Ten Reasons to Vote No on
This article was posted on the
Internet on Dec. 23, 2002, by a member of the International Longshore and
Warehouse Union (ILWU). The PMA is the Pacific Maritime Association, the
employers’ group that the ILWU has to deal with in labor disputes involving its
- It was negotiated with a Taft-Hartley gun pointed at
our union’s head.
- It widens the gap between skill (now skill III) and
hold/dockmen, dividing our workforce into haves and have-nots.
- Dropping PMA-funded liability for the pension, from
85% to 65%, gives them a windfall without getting the union anything in
- It gives up clerk (i.e., longshore division)
jurisdiction. Who’s next?
- A six-year contract is too long given the shaky
economy and rapid changes in the maritime industry.
- There is no cost-of-living clause to protect our
living standard despite the instability in the economy.
- It undermines the coastwide contract by pitting local
against local with port differentials on wages, flex starts, and
guarantees (i.e., 2 extra shifts or 20 additional hours to LA crane
operators). It’s what PMA and Bush want to weaken us in order to divide us
into port-by-port bargaining units. It has nothing to do with local
autonomy. It’s PMA hegemony.
- There is no coastwide crane gang manning to reinforce
our coastwide union standards.
- The big increase in the pension is a cynical “buyout”
ploy to get the longshoremen who want to retire to vote against the
younger longshoremen who have a future of work on the waterfront.
- President Bush, PMA’s Miniace, and ILWU President
Spinosa think it’s a good deal!