Jump to content
Paulding.com

Port workers union holds US economy hostage


Recommended Posts

You missed my entire point. It is apparent the longshoremen will hold the economy hostage in order to get what they want. So far they have rejected six offers for a new contract. Now imagine what will happen if they go on strike and how that will affect the country.

You missed MY entire point. It is apparent that the owners of the shipping companies and associated businesses will hold the economy hostage in order to get what they want and that is to not deal fairly with the workers to increase their profits. Now imagine what will happen if the owners continue to not deal fairly with the workers and how that will affect the country.

See the hypocrisy?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed my entire point. It is apparent the longshoremen will hold the economy hostage in order to get what they want. So far they have rejected six offers for a new contract. Now imagine what will happen if they go on strike and how that will affect the country.

 

 

Unlike you, EZ, they are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

 

Do you not come on here and spout your belief's? :drinks:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed MY entire point. It is apparent that the owners of the shipping companies and associated businesses will hold the economy hostage in order to get what they want and that is to not deal fairly with the workers to increase their profits. Now imagine what will happen if the owners continue to not deal fairly with the workers and how that will affect the country.

See the hypocrisy?

The shipping companies would lose millions of dollars each day of a strike. Do you really think the shipping companies are not negotiating in good faith and that it's the union that is trying to take advantage of that?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The shipping companies would lose millions of dollars each day of a strike. Do you really think the shipping companies are not negotiating in good faith and that it's the union that is trying to take advantage of that?

The employees are losing their ability to provide for their families each day should a strike happen. Do you really think the employees are not negotiating in good faith and that it's the shipping companies that are trying to take advantage of that?

 

See the hypocrisy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting article on how the union is slowing down work on the docks. They also want to have the authority to fire any arbitrator who they feel is ruling against them. Arbitrators are decided upon by both the union and management. In other words it appears the union only want arbitrators who will agree to their contract demands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last contract offer made to the longshoreman included a 3% raise; the maximum pension would rise to $88,800 a year. PMA said its offer also met the ILWU’s two biggest demands: maintenance of its so-called Cadillac health benefits — which feature no worker premiums, no co-pays and no deductibles for in-network benefits — as well as jurisdiction over maintenance and repair of truck chassis.

 

Source

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting article on how the union is slowing down work on the docks. They also want to have the authority to fire any arbitrator who they feel is ruling against them. Arbitrators are decided upon by both the union and management. In other words it appears the union only want arbitrators who will agree to their contract demands.

 

 

Could, would, or should, don't mean anything, EZ! they are not like you. Like I said, "they are putting their money where their mouth is."

$37K Dock Worker Average Salary at Pacific Maritime Association (7 Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting article on how the union is slowing down work on the docks. They also want to have the authority to fire any arbitrator who they feel is ruling against them. Arbitrators are decided upon by both the union and management. In other words it appears the union only want arbitrators who will agree to their contract demands.

You honestly believe the companies don't do similar things to get arbitrators that lean toward the benefit of the companies? That is why both sides are in the negotiation and both sides get their picks. In other words, it appears the companies only want arbitrators that will favor the management.

 

See the hypocrisy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Could, would, or should, don't mean anything, EZ! they are not like you. Like I said, "they are putting their money where their mouth is."

Who is putting their money where their mouth is Eddie?

You honestly believe the companies don't do similar things to get arbitrators that lean toward the benefit of the companies? That is why both sides are in the negotiation and both sides get their picks. In other words, it appears the companies only want arbitrators that will favor the management.

 

See the hypocrisy?

I have never seen or heard of a union contract where only one side chose the arbitrator. In every case, I've seen where the arbitrator was a joint decision between the union and management.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is putting their money where their mouth is Eddie?

I have never seen or heard of a union contract where only one side chose the arbitrator. In every case, I've seen where the arbitrator was a joint decision between the union and management.

That is my point. Both sides influence the selection.

 

Here is an interesting article http://www.wsj.com/articles/west-coast-port-employers-suspend-some-operations-amid-labor-dispute-1423264257 that says the shipping companies are delaying the operations.

 

Don't be one-sided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is my point. Both sides influence the selection.

 

Here is an interesting article http://www.wsj.com/articles/west-coast-port-employers-suspend-some-operations-amid-labor-dispute-1423264257 that says the shipping companies are delaying the operations.

 

Don't be one-sided.

When both sides have to come to an agreement on the selection of an arbitrator, they are selecting one who each side can agree will be fair and unbiased. When the union wants the authority to fire an arbitrator, they are wanting one who will side completely with them.

 

From our article:

Terminal operators at ports up and down the West Coast say they will temporarily suspend some operations for the weekend, citing “ongoing union slowdowns that have allegedly “brought the ports almost to a standstill.”

 

 

Judge: Longshoremen’s work slowdowns violate court order.

The union used the same tactic during negotiations in 2012.

Edited by El Zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

When both sides have to come to an agreement on the selection of an arbitrator, they are selecting one who each side can agree will be fair and unbiased. When the union wants the authority to fire an arbitrator, they are wanting one who will side completely with them.

 

From our article:

 

Judge: Longshoremen’s work slowdowns violate court order.

The union used the same tactic during negotiations in 2012.

 

 

Slowed container movement is not a work stoppage.

 

Raise their average to average more than 37K, and they will speed up.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

When both sides have to come to an agreement on the selection of an arbitrator, they are selecting one who each side can agree will be fair and unbiased. When the union wants the authority to fire an arbitrator, they are wanting one who will side completely with them.

 

From our article:

 

Judge: Longshoremen’s work slowdowns violate court order.

The union used the same tactic during negotiations in 2012.

You really don't see my point at all, do you? I'm saying that both sides are doing the very same thing, and that both sides are jockeying for positional advantage. You are only acknowledging one side and didn't even admit that salary is not the same as total cost of employment. But hey, I'm sure you are heavily involved in the negotiations and know all the details about all this. Like a marriage, when one person is always right, there is soon to not be a marriage at all. Talking with you is like a marriage where one person is always right, and that person is you. Like any marriage with that type of person, it makes it impossible to stay. So you win. Enjoy talking to yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Slowed container movement is not a work stoppage.

 

Raise their average to average more than 37K, and they will speed up.

Most of the time you don't make any sense at all. They make more than $70K a year now. Before contract negotiations began, they did more work. Now they are only performing nearly half of what they had been doing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the time you don't make any sense at all. They make more than $70K a year now. Before contract negotiations began, they did more work. Now they are only performing nearly half of what they had been doing.

The other side of this is that the shipping companies are slowing down the docking in order to make the charge of a work stoppage, like the article I gave. Which side is right? Probably both are doing it.

 

See the hypocrisy you're arguing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't see my point at all, do you? I'm saying that both sides are doing the very same thing, and that both sides are jockeying for positional advantage. You are only acknowledging one side and didn't even admit that salary is not the same as total cost of employment. But hey, I'm sure you are heavily involved in the negotiations and know all the details about all this. Like a marriage, when one person is always right, there is soon to not be a marriage at all. Talking with you is like a marriage where one person is always right, and that person is you. Like any marriage with that type of person, it makes it impossible to stay. So you win. Enjoy talking to yourself.

I know salary is only part of a wage compensation package. I misread the article; however you can't deny making $75K a year is damn good money and much more than the median income in this country, which according to the US Census Bureau is $59,939 for 2014.

 

My point about this whole labor dispute involving the longshoremen has been their several of their demands are outrageous and I find their methods of slowing down work to be unethical.

 

I find your comment regarding marriage to be hilarious. You come on here thinking you're always right.

The other side of this is that the shipping companies are slowing down the docking in order to make the charge of a work stoppage, like the article I gave. Which side is right? Probably both are doing it.

 

See the hypocrisy you're arguing?

U.S. District Judge Michael Simon has found the International Longshore and Warehouse Union to be in contempt of court for violating a previous injunction against slowdowns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the time you don't make any sense at all. They make more than $70K a year now. Before contract negotiations began, they did more work. Now they are only performing nearly half of what they had been doing.

 

 

Still not a violation of a court order. A work stoppage has not occurred.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Still not a violation of a court order. A work stoppage has not occurred.

Let me make this real simple for you. The judge had issued an injunction to prevent the workers from conducting a work slowdown. The workers did it anyway. That's why the judge said they violated the court order. Got it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Final Battle In The War Against Unions Is Underway

 

This is not a new war – the battle against private sector unions has been waged successfully for years as the density of unionization in America has been in steady decline since 1955 when the provisions of the union busting, Taft-Hartley Act (passed in 1947) took root.

 

To get some sense of just how successful the effort to destroy the union movement in the private sector has been, check out this statistic -

According to Harvard University expert Elaine Bernard, in 1973, one in every four private sector workers in this country was a union member.

Today, just one in thirteen carries a union card.

With this in mind, does anyone imagine that it is a coincidence that worker wages have been falling or remained stagnant since 2001? Is it also coincidental that in this time of union decline, the amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of the top 1% is the largest since 1929, the time in our history immediately preceding the era when the modern union movement was taking hold?

Without the collective bargaining powers that unions bring as the only real offset to corporate greed and without the organizing strength unions bring to political action, there will be no counter-balance to corporate power. I promise that you will not like the result if our unions should disappear – even if you are not a union member.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/18/the-final-battle-in-the-war-against-unions-is-underway/3/

Edited by CitizenCain
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Final Battle In The War Against Unions Is Underway

 

This is not a new war – the battle against private sector unions has been waged successfully for years as the density of unionization in America has been in steady decline since 1955 when the provisions of the union busting, Taft-Hartley Act (passed in 1947) took root.

 

To get some sense of just how successful the effort to destroy the union movement in the private sector has been, check out this statistic -

According to Harvard University expert Elaine Bernard, in 1973, one in every four private sector workers in this country was a union member.

Today, just one in thirteen carries a union card.

With this in mind, does anyone imagine that it is a coincidence that worker wages have been falling or remained stagnant since 2001? Is it also coincidental that in this time of union decline, the amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of the top 1% is the largest since 1929, the time in our history immediately preceding the era when the modern union movement was taking hold?

Without the collective bargaining powers that unions bring as the only real offset to corporate greed and without the organizing strength unions bring to political action, there will be no counter-balance to corporate power. I promise that you will not like the result if our unions should disappear – even if you are not a union member.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/18/the-final-battle-in-the-war-against-unions-is-underway/3/

The following is a quote from page 2 of your article:

 

For decades, polls revealed that roughly 60% of the American public supported the union movement. However, in 2009, the support began to drop precipitously. By 2010, a Pew Center for the People and the Press survey showed that support had dwindled to just 41 percent.

 

The opinion piece was written by Rick Ungar, a liberal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A Liberal ?

 

Well then for christ sake it's obviously just a pack of lies.

He brings up a point about how union membership has seriously declined over the decades, but the reason he gives is his opinion was not based on facts or any statistical analysis to support his opinion.

Edited by El Zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed my entire point. It is apparent the longshoremen will hold the economy hostage in order to get what they want. So far they have rejected six offers for a new contract. Now imagine what will happen if they go on strike and how that will affect the country.

Good luck finding anything that's still made in America!

 

You know the "company" has rejected six offers also? Typically both sides will sling crazy offers across the table that they know the other side can't and will not agree too. Until the threat of a strike is imminent. Then at the 11th hour they usually come up with a deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Still not a violation of a court order. A work stoppage has not occurred.

The court order stated the workers could not slow down work. They did just that and that's why the judge ruled they were in violation.

Good luck finding anything that's still made in America!

 

You know the "company" has rejected six offers also? Typically both sides will sling crazy offers across the table that they know the other side can't and will not agree too. Until the threat of a strike is imminent. Then at the 11th hour they usually come up with a deal.

Have you looked at what the offers were from the union? They don't want co-pays in health care premiums; they don't want any medical co-pays, and they don't want to have a deduction to meet before their health insurance kicks in. In other words, they don't want to pay a single penny towards the cost of their health care. That in my opinion is completely unreasonable.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The court order stated the workers could not slow down work. They did just that and that's why the judge ruled they were in violation.

Have you looked at what the offers were from the union? They don't want co-pays in health care premiums; they don't want any medical co-pays, and they don't want to have a deduction to meet before their health insurance kicks in. In other words, they don't want to pay a single penny towards the cost of their health care. That in my opinion is completely unreasonable.

Typical negations. One side ask for heaven and the other side offers hell. They will negotiate back and forth with a ton of posturing and end up somewhere around industry standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know salary is only part of a wage compensation package. I misread the article; however you can't deny making $75K a year is damn good money and much more than the median income in this country, which according to the US Census Bureau is $59,939 for 2014.

 

My point about this whole labor dispute involving the longshoremen has been their several of their demands are outrageous and I find their methods of slowing down work to be unethical.

 

I find your comment regarding marriage to be hilarious. You come on here thinking you're always right.

U.S. District Judge Michael Simon has found the International Longshore and Warehouse Union to be in contempt of court for violating a previous injunction against slowdowns.

That they make more than the median income is irrelevant. If that is what the market demands for their skilled labor, then that is what they are to be paid. Negotiating for a higher salary is the way it works.

 

I never said their demands were outrageous or not. Can you tell us what the counter offer from the company is so we can tell if it is fair or not? The point is that I'm sure the companies are making it difficult on the workers during this time too. It's not just one side.

 

I never said I was right and am only saying that both sides are in negotiation. I'm saying both sides are saying things that are wrong. I'm saying both sides are posturing. I'm saying there is another side than the one side you're giving.

 

As for my marriage illustration, I say again that I don't think you're getting it. I am saying I am NOT entirely right on this because I am CERTAIN both sides are doing things that we don't know about. You are only giving one side.

 

Why I came back to answer this is beyond me because you are like talking to a robo call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That they make more than the median income is irrelevant. If that is what the market demands for their skilled labor, then that is what they are to be paid. Negotiating for a higher salary is the way it works.

 

I never said their demands were outrageous or not. Can you tell us what the counter offer from the company is so we can tell if it is fair or not? The point is that I'm sure the companies are making it difficult on the workers during this time too. It's not just one side.

 

I never said I was right and am only saying that both sides are in negotiation. I'm saying both sides are saying things that are wrong. I'm saying both sides are posturing. I'm saying there is another side than the one side you're giving.

 

As for my marriage illustration, I say again that I don't think you're getting it. I am saying I am NOT entirely right on this because I am CERTAIN both sides are doing things that we don't know about. You are only giving one side.

 

Why I came back to answer this is beyond me because you are like talking to a robo call.

Let's get something straight. I don't begrudge them at all for making above the national median income. What I don't like is the tactics the union uses like work slow downs to intentionally cause their employers to lose money. That's the mentality unions have that I cannot stand. I've seen that mentality come back and bite union members in the ass.

Edited by El Zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a United Association Plumber from Local Union 72 in Atlanta, I feel the necessity to chime in. I make good money, I have decent benefits and decent retirement. I know that no union will put its contractors out of business. The unions are aware if you bite the hand that feeds you, you get no more food. The contractors will always pocket a lot more than the workers. That is the balance. We as workers can only get so much before a contractor says screw you. If you think that a union dock worker makes allot more than they are worth, go work a dock. If you think any one makes more than they should, maybe a career move is in order.

 

When I joined the union I was asked. The owner of the contractor you work for makes millions every year, he has a private jet, several houses, a small island in the Caribbean, etc, do you think that is unfair? My answer was no, if I want that then I should try a different career. But he only has that because of people like me. I know I work not to make me money but his company. The minute I stop making his company money, is when he will stop reciprocating and I am unemployed. But he knows that I will lose his company money if I feel treated unfairly.

Now as far as the bribery, never seen it, or heard it. Been on a lot of union jobs. But human nature is weak. I know if I was trying to be bribed it would get ugly quick. I need something on a hoist it will be on there or the operator might come down with a head injury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When talking about Unions, I believe a distinction must be made between TRADE unions and LABOR unions. They are two different things.

 

Labor unions have no problems putting an employer out of business rather than give in. Look at what happened to Hostess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When talking about Unions, I believe a distinction must be made between TRADE unions and LABOR unions. They are two different things.

 

Labor unions have no problems putting an employer out of business rather than give in. Look at what happened to Hostess.

Back in the late 70s through the 80s, many manufacturing businesses moved from northern to southern states because of unions. When GM started the Saturn division, it built the plants in TN and not in any of the northern states for a reason; however, they did hire many laid of GM workers who agreed to relocate at their own expense, but there was no union. The startup costs would have been much higher had they opened in any northern state where there were GM plant operations. Those costs would have prevented them from starting the Saturn division had they not decided to operate from TN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated earlier there is an absolute distinction between Trade Unions and Labor Unions. I am ex Trade Union although I still carry a card. I can never get over the mentality of the worker who wants their employer to fail. By this I mean the wealth envy stick it to the "Man" rebel rousers. I have seen it many times in the trades and I have seen many examples in the national media concerning labor unions. The representatives and loudest complainers I usually encountered were the sorriest excuse for tradesman in the Local. How dumb do you have to be to realize if the "Man" goes broke you don't have a freaking job dumbass. Why do you think Detroit is the poster boy for failed cities? The entire economy was based on union workers who drove the auto makers not only out of the city but out of the country. There is a reason corporations are relocating first to Mexico now to the right to work states of the south. Don't blame the companies they have to be profitable or they do not exist. Can you people not get that through your heads. The concept is very simple. The non union auto plants that have sprung up through out the south offer some of the best wages and benefits in their perspective new homes. They cannot however pay some one a package worth $75 an hour to put tires on a car. It is not a substainable business model. Of course you could pay $100 k for a low end KIA if you are adamant about over paying workers. I understand my little response focuses on the UAW but you can use the same scenario using practically any other labor Union.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated earlier there is an absolute distinction between Trade Unions and Labor Unions. I am ex Trade Union although I still carry a card. I can never get over the mentality of the worker who wants their employer to fail. By this I mean the wealth envy stick it to the "Man" rebel rousers. I have seen it many times in the trades and I have seen many examples in the national media concerning labor unions. The representatives and loudest complainers I usually encountered were the sorriest excuse for tradesman in the Local. How dumb do you have to be to realize if the "Man" goes broke you don't have a freaking job dumbass. Why do you think Detroit is the poster boy for failed cities? The entire economy was based on union workers who drove the auto makers not only out of the city but out of the country. There is a reason corporations are relocating first to Mexico now to the right to work states of the south. Don't blame the companies they have to be profitable or they do not exist. Can you people not get that through your heads. The concept is very simple. The non union auto plants that have sprung up through out the south offer some of the best wages and benefits in their perspective new homes. They cannot however pay some one a package worth $75 an hour to put tires on a car. It is not a substainable business model. Of course you could pay $100 k for a low end KIA if you are adamant about over paying workers. I understand my little response focuses on the UAW but you can use the same scenario using practically any other labor Union.

 

And as long as we can hold on to the notion that corporations always have the best interest of their workers at heart, that they will always pay them in line with corporate profits that corporate greed is just a myth we can rest comfortably knowing that wages will remain as stagnant as they have for the last twenty years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep looking at this tread title and think it says "Pot Workers", and then thinking that if you keep Smoke away from some people in this country,,, you're going to get your A$$ kicked,,, I don't care what kind of strength there is in numbers,,, you're gettin your A$$ kicked!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep looking at this tread title and think it says "Pot Workers", and then thinking that if you keep Smoke away from some people in this country,,, you're going to get your A$$ kicked,,, I don't care what kind of strength there is in numbers,,, you're gettin your A$$ kicked!!!!

 

 

Your thoughts are a little off, papa!

 

These guys are not blowing smoke, nor sucking it in either.

 

With that said, there is money coming into this country that has nothing to do with smoke, (pot), A $1,000,000,000 at a whack.

 

While American corporations are busy at the shipping docks, we are starting to be able to go back to work in this country, because of the EB 5 program.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEB-5_visa&ei=sPDYVKKwOqzmsATY6IKADg&usg=AFQjCNGNdLssTfbzxOdD3-CPw_davNyl9Q&sig2=lKtPh2PjeyC5TEN5DN0FPA&bvm=bv.85464276,d.cWc

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It's simple; if we are going to be shipping Chinese products into the United States, while our workers are without jobs, it stands to reason that those ships need to be full of our products when they pull out.

 

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And as long as we can hold on to the notion that corporations always have the best interest of their workers at heart, that they will always pay them in line with corporate profits that corporate greed is just a myth we can rest comfortably knowing that wages will remain as stagnant as they have for the last twenty years.

 

Corporation- legal entity, usually a group of people, that has charter granting it certain legal powers generally given to individuals, as to sell property or enter into contracts.

 

Charity- generosity toward the needy, a welfare institution.

 

Maybe you have confused these two they do both start with C. This is from Webster's New World Dictionary I hope this helps clarify.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that corporations advance much charity to the Chinese people. But they don't want Chinese millionaires advancing any charity to the American people.

 

American Corporations desperately want the EB 5 program halted. They don't want the American people to gain access to jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...