East Coast Longshoremen Talks Resuming; Northwest Rejects Grain Deal
Longshoremen and shipping interests on the East and Gulf coasts are returning to last-minute talks, as longshoremen at a half-dozen Pacific Northwest ports vote overwhelmingly to reject what was called a "last, best and final" contract offer by the Pacific Northwest Grainhandlers Association.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The East/Gulf coast longshoremen, members of the International Longshoremens Association, could walk off the jobs Dec. 29 when their current contract extension ends. But the two sides have agreed to meet with Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service Director George Cohen, who called a meeting of the ILA and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (here). "The parties have agreed to attend," FMCS said in a statement, but, "due to the sensitive nature of the negotiations FMCS will have no additional comment at this time" and neither did the parties.
But, before the FMCS intervention, the USMX issued a statement (here) saying that "to avoid strike, both sides should commit to reaching agreement." It said the ILA voted to authorize a strike and the "potential consequences of that decision could have serious consequences for the nation's economy as well as for ILA members themselves, making it more important than ever that both sides work to reach an agreement and avert any disruption at the ports."
USMX said a "shutdown would wreak havoc on manufacturers, retailers, farmers and others who depend on the ports to move their supplies and products. They include large America's retailers like Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot that rank among the country's top importers as well top exporters like Weyerhaeuser, DuPont and Cargill."
It also said ILA's 14,500 members would lose nearly $5 million in wages and benefits for each day they're out of work. It also gave the example of the Port of New York and New Jersey, where it said a longshoremen strike "could also put at risk the nearly 171,000 jobs directly related to New York and New Jersey port operations," beyond just those of the striking longshoremen. For all the ports potentially affected by a strike, it said more than half a million other workers who "depend directly on port operations for their livelihood."
In the Pacific Northwest, parties predicted that the longshoremen rejection of the contract offer could risk a lockout, and that the grain shippers might switch to non-union workers. But the union (here) said it's prepared to file unfair labor practice charges that could force the employers to pay back wages after a lockout. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union also suggested more bargaining dates, but there was no immediate indication that talks would resume. Terminal owners issued a statement Dec. 24 saying they were “disappointed” by the vote and were reviewing their options. About 3,000 ILWU members are involved.