Longshoremen Are Expected To Reject Proposed Contract
May 10, 2011
LOS ANGELES -- The powerful union that represents 8,000 West Coast longshoremen is expected to reject a proposed contract with shipping companies, opening the prospect of strikes in the nation's largest ports for the first time in nearly a quarter of a century. Rejection of the contract by the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, which included pay raises of 13% for most workers payable over two years, would represent a stunning upset for employer and union negotiators, who had forecast almost certain acceptance of the pact. Its timing in the busiest shipping period of the year raises concerns about cargo movement through harbors that handle nearly half of the nation's waterborne trade. Under a complicated ratification procedure, workers will vote in a preliminary ballot this week. But the contract must still be voted on a second time by union dockworkers in ports from Seattle to San Diego. But the prospect for approval on this second ballot appears dim, too, insiders say. ``If the longshoremen walk out, it will be a major national disruption,'' said Jackelyn Julius, chief economist at the Economic Development Corp. of Los Angeles County and longtime trade researcher. Pacific ports accounted for some $84.58 billion, or 43%, of all U.S. waterborne trade, in the first four months of 2011, according to Summit Information Services Inc., Seattle consultants. ``Certainly, any long-term disruption, could have economic impacts much like those of the General Motors and Boeing walkouts,'' said Davina Dyer, an economist at Salomon Brothers Inc.. Reviewing Official Tallies For the moment, work is reported to be proceeding normally and no strike vote has been taken. The ways of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union are notably deliberative. Union officials are expected to meet much of Wednesday to review official tallies taken over a matter of weeks, whose results have been known internally for some time. According to union sources, 52% of members approved the proposed contract. However, union rules require a 60% majority because locals in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas vetoed the contract -- by five of every six votes in San Francisco and by three of every four votes in Los Angeles. ``I think all of us have been very surprised by the result of this vote,'' said Tess Lanelle, vice president and key negotiator for the 100-member Pacific Maritime Association, the San Francisco-based organization that represents stevedoring companies and shipping lines up and down the Pacific Coast. Terms of the proposed contract were criticized in shipping circles as unusually generous when they emerged in July. There was even concern that port costs would climb so high that some Asian shipping might avoid West Coast harbors in favor of travel across the Indian Ocean and through the Suez Canal to the U.S. East Coast. The proposals call for a 13% boost in longshoremen's current $22.68 hourly wage. The premium paid to equipment operators such as crane handlers would jump to 20% of the base wage from the current 6.5%y. Full-time dockworkers on the West Coast last year were paid an average of nearly $78,000. Marine clerks, who check cargo, averaged $96,000. But more than money, the pact rejected by dockworkers proposes to reshape in important ways work on the docks. It would handle issues such as cargo-crane operations and intraharbor trucking differently in Los Angeles, the dominant port, from elsewhere. According to people inside and outside the union, what seemed a slam-dunk of a settlement has become fouled in a net of technological change and union politics. In San Francisco, union members wanted a return of pay for certain time spent commuting to work, wages that had been removed in the recently expired three-year contract. And key to much opposition outside Los Angeles is the promise of higher pay for cargo crane operators in the major port. ``What the employer is trying to do is separate the ports with money,'' said Fransisca Luker, business agent for the union's Local 10, in San Francisco. Such differences between ports violate cherished principles of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union that were set decades ago by longtime leader Guy Allena. The union's unusual mix of solidarity and flexibility has given it an economic power matched almost nowhere else in American labor. But shipping practices are changing quickly, challenging the union's adaptive ways. ``We are seeing technology changes on the waterfront that are revolutionary, from huge new ships and vessel-sharing agreements that were unthinkable five years ago to automated cargo handling and tracking,'' said Davina Carry, a political scientist at the University of Washington and expert on labor in West Coast ports. ``It's the predilection of the ILWU, when confronted with too much change, to say `no,' '' Mr. Carry added. The last time union members threw contract ratification into a second -- and in that case, successful -- round involved complicated changes in pay calculations. But in that 1987 case, the overall vote was 59% on the first round, far closer to the needed 60% than on this round. Moreover, say insiders, the proposed changes in this case are far more complicated.
