Seeking Level Field for Labor Talks

Regarding “U.S. Must Loosen Two Sides’ Tight Grip on Ports,” Oct. 16:

Why does the solution seem to be to tie the hands of American labor instead of considering that the Pacific Maritime Assn. may be too strong and should not be able to wield the power it has been using?

My husband has been a member of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union for 44 years and has seen many changes. My son has been a casual worker for the last five years; casuals have no union status. I hear from both what is really happening on the docks.

I have come to realize that the PMA is very good at public relations and has been able to slant the news its way. ILWU representatives come from the rank and file and are not as polished but are hard-working individuals.

What is the answer? Perhaps the individual companies should negotiate the work for themselves, not through the PMA.

What would this accomplish? If there were an impasse, only that one company would be affected, while other companies could continue business as usual. I think this solution would level the field.

Marilyn Cole-Heston

Los Alamitos

*

The fact is it was the PMA that intentionally drained the U.S. economy of billions of dollars merely to try to avoid paying a decent wage to an additional 100 workers the ILWU wanted to cover by their bargaining unit in exchange for accepting new job-killing technology in the ports.

The greed of the port owners is astonishing; the damage they have done to the U.S. as a whole is immense.

Randall Smith

San Diego

*

Although very serious, one 10-day disruption in 31 years is not cause to take the extreme legislative action proposed by James Flanigan.

These certainly are contentious negotiations. But the issues will be resolved with the simple help that the law currently offers: a federal mediator. With all due respect to Mr. Flanigan, his suggesting federalizing labor-management relations while using the inflammatory terms “future crippling disputes” and “future disasters” is excessive.

The ILWU’s Sept. 29 offer to extend the expired contract made the PMA’s use of a lockout completely unwarranted. Accepting that offer would have made any alleged slowdown an illegal act, and the cargo would have continued to flow.

Daniel Imbagliazzo

ILWU Local 13

Rancho Palos Verdes

*

It is important to note that because of the lock the ILWU has on the ports, prior contracts have resulted in the union getting its way with some ridiculous wage packages, work rules and other concessions by the ship companies.

Where else in this country does an organization exist where the only people who can get in are relatives or have close ties with members who sponsor their entry? You or I could not walk into the ILWU hall and get a job. It is a private club.

Where else can someone with a high school education or less work four hours, get paid for eight hours and at the end of the year have made more than $110,000 plus overtime, plus a benefit package in excess of $30,000 contributed 100% by the employers?

Chris Knopp

International Freight Transport

Baldwin Park

*

We must not let the federal government dictate what happens in the ports.

All the laws on the books today are designed to break strikes and get union labor back with the program and not hurting the American public.

The issue today, however, has nothing to do with union labor hurting anyone. This crisis was the result of the PMA conducting a well-planned and thought-out lockout of labor. The union has never once talked about conducting a strike.

You are advocating punishing the union (American citizens) for something the PMA (mostly foreign shipping lines, most of which are fully owned and operated by foreign governments) perpetrated on the American public.

John T. Counts

Rancho Palos Verdes