Thursday, 27 November 2014 / TRUTH-OUT.ORG

Longshore Union Got a Raw Deal from the AFL-CIO

Tuesday, 17 September 2013 09:42 By Carl Finamore, CounterPunch | Op-Ed

On August 29, 2013, the 60,000-member International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) announced it was leaving the 13-million member AFL-CIO.

The ILWU explained it was taking this action because of  “the Federation’s moderate, overly compromising policy positions on such important matters as immigration, labor law reform, health care reform, and international labor issues.”

The Longshore union also cited “attacks from other national [AFL-CIO] affiliates, who actively tried to undermine our contract struggle by filing legal claims and walking through our picket lines.”

I was at the Sept. 7-11, 2013 AFL-CIO quadrennial convention in Los Angeles and can attest that the ILWU’s presence was sorely missed, especially when “overly compromising policy positions” were openly laid bare.

For example, discussion on healthcare consciously avoided pointed criticism of the enormously controversial Affordable Care Act (ACA). Forbes reported there was an agreement between AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka and President Obama to “soften the harshly worded resolutions that several unions planned to push” at the convention.

According to the New York Times, Trumka agreed to “made sure to strip out some proposals that called for repealing the [ACA] legislation.”

While some union leaders forcefully stated from the convention floor that ACA should be repealed if multi-employer union plans, in particular, were going to be essentially taxed out of existence, none of these concerns made it into a resolution.

Predictably, only a few days after the Los Angeles convention in a meeting at the White House on the ACA, Obama essentially told the unions to “Drop Dead.” In fact, the Forbes article applauded the president for his “nice work” in misleading the Federation.

Again, the “overly compromising” approach of the AFL-CIO, noted by the ILWU, failed miserably.

In this context, the ILWU’s staunch support for an alternative “Single Payer/Medicare for All” national healthcare system minus insurance profiteers, which the Federation formally endorses, would have considerably added to the discussion.

The same was true in the immigration debate where AFL-CIO convention leaders supported the Democratic Party’s immigration bill, S. 744. What kind of genuine immigration reform is it that proposes $45 billion to militarize the border and contains long-term onerous provisions such as requiring 13 years continuous employment that would exclude, arguably, almost half the 11 million undocumented workers from eligibility?

Without question, the ILWU’s militant example and traditions are critically important to discussions inside the AFL-CIO “House of Labor.”

Strategically Placed on the Docks

The ILWU draws strength from its presence on the west coast ports of the United States that began with the successful 1934 San Francisco waterfront strike lasting 83 days. It included a four-day general strike shutting down the whole city.

In one fell swoop, all the west coast docks were unionized and union hiring halls established.

Henceforth, work crews were dispatched by the union, ending once and for all employers picking and choosing who would work and who would not – hiring Black workers only as scabs during labor troubles and blacklisting anyone who dared wear a union button.

It was truly a remarkable struggle immortalized in literature and lore. The strength of the union on the docks remains to this day.

For example, ILWU members working the port of Portland, Oregon, only the 17th largest container port in the United States, still load for export the largest amount of wheat grown in the United States and still unload for import the largest fleet of autos anywhere in the country.

In the huge Los Angeles area, the power of the union is even more pronounced.

In November 2012, more than 20 loaded container ships were idled at the Port of Los Angeles and at Long Beach, California terminals after the union’s Office Clerical unit went on strike. These 450 clerks are skilled technology workers who track the flow of cargo and equipment.

Both ports were entirely shut down by these relatively few number of workers after their fellow ILWU dockworkers refused to cross their picket line. This has always been the power of the ILWU – its unassailable solidarity and its strategic placement on the docks.

Solidarity Broken

But solidarity and union power works both ways. The ILWU has also received extremely valuable solidarity assistance from AFL-CIO affiliates that the union’s president, Robert McEllrath, openly acknowledges in the same letter that announces the disaffiliation.

This is why I believe, what the ILWU gives and what it gets, made leaving the AFL-CIO so unfortunate.

But the Longshore union’s actions derived from frustration with the AFL-CIO can in no way be compared to Trumka’s indefensible obstruction and blatant refusal to honorably resolve a jurisdictional dispute over which union should represent workers on the docks.

Beginning in 2010, the 460,000 Operating Engineers (IUOE) in particular, have attempted to undercut established working standards in the Port of Longview, Washington by agreeing to displace the ILWU’s historic claims to waterfront work.

This is shorthand for the IUOE conducting a raid on ILWU jurisdictions, not the first time Operating Engineers have faced these charges from another labor organization.

In fact, “for this reason, they are not that popular even among some of their own Building Trades’ coalition of unions,” a veteran ILWU member explained to me. “Ironically,” he added, “the union of choice for the employers in western strip mines when the Trumka-led United Mine Workers tried to organize was the same IUOE!”

As a result, many unions, even other IUOE locals outside the northwest region, sided with the ILWU. But, nonetheless, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka intervened on behalf of the Operating Engineers claims McEllrath:

“Your office added insult to injury by issuing a directive to the Oregon State Federation to rescind its support of the ILWU fight at EFT [Longview grain terminal], which threatened to be the first marine terminal on the West Coast to go non-ILWU.”

This breach in solidarity is without justification. The ILWU has a historic 70-year claim to waterfront work.

Trumka was also disingenuous when he advised the ILWU to seek relief for its Longview jurisdictional dispute under the AFL-CIO’s Constitutional anti-raiding clause, Art. XX.

From the ILWU’s point of view, why should an Art XX hearing be necessary to decide waterfront representation long established as ILWU territory. The union also could be walking into a trap because if an Art. XX hearing actually sanctioned the raid by the Operating Engineers, a decision it appeared Trumka would not oppose, it would buttress potential court filings against ILWU jurisdiction.

This must have been a very serious consideration for the ILWU – to avoid any precedent-setting decision from a judge too eager to remove the most militant union from the waterfront.

What Now?

Technology inevitably changes the scope and character of virtually every job and this is definitely true on the waterfronts.

For example, from 1980-2010, containerization of cargo completely replaced bulk loads that were individually handled piece by piece, leading to super profits and boosts in productivity of around 500%.  “What took two weeks now takes two days,” an experienced dockworker told me, “and it’s done by machines not people.”

The same is true of the more recent revolution in information technology. “Tracking the flow of cargo and equipment has grown by 150%-200%,” he said.

Productivity improvements by machines means less people. As a result, the ILWU workforce on the west coast has remained steady all these years at between 10,000-15,000 workers.

Industrial unions, in particular, face this same dilemma, a shrinking workforce producing huge production surpluses. For example, there is the same amount of steel being produced today in the United States but with far less workers than thirty years ago.

For the ILWU, without expected growth on the docks, it means organizing will likely occur inland where solidarity with other unions and community groups is critical.

The growth off-dock is in three categories of workers an experienced ILWU organizer told me: warehousing, trucking and the knowledge-based technology workers like the clerks who struck Los Angeles and Long Beach ports in November 2012.

But there are many organizing obstacles because the nature of technology-based work means it can be relocated almost anywhere, far away from the union’s traditional power base on the docks.

Therefore, it seems essential for the union to assemble the remaining power of the ILWU on the docks to expand outward.

It’s very difficult for any union or group of workers to stand alone. Nor is it desirable under any circumstance. Whatever decision ILWU members ultimately make to keep their union strong and growing, they deserve our solidarity.

Even if some do not believe they have been wronged, we should do it because it’s the right thing to do and because we know they would do the same for us.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Carl Finamore

Carl Finamore is Machinist Local 1781 delegate to the San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO. He can be reached here.


Hide Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus
GET DAILY TRUTHOUT UPDATES

FOLLOW togtorsstottofb


Longshore Union Got a Raw Deal from the AFL-CIO

Tuesday, 17 September 2013 09:42 By Carl Finamore, CounterPunch | Op-Ed

On August 29, 2013, the 60,000-member International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) announced it was leaving the 13-million member AFL-CIO.

The ILWU explained it was taking this action because of  “the Federation’s moderate, overly compromising policy positions on such important matters as immigration, labor law reform, health care reform, and international labor issues.”

The Longshore union also cited “attacks from other national [AFL-CIO] affiliates, who actively tried to undermine our contract struggle by filing legal claims and walking through our picket lines.”

I was at the Sept. 7-11, 2013 AFL-CIO quadrennial convention in Los Angeles and can attest that the ILWU’s presence was sorely missed, especially when “overly compromising policy positions” were openly laid bare.

For example, discussion on healthcare consciously avoided pointed criticism of the enormously controversial Affordable Care Act (ACA). Forbes reported there was an agreement between AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka and President Obama to “soften the harshly worded resolutions that several unions planned to push” at the convention.

According to the New York Times, Trumka agreed to “made sure to strip out some proposals that called for repealing the [ACA] legislation.”

While some union leaders forcefully stated from the convention floor that ACA should be repealed if multi-employer union plans, in particular, were going to be essentially taxed out of existence, none of these concerns made it into a resolution.

Predictably, only a few days after the Los Angeles convention in a meeting at the White House on the ACA, Obama essentially told the unions to “Drop Dead.” In fact, the Forbes article applauded the president for his “nice work” in misleading the Federation.

Again, the “overly compromising” approach of the AFL-CIO, noted by the ILWU, failed miserably.

In this context, the ILWU’s staunch support for an alternative “Single Payer/Medicare for All” national healthcare system minus insurance profiteers, which the Federation formally endorses, would have considerably added to the discussion.

The same was true in the immigration debate where AFL-CIO convention leaders supported the Democratic Party’s immigration bill, S. 744. What kind of genuine immigration reform is it that proposes $45 billion to militarize the border and contains long-term onerous provisions such as requiring 13 years continuous employment that would exclude, arguably, almost half the 11 million undocumented workers from eligibility?

Without question, the ILWU’s militant example and traditions are critically important to discussions inside the AFL-CIO “House of Labor.”

Strategically Placed on the Docks

The ILWU draws strength from its presence on the west coast ports of the United States that began with the successful 1934 San Francisco waterfront strike lasting 83 days. It included a four-day general strike shutting down the whole city.

In one fell swoop, all the west coast docks were unionized and union hiring halls established.

Henceforth, work crews were dispatched by the union, ending once and for all employers picking and choosing who would work and who would not – hiring Black workers only as scabs during labor troubles and blacklisting anyone who dared wear a union button.

It was truly a remarkable struggle immortalized in literature and lore. The strength of the union on the docks remains to this day.

For example, ILWU members working the port of Portland, Oregon, only the 17th largest container port in the United States, still load for export the largest amount of wheat grown in the United States and still unload for import the largest fleet of autos anywhere in the country.

In the huge Los Angeles area, the power of the union is even more pronounced.

In November 2012, more than 20 loaded container ships were idled at the Port of Los Angeles and at Long Beach, California terminals after the union’s Office Clerical unit went on strike. These 450 clerks are skilled technology workers who track the flow of cargo and equipment.

Both ports were entirely shut down by these relatively few number of workers after their fellow ILWU dockworkers refused to cross their picket line. This has always been the power of the ILWU – its unassailable solidarity and its strategic placement on the docks.

Solidarity Broken

But solidarity and union power works both ways. The ILWU has also received extremely valuable solidarity assistance from AFL-CIO affiliates that the union’s president, Robert McEllrath, openly acknowledges in the same letter that announces the disaffiliation.

This is why I believe, what the ILWU gives and what it gets, made leaving the AFL-CIO so unfortunate.

But the Longshore union’s actions derived from frustration with the AFL-CIO can in no way be compared to Trumka’s indefensible obstruction and blatant refusal to honorably resolve a jurisdictional dispute over which union should represent workers on the docks.

Beginning in 2010, the 460,000 Operating Engineers (IUOE) in particular, have attempted to undercut established working standards in the Port of Longview, Washington by agreeing to displace the ILWU’s historic claims to waterfront work.

This is shorthand for the IUOE conducting a raid on ILWU jurisdictions, not the first time Operating Engineers have faced these charges from another labor organization.

In fact, “for this reason, they are not that popular even among some of their own Building Trades’ coalition of unions,” a veteran ILWU member explained to me. “Ironically,” he added, “the union of choice for the employers in western strip mines when the Trumka-led United Mine Workers tried to organize was the same IUOE!”

As a result, many unions, even other IUOE locals outside the northwest region, sided with the ILWU. But, nonetheless, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka intervened on behalf of the Operating Engineers claims McEllrath:

“Your office added insult to injury by issuing a directive to the Oregon State Federation to rescind its support of the ILWU fight at EFT [Longview grain terminal], which threatened to be the first marine terminal on the West Coast to go non-ILWU.”

This breach in solidarity is without justification. The ILWU has a historic 70-year claim to waterfront work.

Trumka was also disingenuous when he advised the ILWU to seek relief for its Longview jurisdictional dispute under the AFL-CIO’s Constitutional anti-raiding clause, Art. XX.

From the ILWU’s point of view, why should an Art XX hearing be necessary to decide waterfront representation long established as ILWU territory. The union also could be walking into a trap because if an Art. XX hearing actually sanctioned the raid by the Operating Engineers, a decision it appeared Trumka would not oppose, it would buttress potential court filings against ILWU jurisdiction.

This must have been a very serious consideration for the ILWU – to avoid any precedent-setting decision from a judge too eager to remove the most militant union from the waterfront.

What Now?

Technology inevitably changes the scope and character of virtually every job and this is definitely true on the waterfronts.

For example, from 1980-2010, containerization of cargo completely replaced bulk loads that were individually handled piece by piece, leading to super profits and boosts in productivity of around 500%.  “What took two weeks now takes two days,” an experienced dockworker told me, “and it’s done by machines not people.”

The same is true of the more recent revolution in information technology. “Tracking the flow of cargo and equipment has grown by 150%-200%,” he said.

Productivity improvements by machines means less people. As a result, the ILWU workforce on the west coast has remained steady all these years at between 10,000-15,000 workers.

Industrial unions, in particular, face this same dilemma, a shrinking workforce producing huge production surpluses. For example, there is the same amount of steel being produced today in the United States but with far less workers than thirty years ago.

For the ILWU, without expected growth on the docks, it means organizing will likely occur inland where solidarity with other unions and community groups is critical.

The growth off-dock is in three categories of workers an experienced ILWU organizer told me: warehousing, trucking and the knowledge-based technology workers like the clerks who struck Los Angeles and Long Beach ports in November 2012.

But there are many organizing obstacles because the nature of technology-based work means it can be relocated almost anywhere, far away from the union’s traditional power base on the docks.

Therefore, it seems essential for the union to assemble the remaining power of the ILWU on the docks to expand outward.

It’s very difficult for any union or group of workers to stand alone. Nor is it desirable under any circumstance. Whatever decision ILWU members ultimately make to keep their union strong and growing, they deserve our solidarity.

Even if some do not believe they have been wronged, we should do it because it’s the right thing to do and because we know they would do the same for us.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Carl Finamore

Carl Finamore is Machinist Local 1781 delegate to the San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO. He can be reached here.


Hide Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus