Hi Scotty and John,

Tuesday I went to the Intl Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) library, spoke with the librarian and did some research. At this point, Im able to write about two aspects relating to the question I took on: that is, transportation generally and particularly developments at U.S. ports in determining a progressive industrial policy. For the labor commission next month, after I read the materials I got from the library and perhaps have a follow-up discussion with the librarian, I hope to be able to give a fuller picture.

First, at the three largest ports on the California coast Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland there is a convergence of interests between the labor movement, adjoining neighborhoods, the environmental community, and health professionals.

Joining together with sympathetic public officials, the clergy and other sectors, they have forced city and port authorities to come up with plans that address the environmental and health issues of workers at the port and people in the surrounding communities. The plan also addresses the inferior income and working conditions of truckers, opening the door to union organization.

While not identical, the original plans are similar. Under the plan, independent owner-operator truckers would become direct employees of trucking firms, thus coming under the protections of labor law. At the Oakland port, last summer 1,250 of the 1500 port truckers signed a petition supporting shifting to employee status. Needless to say, the Teamsters union, which has been spearheading this drive in conjunction with the truckers, would be in a more favorable position to organize the workers.

Unionized truckers would strengthen the already significant leverage that longshore and other organized workers have at the ports, the major arteries through which the bulk of commodities come in and out of the country. With just-in-time being the norm now in production and transportation, the power of organized workers specially in transportation is magnified. A study by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation estimated that the combined 10-day lockout of ILWU west coast longshore workers in 2002 and the subsequent 23-day backlog disrupted trade valued at $6.28 billion just at the Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles, illustrating how sensitive the global supply chain is to disruptions in the movement of cargo at just one node in the network (i.e., ports).

Under the plan, the employers would be responsible for upgrading and replacing trucks in order to meet more stringent environmental standards. In the PWW, Marilyn reported that at the Oakland port current soot levels in the truck cabs are ten times higher than those in neighborhoods several miles away. Truck diesel pollution is five times higher in the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the port than elsewhere in the area. One in five children has asthma and, while not documented, it is safe to assume that the threat of heart disease and cancer is much greater here.

Los Angeles is expected to go through with the plan as originally fashioned. But, port officials in Long Beach have broken with their counterparts in LA. In Long Beach, the plan allows owner-operator truckers to continue working as long as their vehicles meet environmental standards agreed in the original plan. Drivers with high overhead who clear on average anywhere between $8 and $12 an hour will be hard put to comply with these new requirements. A Long Beach commercial paper reports that labor, environmental, community forces and others were quick to reject the new plan, including the American Lung Association, which for years has pushed for cleaner port operations. At the same time, the American Trucking Association strongly backed the new plan and officials with the retail and shipping industry appeared pleased with the new Long Beach plan, according to the paper. Meanwhile in Oakland, the struggle of a very broad coalition also continues, as the flyer included in the email shows.

The following scattered ideas have not been researched but I think they may still be valuable.

According to the ILWU librarian, more research is needed on the relationship between major companies and investors in transportation and the relatively new smaller operations and contractors, and alsom on which are the sections of monopoly capital benefiting from the changes in infrastructure.

He said in the 70s and 80s shipping companies invested in transportation operations inland, like warehousing. Then they changed course and started divesting their inland operations and sub-contracting to other outfits. As we know, this is a way to get rid of previously unionized operations and to put the profit squeeze on smaller operations dependant on the shipping companies for their business. But, I suspect, it also serves to weaken the huge leverage unions have with just-in-time operations now prevailing in production and transportation.

The librarian said he suspects in transportation there will be a resurgence of the key role of railroad both as a way of affecting major economies in labor and fuel costs and of minimizing the impact of pollution (given the increasing pressures to go Green). He says the additional advantage for companies and investors in transportation shifting to railroad transport is that union and worker protections under the National Railway Act are inferior to the NLRA.

He also talked about two other trends that will need to be researched further. On the one hand, like in Portland, local public entities are putting distribution and harbor facilities in private corporate hands. On the other hand, like in Oakland, the semi-independent port authority there (appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council) is keeping port operations in public hands while giving shipping companies attractive tax breaks and other incentives (at public cost) as a way of keeping Oakland competitive among West Coast ports. The port authority is greatly expanding land availability and granting attractive leases to container warehousing operations.
Have a successful conference!

Comments