Recent articles (this week) in the Wall Street Journal (and elsewhere) have reported the effects of the strike on the draymen, shippers, and receivers, and the attempts by some of them to use alternate (much more expensive) means, typically air freight. Several shipping companies are rearranging their routes and schedules to skip 1 or more of those West Coast ports.
It's not pretty, and the longer it goes on, the worse the effects are going to be - both short-term and long-term, the latter of which could be a significant permanent diversion of traffic to other ports.
There's big $ at stake here, and it's going to leave a very bad taste in a lot of commercial mouths. Both sides have been and are still committing economic suicide (or fratricide) with these stunts.
- Paul North.
Canada Prince Rupert has a number of big trains coming china to the US
CSSHEGEWISCH Euclid What is wrong with being anti-union? Union-busting is a method of keeping the labor force cheap and docile.
Euclid What is wrong with being anti-union?
What is wrong with being anti-union?
Union-busting is a method of keeping the labor force cheap and docile.
Without deciding which side in the above Posted Thread items; suficent to say that we all have different views in the issue of 'Labor Unions' and 'Labor without Union representation'.
To bring us back on topic: "The problems in the 29 Ports that service the Western USA and Canada. But primarily the issues surrounding the Ports of Souther California.
[snipped] FTL"....
The chief executive officer of the Long Beach port, Jon Slangerup, said on Wednesday he understood that the two sides could clinch a deal in “a matter of days,” and that the talks were stuck on one last point of contention - the issue binding arbitration for settling contract disputes..." [snipped] "...The companies say union negotiators are seeking the right to dismiss any arbitrator who rules against the union at the end of each contract period, a demand management says is aimed at removing arbitrators who have found the union guilty of more than 200 slowdowns or work stoppages. A union spokesman has characterized that assertion as “totally inaccurate.”..."
taken from this linked article @ http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/labor-issues-close-west-coast-ports
Some of the numbers regarding the impact of the Ports on local economies are as noted here: FTL [snip] "...The two ports employ about 15,000 full-time and part-time workers, according to Phillip Sanfield, a spokesman for the Port of Los Angeles. But nearly 900,000 truck drivers, dockworkers, warehouse employees and others throughout Southern California are directly or indirectly tied to operations at the ports, he said..." [snipped] from this linked article @ http://www.sgvtribune.com/business/20150117/labor-dispute-at-west-coast-ports-threaten-economy
then there is this article "If the West Coast ports shut down, who wins and who loses?"
linked @ http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-port-economics-20150214-story.html
The whole issue of this labor dispute traces back to june/julu of 2014 when the ILWU's contract with the PMA came up for negotiation.
There was apparent agreement with all parties in the negotiations, until the issue of an 'on-site' contract dispute negotiator came up. [my interpretations] The ILWU felt(?) that the chosen party(s) were going to be 'weighted' against the Unions9ILWU ?). Therefore, they would be at a disadvantage in disputes(?) at specific points of disagreement between the ILWU And PMA.
Over time the rhetoric and 'posturing' has ratcheted up; as each side sought to gain whatever leverage they could gain over the other's 'side' for the negotiating process. [my2c]
narig01 And now the PMA is also blaming a shortage of railcars.
And now the PMA is also blaming a shortage of railcars.
CSSHEGEWISCH SALfan If I were making the decisions at a company which ships goods thru the West Coast ports, and doing so wouldn't bankrupt the company, I'd send everything to East Coast or Gulf Coast ports, and send stuff headed to the West Coast by train from the Gulf. If you want to be a militant union or an intransigent shippers organization, see how you like not having any freight to handle. No suggestions of union-busting, please.
SALfan If I were making the decisions at a company which ships goods thru the West Coast ports, and doing so wouldn't bankrupt the company, I'd send everything to East Coast or Gulf Coast ports, and send stuff headed to the West Coast by train from the Gulf. If you want to be a militant union or an intransigent shippers organization, see how you like not having any freight to handle.
If I were making the decisions at a company which ships goods thru the West Coast ports, and doing so wouldn't bankrupt the company, I'd send everything to East Coast or Gulf Coast ports, and send stuff headed to the West Coast by train from the Gulf. If you want to be a militant union or an intransigent shippers organization, see how you like not having any freight to handle.
No suggestions of union-busting, please.
I didn't see anything anti-union about SAL's post either. He ststed that he would find another port to handle his business, with no mention of whether the other port was Union organized or not. Sounds like a sound business decision to me.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Did you read the last sentence of my post? I'd be willing to bet the shipper's organization isn't pure as the driven snow either, which is why I INCLUDED THEM. No knee-jerk reactions in accordance with your own biases, please.
SALfan also included "intransigent shippers organization", so he isn't picking on just the unions. There doesn't have to be an "anti-union animus" (technical term) for a shipper to make a prudent and self-protective business decision to not deal - or deal less - with those crazy people on the West Coast - both groups - until they get their act together. Which is exactly what I'd be doing, and expect those shippers to do, too.
I know a port that would be happy to take care of that for them!
Big new intermodal terminal use getting the finishing touch too boot!
23 17 46 11
dakotafred [snipped - PDN] . . . The longshoremen had better watch it or see their name added to the long list of workers who went down with all flags flying -- but went down. It'll hurt them a lot more than it will the owner members of the port association, who, if worse comes to worse, will find something else to do.
My advice: If you want something that comes from the Orient, buy now!
Johnny
jeffhergert dakotafred blue streak 1 Do not expect this to last for a long time. Too much tied to national economy. I wouldn't be too sanguine as to this. According to my understanding, the longshoremen come under the Labor Relations Act and, in case of a strike, can't be forced back to work like railroad workers, who come under the Railway Labor Act. I think the Taft-Hartley Act gives the President the power to intervene in strikes or lock outs that threaten the National interest. It can send everyone back to work, but might not be able to impose a contract like the RLA process can. Jeff
dakotafred blue streak 1 Do not expect this to last for a long time. Too much tied to national economy. I wouldn't be too sanguine as to this. According to my understanding, the longshoremen come under the Labor Relations Act and, in case of a strike, can't be forced back to work like railroad workers, who come under the Railway Labor Act.
blue streak 1 Do not expect this to last for a long time. Too much tied to national economy.
Do not expect this to last for a long time. Too much tied to national economy.
I wouldn't be too sanguine as to this. According to my understanding, the longshoremen come under the Labor Relations Act and, in case of a strike, can't be forced back to work like railroad workers, who come under the Railway Labor Act.
I think the Taft-Hartley Act gives the President the power to intervene in strikes or lock outs that threaten the National interest. It can send everyone back to work, but might not be able to impose a contract like the RLA process can.
Jeff
A couple of items of information on this: To what Dakotafred said about length of time . My understanding is that these contract negotiations were started in June or July of 2014(?) So it would seem that both sides are still 'posturing' themselves in that process(?) Just remember that the ILWU is and was always a very hard, negotiating organization. Their past activities have been linked to some very problematic labor incidents, involving previous labor/management unrest.
The following linked article referencing some of the other questions stated in this Thread: @ http://www.joc.com/regulation-policy/transportation-policy/us-transportation-policy/us-congress-keeps-distance-ilwu-pma-labor-talks_20150108.html
FTL:"...For many on Capitol Hill, however, West Coast port congestion is barely a blip on the radar, reflecting not only Congress’s limited ability to assist in the talks, but also how low a priority the issue ranks for the majority of legislators.
“You certainly have shipper groups such as the (National Retail Federation) banging the drum but that is still pretty low-level,” said a veteran D.C. executive involved in the maritime industry. “No one is coming into this new Congress thinking, ‘I have to deal with this.’”
The dearth of public pressure on the federal government to get both sides to iron out a contract also has helped keep the Obama administration on the sidelines. Granted, neither Congress nor the president could have called in federal mediators to aid negotiations, because the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service only joins the table at the invitation of both parties. The ILWU did that this week, following an identical request from the PMA in late December..."
I live along the west coast, and this has been an on-going issue for a while now. Its been a cat and mouse battle between the port managers and the longshoremen. Each claiming the otherside is responsible for the slow downs etc. The longshoremen have been without a contract since around July of last year and it doesn't look like they'll come to an agreement anytime soon. There was a recent slow down this past weekend and there has been a warning for a potential shutdown. So far I haven't noticed any slow down in railway traffic, but if the shut down does happen it will impact many industries, not just those working at the ports. Hopefully the two sides can eventually come to an agreement before anything worse happens.
Trains Northwest
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7z2SF15sZ3pfV_VymvNf9A
Do not expect this to last for a long time. Too much tied to national economy. In the short term the effect on the transcons may cause a reduction in the reported intermodal weekly traffic. Once over we may see major delays to Amtrak trains on those routes as fluidity may suffer.
It seems as if this situation on the West Coast is still grinding on: The Current call by the PMA is to shut down ports; starting on Thursday 02/12/2015 and staying down til at Least thru Tuesday 02/17/2015. The(4 day long) President's Day Weekend.
See LInk @ http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL1N0VL35320150211
FTL:"...Loading and unloading of cargo vessels at the 29 ports will be suspended again, as they were last weekend, on Thursday and again on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, the companies' bargaining agent, the Pacific Maritime Association, said in a statement..."
Here is a linked story that shows aerial photos by ILWU agents of the ports that the PMA says are 'overcrowded' and ILWU insists are 'not overcrowded". See @ http://www.longshoreshippingnews.com/2015/02/aerial-photos-of-ports-show-what-the-pma-doesnt-want-the-public-to-see/
This link lays out the crux of the problems between the PMA and the ILWU. See @ http://www.ilwu13.com/index.php/29-news-feeds/3083-toughest-talks-in-decades
Some statements from the above link to illustrated some of their 'sticking points': FTL:"...To cite a timely example, President Obama’s Affordable Health Care act imposes a tax on so-called Cadillac plans under which corporate executives are covered. The ILWU medical plan would make many corporate executives envious. ILWU members pay no premiums, and their co-pay for medicine is $1..."
and this: FTL:"...Who is going to pay the additional $150 million in taxes?” said Jim McKenna, president of the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents employers. “The ILWU doesn’t want to pay for it,” he said, but employers don’t either because increasing costs for benefits drive up the cargo and man-hour assessments that employers must pay..."
Then finally: FTL"...Longshoremen are among the highest-paid blue-collar workers in America. According to the 2012 PMA Annual Report, the average annual earnings for general longshoremen working 2,000 or more hours were $132,046. Marine clerks averaged $149,800..."
So each side is ratcheting up their rhetoric in this process of negotiation. The last few paragraphs illustrate some of the unions intermural juristictional issues at California Ports, and the potential for cutting positions in the Ports with new technologies.
Intermodal revenue generated from KCS’s line to the Mexican port on the Pacific Ocean jumped 20 percent year-over-year, after five consecutive quarters of single-digit growth. The company didn’t disclose statistics of container traffic tied to the port, but said growth at the port has strengthened and the long-term outlook for related container traffic gains was strong.
Although the railroad hasn’t handled U.S.-bound intermodal traffic from Lazaro Cardenas, KCS President and CEO David Starling told investors on Friday they are having discussions with carriers “to serve the Gulf Coast beyond Houston and maybe some of the markets in the Southeast,” according to a SeekingAlpha transcript. Starling’s statement was in response to a question from an analyst on whether the railroad was benefitting or saw the potential to gain volume from shippers diverting cargo from the congestion Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex, the largest U.S. import gateway.
http://www.joc.com/rail-intermodal/class-i-railroads/kansas-city-southern-railway/kcs-rides-lazaro-cardenas-growth-record-revenue_20141018.html
usmc1401 The union the ILWU is blaming the slowdown in part on the rail roads. They say not enough cars to move the containers. This shortage of cars has never been mentioned on any of the RR web sites I read daily. Does any one know of such a problem.
The union the ILWU is blaming the slowdown in part on the rail roads. They say not enough cars to move the containers. This shortage of cars has never been mentioned on any of the RR web sites I read daily. Does any one know of such a problem.
cacole chicagorails the cont. ships will go to gulf and east ports to unload Many of those ships will not fit through the Panama canal.
chicagorails the cont. ships will go to gulf and east ports to unload
the cont. ships will go to gulf and east ports to unload
Many more ships will fit when the Panama Canal expansion is completed soon.
trackrat888 usmc1401 The union the ILWU is blaming the slowdown in part on the rail roads. They say not enough cars to move the containers. This shortage of cars has never been mentioned on any of the RR web sites I read daily. Does any one know of such a problem. Umm last time I have seen there is a bunch of IM cars in storage up in Duluth and elsewere.
Umm last time I have seen there is a bunch of IM cars in storage up in Duluth and elsewere.
Over this weekend (starting on Feb 06/07/08) The Pacific Maritime Assoc shut down their members ports, to clear out the 'congestion' at those ports (?). It seems that each side in this dispute is blaming the other for the issues within the ports. ILWU (sometime back ordered/suggested that its members 'work safely' - apparent code words ( per PMA) by ILWU for its members to 'slow down' their production.
According to the PMA spokespersons. And as USMC 1401 mentioned, apparently the rialroads are getting some 'blame' for a lack of cars to move containers from the ports. The PMA made a claim that this 'action' has slowed down activity at the ports by about 50% (?).
The rhetoric seems to be ramping up, and getting somewhat more inflamatory on both sides. The ILWU has never been a group to 'hold back' and not project inflamatory rhetoric into a situation in which they were in dispute with an industru organization on. A year or year and a half ago there was a big dust up in the PNW over a new grain train operation at a port around the Seattle area (?).
See linked story on current situation @ http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/02/06/longshoremans-union-to-strike-29-west-coast-ports/
Exactly
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.