Posted on 10/08/2002 4:35:36 PM PDT by RCW2001
By Richard Tomkins
UPI White House Correspondent
From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk
Published 10/8/2002 6:08 PM
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush intervened in the West Coast ports labor dispute Tuesday by seeking a federal injunction to put longshoremen back to work, sparking immediate outrage from the workers' union and charges of "collusion" with management.
"They worked together to threaten the union," International Longshoremen and Warehouse Union Communications Director Steve Stallone told United Press International. "There has been collusion between them from the beginning."
Bush, citing national economic health and safety, directed U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft Tuesday to seek a federal court order to put longshoremen back to work for 80 days while mediators try to resolve the dispute between dock workers, shipping lines and terminal operators.
The administration said the lockout, which began Sept. 29, affects 29 ports in California, Oregon and Washington, about 200 ships at present and costs the economy at least $1 billion a day.
"The work stoppage is hurting our entire economy," Bush said at the White House. "The crisis in our Western ports is hurting the economy, it is hurting the security of our country and our government must act."
The lockout, after employers said longshoremen were staging a "go-slow" labor action, involves some 10,500 longshoremen.
The ILWU spokesman, however, said the order to the attorney general to pursue Taft-Hartley measures to return the workers to the docks was unnecessary and a betrayal.
Invocation of Taft-Hartley, he said, would enable managers to get over the critical holiday period, thus undermining the union bargaining position.
The Bush administration, through its negotiator in San Francisco, Eugene Scalia, had earlier extracted a pledge from the union to return to work for 30-days under provisions of an expired contract.
Scalia is the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
"They led us to believe the PMA (Pacific Maritime Association, which represents shippers and port operators) agreed to this, and if we didn't agree, they'd go on TV and blast us," Stallone said.
"As soon as we agreed to it, they called us back and said the PMA did not agree ... but you don't see them being blasted.
"What do you expect from the Bush administration?"
White House spokesman Scott McClellan denied Stallone's claims.
"It's ridiculous," he said. "The president stated why the federal government had to act. It's hurting our economy and hurting the security of the country."
McClellan told UPI that the Labor Department had been working to try and reach a solution to some of the differences, but "it takes two parties to reach an agreement." As "the ultimate responsibility" in reaching a solution rests with the workers, port operators and shipping companies they should keep in mind the well being of the country.
An official in Washington with the AFL-CIO, to which the ILWU is affiliated, was unable to give a prepared comment to the president's action in seeking the cooling off period.
"We were expecting something different," the official, who requested anonymity, said. "We thought we had a deal."
The dispute mainly centers on the introduction of new technology at the ports to speed up and improve cargo handling, and demands by the unions for guarantees that new technology will not lead to lay offs or undermine unionization.
The president -- flanked by Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao -- recited a list of affected industries, including agriculture, automotive manufacturing and retail.
Harm was also being done to American consumers, he said.
U.S. ports he added, were vital to U.S. defense, since ships were needed to carry supplies to troops and defense contractors needed parts and equipment for goods destined for America's armed forces.
In fact, longshoremen continue to handle military cargo, as they have cargo destined for Alaska and Hawaii, which are dependent on imports.
"Hundreds of billions of potential dollars in trade is sitting idle," Bush said. "We cannot afford it."
Earlier negotiations between the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association had bogged down and Bush on Monday took the first step in invoking the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act --creating a board of inquiry to assess if the stalemate could be resolved.
The act was last pursued by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 to resolve a coal miners' strike, but the court declined to issue the order. A court injunction was later obtained instead.
The last port strike on the West Coast occurred in 1971 and lasted 134 days.
Since the lockout produce aboard ships and in storage bins has been rotting, businesses are doing without ordered parts and equipment and retailers have had to resort to air freighting goods for the holiday season, adding new costs that will be passed on to consumers.
The 29 ports - from Southern California to the Canadian border, handled $260 billion worth of goods in 2001, according to the PMA.
Bush, in announcing the earlier panel appointment, said if the lockout continued, it would "imperil national health and safety.
The contract between the ILWU and PMA expired July 1, but the two sides have been operating under short-term agreements since.
The president's panel, in its findings released Tuesday, said, "On Sept. 26, the ILWU instructed its members to engage in what the ILWU terms a "safety program," in part to pressure the PMA in negotiations."
"The safety program substantially reduced the workers' output. The PMA asserts that productivity fell by 60 percent because of this conduct," it said. "On Sept. 27, the PMA responded with economic pressure by locking out the bargaining unit. That shut down the West Coast ports."
The panel that after hearing both sides in the dispute and viewing their submissions, it believed no settlement could be forthcoming soon, thus opening the way for the administration to seek the 80-day cooling off order.
"We believe that the seeds of distrust have been widely sown, poisoning the atmosphere of mutual trust and respect which could enable a resolution of seemingly intractable issues," it said in its report to the president. "For example, the parties have been unable to agree even on such matters as the length of proposed temporary contract extensions although both know that their standoff costs the nation billions of dollars.
"We have no confidence that the parties will resolve the West Coast ports dispute within a reasonable time."
The lock out couldn't come at a more critical time for retailers gearing up for the Thanksgiving and Christmas sales period.
President Bush said Tuesday the cooling off period he was seeking "was not a permanent solution."
"I expect both sides to put the concerns of our national health and safety first" and negotiate a settlement.
The ILWU's Stallone told UPI that a Labor Department lawyer had threatened the union with Taft-Hartley as early as last June, before the union contract with the PMA had even expired.
The PMA was not available for immediate comment.
Stallone said longshoremen would obey the law, but also warned the cooling off period would accomplish nothing.
"It is not going to change negotiations one bit," he said. "When the 80 days are up, we'll be back to where we started."Copyright © 2002 United Press International
Amen, sister!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Of course the union doesn't threaten anybody anytime! OOOOHHHHH, NOOOOOOOOO!
Put me down as PLEASED AS PUNCH.
My understanding is that it was the OWNERS that precipitated this crisis by locking out the unions.
This means the unions get to go back to work and continue their work slowdown which is how they were handling it before Bush intervened.
So how does this decision hurt the Unions? It seems to me that it helps. Unless the invocation of the act also prevents the work slowdown in some way?
A local union spokesman said that 80 days hence will be during the holidays--the slowest time for shipping. He said at that time, the owners would be less likely to settle. Sounded like an owner advantage, not necessarily a victory.
The sight of all those huge ships is perhaps a once in a lifetime event. My friends are taking pictures, to record it.
Absolutely. I doubt you could start just a tiny company to handle container ships. It is a rather capital intensive business.
I worked at Sea Land Service in Elizabethport, NJ..........more like THUGS R US
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.