Bush Intervenes in Port Lockout

Associated Press via Yahoo ^ | October 7, 2002 | SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

[snopercod]

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.

[KDD]

The problem is that we all pay for his slack...in higher priced goods.

[Moosefart]

My responses were directed toward the "hate all union workers" crowd who populate any thread that mentions the word union.

[discostu]

There wasn't free market labor then, not enough employers in each industry competing for the labor pool. That's why they could get away with treating the worker's like crap.

Try again. Maybe you'll have a point next time.

[Moosefart]

Try again Maybe you'll have a point next time.

I think not, at least not with you. If it were left up to people with your mentality there would still be kids working 80 hour weeks in coal mines.

[pawdoggie]

What you say may be technically true, but Daschle's "pro-strike" comments, cited in another reply, certainly makes it look as if he thinks the Union's on strike. Whether it's a strike or a lock-out, however, is irrelevant: the two sides are at loggerheads, there is a perceptible impact on the economy (even Teamster/trucker Union Brothers and Sisters are being impacted), so something should be done. The President won't avoid Democrat criticism if he sits on the sidelines, so he might as well use the Democrat-created tools for dealing with these disputes.

[discostu]

Sorry charley that's not me, know who you've got me mixed up for but it's a fair bet that "person" is an immaginary boogieman that only exists in your head. Try actually reading my original post and adress the points in there instead of making up accusations that have no basis in what was posted.

this is a classic example of what's wrong with unions. What are they against? Technology in the work place. They were protesting through a work slowdown the introduction of things to make their work FASTER and EASIER and thusly SHORTEN their necessary work hours and IMPROVE over all efficiency which would have left MORE money for PAY. Time to get your head out of the 1900s, the unions don't represent what they used to. The time when they protected workers from uncaring bosses is gone. Now they cost people jobs by inflating the wage scale past equitability and being against improvement in the working conditions.

[carton253]

I know.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I totally disagree about collective bargaining breaking the entire concept of free markets.

The only way a worker has any leverage over an employer is through collective bargaining; without it, each worker is totally at the mercy of the employer. Why do you businesses went through such an effort to "union bust" during the early part of the 20th century? Obviously because collective bargaining levels the playing field--businesses have lost the advantage it once had over individuals because of collective bargaining. This is especially true in traditionally "blue collar" positions, since labor there, as a general rule, is much more plentiful than "white collar" positions.

Collective bargaining is the only way the worker can negotiate on even footing with ownership. It furthers the market, and that's a good thing. If you want to discuss politics of most labor unions, that's an entirely different subject, but unions have done a lot for labor in this country, and that's not a bad thing. "Labor" is not a bad word, as I think most people would have us believe.

[discostu]

Ahh that's who you have me confused with. I don't hate all union workers. I hate the unions themselves. Big difference. The workers are just doing what free market capitalists should be doing: everything they can to get them dollars flowing into their wallet as fast as possible. The problem is the actual union (which is usually half a dozen guys in Armani suits who've probably never even been on the work floor and have no knowledge at all of the job the workers they "represent" do) who have pushed the unions into part of business labor reps have no right to be in.

Do you actually think the union should control how much money a company spends on advertising? Do you actually think they should control how packages are tracked and directed on the docks? These are the kind of things on union bargaining tables now. Not wages and benefits packages and other logically labor related things, basics of how to run the business, management decisions that are traditionally made by the CEO or board of directors are now being made by the union bosses as they write up their demands for the next round of negotiations.

[Blood of Tyrants]

But I DO wish I had become a pharmacist instead. Companies are offering up to $75k per year for kids right out of school.

[discostu]

Wrong. The employee has the ultimate leverage: they can take their skills elsewhere.

You're comparing apples and oranges if you look at the time period that made the unions with now. Back then most industries were monoplies, at least regionally and our society wasn't mobile enough for people to be moving from one city to another very often. Subsequently at that time you were correct, the employee had no leverage.

But now things are totally different. There are 100 different companies in my industry (software) in my city. If my employer doesn't treat me well I'll go work for one of the other 99. And I can always leave town and go work for any of the THOUSANDS of other software companies in this world.

Collective bargaining hasn't given the worker even fotting, they've given them the upper hand. All you need to do is look at the pay scale. These longshoremen, with no college education are making as much as software programmers with masters degrees. A simple comparison of the skill set and training necessary to do the jobs says there's no way in hell longshorement should be making programmer money. But they are, why? Collective bargaining. The longshoremen have the shipping companies balls in a vice and periodically squeeze for more juice. That's not an even playing field. When the employer has ZERO ability to give merit raises, to terminate incompitent employees, to determine what package tracking system they'll use; then they are negotiating from a position of weakness. The unions have the upper hand, and in this case they're willing to cripple the American economy with it.

[Moosefart]

The time when they protected workers from uncaring bosses is gone. Now they cost people jobs by inflating the wage scale past equitability and being against improvement in the working conditions.

Give me a break, human nature is the same now as it was way back when. If someone can get cheaper labor and make more money they will do it any way they are allowed to. That's why labor laws were passed, to force business to treat workers like humans.

Your statement about unions being against improvement in the working conditions is so bogus I wont even comment on it.

[Viva Le Dissention]

It's a heck of a lot more free than Big Government telling people who to hire and how to run their business.

I have absolutely no problem with unions discouraging "scabs." Scab labor hurts a union's bargaining position--obviously it is going to oppose it. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Look, maybe most of you would like to return to the days in which companies paid people $1 a day and said "take it or leave it, there are 25 people outside who want your job." Personally, I am of the opinion that it is economically beneficial to have a "wealthier" lower class, if you will. Although I'm pro-business, I'm also of the opinion that business shouldn't be allowed to hold all the cards. Collective bargaining is a way to negate the natural advantage that a business owner has over his employees without Big Government stepping in.

I'm not saying that you can go to long beach and get hired to drive a forklift for $100 large. But here's the thing: no offense to people that drive forklifts, but it is a very low skill job. I'm confident in saying that anyone can drive a forklift, and I'm fairly confident in extending that to a well trained member of the primate species. That being said, if your job is to drive a forklift, what leverage do you have over your employer except collective bargaining? Without it, the employer holds all the cards--the employer knows that he can hire ANYONE in the whole world to this position and, more or less, not miss a beat. If you drive a forklift, you don't have a leg to stand on. The employer could say, "I'll offer $2 an hour." Sure, it's below minimum wage, but even say minimum wage (which , in and of itself is bad policy, in my opinion)--whatever it is now, $5.00 or something. So the company offers $5.00 a day--they don't need to worry about any special skills, so as long as the guy shows up, they are happy. Meanwhile, there are people out there that think, "Well, $5 sucks, and I know there are other jobs that might pay me $10, but 50% of something beats 100% of nothing," so they take the job. And then there's no stopping the employer from cutting the wages or anything else like that, because there are always no skill/no education workers than can take his place. This just leads to an ultra-poor lower class, similar to what we had at the turn of the 20th century. I, and I think most people would agree, that is poor economic policy. Collective bargaining is the most efficient resolution to the problem.

[hchutch]

The problem comes when there is an effort by unions to demand wages that would eventually force a company out of business. It really comes down to supply and demand - if too many dollars are chansing after too few items, you get yourself in trouble, and can only do so much.

the only way you can justify a higher price for your work is if you do it at a level that is productive enough to justify the extra expense of hiring you/keeping you.

[bonesmccoy]

Bill Simon is a contenda Charlie... We're a Contenda!

[discostu]

Excuse me but maybe you should actually READ the article. The longshoremen locked out RIGHT NOW started all this fighting against improvements in the tracking system.

Human nature might be the same, but reality isn't. Regardless of the job you do and where you do it, there's always some other company you could go work for. It's that ability to take your skills elsewhere which has evened the field between employer and employee.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Wrong. The employee has the ultimate leverage: they can take their skills elsewhere.

Skills driving a forklift? You've got to be kidding me.

Look, don't blame unions for the incompetence of business owners when they lose at the negotiating table. I'll be the first to say that most unions have brilliant negotiators, but most business owners are beaten before they ever sit down to negotiate. These guys go in with defeat in mind; they say the same thing you do. "How can we ever compete with unions? Gosh, what can we do?" With that kind of attitude, is it any wonder that they get trounced when it comes time to draw up an agreement?

You're beginning to compare white collar to blue collar. You can't do that and expect to have a legitimate comparison. White collar jobs don't need unions for a few different reasons:
1) There are a lot fewer white collar workers than blue collar. That evens up the odds right from the very beginning.
2) Not only are there fewer white collar workers, the "field" of white collar workers is further subdivided by specialty. You are a software designer, someone might be an architect, another is an engineer, etc. So that cuts down on the supply right there, again leveling the playing field.
3) White collar jobs lend themselves more to showing superior skills than blue collar jobs. You might be a genius software designer and no one else in the world can do what you do--you wrote Linux or whatever. That additional skill ability gives you further negotiating power over your employer. Who says that about forklift drivers? What, is there a Mario Andretti of forklift drivers? Of course not--one forklift driver is pretty much the same as any other forklift driver.

So what I'm getting at is that the bargaining position of a forklift driver is a lot different than your bargaining position as a software writer, or whatever it is that you do. Yeah, you can leave and go work for another software design company. Because you have unique skills, you are a valuable asset to your employer (presumably). Forklift drivers and other blue collar workers that make up unions don't have that luxury. They can't say, "give me a raise or I'll quit." It's super for you that you have a unique skill set that gives you leverage over employers, but just because blue collar workers don't have those skills it doesn't mean they should be disallowed from even-field bargaining.

[discostu]

So when government tells people who to hire and how to run their business that's bad? When union bosses do the same thing that's good?

Sorry, I'm of the opinion that when ANYONE tells people who to hire and how to run their business it's bad. People should, here's a novel concept, be allowed to run their business their way and if they're wrong the business will go under.

All non-union employees have the same leverage: they can go work elsewhere. I've seen a software company go under because nobody would work for them, they didn't pay squat and treated people like crap. Word spread through the local industry quickly and qualified respondents to their adds dropped and eventually ended outright. Pretty soon they couldn't make any ship dates, then they stopped getting contracts, and that was all she wrote, company gone. No union necessary to do it. Workers now have leverage all by themselves.

[Viva Le Dissention]

You're talking white collar again.

qualified respondents

Can you explain to me a non-qualified respondant who is applying for the job of a forklift driver?

Seriously, who is this person? Who ISN'T qualified to be a forklift driver?

[MrB]

It's been a long time since I've seen such outright ignorance of free market economics.

In a free market:
If the worker is not receiving adequate compensation for his talent, skill, and labor (his product), he can sell it to (work for) someone else.
Likewise, if the product (labor) is not worth what the provider of the labor is providing, the employer should be able to pay market value for the product provided, or hire someone worth the salary demanded.

In the Goonion world:
The economy suffers greatly because we consumers are forced to pay for the inherent inefficiencies of unwarranted high salaries. Workers will continue to do inefficient things, employers cannot hire more efficient workers, and we all pay for it.