Time runs short to avert longshoremen's strike

NEW YORK (AP) - In just a few days, a walkout by thousands of dock workers could bring commerce to a near standstill at every major port from Boston to Houston, potentially delivering a big blow to retailers and manufacturers still struggling to find their footing in a weak economy.
More than 14,000 longshoremen are threating to go on strike Sunday - a wide-ranging work stoppage that would immediately close cargo ports on the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico to container ships.
The 15 ports involved in the labor dispute move more than 100 million tons of goods each year, or about 40 percent of the nation's containerized cargo traffic. Losing them to a shutdown, even for a few days, could cost the economy billions of dollars.
"If the port shuts down, nothing moves in or out," said Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation. And when the workers do return, "it's going to take time to clear out that backlog, and we don't know how long that it's going to take."
Shipments of such varied products as flat-screen TVs, sneakers and snow shovels would either sit idle at sea or get rerouted, at great time and expense. U.S. factories also rely on container ships for parts and raw materials, meaning supply lines for all sorts of products could be squeezed.
Joseph Ahlstrom, a professor at the State University of New York's Maritime College and a former cargo ship captain, called container ships the "lifeblood of the country."
"We don't fly in a lot of products. It's just too expensive," Ahlstrom said. "The bulk of the products we import come in inside containers."
The master contract between the International Longshoremen's Association and the U.S. Maritime Alliance, a group representing shipping lines, terminal operators and port associations, expired in September. The two sides agreed to extend it once already, for 90 days, but they have so far balked at extending it again when it expires at 12:01 a.m. Sunday.
The union said its members would agree to an extension only if the Maritime Alliance dropped a proposal to freeze the royalties workers get for every container they unload. The Alliance has argued that the longshoremen, who it said earn an average $124,138 per year in wages and benefits, are compensated well enough already.
Federal mediators have been trying to push negotiations along, but there has been no word from either side on the progress of the talks since Dec. 24. As recently as Dec. 19, the president of the longshoremen, Harold Daggett, said the talks weren't going well and that a strike was expected.
The work stoppage would not be absolute. Longshoremen would continue to handle military cargo, mail, passenger ships, non-containerized items like automobiles, and perishable commodities, like fresh food.
Yet the economic damage could still be severe.
"The global economy moves by water, and shutting down container ports along the East and Gulf coasts while the national economy remains fragile benefits no one," Deborah Hadden, acting port director at Massport, the public agency that oversees shipping terminals in Boston. It is not a part of the contract dispute.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott said "the livelihood of thousands of Florida families lies in the balance."
The White House weighed in, too, urging dockworkers and shipping companies Thursday to reach agreement "as quickly as possible" on a contract extension. Obama spokesman Matt Lehrich said the administration is monitoring the situation closely.
If it happens, the walkout could be the biggest national port disruption since 2002, when unionized dockworkers were locked out of 29 West Coast ports for 10 days because of a contract dispute.
The ports only reopened after President George W. Bush, invoking powers given to him by the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, ordered an 80-day cooling-off period. Some economists estimated that each day of that lockout cost the U.S. economy $1 billion. It took months for the retail supply chain to fully recover.
An East Coast port freeze would have its biggest impact at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, where 3,250 longshoremen handled 32.3 million tons of cargo in 2010. The authority is not a party to the contract dispute.
Other major ports affected would include Savannah, Ga., which handled 18 million tons, and Houston and Hampton Roads, Va., which each handled more than 12.5 million tons.
Thousands of other jobs would be directly affected by the shutdown. Truck drivers might not have any cargo to transport, tug boat captains no ships to guide and freight train operators nothing to haul.
Simultaneously, another labor dispute involving dock workers was playing out on the West Coast.
Longshoremen at several Pacific Northwest grain terminals worked Thursday under contract terms they soundly rejected last weekend. The owners implemented the terms after declaring talks at an impasse. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union has yet to announce its next move.
Workplace rules, not salary and benefits, have been the obstacle to a new deal.
The dispute involves terminals in Portland, Ore., Vancouver, Wash., and Seattle, where longshoremen have been working without an agreement since the last contract expired Sept. 30.
More than 14,000 longshoremen are threating to go on strike Sunday - a wide-ranging work stoppage that would immediately close cargo ports on the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico to container ships.
The 15 ports involved in the labor dispute move more than 100 million tons of goods each year, or about 40 percent of the nation's containerized cargo traffic. Losing them to a shutdown, even for a few days, could cost the economy billions of dollars.
"If the port shuts down, nothing moves in or out," said Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation. And when the workers do return, "it's going to take time to clear out that backlog, and we don't know how long that it's going to take."
Shipments of such varied products as flat-screen TVs, sneakers and snow shovels would either sit idle at sea or get rerouted, at great time and expense. U.S. factories also rely on container ships for parts and raw materials, meaning supply lines for all sorts of products could be squeezed.
Joseph Ahlstrom, a professor at the State University of New York's Maritime College and a former cargo ship captain, called container ships the "lifeblood of the country."
"We don't fly in a lot of products. It's just too expensive," Ahlstrom said. "The bulk of the products we import come in inside containers."
The master contract between the International Longshoremen's Association and the U.S. Maritime Alliance, a group representing shipping lines, terminal operators and port associations, expired in September. The two sides agreed to extend it once already, for 90 days, but they have so far balked at extending it again when it expires at 12:01 a.m. Sunday.
The union said its members would agree to an extension only if the Maritime Alliance dropped a proposal to freeze the royalties workers get for every container they unload. The Alliance has argued that the longshoremen, who it said earn an average $124,138 per year in wages and benefits, are compensated well enough already.
Federal mediators have been trying to push negotiations along, but there has been no word from either side on the progress of the talks since Dec. 24. As recently as Dec. 19, the president of the longshoremen, Harold Daggett, said the talks weren't going well and that a strike was expected.
The work stoppage would not be absolute. Longshoremen would continue to handle military cargo, mail, passenger ships, non-containerized items like automobiles, and perishable commodities, like fresh food.
Yet the economic damage could still be severe.
"The global economy moves by water, and shutting down container ports along the East and Gulf coasts while the national economy remains fragile benefits no one," Deborah Hadden, acting port director at Massport, the public agency that oversees shipping terminals in Boston. It is not a part of the contract dispute.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott said "the livelihood of thousands of Florida families lies in the balance."
The White House weighed in, too, urging dockworkers and shipping companies Thursday to reach agreement "as quickly as possible" on a contract extension. Obama spokesman Matt Lehrich said the administration is monitoring the situation closely.
If it happens, the walkout could be the biggest national port disruption since 2002, when unionized dockworkers were locked out of 29 West Coast ports for 10 days because of a contract dispute.
The ports only reopened after President George W. Bush, invoking powers given to him by the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, ordered an 80-day cooling-off period. Some economists estimated that each day of that lockout cost the U.S. economy $1 billion. It took months for the retail supply chain to fully recover.
An East Coast port freeze would have its biggest impact at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, where 3,250 longshoremen handled 32.3 million tons of cargo in 2010. The authority is not a party to the contract dispute.
Other major ports affected would include Savannah, Ga., which handled 18 million tons, and Houston and Hampton Roads, Va., which each handled more than 12.5 million tons.
Thousands of other jobs would be directly affected by the shutdown. Truck drivers might not have any cargo to transport, tug boat captains no ships to guide and freight train operators nothing to haul.
Simultaneously, another labor dispute involving dock workers was playing out on the West Coast.
Longshoremen at several Pacific Northwest grain terminals worked Thursday under contract terms they soundly rejected last weekend. The owners implemented the terms after declaring talks at an impasse. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union has yet to announce its next move.
Workplace rules, not salary and benefits, have been the obstacle to a new deal.
The dispute involves terminals in Portland, Ore., Vancouver, Wash., and Seattle, where longshoremen have been working without an agreement since the last contract expired Sept. 30.
This is the reason the Taft Hartley act has survived since 1947.  In this economy invoking the act would be prudent.
Won't happen under this administration
Greed will cost jobs as well as hurt businesses, and with the Fiscal Cliff looming also, this country could go bankrupt because people don't want to work for a living.
Well I don't hate them, but the fact that they make well over $125,000 a year or more with full benefits - I can't feel sorry for them. Â I just cannot.
We have over 100,000 people here in our state without jobs. Â Maybe if these employed folks truly believe their job sucks and they should be paid even higher wages, they should quit. Â No one is making them stay in this job.
Â
Let's get some new workers in there; people that really want to work and need the money to provide for their families. Â These people that are unemployed and hungry, that have bills to pay, will give it their best.
Yes, seriously.
I like reading peoples comments about the longshoremen east coast or west coast - they make a good wage -Â you hate them, they fight for whats right - you hate them.
They are men and women that work for a living, have children like many of you, pay bills like many of you and pay taxes just like everyone of you.
But because you believe everything you read about them - you hate them - how about you take your hate out on corporate greed, or the politicians that give you lip serivice all the while America is going down but they're pockets are full.
You think you know what happen at the grain terminal in Vancouver wa. but you really don't because the truth was never told.
You know how much a longshoremen makes but do you know how much a shipping company makes? I do and what the longshoremen make ain't but the lint in they're pockets.
@just-me "You think you know what happen at the grain terminal in Vancouver wa. but you really don't because the truth was never told."
Â
Oh, let's see here. They dumped out grain held in grain cars on their way to the port right? They damaged several train cars, buildings, and fences durring the strike right? They held someone hostage while trashing a building right? Golly, I had it all wrong. My bad...
Â
The problem I have is with how the union and several strikers behaved. Sure, I am all for unions protecting the rights of the workers, however that does not give them or anyone for that matter, free reign to break the law because they're upset. The company won't negotiate or refuses your demands? Don't tie up someone found on the facillity grounds, don't dump out and ruin merchandise, and don't vandalize the structure and surrounding areas. My 3 year old uses those tactics. Let's at least act like adults here.
We might try making more stuff in the USA and employ far more people.
Fire them all.Â
I bet there's 14,000 people that would like their jobs.
 @DDG I'll bet less than half of them would be qualified and of those who went to work 2/3 of them would quit before the month was out.
 @Glassman  @DDG Qualified? The same unions who fought a provision to make sure their employees could read at a 6th grade level? Any fast food employee who could count change and drive a car could do their job. I'm surprised they don't want more than the 15 minutes before each break and lunch they are given to "wash up" in this contract as well...
Yeah they get paid plenty...its not sitting around, trust me on this. Yes some of the members were doing juvenile, stupid and probably felonious things. Dont tar them all with the same brush.
Â
I'd like to see you do the job. I have.
 @Woodswalker  @XabuJr  @Glassman  @DDG They are NOT abused saints. They get paid plenty but don;t want to lose money by actually working. The wealthy don't want to pay taxes either, so to get there way they sit on the pot and don't crap. That's called ANAL, and it is JUVENILE. IS that their work ethic? Who needs them or their attitude? We all eat to much as it is. Let's do without and lose a few pounds LOL.
 @XabuJr  @Glassman  @DDG Guess a few of you don't really know what dock work is like...
Talk about a well oiled racket these Longshoreman got going, all are commander and chief has to do is invoke Taft-Hartley if he's got the nerve too.
Great. If the union strikes in WA, and in the process they trash the rail yard, trash private property, assult and unlawfully detain people, I'm curious to see what they do on a national scale. The International Longshoremen's Association showed they have yet to progress beyond 1930's and 40's mob/union mentality.
"The Alliance has argued that the longshoremen, who it said earn an average $124,138 per year in wages and benefits, are compensated well enough already." I'd have to agree -- in fact, I'd say, they are over-compensated. That is ridiculous.
 @The WA Mama I know several longshoremen and they don't make that kind of money.  Several have to have second jobs to get by.  The ones that work in the big ports might make that much but not in the smaller ones and most work under the same contract.  So what might be ok at one port my hurt the others working the smaller ports.
@The WA Mama I don't agree with those who use the word greed. It always seems to be greed when someone else wants more - and my fair share when it is yourself.
Â
However, I will say the market pricing is likely less than the current number. The number of truly "skilled" longshoremen is relatively small - the crane guys definitely have skills (well...the good ones do). The rest? eh. There are some unpleasant jobs but for $90-100K per year in salary (Benefits usually run 25% or so of salary...I assume higher for these guys) I can stand in cold rain for hours and hours.
 @The WA Mama Yep. I understand the need for unions but this just about greed. These are gravy jobs that take virtually no special skills. None of it is manual labor, its all done by machines. We have the same problem with our state government employees. The unions here in the state are just getting too greedy.
 @Blindman  @The WA Mama  First, there is more manual labor than you think..and no special skills?  I'd like to see you operate a crane (not afraid of heights are you?) or a lifter and move containers around in close quarters with out damaging anything. Can you back a trailer?  That you cannot see around, relying on hand signals?
Â
You all probably think that logging is easy too...
@The WA Mama I wholeheartedly agree. This is about greed, and building a bigger pile of money than the next person, this isn't about fair compensation as they are compensated quite well at over a hundred grand a year.