Nationalizing our ports: My analysis as a longshoreman

[Popol Vuh]

I've seen many posts discussing nationalizing our ports as a measure to prevent security problems based on concerns with respect the UAE deal.

Although I understand why people not in the industry would see this as a logical method to defend against the security problems the UAE represents at our ports. Allow me to illustrate why nationalizing the ports won't make a bit of difference along those lines. In fact, on the contrary, nationalizing will more likely make a security problem even more likely.

To understand this you have to understand that by nationalizing U.S. ports the docks will become federalized, which in turn will place the ILA (east coast) and the ILWU (west coast) longshoremen unions under the National Railway Act. This will result in severely weakening the unions to the point where they will likely only be a union by name.

How does this affect port security? Well if you think that the current port operators have port security in concern over profits, you would be greatly mistaken. And the best way to keep companies (any company) honest on the docks is a strong and politically active union -- such as the ILWU.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, as it stands right now, any terrorist who intends to use our ports for whatever nefarious reason, there's still today not much to stand in his way. "Profits" is still king as far as all the shipping companies and port operators are concerned. Trust me when I tell you; they couldn't give a rats ass about security if it cuts into their bottom line -- especially since they are all foreign companies anyway.

Allow me to post these articles from my union's website to give you a small example of port security and ILWU political action.

This first link is to show how in reality security post 911 ain't no different than pre 911 because profits govern everything.

http://www.ilwu.org/dispatcher/2004/04/container-explosion.cfm




“The container violated nearly every rule of shipping that could be violated, from how it was packed to being transported without proper warnings to being waved through the gate without necessary information or inspection,” said Dave Arian, president of longshore Local 13.

The container, bound for Micronesia and about to be loaded aboard the Micronesian Heritage at the Trans Pacific Container Service Corp. (TraPac) terminal, had been packed and shipped by a private party. It slid through the gate even though it lacked a proper seal and manifest. It was closed with only a padlock, supposedly a violation of terminal rules, and its contents were described simply as FAK, that is “freight of all kinds,” a category no longer allowed for imports under post-Sept. 11 security regulations and previously required to be inspected if exported.

This link is to show how our union, the ILWU, is and has been politically active in trying to keep security at the ports amidst corporate profit concerns.

ILWU meets with top port security officials in D.C.

http://www.ilwu.org/political/port-security.cfm

If you only read one link, I would rather you read this one.

ILWU: SUPPLEMENTAL WASHINGTON REPORT

http://www.ilwu.org/political/warrior/04/vol5no4.cfm

So in conclusion what I am trying to say is this: The best chance at maintaining security is by having a strong watchdog that has a long historic proven track record of not being bought-off --- that would be the ILWU.

In reality, nationalizing these docks won't gain you much if any security because the profit whoring already has it just as bad -- you'll just be trading one bad apple for another. On the other hand, if you nationalize these docks you will gravely threaten your best chance of having a proven pit-bull in the yard guarding the house.

The choice is yours....

[still_one]

1. security is a smoke screen for enriching bush and companies

friends on this deal

but on principle, our ports SHOULD BE MANAGED BY AMERICAN COMPANIES, NOT FOREIGN, and that includes the brits who managed it before. I am sick and tired of our country being sold down the river by corporate interests

[mzmolly]

3. I think this incident might turn the tide away from the "free trade" is

great mentality as well. :shrug:

[still_one]

32. I hope so

we sure are playing on a level playing field, and even though I am not for protectionism, I am not for screwing us either

[mzmolly]

2. We don't have to choose between "nationalization" and Unions.

Nor do we have to choose between "nationalization" and the UAE running our ports.

Thanks for the food for thought however.

[aquart]

4. Thank you. That's a good point to consider.

How is the New York Port Authority handled? The jurisdictions involved here have me really confused. What if this is made a state not federal responsibility?

[northzax]

6. well, the New York Port Authority

which is technically the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and handles all interstate transportation in a 30 mile radius of the Statue of Liberty (really, that's the area as specified by law) is governed by a board of 12, 6 appointed by the governor of each state for 6 year terms. Besides the containter terminals, the Port Authority runs the bridges, tunnels, PATH trains and the World Trade Center (well, it used to, at least, it technically owned the buildings before leasing them to Silverstein Realty)

It's worth noting that the Port of Newark Container Terminal (not the Port Elizabeth one) that will be run by DWP was, in fact, completely retrofitted by P&O Ports, at their expense, under a lease from the Port Authority. They pay for all construction, all maintenance, all capital improvements, not the taxpayers, and collect fees in exchange.

[aquart]

23. Is P&O the British company?

They pay for everything in exchange for fees? The fees must be more than the outlay then, right?

[northzax]

25. yes,P&O is the UK company

and they leased the land from the Port and pay a fee for the use of the land. They obviously expected to regain their outlay over the 30 year length of the contract. this is common practice, in all sorts of industries. The idea is that they can run the terminal efficiently enough to attract more shipping to the area, and collect fees from the shippers.

Think of building an office building, you expect, over the life of the building, to collect enough rent to cover your capital and operational expenses, or you wouldn't build it in the first place.

[northzax]

7. dupe- self deleted

[northzax]

8. dupe - Self delete

[underpants]

5. Interesting.

I posted this two days ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=479483

I don't know that much about the operations of ports so I just wrote that on the fly. I pretty much stick by it. I have learned more about port operations in the last 3 days than I ever dreamed I would know.

[Popol Vuh]

12. Hi underpants

:hi:


That's a very good post and I appreciate your response. I wish more were like you. I know a lot folks here on the DU are quite intelligent and I've come to respect that. However, I've noticed that many people are way too reactionary before adequately researching and thinking things through.

You're the former and not the latter. :)

[underpants]

14. Thanks

I think some people fail to take a second or too and consider how the thing works.

It would appear that W&Co. not only didn't take the time to say this aloud and consider how it would SOUND but they were totally out of the loop on it. You would think that at least Andy Card would have been briefed on it.

Wow as bad as it is and embarassing it is may more frightening.

BTW-there was a post from a retired Coast Guardsman here yesterday. He outlined what happens off shore and such. He didn't really take a side he just meant it as informative. I'll see if I can find it.

[underpants]

16. Here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=481615

[Popol Vuh]

22. Thank you underpants

I will make sure I read that. But I'll have to do it later when I get back home. I am just about out the door to, actually, go to a union meeting.

[still_one]

28. I have a problem that ANY FOREIGN company should run our ports

I don't care where they are from

Are you telling me there is no American company that can run the ports?

[underpants]

29. Well that was the consensus at the beginning of the week

I have heard some different reports now but to date I haven't seen anything to back this new truth up.

[still_one]

31. I am talking a general philosophy, not just this

the security is a smoke screen for a sweetheart deal with the Carllyle corporation, and "friends" of the administration

The ports are generally unsecure, and this has nothing to do with the deal, but the incompentence of the current administration

I think we agree...

[BigYawn]

36. American companies do not run any operation which has poor

profit prospects. The British company which sold the
business to the UAE company had no offers from any
American company which could be considered viable.

What worries me is that if the UAE deal is rejected by
congress, someone like Halliburton could be awarded the
job with federal subsidies.

[PhilipShore]

9. How does one join a union?

I am not a member of a union, but I think I read that in order to join a union; one has to have a job first and then, apply to become a union member. The UAI has billions of dollars, to start up companies in the USA -- and in any country in the world.

The UAI could simply-- in cooperation -- with terrorists create a company, and then have sleeper terrorists and/ or actual terrorists apply to become union members, here in the United States.

Why would union members have any concern for enforcing port security? If I was a union member-- my only concern would be to do the job, and get my pay at the end of day -- not guarding the ports.

I don't know if this is relevant or not -- but I am a tenant, and in my building I live in we had a heating problem, I asked the city to inspect the boiler, they refused. I called up the union for boilers, (I think in the AFL-CIO) because I wanted to hire a Boiler inspector to get an independent opinion, and they were rude, and said we are not hired by tenants, we only get hired by corporations (landlords).

The Union did not seem to have any concern for -- my rights -- as a tenant; but rather had more concern for keeping the corporation and the Union employee deal obligation.

[Popol Vuh]

11. I pondered on whether

or not I should respond to what appears to be an obvious anti union post. But I guess I'll respond.

Why would union members have any concern for enforcing port security? If I was a union member-- my only concern would be to do the job, and get my pay at the end of day -- not guarding the ports.

Well despite the fact of being concerned for your own health and welfare on the job, and despite the fact of being concerned for your family's and neighbors health and welfare who live in the communities around the port, and despite for being concerned for your own country. If you were a union member and understood things such as politics with respect to labor, and understood contract bargaining with respect to manning and jurisdiction, and understood politics and public relations. Then I propose that you would know the answer to your own question.

I don't know if this is relevant or not -- but I am a tenant, and in my building I live in we had a heating problem, I asked the city to inspect the boiler, they refused. I called up the union for boilers, I think in the AFL-CIO, and they were rude, and said we are not hired by tenants, we only get hired by corporations (landlords).

The Union did not seem to have any concern for -- my rights -- as a tenant; but rather had more concern for keeping the corporation and the Union employee deal obligation.

Wait a minute.....Am I to understand that you have issues with unions because you called someone who's not responsible for taking care of what you had a problem with and they wouldn't send someone out to help fix your problem? First off, the AFL-CIO is not a union, its an affiliation of many unions -- its kind of like a united nations sort of speak. Secondly, the union for boilers has no authority to dispatch out work. If the union for boilers had sent somebody out to do your job without the order or knowledge of who they're contracted with, I can assure you that they would have been dragged into court for several contract violations.

:eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. LOL: Excellent response to a pack of nonsenses

Which is admirable in itself. Nicely done, Popol.

[Popol Vuh]

21. Thank you very much alcibiades_mystery

You don't know how much I appreciate and needed that. :pals:

[PhilipShore]

17. No, it was not anti-Union...

In fact, my mother used to date the president of the AFL-CIO (from the 60s to 80s) in New York State—Ray Corbett. I never had a chance to ask him about Union politics, but some of the research I did about him -- recently --says that he was one of the ones that put the CIO in the AFL name.

I think unions were different back then; and had more power. But, from what my mother told me about him he knew the Kennedy’s well, and would visit JFK in the White House, during the civil rights era.

I think he would insist upon the Union -- and the public having a more definitive answer, in the courts and/or the congress, about the Port deal, much more then (The unions will protect us because they are the Unions).

I also think Ray Corbett was concerned about Union corruption.

[northzax]

26. and let's not forget

that the ILA has a long tradition of strong activism, it was strong in IWW, for instance. And it is incredibly tough to get into ILA, you have to be a member before you can get a job at the port, and they are very protective of the port jobs.

[hughee99]

13. My suggestion is that if you have a heating problem

and you want to get it fixed, rather than call the city or union to get an inspection, call someone who is in the business of FIXING BOILERS. There's a decent chance you'd end up getting a union person as a result of doing this (if the business you call is a union shop), and they have a greater vested interest in helping you since that's what they are in business for.

[PhilipShore]

19. I was just trying to be helpful...

by giving a Union worker a job -- instead of someone that was advertised in the Yellow pages.

[hughee99]

20. Good idea...

If you check the yellow pages, some of them will advertise that they are union shops.

[Popol Vuh]

24. Well I can assure you

Union members are very appreciative of that. But you have to understand our position. All we are is just the employees without any authority to dispatch out work.

And in today's anti union environment across the country, it is very dangerous to even be talking on the phone about what you're pointing out.

I am talking about the possible charging of RICO against those union members in addiction to contract violations.


I can appreciate what you're saying about giving us a chance first. But, like I said, you have to understand the position we are in.



My apologies for any offense I might have caused you..

[PhilipShore]

30. An employee of the government of UAE?

But you have to understand our position. All we are is just the employees without any authority to dispatch out work.

I am not a lawyer; but if your just employees, then, if the Port Deal goes thru, they technically are not just under the authority of the corporation -- but also of the authority of the government of UAE, because the company is government owned?

Why is the Union not in court -- working out a labor agreement about this port deal?

From my research about Ray Corbett -- when he was president of the AFL-CIO he was constantly hammering out labor agreements-- that were fair to labor in the courts -- and with lobbying the politicians (I even seen him in the major media news often).

According to my mother he met President Kennedy often at the White House.

Went to Parties at the Governors Mansion -- when Nelson Rockefeller was Governor, etc.

I have not seen any labor leaders in the MSM about the Port Deal, not even a press release from the Unions about it.

[hughee99]

10. I was reading an op-ed on this earlier today...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_katherin_060223_the_other_shoe_drops.htm

Where Katherine Brengle lists many reasons why she thinks this is not a good idea.

"All conscientious Americans are able to see through this move and understand what a ridiculous affront to national security allowing another country to run our ports is. There are many reasons to oppose this deal. Two of the 9/11 hijackers are allegedly linked to the UAE, terrorists have been bankrolled by the UAE government as well as established banking centers within the country. The UAE royal family has alleged ties to both al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden himself. The company to which our government plans to sell control of these ports is not just an independent foreign company (which I personally believe would be bad enough), but a state-owned foreign company. This difference is also extremely important.

There is another problem that has received less attention thus far. In addition to its sponsorship of terrorism, the UAE allows a variety of human rights violations to thrive inside its borders"

For those of you suggesting that the US government take over, think of this. Although none of the 9/11 hijackers are originally from the US, many here at DU have argued that the US has bankrolled terrorists and allows terrorist banking, that top administration officials have ties to both al Queda and Osama bin Laden himself, and that the US has allowed a variety of human rights violations to thrive inside our boarders. Add this to the MIHOP vs. LIHOP debate, and why would you think that our govt would be any safer than a subsidiary of a foreign company owned by the UAE govt?

[coalition_unwilling]

18. Yes, I figured BushCo was allowing this in order to dilute further

union power. You don't have to be around these corporate magnates very long to know that they "hate" unions with a pathology equal to that with which the Christian right hates homosexuals and liberated women. The ILWU has a long-standing reputation for being one of the hard-ass unions (along with Teamsters), a reputation they earned with their blood during the '20s and '30s.

Never underestimate the Repuke's desire for some good old-fashioned union busting.

[northzax]

27. actually, federalising the ports would weaken the ILA much more

like it did the railroad unions. As it is, the Port Authorities demand that jobs at the port be ILA, and it is much easier for the union to influence a local politico than a federal beaurocrat. you think that Baltimore is going to abandon union labour? not likely.

[PA Democrat]

35. The UAE is rabidly anti-union

Labor unions are illegal in the UAE. When Australia's conservative government tried to break up dockworkers' unions, they contracted with UAE to train mercenaries as strike breakers. I don't see the takeover of port operations by Dubai Ports World as a good thing for American jobs.

I posted more on this earlier today here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2476680&mesg_id=2476680

[northzax]

38. I'll see if I can explain this again.

the local port authorities control the labour on the docks. In the operations contracts/leases, they state that the terminal operations company must use ILA members. Until the local authorities let that restriction go, Dubai World Ports will hire whoever it is told to hire, by operating the contract they agree to that restriction.

Think of taking over the lease on an apartment from someone who is moving. If the lease says "no cats" then you agree to that provision, for the duration of the lease, right? by taking over the contract, you agree to the terms of the contract, no matter what you might want to do otherwise.

[Darranar]

33. I hadn't considered the effect of public sector anti-labor stupidity.

But you have a point.

Nationalized ports would prevent the profit motive from getting in the way of security, however, and that is the crucial issue.

[Capn Sunshine]

34. How about States or municipalities?

One way or the other, there had better be some domestic entity in charge just as a safety issue.

[doc03]

37. Let's see it's bad for the US government to operate our

ports. But it's good if the government of the UAE operates our ports through their state owned company. I'm confused these days everything I think that is good is bad, right is wrong. It really is 1984 isn't it?