operators and such from the ranks of the military. The navy certainly doesn’t rely on the ILWU for all its cargo handling needs.
To spare the hamsters I have not included the rest of your post. Your assertions are all laughably inaccurate. Get thyself to the local library and look up some decisions by the NLRB (hardly a pro-management agency) to see what types of fun UFLP games the unions have been up to lately.
And what part of the good mod’s request to keep things civil did you not read?
If the media is to be believed:
The lockout is costing the US economy $2 billion a day (up from $1 billion at day at the start of the lockout).
The auto makers may have to begin closing plants nation-wide because their just-in-time auto parts are not arriving just in time. The GM-Toyota plant in Fremont, CA, is already closed down. (Then there are the suppliers to the auto makers as well, too.)
Oil tankers can’t get to Southern California refineries. Does that part of the country have enough supplies to weather the lockout at their current rate of consumption?
The largest exporter of grain in the US (Portland, OR) is seriously jeopardizing their Asian contracts.
Since consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of the economy, and retailers are already gearing up for their needed end-of-year holiday retail period, no goods on the shelves mean no sales. Depending upon when the issue is settled, will the transport system be able to move those goods to wharehouses and shevles in time for the holidays?
I noticed the prez said nothing about it tonight. He did sign an EO creating a fact-finding board of inquiry under the Taft-Hartley Act.
“A continuation of this lockout, if permitted to continue, will imperil the national health and safety,” said the order.
Sounds like national security to me. 
Actually, it takes considerable skill and training to operate these cranes. Just because a sergeant can make the words come out of his mouth does not endow his troops (or her) with those skills. These cranes are highly specialized.
Rhum, and what part of the good mod’s request to keep things civil did you not read? “Your assertions are all laughably inaccurate”. Cite? I gave my personal observations and the research of Mr. Steinbeck (albiet dramatized).
So that we fight ignorance, I would point out to dopers that if they wanted to read NLRB decisions, they need not go to their local library, but rather peruse them on the internet. Free decisions back to volume 272 are available here. http://www.nlrb.gov/decision.html
The NLRB is a very pro-management board when the make-up of its members has been appointed by a pro-management President. Of course, in addition to having grown up in a union family, I have had a graduate class in Labor issues and regularly rub shoulders with union officials in my political travels.
STg Js’s comments looked to be a simple joke, laughing with drachillix’s Dilbert allusion jesting with the mods rather serious rules. Do we really need to spell out every bit of irony with smily faces? Unless of course you were being ironic too…?
Tell that to minor league baseball players.
Why must a worker who leaves voluntarily be replaced at all? Why is the Union allowed to say that a company cannot be more efficient, or downsize if economic conditions warrant?
Do you know what they want, or is that just speculation?
Isn’t this the same old story? The value of skills is hugely reduced by modern technology. A bunch of Luddites try to delay progress. They fail, after much anguish. The rest of us enjoy cheaper goods and services as a result.
Sorry longshoremen - you’ve been replaced by robots. Bye.
So does Bush have a precedent for invoking Taft-Hartley on a lockout? The only recent examples I’m aware of when T/H was invoked involved strikes, not lockouts.
And let’s look a moment at the effect of the advance of technology under capitalism. People stand to lose their jobs as technology reduces the need for their skills. But now, since their skills aren’t needed, they can’t find work at the same wages they once earned. They’re forced to find increasingly unskilled work at much lower wages, while the people who run the company earn more profits because the robots are cheaper than human labor. The end result is, then, that a portion of the consumer population which had serious spending power no longer is able to afford the very goods they once worked to move. What use are cheaper goods and services if you’re making a third to a half of what you used to? Robot longshore technology isn’t going to reduce your mortgage payment, is it? What about medical expenses? Sure, it may make the Christmas decorations and Halloweeen props at Wal-Mart cheaper, but it doesn’t lower the price of goods and services across the board.
Opposition to losing your job to automated technology isn’t Luddism - smashing the technology up is.
zedan - I’m not familiar enough with national labor law to say whether or not hiring sc… er, “replacement workers” during a strike is legal, but given the fact that such workers are still hired today during strikes leads me to think either such laws don’t exist or are easily circumvented.
I’m sorry, Hemlock, but your prejudices seem to have interfered with your comprehension of what’s being said here. And unlike some other posts, yours doesn’t seem to be a joke.
The Longshoreman’s union has for decades been one of the most pro-technology and most highly skilled and modernised unions in the country. They are not trying to prevent progress.
What they are saying is that when new technology is instituted that the people hired to run that equipment must be part of the bargaining unit, so that as technology changes, whoever is working on the docks is protected by the union.
What management wants is to create a class of non-union labour so they are not faced with an organised bargaining unit which has more equitable bargaining power with the employers.
So does Bush have a precedent for invoking Taft-Hartley on a lockout? The only recent examples I’m aware of when T/H was invoked involved strikes, not lockouts.
And let’s look a moment at the effect of the advance of technology under capitalism. People stand to lose their jobs as technology reduces the need for their skills. But now, since their skills aren’t needed, they can’t find work at the same wages they once earned. They’re forced to find increasingly unskilled work at much lower wages, while the people who run the company earn more profits because the robots are cheaper than human labor. The end result is, then, that a portion of the consumer population which had serious spending power no longer is able to afford the very goods they once worked to move. What use are cheaper goods and services if you’re making a third to a half of what you used to? Robot longshore technology isn’t going to reduce your mortgage payment, is it? What about medical expenses? Sure, it may make the Christmas decorations and Halloweeen props at Wal-Mart cheaper, but it doesn’t lower the price of goods and services across the board.
Opposition to losing your job to automated technology isn’t Luddism - smashing the technology up is.
zedan - I’m not familiar enough with national labor law to say whether or not hiring sc… er, “replacement workers” during a strike is legal, but given the fact that such workers are still hired today during strikes leads me to think either such laws don’t exist or are easily circumvented.
IAS You claim to have some graduate level education in labor relations, and then you cite to John Steinbeck as authority for your simplistic management bad/unions good ideas? Climb back under your bridge.
“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.”
Early in his administration, FDR and his Postmaster General cancelled all airmail contracts (due to alleged corruption, collusion, etc. in awarding the contracts) and assigned the carriage of the airmails to the Army Air Corps. In short order, a bunch of Army mailplanes crashed and Army pilots died. In short order after that, the airmail was tentatively handed back to the contractors.
I don’t have much sympathy for the union, but crane operators can’t easily or safely be replaced by soldiers. I’ve seen the cranes in action (in intermodal yards, not ports, but same containers so similar equipment), and it’s definitely a skilled job with lives at potential risk.