SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
strikes
AFL-CIO Warns House GOP Not to Interfere With Longshoremen's Labor Battle
"Instead of calling for government intervention, a far more productive tact would be to press the companies to meet the workers' very reasonable demands," the AFL-CIO president said.
Sep 27, 2024
The president of the AFL-CIO sent a letter to House Republicans on Thursday asking them not to intervene in contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen's Association and the U.S. Maritime Alliance, which could lead to the first East Coast port strike since 1977 if a deal is not struck by October 1.
The letter came in response to another letter sent by Republican lawmakers to U.S. President Joe Biden on September 19, urging him to "find a reasonable resolution to these contract disputes" and to "utilize every authority at its disposal to ensure the continuing flow of goods" if a strike does occur.
"Averting a strike is the responsibility of the employers who refuse to offer ILA members a contract that reflects the dignity and value of their labor," AFL-CIO president Elizabeth H. Shuler wrote in response to the GOP representatives. "The fight for a fair contract for longshoremen is the entire labor movement's fight."
"The public strongly supports these front-line workers and their just demand for economic security."
A potential strike would see between 25,000 and 50,000 workers walk off the job on Tuesday at 36 locations along 14 East and Gulf Coast port authorities, including 10 of the busiest in North America.
The union wants substantial raises to cover the cost of inflation. While West Coast port workers make a base wage of $54.85, their East and Gulf Coast counterparts make only $39.
The ILA is also demanding better healthcare, and a promise not to install automated or semi-automated terminals at the ports. However, negotiations between the union and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) broke down in June when the ILA said that USMX had begun using an automated gate to allow trucks into ports, in violation of the current contract.
The union has since contacted USMX to discuss wage increases, but the company has not upped its offer.
"My ILA members are not going to accept these insulting offers that are a joke considering the work my ILA longshore workers perform, and the billion-dollar profits the companies make off the backs of their labor," ILA president and lead negotiator Harold J. Daggett said in a statement on Monday.
"The blame for a coast wide strike in a week that will shut down all ports on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts falls squarely on the shoulders of USMX," Daggett continued.
In their letter, the Republican representatives warned about how the strike "would result in delays and dire impacts to our supply chains, our economy, and the American consumer." They evoked the "supply-chain crisis" during the Covid-19 pandemic that was a major driver of inflation, saying that a one-week strike would cause a one-and-a-half month backlog.
However, Shuler said that the GOP letter made a strike—and its economic consequences—more likely, not less. That's because the leaning on Biden to use his authority to "ensure the continuing flow of goods," suggested Shuler, could reasonably be interpreted as a request for him to file a judicial injunction under the Taft-Hartely Act to stop a strike from taking place.
"History tells us that when companies can count on an injunction against a strike, they do not negotiate in good faith to reach an agreement. By even suggesting a possible injunction, your letter makes a deal less likely and a strike all the more likely," Shuler said.
This is especially the case because the Biden administration toldReuters earlier this month that it had "never invoked Taft-Hartley to break a strike and are not considering doing so now."
"Yet," Shuler told the representatives, "your letter tries to suggest otherwise, giving the companies reason to dig in their heels. Instead of calling for government intervention, a far more productive tact would be to press the companies to meet the workers' very reasonable demands."
Shuler defended the workers' rights to wages that keep pace with living costs as well as job security in a changing technological landscape.
"Like workers in many other industries—from hospitality to healthcare to film and television—they need fair contract provisions that protect their jobs from being eliminated by automation," Shuler said.
She also noted that the port workers had made significant sacrifices to keep the ports moving during the early years of Covid-19.
"Throughout the pandemic, longshore workers never took a day off, risking their health and lives to make sure shelves were stocked and the supply chain remained strong," Shuler wrote. "The public strongly supports these front-line workers and their just demand for economic security."
She continued: "It adds insult to injury to encourage USMX to provoke a strike rather than agree to a fair contract for the workers who kept food on the table and our economy running through the darkest days of the Covid-19 crisis."
The Transportation Trades Department (TTD) of the AFL-CIO also spoke out against government intervention in the negotiations.
"Relying on Taft-Hartley is not a winning strategy and should not be USMX's expected path to resolution," TTD president and scretary Greg Regan and Shari Semelsberger said in a statement. "The Biden-Harris administration has already stated, in their own words, 'We've never invoked Taft-Hartley to break a strike and are not considering doing so now.'"
Regan and Semelsberg added that USMX was to blame for the risk of a strike.
"Let us be clear: The employers, not the workers, have shirked their responsibility and punted labor negotiations to the 11th hour, when the damage to the public and the national supply chain would be most detrimental," they said. "While USMX seeks to cast blame on the frontline workers who move our supply chain, they are at fault."
"Remember this as they seek shelter from the disaster that they created," Regan and Semelsberg concluded.
This piece has been updated with a statement from the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We're Fighting for the Future': Boeing Machinists on Strike
"There are no safe planes without union machinists. If Boeing wants to restore its safety culture, its first order of business should be ensuring its workers are fairly compensated," said one senator.
Sep 13, 2024
"We're fighting for every family," said the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the union that represents about 33,000 workers at commercial plane manufacturer Boeing, on Friday, after its members voted to reject a tentative contract offered by the company and go on strike. "We're fighting for the future of Boeing."
The work stoppage began just after midnight on Friday after 95% of workers represented by IAM District 751 voted to reject the proposed contract and 96% authorized the strike. The support of just two-thirds of the members was needed to initiate the walkout.
On Sunday, IAM District 751 President Jon Holden had expressed optimism about the tentative deal, which included a 25% raise for workers over the life of the four-year contract, a reduction in healthcare costs for employees, and an increase in Boeing's contributions to members' retirement plans.
But Holden said the union's leadership would "protect and support" however members chose to proceed with the contract, whose terms fell short of the 40% raise they had originally demanded.
The last strike at Boeing lasted 57 days in 2008, and the contract that ended the strike has been extended twice since then—with the union making concessions that resulted in higher healthcare costs and an end to unionized workers' traditional pension program.
"Workers are extremely eager to claw back lost ground on wages at a moment of crisis for Boeing," said Lauren Kaori Gurley, labor reporter for The Washington Post.
The work stoppage comes as Boeing is working to increase airplane production amid questions about its safety standards and manufacturing capabilities following an incident in January in which a door panel blew out of a 737 Max jetliner when the plane was mid-flight.
The Federal Aviation Administration required Boeing to limit its production of 737 Max jets after the accident, until it could meet quality and safety benchmarks, but output at the company's Renton, Washington factory "is far behind where Boeing wants," The New York Times reported.
Joe Philbin, a mechanic at the Renton facility, told the Post that unionized workers have "a lot of leverage—why waste that?"
"This is about respect," Holden told members Thursday night. "This is about addressing the past, and this is about fighting for our future... Boeing has to stop breaking the law, has to bargain in good faith, and we will be back at the table whenever we can get there to drive forward on the issues that our members say are important."
In addition to federal investigations into Boeing's manufacturing and safety standards after the January incident, the U.S. Department of Justice in May said the company had failed to meet conditions of a deal that shielded it from criminal prosecution over two deadly plane crashes in 2018 and 2019.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said Boeing's ability to maintain workplaces that are safe for employees—and the public that relies on the comnpany's planes—hinges on its treatment of workers.
"There are no safe planes without union machinists. If Boeing wants to restore its safety culture, its first order of business should be ensuring its workers are fairly compensated and protected from retaliation," said Markey, expressing solidarity with the striking machinists.
The United Auto Workers and the Communications Workers of America also expressed support for IAM District 751.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UAW Threatens Strike, Accusing Stellantis of Contract Breach
"In our 2023 UAW contract with Stellantis, we won historic gains," said the union. "A year later, the company wants to go back on their commitments to Stellantis autoworkers. Our answer is simple: HELL NO."
Aug 19, 2024
The United Auto Workers made clear on Monday that its members are prepared to file formal grievances regarding automaker Stellantis' failure to follow through on its commitments in the union's historic contract last year—and warned that a strike by tens of thousands of autoworkers is an option if their demands are not met.
Stellantis, one of the Big Three automakers, informed the UAW that contrary to promises made in the union's collective bargaining agreement last year, it does not intend to reopen an assembly plant in Belvidere, Illinois by the end of this year.
"It will not begin stamping operations for the Belvidere Mega Hub in 2025 and it will not begin production of a midsize truck in Belvidere in 2027," reads the grievance that several UAW locals are preparing to file.
The union said in a statement that Stellantis "has been unreceptive in talks with the union to stay on track."
The failure to reopen the idled manufacturing hub could impact UAW members who work for Stellantis nationally, said the UAW, "as they will not have those jobs for transfer opportunities in the event of layoffs."
"In our 2023 UAW contract with Stellantis, we won historic gains, from life-changing wage increases to the reopening of Belvidere Assembly, and billions more in investment in American autoworkers," reads the union's website page announcing the grievance. "We also won the right to strike over product and investment commitments. A year later, the company wants to go back on their commitments to Stellantis autoworkers. Our answer is simple: HELL NO. Thousands of UAW members sacrificed on the picket line to win this contract, and we intend to enforce it, even if that means going back on strike."
Locals in Toledo, Ohio; Kokomo, Indiana; and Detroit are among those that are prepared to file the grievances; the locals represent tens of thousands of workers who will be able to authorize a strike after the grievance is filed under the Stellantis contract.
"On behalf of autoworkers everywhere, we're standing up against a company that wants to go back on its commitments and drive a race to the bottom at the expense of the American worker," said Shawn Fain, president of UAW.
The union issued a clear demand to Stellantis, calling on officials to immediately plan for and fund the launch of the Belvidere Mega Hub and stick to the timeline that was agreed upon for the Belvidere Stamping operation in 2025 and midsize truck production in 2027.
The UAW announced the possible upcoming strike days after releasing a video in which Fain accused Stellantis of price gouging and called on Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares to resign.
Tavares made $39.5 million last year—a 56% pay increase over 2022—despite drops in sales at the company and recent layoffs of hundreds of engineers and tech employees.
Stellantis, said Fain, has blamed autoworkers for its inability to move forward with the plan to reopen Belvidere Assembly.
"The problem isn't the little guys at the bottom," said Fain. "It's the big man at the top. If any autoworker did as piss-poor of a job as Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares, they'd be fired. The truth is, Stellantis doesn't want to invest in America."
"America has invested in Stellantis. Workers have invested in Stellantis. And consumers have invested in Stellantis. And they deserve better. It's time to put an end to corporate greed at Stellantis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular