Bush Intervenes in Port Lockout

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hours after talks broke down between West Coast port workers and shipping lines, President Bush took a first step toward ordering longshoremen back onto the job Monday. Bush formed a board of inquiry to determine the impact of a dispute draining up to $2 billion a day from the U.S. economy. The board will make a quick assessment of the economic damage and determine whether the two sides are negotiating in good faith. Its formation was required before the president can order an 80-day cooling-off period that would force longshoremen back to work. Bush has not decided whether to take that step, said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

Bush signed an executive order stating that "continuation of this lockout will imperil the national health and safety" and forming the panel, which must report back to Bush by Tuesday. Bush then would have to make his case in federal court, asking for a ruling to end the lockout for 80 days because the dispute is hurting the national interest. A senior administration official said Bush would likely immediately go to court after the board makes its report.

The board's members are former Sen. Bill Brock, R-Tenn., a former U.S. trade representative and labor secretary; Patrick Hardin, a professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law and onetime National Labor Relations Board official; and Dennis Nolan, a professor at the University of South Carolina law school and vice president of the National Academy of Arbitrators.

"Clearly, the longer this goes on, the longer the parties are incapable of reaching an agreement between themselves, the more damage it's doing to America's economy and hurting people who are wholly unrelated to events on the West Coast because they work down the assembly line, they're down the production line or the shipment line, and that's not fair," Fleischer said.

According to Robert Parry, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the lockout is sapping $2 billion a day from the economy.

"The country has been patient. We have been patient," said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. "But now ordinary Americans are being seriously harmed by this dispute."

The Pacific Maritime Association, which represents shipping companies and terminal operators, has locked out 10,500 members of the longshoremen's union, claiming the dockworkers engaged in a slowdown late last month.

The association ordered the lockout until the union agrees to extend a contract that expired July 1. The main issues are pensions and other benefits and whether jobs created by new technology will be unionized.

Labor talks broke off in San Francisco late Sunday night after the union rejected the latest contract proposal.

Steve Sugerman, a spokesman for the Pacific Maritime Association, said the shippers' offer "would have made their members the highest-paid blue-collar workers in America." The contract offer would have given union members an increase in pay, complete health care coverage with no premiums and no deductibles and a $1 billion increase to the union's pension plan.

The PMA offered to reopen the West Coast ports if the union agreed to a 90-day contract extension to finalize the new contract, Sugerman said.

A call to union president James Spinosa was not immediately returned early Monday.

Bush's decision came after days of debate within the White House. Some advisers have warned Bush that intervening in the shutdown could energize the Democratic Party's labor base weeks before the midterm elections, and that Taft-Hartley, the law that allows the president to order a cooling-off period, has a poor history of resolving labor disputes.

Others, however, say Bush can't ignore the economic implications of a prolonged shutdown, both for political and policy reasons. There also is no love lost between unions and Bush's most conservative advisers, some of whom note with disdain that some of the longshoreman earn more than $100,000 a year.

The lockout entered its second week Monday, with the number of cargo vessels stranded at West Coast docks or backing up at anchor points rising to 200. Dozens more were still en route from Asia.

Analysts and business leaders have warned the shutdown will cause a noticeable increase in plant closings, job losses and financial market turmoil.

Already, storage facilities at beef, pork and poultry processing facilities across the country are full — crammed with produce that can't be exported.

With nowhere to move their product, plant operators were expected to begin shutting down Monday, with layoffs soon to follow, said Mary Kay Thatcher, public policy director of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

In less than two weeks, if the shutdown continues, manufacturing plants will be grinding to a halt all over the country, farmers will be up in arms, and Asian equity and currency markets could face a full blown crisis, said Steven Cohen, a University of California, Berkeley professor of regional planning.

"It's like draining a swamp. You start seeing all kinds of ugly creatures," he said.

Thank goodness. There is no way in the world that 10,500 workers should be allowed to take down the US economy.

Yes, it is technically a lockout but that's because the unions didn't want to strike (they make too much money and there wouldn't be any sympathy) so they were deliberately working at a slow pace, in effect striking without actually going out on strike.

I'm in agriculture and we are getting hammered over this. Bush is right to do this.

It doesn't matter. In a free market economy, the workers have the right to negotiate for the best salary they can get--conversely, the owners have the right to choose to pay that salary or attempt to find and train substitute workers.

From a purely economic standpoint, it creates economic waste when Big Government interferes in the free market and orders a "resolution" to a conflict. Since the resolution won't be at the "proper" market level, there will always be some waste, whether it is on the supply side or the demand side.

From a political standpoint, do you actually favor Big Government telling businesses who they can hire and how much they have to pay them?

There might well be people "overjoyed" at making $70,000 a year plus benefits, but hey, they aren't in that position. That doesn't change the right of the workers to negotiate their salary. I'd be "overjoyed" to make a million dollars a year playing baseball, but I'm not in that sort of position. Does that mean I'm in favor of Big Government stepping in and imposing salary restrictions on the players? Of course not--it is bad policy and creates waste.

People choose to join a union, even if a job is "closed shop." Going into that situation, a worker knows that the union will bargain on his behalf with management.

As far as "greedy union thugs crippling the economy," that seems to be pretty nice negotiating fodder, don't you think? But seriously, I think you would have a difficult time actually supporting the premise that this strike is "crippling" the economy.

I agree the owners could go out and HIRE some people that would work for $80,000 a year, plus benefits. Hiring people costs money. Lots of money. Not only do you have the actual costs associated with the hiring process, (interviews, management wages while they review the files, etc), you have training costs, attrition, etc. Obviously someone has done some cost/benefit analysis and decided that negotiation is the most economical resolution to the dispute--even if that includes a work stoppage during a lockout. All of this is great and part of a free market.

No need for help from Big Government. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

This is "good" because the grossly overpaid union workers won't be allowed to strangle the entire US economy in their drive to appropriate more money for themselves at the expense of the general public (through higher prices).

And I say, let them. Let them run it into the ground if need be. Let the blame lie where it should, the unions' feet. If Bush steps in now, he releases some of the blame from the unions politically and gives the Democrats one more rallying cry. I thought this nation was based on capitalism, free enterprise. This is negotiation. Doesn't seem very free to me if the government has the right to step into any domestic agreement it seems fit to 'fix'. This is not a power guaranteed to the federal government under the Constitution. Now as we are under a national government currently, that's another story. How is what Bush is doing (stepping into a private industry issue) different than what Truman suggested doing in the late 40s? No military involved yet, but what if it came to that? Surely you aren't suggesting Truman was a conservative now are you?

Vets_Husband_and_Wife posted:
Your post #6 crossed my mind too! I have a hard time feeling pity for people who strike who make the kind of money, or that baseball players make, etc. If they feel they need more pay, fine, but make your waves in a less destructive manner, and perhaps they should time it a tad better too!

Wait a minute, folks. Whatever may be said vis-a-vis "unions", and what is going on with the West Coast Longshoremen, it is not -- repeat, for emphasis: IS NOT -- a "strike".

The dock workers, in response, gather each day by the gates, but they are not "picketing". They are there waiting to return to work when management opens the gates again.

It is NOT a "strike".

I know there is a wellspring of anti-union sentiment here on Free Republic (for the record, _I_ am a union member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers), but stop claiming these workers are doing something they are not -- and what they are NOT doing is "striking"...

Cheers!
- John

If it were a truly free market, the Federal NLRB would not have the ability to FORCE an employer to recognize a Union and make negotiation with the Union the ONLY option.

In a truly free market, the Union could offer the services of it's members to the employer, but the employer would not be FORCED to buy labor ONLY from the Union. This would require a lot less Government than the current system, so is that what you propose?

The dock workers were LOCKED OUT by MANAGEMENT: i.e., the workers are not "withholding their labor". Rather, management is denying them the opportunity to work by "locking the gates" to the docks. Hence, "lockout".
The dock workers, in response, gather each day by the gates, but they are not "picketing". They are there waiting to return to work when management opens the gates again.
It is NOT a "strike".
I know there is a wellspring of anti-union sentiment here on Free Republic (for the record, _I_ am a union member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers), but stop claiming these workers are doing something they are not -- and what they are NOT doing is "striking"...

I am glad that you pointed this out because I was just about to do so. The number of posters rushing to criticize the union members for "striking" when they are in fact "locked out" amazes me. Don't people even read the articles that are posted?

I fail to see how Bush ordering a return to work could "energize" the union base when he is going against management by ordering longshoremen back to work.

I completely agree that Big Government should have no say whatsoever in economic matters.

In a truly free market, the Union could offer the services of it's members to the employer, but the employer would not be FORCED to buy labor ONLY from the Union

I'm not sure of any law to which you may be referring that requires an employee to get labor ONLY from a union. I may well be wrong, and if that's so, then that's so. The situation to which I think you are referring is a "closed shop," in which an employee must join the union in order to work at a particular job. Whether a job is "open shop," where membership is an option, or "closed shop," where membership is required, is totally the choice of the union; it is especially discussed when the workers initally vote to form a union.

I said all that to say, in that situation, I have no problem. Big Government is not requiring anything; rather, the union has chosen, for (presumably) the benefit of the workers, to require membership. The worker knows the situation going in and accepts it. There are other jobs if he chooses to not want to take part in collective baragining.

Others, however, say Bush can't ignore the economic implications of a prolonged shutdown, both for political and policy reasons. There also is no love lost between unions and Bush's most conservative advisers, some of whom note with disdain that some of the longshoreman earn more than $100,000 a year.

Why can't the press just report the facts and not add there own interpretations?

Labor talks broke off in San Francisco late Sunday night after the union rejected the latest contract proposal

I can read just fine thank you...yes, you are correct that they did get locked out until an agreement is reached...the UNION is the one however, that is not cooperating on reaching an agreement and if you will check out my post above about Daschle & Co. (Post #19), you will find out WHY.

Unions break the whole concept of free market labor. In a free market labor situation the employer and each employee as an individual negotiate the compensation. Once there's a union in place all the negotiating is done en mas via the collective bargaining agreement (which often is the standard enforced on all employers in that field), part of which forbid the employer from hiring non-union labor. At that point the union has effectively captured the market and is a defacto monopoly source of labor for anyone in that field and can do things like dictate prices for labor far in excess to the fair market value, or just generaly rule the industry. Just look at some of the "negotiating points" in the MLB non-strike, their labor union is telling the frnachise owners how to run their business, all the way from the perentage of labor costs to the advertising budget. It's crazy how deep in the unions stick their fingers, in many industries the union has more control than the board, there are no limits as to what can be in a CBA, and the price of violating it is to lose your entire work force.

"Thank goodness. There is no way in the world that 10,500 workers should be allowed to take down the US economy. "

You're a little late. The US economy was already down for the count - it was already falling off a cliff long before this lockout. The unraveling credit & debt bubble is like a huge avalanche compared to this little snowflake. The economy was doomed long before these workers ever thought of locking out.

Actually, what Bush did at any time in the past two weeks was already too late. The imploding credit bubble and the unraveling debt was already reaching tsunami levels at the beginning of this year. Alas, it is too late for Bush to save this economy. The bust is happening, and it will not end until the last vestiges of speculation are gone.

It is unfortunate Bush did not get rid of Greenspan in his first weeks in office. He will soon know where the Fed's true loyalties lie when he goes up for re-election in the worst recession since 1972-1973.

Almost every news report here in Los Angeles on this story is prefaced with the blurb that "longshoreman make $80,000.00 to $150,000.00 a year." In my unelightened mind I thought good! At least no one will feel sorry for them. Much to my dismay, people here believe that $80k + a year is a "living wage."

I hear ya bud! ALL unions are evil!!!!!! Lets do away with em all!!!!! Makes me misty eyed thinking about the good ol days and concept of free market labor.

Heck, you could get a 20 hour day out of these rascals and not pay a cent of OT. Har har har

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.