It was stated during the hearings on Capitol Hill. At FoxNews it states: "Outside of cruise ship terminals in those ports, operations include two of the 14 terminals in Baltimore's port, one of three terminals in the Miami port, one of five terminals in Newark, two of five terminals in New Orleans, one of five terminals in Philadelphia. DHS officials also note that the deal lets DP World run four of 12 terminals in Houston and allows it to be involved in stevedoring for all five terminals in Norfolk, though DP World would not manage any specific terminal." (3rd paragraph from the bottom - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185799,00.html)
I'm not genius but they are not running ports. They are not even in charge of security. They appear to be a company hired do a portion of the work at one or more terminals in a complex of terminals that comprise the port. I doubt the Teamsters are going to let them do anything to do with the unions contract of actually moving goods, they will ensure that nothing impinges that union contract.
What should bother us more is that if one reporter on FoxNews was correct the US would owe billions if the Congress puts the "kibosh' on the deal. Since DPW would still own the contracts that P&O signed but not be able to work them the fees are still due and payable to the British company. Sounds like good lawyering to me. They also stated that the lobbyist firms working for DPW are the firms with former SecState Albright and former Se. Bob Dole. Politicians never fall far from 'The Hill'.
I still have not seen the answer to a previous post which reflected the Chinese were at terminals in ports on the West Coast. No additional information has been brought forward to say what company or companies and which ports. These operations have been running for some time, who let them through? The Bush or the Clinton Administration? Where was the outrage then? (Remember the Blind Sheik and the first bombing of the World Trade Center.)
Where is the rethink now in light of post 9/11 security requirements of all port contracts? No Senator or Congressperson is going there. Why?It appears to be a case of "get me in the spotlight" for politicians. Not that actually want to stop the deal - just 45 days in the limelight.
Also, no interviews have been made by the press of someone at the actual ports to explain what this company will or will not do at the port. The actual owners of the port, the Teamsters, the USCG or Customs on the ground. Why? Only the talking heads are explaining things, not the people who do the job or own the property.
So many honest questions to be asked and get answered. But all we get is the hype.
Here is one of the threads.
Thanks for the info and advice (although I thought we were discussing politics here at "News/Activism" so my mistake ; )
There was plenty of outrage when the city of Long Beach decided to tear down an old Navy building with historical significance in order to offer the land to the Chinese. It got to the point that the city had to back down on the issue. Folks weren't going to let it happen.
Then I think the city waited for a period of time and did it anyway. They may have given some other land to the Chinese, or more properly leased it to them.
At any rate, I think it did go through finally, in some form. It didn't go down without a fight though.