ILA Spurns ‘No-Strike Clause’ as Contract Talks Pivot to Automation
In the wake of a three-day port strike that forced a backlog of ocean freight on the East and Gulf Coasts, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) peeled back the curtain on some of its tentative agreement with the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) after returning to work.
The ILA confirmed Saturday that it negotiated a 61.5 percent wage increase spread over six years, which the union had demanded after the strike took place on Oct. 1. The USMX had offered 50 percent raise just ahead of the strike, as well as tripled employer contributions to worker retirement plans, but the ILA had rejected the deal.
More from Sourcing Journal
However, the union says it cannot take that raise immediately, or it would have to sign a “no-strike clause.” The union could strike again on Jan. 15 if a new deal isn’t ironed out. Although the current master contract was extended through that date, every member will receive a retroactive payment dating back to Oct. 1 if a new contract gets put in place.
“This would give the employers the leverage to block us from addressing other crucial issues that impact every member’s job security and future,” a note publicized Saturday by the ILA read. “By extending the [current] contract until January 15, we keep our ability to negotiate and fight for the other important matters that go beyond economics.”
The issues that still must be resolved include jurisdiction and automation protections, as well as demands for improved health care benefits and the full share of “container royalties”—payments made to longshoremen to compensate for the loss of jobs due to the use of containerized shipping.
According to the note, the ILA wants to secure jurisdiction protects so that union workers can continue to handle tasks like manning cranes and servicing equipment. The union wants to prevent employers from outsourcing those jobs to non-union workers or automated systems.
Jurisdiction was a central battle at the Port of Charleston’s Leatherman Terminal, in which there was a long-running dispute over whether ILA employees could work at the terminal. The ILA won that case after the Supreme Court declined hearing an argument from the South Carolina Ports Authority, with both the union and its employer later agreeing to share staffing.
A jurisdiction dispute at the Port of Seattle between two unions also held up the West Coast port negotiations ahead of their conclusion in June 2013.
Automation protections for the ILA remains the hot-button issue that has driven the most contentious part of the talks between the union and the USMX. Sources close to the talks have indicated that both parties will create an automation committee to form a go-forward plan, but the union hasn’t made any public statements on concessions.
“The fight against automation is not just about job preservation; it is about ensuring that ILA members continue to play an essential role in port operations,” the note read. “By extending negotiations, we aim to establish strong protections against the introduction of remote-controlled or fully automated machinery that threatens our work jurisdiction.”
During the negotiations, ILA president Harold Daggett was adamant that the union sought a total ban on the use of automated equipment at the ports.
While the current contract’s terms, the ports were not allowed to use fully automated terminals or equipment, with the technology defined as “machinery/equipment devoid of human interaction.” The terms also require that the terminals didn’t implement semi-automated equipment or technology “until both parties agree to workforce protections and staffing levels.”
The ILA is angling to change some of this verbiage, while the USMX has sought to keep the terms as is.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, all 10 of the largest U.S. container ports are currently using some form of automation technology to process and handle cargo. The GAO reported at least one terminal at each port uses it to track and communicate information on container movements. Five of the ports were on the East and Gulf Coasts, including New York & New Jersey, Savannah, Houston, Virginia and Charleston.
Beyond the automation concerns, the union says it is “standing firm” to bring container royalties fully within its control, stating that the USMX has sought to claim more of a share of the funds.
The ILA and USMX jointly created and maintained the Container Royalty Central Collection Fund to distribute the payments, but the union is seeking 100 percent of the pay from the fund. ILA longshoremen currently receive royalties based on how much tonnage they process in a year at their port.
“These funds were intended to be a wage supplement paid out to our members, not to be shared with employers,” the ILA contended after the strike took place.
Solve the daily Crossword
