Bush, Longshore Workers, and the Freedom to Fight for Good Jobs (Aug. 13, 2002)
Created by: Administrator,Last modification on 13 Aug 2002 [05:00 UTC]
By Ron Bigler
As contract talks between West Coast longshore workers and the shipping industry remain stalled, the Bush administration is threatening to prevent a strike by any means necessary.
Threatening to play national security and the limitless war on terroism as trump cards, Bush is seeking to brand the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and its members as un-American for not accepting an inferior contract.
At issue for the union is the shipping companies' plans to use technology that will eliminate jobs. The union's goal in the negotiations is to secure the job security of existing members and ensure that new jobs are covered by the ILWU contract. The union's members have been working without a new contract since July 1.
Unlike most workers in the United States, the 10,500 longshore workers on the West Coast have a significant amount of leverage in their industry thanks to a strong union and a master contract covering 29 ports along the West Coast. These workers handle an estimated $260 billion in cargo each year.
Although it has been quick to assert, however vaguely, that a port strike would create a national emergency, the reality is that the Bush administration would seek to prevent a strike no matter what.
Bush has already shown twice during contract negotiations for mechanics at Northwest Airlines and United that he is more than willing to use his power as president to block a strike and force workers into accepting an often inferior contract. Bush also threatened to block a strike by flight attendants at American Airlines.
Under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which governs labor relations in the railway and airline industries, the president can sign an executive order requiring a 30-day cooling off period to prevent workers from striking. The RLA also allows the president to ask Congress to impose a contract if both parties fail to reach an agreement. (More about the RLA.)
The Longshore Workers Union is covered under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and therefore subject to provisions under the Taft-Hartley amendments. As scholars have noted, the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act (1947) — which was enacted to weaken the power of union workers — has been interpreted in the courts in such a way that it is pretty easy for a president to declare that an impending strike would "imperil the national health," which then allows the president to seek an injunction preventing a strike for an 80-day period. (See sidebar)
Jimmy Carter was the last president to use the Taft-Hartley Act during a 1978 coal strike which he failed to prevent. Notably, Bill Clinton did not use the act to thwart the Teamsters strike against UPS in 1997. Since 1947, the Taft-Hartley act has been invoked 32 times:
Seeking an 80-day injunction, however, is not the only threat the Bush administration has made against the ILWU. In addition to calling on the Navy to unload cargo, the administration has also indicated that it might seek to break up the union into 29 separate bargaining units, thereby preventing a mass strike.
So far, other than referencing the war on terrorism and playing on fear, the Bush administration has not made a convincing argument for interfering in the longshore workers' contract negotiations. In fact, by showing a willingness to intervene, the Bush administration has strengthened the hand of the shipping companies and created an incentive for them not to settle. Why would the owners — whose patriotism is somehow not in question — concede to any of the union's demands when it knows Bush is eager to play the role of strikebreaker?
Despite Bush's rhetoric, delayed shipments to the Gap, Mattel and Home Depot hardly pose a threat to national security. Instead, the Bush administration might stop to consider how corporate-driven trade policies have wiped out manufacturing jobs and made the United States overly dependent on foreign imports. What if the rest of the world one day decides to stop selling us steel? Does is it matter if we have a U.S auto industry in the future? If it were cheaper to import water, then we'd probably even let our rivers disappear too.
Americans should not let Bush's hyperbole and fear mongering turn them against the longshore workers. Union members fighting for job security and decent lives do not pose a threat to our nation's health and security.
Corrected Aug. 15, 2002
As contract talks between West Coast longshore workers and the shipping industry remain stalled, the Bush administration is threatening to prevent a strike by any means necessary.
Threatening to play national security and the limitless war on terroism as trump cards, Bush is seeking to brand the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and its members as un-American for not accepting an inferior contract.
At issue for the union is the shipping companies' plans to use technology that will eliminate jobs. The union's goal in the negotiations is to secure the job security of existing members and ensure that new jobs are covered by the ILWU contract. The union's members have been working without a new contract since July 1.
Unlike most workers in the United States, the 10,500 longshore workers on the West Coast have a significant amount of leverage in their industry thanks to a strong union and a master contract covering 29 ports along the West Coast. These workers handle an estimated $260 billion in cargo each year.
Although it has been quick to assert, however vaguely, that a port strike would create a national emergency, the reality is that the Bush administration would seek to prevent a strike no matter what.
Bush has already shown twice during contract negotiations for mechanics at Northwest Airlines and United that he is more than willing to use his power as president to block a strike and force workers into accepting an often inferior contract. Bush also threatened to block a strike by flight attendants at American Airlines.
The Taft-Hartley Act |
| The president is authorized under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (aka the Taft-Hartley Act) to prevent a strike or lockout affecting all or a substantial part of an industry for 80 days when such a stoppage would "imperil the national health or safety." Technically, the president appoints a board of inquiry to report on the dispute, and the president can then petition a federal court to issue the injunction; neither party is under any duty to settle after this 80-day period but employees must vote before the end of the period as to whether they wish to accept their employer's final offer. |
Railway Labor Act |
| The president can invoke the Railway Labor Act to stop strikes affecting rail and air carriers for 60 days when such a dispute threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service." Similar to the Taft-Hartley Act, the president technically creates an emergency board that has 30 days to issue a report, and then the parties have a 30-day cooling-off period to consider the board's recommendations before resuming any stoppage. The Railway Labor Act allows the president to delay a stoppage affecting a commuter rail carrier for another 90 days if necessary. |
Under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which governs labor relations in the railway and airline industries, the president can sign an executive order requiring a 30-day cooling off period to prevent workers from striking. The RLA also allows the president to ask Congress to impose a contract if both parties fail to reach an agreement. (More about the RLA.)
The Longshore Workers Union is covered under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and therefore subject to provisions under the Taft-Hartley amendments. As scholars have noted, the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act (1947) — which was enacted to weaken the power of union workers — has been interpreted in the courts in such a way that it is pretty easy for a president to declare that an impending strike would "imperil the national health," which then allows the president to seek an injunction preventing a strike for an 80-day period. (See sidebar)
Jimmy Carter was the last president to use the Taft-Hartley Act during a 1978 coal strike which he failed to prevent. Notably, Bill Clinton did not use the act to thwart the Teamsters strike against UPS in 1997. Since 1947, the Taft-Hartley act has been invoked 32 times:
- 10 times by Truman
- 7 times by Eisenhower
- 6 times by Kennedy
- 6 times by Johnson
- 2 times by Nixon
- 1 time by Carter
Seeking an 80-day injunction, however, is not the only threat the Bush administration has made against the ILWU. In addition to calling on the Navy to unload cargo, the administration has also indicated that it might seek to break up the union into 29 separate bargaining units, thereby preventing a mass strike.
So far, other than referencing the war on terrorism and playing on fear, the Bush administration has not made a convincing argument for interfering in the longshore workers' contract negotiations. In fact, by showing a willingness to intervene, the Bush administration has strengthened the hand of the shipping companies and created an incentive for them not to settle. Why would the owners — whose patriotism is somehow not in question — concede to any of the union's demands when it knows Bush is eager to play the role of strikebreaker?
Despite Bush's rhetoric, delayed shipments to the Gap, Mattel and Home Depot hardly pose a threat to national security. Instead, the Bush administration might stop to consider how corporate-driven trade policies have wiped out manufacturing jobs and made the United States overly dependent on foreign imports. What if the rest of the world one day decides to stop selling us steel? Does is it matter if we have a U.S auto industry in the future? If it were cheaper to import water, then we'd probably even let our rivers disappear too.
Americans should not let Bush's hyperbole and fear mongering turn them against the longshore workers. Union members fighting for job security and decent lives do not pose a threat to our nation's health and security.
Corrected Aug. 15, 2002
© 2002 Labor Research Association
