On the heels of an abysmal unemployment report, striking clerical workers at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (CA) are threatening to put an even bigger damper on the nation’s already-sagging economy.
When members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 63 went out on Thursday, cargo continued to move through the ports. However, that is not expected to last.
“Most of the paperwork is processed in advance,” stated John Fageaux, president of the ILWU local.
Little progress was reported today in negotiations between shipping companies and striking clerical workers at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
The negotiating teams representing employers released a statement this afternoon accusing the union of “featherbedding.”
The term featherbedding refers to the union practice of either limiting output or requiring extra union workers than is necessary.
According to Stephen Berry, who is representing the shipping companies, union demands would “force the employers to hire temporary and permanent workers even when there is no work for them to perform.”
This is not the first time the ILWU has shut down the ports in California. In addition to its storied, radical job actions of the past (which includes the shutting down of all West Coast docks for ten hours in 1999 to demand freedom for convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), the ILWU struck for eight hours on May Day 2008 in protest of the war in Iraq.
In 2002, when it was alleged that the ILWU was engaging in slow down, the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) locked the longshoremen out until President Bush ordered the workers back to work through an injunction under the Taft-Hartley Act.
If the ILWU does, in fact, shut down the struck ports as is expected, or if the strike spreads to other ports, the ripple effect could be a staggering to the economy. Back during the 2002 dispute, the cost of a port shut down for 10-days was pegged at an astounding $20 billion. The longer it goes, as the stranglehold of imports tighten, the costs rise exponentially.
What accounts for the exponential growth in economic damage? First, low-value perishable products will lose their value. All those Washington apples and California table grapes waiting to leave, and all those bananas from Guatemala waiting to enter, might rot.
Of course, if the economic damage gets too severe, as Bush did under the Taft-Hartley Act, President Obama could seek an injunction to order an end to the strike for an 80-day “cooling off” period.
However, the dilemma for the President could be more about politics than the economic well-being of the country. If, for example, Obama invokes Taft Hartley on the ILWU, it would be an affront that could enrage the unions that the President and Democrats are depending on to do the heavy lifting during the mid-terms elections.
While the strike is still in its early stages, let us hope that it does not last long. We would hate to see this president put in the position of choosing between his union buddies for political gain and the economic health of the country. For some reason, we suspect the country would be on the losing end of that decision.