Longshoremen to close ports on West Coast to protest war (UPDATED)

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/08/ED8L101F5U.DTL

Jack Heyman

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

While millions of people worldwide have marched against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and last week's New York Times/CBS News poll indicated that 81 percent believe the country is headed in the wrong direction - key concerns being the war and the economy - the war machine inexorably grinds on.

Amid this political atmosphere, dockworkers of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union have decided to stop work for eight hours in all U.S. West Coast ports on May 1, International Workers' Day, to call for an end to the war.

This decision came after an impassioned debate where the union's Vietnam veterans turned the tide of opinion in favor of the anti-war resolution. The motion called it an imperial action for oil in which the lives of working-class youth and Iraqi civilians were being wasted and declared May Day a "no peace, no work" holiday. Angered after supporting Democrats who received a mandate to end the war but who now continue to fund it, longshoremen decided to exercise their political power on the docks.

Last month, in response to the union's declaration, the Pacific Maritime Association, the West Coast employer association of shipowners, stevedore companies and terminal operators, declared its opposition to the union's protest. Thus, the stage is set for a conflict in the run up to the longshore contract negotiations.

The last set of contentious negotiations (in 2002) took place during the period between the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the invasion of Iraq. Representatives of the Bush administration threatened that if there were any of the usual job actions during contract bargaining, then troops would occupy the docks because such actions would jeopardize "national security." Yet, when the PMA employers locked out the longshoremen and shut down West Coast ports for 11 days, the "security" issue vanished. President Bush then invoked the Taft-Hartley Act, forcing longshoremen back to work under conditions favorable to the employers.

The San Francisco longshore union has a proud history of opposition to the war in Iraq, being the first union to call for an end to the war and immediate withdrawal of troops. Representatives of the union spoke at anti-war rallies in February 2003, including one in London attended by nearly 2 million people, the largest ever held in Britain. Executive Board member Clarence Thomas went to Iraq with a delegation to observe workers' rights during the occupation.

FULL story at link.

This will end up in court. The ILWU could take a big fine. We will have to wait and see!

[cloudbase]

1. Not only will they likely be fined,

they'll hasten the day that the shipowners construct a huge container terminal in Baja California and then bring the boxes in by truck/rail. The PMA lives for the day they can be rid of the ILWU.

[bread_and_roses]

3. Not sure of your point? Do you disagree with the action? (n/t)

[cloudbase]

4. Whether I agree or disagree is immaterial.

I'm admittedly not familiar with the ILWU contract, but most labor contracts have clauses banning "wildcat" strikes or other work stoppages, which this would certainly fall under. The ILWU would be liable to the shipowners and others for any damages caused by their action. If the union is willing to risk great losses for a one-day action that will in no real way hasten the end of the war, then they're certainly welcome to do so, with or without my blessing.

My point is that they're assuming great risk without the possibility of commensurate reward. The proposed action is short sighted.

Ships cost tons of money to operate, whether they're in port or at sea. I know this as I spent most of my adult life as an engineering officer aboard merchant ships. There were ten years of that career spent as an official of a maritime union prior to my retirement.

I'm not unsympathetic, just realistic. As I said in my earlier post, the PMA is looking for ANYTHING they can use to break the ILWU, and something like this would be a gift to the PMA.

[bread_and_roses]

5. The Profiteers are ALWAYS looking to crush Labor and any dissent, with or without "provocation"

Acting like good little serfs and "partnering" with management has been such a great success that union membership in the private sector has shrunk to near vanishing - with the consequent degradation of pay, working conditions, "free" time, health care, retirement security, and civil rights of all workers.

"Polite" protest has had no effect on stopping this slaughter. I abjure violence, but the more non-violent civil disobediance the better. If we had the courage of our convictions, we'd put our money and our bodies where our mouths are.

[bread_and_roses]

2. Allright! YES! Spread the word. Everyone one of us who is not blocking the streets

to protest this illegal, immoral, imperialist, profiteering slaughter is a hypocrite - and I include myself.

and send them $$ if they need it for fine or defense.

Would that we all had their courage.