Feed aggregator

Arbitrator orders ILWU longshoremen back to Port of Portland after walkout supporting Honduran dockworkers
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/03/longshore_workers_w...
Hondurans Carlos Alvarado, left, and Glen Galdames picket outside Terminal 6 Tuesday. Longshore workers walked off their jobs at the Port of Portland's container terminal Tuesday in solidarity with the Hondurans, who are members of the SGTM union involved in a dispute with a Central American subsidiary of Portland terminal operator ICTSI Oregon Inc.'s Filipino parent company. (Stephanie Yao Long/The Oregonian)
PrintBy Richard Read | rread@oregonian.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on March 04, 2014 at 2:29 PM, updated March 04, 2014 at 11:49 PM

An arbitrator ruled that a picket line that caused longshore workers to leave their jobs at thePort of Portland's container yard Tuesday violated contract terms, and ordered them back to work, according to ICTSI Oregon Inc., the terminal operator.

Jan Holmes, an arbitrator jointly hired by the longshore union and the West Coast employers association, said the picket line established by Honduran dockworkers was not "bona fide," therefore longshoremen were not entitled to honor it, said Michael Garone, a lawyer and spokesman for ICTSI Oregon.

A new longshore crew reported to work as Holmes made her ruling, so Terminal 6 was up and running again Tuesday evening, Garone said. Holmes could not be reached late Tuesday to confirm her decision. A spokeswoman for theInternational Longshore and Warehouse Union did not respond to a request to confirm and comment on the ruling. A Pacific Maritime Association spokesman had no information on the ruling Tuesday night.

Dockworkers from Honduras began picketing the embattled North Portland cargo terminal Tuesday morning, saying they'd been denied jobs back home by a subsidiary of ICTSI's parent company. All longshore workers at the terminal walked out at midday, according to ICTSI.

It was one of the few walkouts at the terminal in 21 months of turmoil that has included multiple lawsuits, alleged longshore slowdowns, bans by a federal judge on slowdowns, skipped port calls by international cargo vessels, snarled freight, threats by Hanjin Shipping Co. to abandon Portland, mile-long truck lines, interventions by Gov. John Kitzhaber and numerous grievances, arbitrations and accusations of unfair labor practices.
The work stoppage was another setback for attempts by the Port of Portland to persuade Hanjin to continue calling on Terminal 6. Hanjin executives in Seoul are watching Portland developments closely as they decide whether to keep the Port in their trans-Pacific loop. Thousands of businesses in Oregon and beyond depend on the terminal for containers of exports and imports, which would cost extra to truck to and from other ports if Hanjin pulled out.

Elvis Ganda, chief executive of ICTSI Oregon, said in a written statement that the actions by the ILWU "appear to demonstrate its continued intent to drive Hanjin out of Portland and to close Terminal 6."

Jennifer Sargent, an ILWU spokeswoman, disputed wording included in a bulletin issued by ICTSI Terminal 6 gate managers who said longshore workers "walked off the job" after lunch. "A union picket line was established at T-6 and the Portland longshoremen honored it as they would any other such picket line," she said in an email.

The picketing by Central American union members occurred only in Portland, and not at any other West Coast port, because it's the only place in the United States where ICTSI operates a terminal.

Ganda called the work stoppage "misguided and illegal." But in her ruling, Holmes said the union had not engaged in an illegal work stoppage as defined by the Pacific Coast Longshore Contract, Garone said.

Instead Holmes ruled Tuesday's picket was not bona fide, he said, meaning it was not a true picket as described by the contract. Therefore longshoremen could not honor it.

To be bona fide, a picket must be staged at the premises of an employer with which the union is engaged in a dispute over wages, hours or working conditions of employees, a majority of whom the organization represents. The picketing Hondurans had no labor dispute with ICTSI Oregon, which does not employ them.

Ganda said issues at other terminals that may be affiliated with ICTSI Oregon's parent company had no connection to ICTSI's Portland operations.

"However, when the ILWU seeks to shut down Terminal 6 over an alleged dispute taking place thousands of miles away, it causes severe disruptions which hurt carriers, local truckers, shippers and members of the local community, companies and individuals that have no involvement with the issue being raised," Ganda said.

An ILWU news release issued Tuesday said that ICTSI's parent company in the Philippines, International Container Terminal Services Inc., was awarded a 29-year concession agreement in Puerto Cortes, Honduras, on Feb. 1, 2013. The Manila company established a Central American subsidiary, Operadora Portuaria Centroamericana, known as OPC.
According to the ILWU, OPC imposed "a sham labor agreement" that was approved by the Honduran government and ICTSI, but never voted on or approved by a majority of port workers. The companies began hiring workers under the agreement in December 2013, according to the ILWU, and proceeded to fire large numbers of union supporters, sparking a protest Feb. 26.

"The Honduran military responded to the protest by invading the port and arresting approximately 129 workers, who were charged with 'terrorism' and 'damaging the national economy,'” the ILWU release said. "One union leader has had to flee the country after his family members were attacked, killing one and injuring others."

Ganda, of ICTSI, said in his statement that the ILWU's news release contained "multiple inaccurate statements about this alleged foreign dispute." He didn't detail the alleged inaccuracies.

Union president opts out

Meanwhile Robert "Big Bob" McEllrath, ILWU International president in San Francisco, wrote a letter this week to Kitzhaber, saying the union will not take part in an independent review that the governor asked the Port to conduct of Terminal 6 operations.

McEllrath's letter dated Monday said Kitzhaber departed from his "neutrality and judiciousness" regarding the labor disputes when he said longshore productivity levels had been low except for on Super Bowl Sunday, when container movement abruptly sped up ahead of the kickoff. McEllrath said ICTSI managers arranged the yard efficiently that day to guarantee high productivity, then fed the story of longshoremen's sudden fast work to The Oregonian.

McEllrath told Kitzhaber that the Port, as a partisan entity in legal proceedings, could not be trusted to spearhead an independent review. "With all due respect, Governor," McEllrath wrote, "you have unwittingly initiated a sham review process that both the Port and ICTSI will use to strengthen their legal claims against the ILWU."

-- Richard Read

RWU Resolution in Support of Limits to Long & Heavy Trains
http://ecology.iww.org/node/360
Adopted by the RWU Steering Committee February 4th, 2014

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.

Whereas, the North American rail carriers continue to run longer and heavier trains each year, and have expressed their desire to run even longer trains in the future; and

Whereas, the last year has witnessed a number of long and heavy train wrecks, resulting in a loss of life and property, wholesale evacuations, injured train crews and environmental devastation; and

Whereas, the rail carriers have a professed interest in operating such long and heavy trains as a way to perceived savings on fuel costs, motive power and labor costs; and

Whereas, rather than face the reality of the situation, the rail carriers and law makers choose to focus on irrelevant issues like inward facing cameras; and

Whereas, such overly long and heavy trains create a dangerous and unsafe situation for a number of reasons:

1 -- the longer and heavier the train, the more difficult it is and the more time it takes to slow or to stop such a train;
2 -- the longer and heavier the train, the more slack action is in the train, increasing run-ins and run-outs, increasing the potential for break-in-twos, emergency brake applications and derailments;
3 -- the longer and heavier the train, the more severe the train wreck if and when such a train does derail;
4 -- the longer and heavier the train, the more difficult it is for the train crew to safely run, inspect, work, test, and otherwise get such a train over the road.
5 -- such trains tend to make for longer tours-of-duty for train crews, resulting in fatigue, more time at the away-from-home terminal, and a lower quality of work and home life;
6 – such trains are more likely to have air brake problems, especially in cold weather;
7 -- the longer and heavier the train, the greater likelihood of blocked road and pedestrian crossings, creating a best an inconvenience to the public and at worst an inability to provide emergency services when needed;
8 -- these blocked crossing in effect “train” motorists and the public to “run the gates” to avoid being blocked for long periods, resulting in grade crossing accidents and fatalities.

Therefore, Be it Resolved that Railroad Workers United opposes any expansion of the current length and tonnage of existing trains; and

Be it Further Resolved that RWU supports a reduction in length and tonnage of already existing trains, especially those hauling hazardous materials, traversing steep grades and /or cold temperatures; and

Be it Finally Resolved that RWU urge the unions in the U.S., Canada and Mexico to further these ends legislatively and/or contractually.

Tags:
railroad workers
Railroad Workers United
rail
health and safety
workers' safety

Original Page: http://ecology.iww.org/node/360

From the Boston IWW

Four workers at Insomnia Cookies' Cambridge store went on strike on August 19, protesting poverty pay and wretched working conditions, and demanding $15/hr, health benefits and a union at their workplace. The company illegally fired all four. For the next six months strikers, IWW members, allies, and student organizations at both Harvard and Boston University held pickets, marches, rallies, forums, phone blitzes, and organized boycotts, while workers continued organizing at both the Cambridge and Boston locations. The union also pursued legal charges through the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

read more

March 4, 2014: A March 3 SEC filing revealed that James Welch, CEO of YRCW, sold 38,000 shares of company stock and made $956,840. The filing also noted that Welch owns 329,157 shares at a current value of over $8 million.

The SEC document is available here.

Meanwhile, Harry Wilson, YRCW Board member appointed by James Hoffa for the IBT, has resigned from the Board after he got $5.5 million for his role in the Teamster concession vote and the re-financing deal. Hoffa will now be able to nominate a replacement to the YRCW board.

Wilson made millions more in fees of $250,000 per month and for earlier services.

A report on Wilson’s resignation is available here.

Prior to the concession vote, Welch and other upper management reps were challenged by Teamsters to prove their equal sacrifice. Their answer was they were working for much less than their market value.