Port shutdown pledged despite union rejection - Polidicks

Port shutdown pledged despite union rejection December 08, 2011 FOX & AP [release]Occupy Wall Street protesters want to shut down ports up and down the West Coast on Monday in a bid to gum up the engines of global commerce. But organizers who are partly billing this effort as a show of solidarity with longshoremen have not won the support of the powerful union representing thousands of dock workers. The tension between the century-old International Longshore and Warehouse Union and a still-young protest movement has complicated an ambitious effort by Occupiers to build an identity that is bigger than their recently dismantled tent camps. Without the support of workers who make the docks run, the protesters will be forced to rely on sheer numbers and their own devices to blockade sprawling ports from San Diego to Alaska. Longshoremen spearheaded San Francisco's iconic 1934 general strike that ended with two strikers gunned down by police and a stronger contract for waterfront workers. Any action on behalf of longshoremen should also be led by the workers themselves, the union's current president said. "Support is one thing, organization from outside groups attempting to co-opt our struggle in order to advance a broader agenda is quite another," Robert McEllrath wrote in a Dec. 6 letter to ILWU locals. The key issue for targeting the ports is a longstanding dispute between longshoremen and grain exporter EGT at the Port of Longview along the Columbia River in Washington. The protesters say companies like EGT represent "Wall Street on the waterfront" and believe rank-and-file longshoremen support the shutdown, regardless of what union leaders say. Occupy groups in cities such as Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, Portland, Ore., Tacoma, Wash., Seattle, Anchorage and Vancouver plan to blockade their local ports. But under the terms of the ILWU contract, West Coast longshoremen cannot simply walk off the job en masse to support the shutdown, though individual union members can choose to exercise their First Amendment rights and not show up at the hiring hall that day. From its roots in the San Francisco general strike, the ILWU has a strong history of taking a stand on issues of the day, from civil rights to the Iraq War to apartheid in South Africa. One union member cited that tradition in calling for members to support the shutdown. "We don't cross community picket lines," longshoreman Clarence Thomas, a member of Oakland's Local 10 and a longtime community activist, said in an interview posted on the port shutdown website. "When people begin to do so, they have completely turned their backs on the ILWU's 10 guiding principles," one calling on longshoremen to respect every picket line "as though it were our own." Organizers say the shutdowns are meant to highlight what they see as abuses inflicted by wealthy companies taking place well beyond Wall Street itself. They also hope to show that Occupy activists can still muster a major national protest despite the scattering of their camps by police raids. "Even though there's not an encampment, there's still a huge movement," said Barucha Peller, who is part of the Oakland Occupy group that launched Monday's planned blockade and successfully forced a shutdown of the Port of Oakland in November. But Dan Coffman, president of ILWU Local 21, which represents the Longview longshoremen, said the movement does not speak for him and his workers. Blockade organizers in press releases and a video posted online have featured Coffman's appearance at an Occupy Oakland rally. Coffman said his trip to California was mainly to thank longshoremen there for sending money to support their picket lines in the EGT dispute. "As far as the shutdown of the ports, we have no involvement with that whatsoever — none," Coffman said. If longshoremen still come to work, Occupiers could have a tough time bringing commerce to a halt, since most major West Coast ports appear too big to completely block. Oakland could prove the exception: with one major entrance and exit, demonstrators already showed last month that they could close down one of the nation's busiest shipping centers. The Port of Oakland has taken out ads urging city residents not to support the shutdown, which port officials said would steer traffic to other ports and hinder its job-creation initiatives. In Southern California, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach together handle more than twice as much shipping container traffic as any other U.S. port. Rather than trying to shut down the entire complex along several miles of waterfront, protesters will target the shipping terminal of SSA Marine Inc., which is partly owned by an investment fund managed by Goldman Sachs. Protesters accuse the company of exploiting port truckers by classifying them as independent contractors instead of regular employees. Company spokesman Bob Watters said SSA leases trucks that meet the port's strict emissions standards to drivers who could not otherwise afford them. Support of the shutdown among the rank-and-file may not be put to the test in some cities if sizeable protests erupt. Under the terms of the longshoremen's contract, union officials say blockades by protesters could result in the declaration of unsafe working conditions, which would exempt workers from having to show up. The overnight shutdown of the Port of Oakland on Nov. 2 resulted from such a declaration. Whether or not Monday's protest draws enough participants to have that kind of impact could depend on how much backing the blockade effort gets from other unions. The November march on the Port of Oakland included a strong contingent from organized labor, and the day's general strike was publicly supported by Oakland's teachers union and the local chapter of the Service Employees International Union. SEIU Local 1021 has not said whether it will support Monday's port shutdown effort. Oakland teachers have voted to get behind it, said Oakland Education Association President Betty Olson-Jones, who added that she hopes the Occupy movement and organized labor can figure out how to join forces in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. "Now the hard work starts," she said. ___ Online: West Coast Port Blockade: [url]http://www.westcoastportshutdown.org[/url] Port of Oakland: [url]http://www.keeptheportopen.org[/url][/release] Source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/08/port-shutdown-pledged-despite-union-rejection[/url] Releated video: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKIWLwh_CKc&feature=g-u[/media]

cant you use an actual news source, seeing as fox news is classified as entertainment

[QUOTE=viperfan7;33637393]cant you use an actual news source, seeing as fox news is classified as entertainment[/QUOTE] Classified as such by whom? I agree they can often be disingenuous, but they report the news same as MSNBC or other networks.

[QUOTE=Ridge;33637416]Classified as such by whom? I agree they can often be disingenuous, but they report the news same as MSNBC or other networks.[/QUOTE] But really really really badly.

[QUOTE=Ridge;33637416]Classified as such by whom? I agree they can often be disingenuous, but they report the news same as MSNBC or other networks.[/QUOTE] They registered themselves as entertainment when they were made. So technically they aren't a news channel.

Fox news also won a case saying they can lie on television because they are an entertainment network

[QUOTE=viperfan7;33637393]cant you use an actual news source, seeing as fox news is classified as entertainment[/QUOTE] They're terrible but they aren't "classified" as entertainment [editline]9th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=darkrei9n;33637425]They registered themselves as entertainment when they were made. So technically they aren't a news channel.[/QUOTE] can you link to this. register with who?

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;33637425]They registered themselves as entertainment when they were made. So technically they aren't a news channel.[/QUOTE] And when it was made, cocaine was registered as a miracle drug that could cure all your ails.

And there we go, nobody caring about the Occupy Protesters planning to shutdown shipping ports during the busy shopping season.

If the unions aren't in support of it, does that mean Fox and the Republican Party are in favor of it? My brain hurts, normally the GOP doesn't support the unions, but if they don't support the occupy protest, they are officially agreeing with the unions. This is tricky.

[QUOTE=Glaber;33637508]And there we go, nobody caring about the Occupy Protesters planning to shutdown shipping ports during the busy shopping season.[/QUOTE] Oh no, people might not get their fad toys, what a tragedy! That's totally worse than, you know, peoples' rights being infringed upon.

[QUOTE=Glaber;33637508]And there we go, nobody caring about the Occupy Protesters planning to shutdown shipping ports during the busy shopping season.[/QUOTE] Aww. I'm sorry the filthy plebes made you need to pay extra for air shipping with their civil unrest. Maybe if we get a good freeze a few will die off and things can go back to normal.

Protesters just jelly they are jobless and can't buy presents for christmas so they won't let anyone else.

[QUOTE=Ridge;33637416]Classified as such by whom? I agree they can often be disingenuous, but they report the news same as MSNBC or other networks.[/QUOTE] the American government, and the company that owns them, they did this so that they could get away with false news reports and insanely biased stuff

This that sensationalist bullshit in the corner of the video? "ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT FUCKING ALERT" I fucking HATE that about Fox. All they do is fucking SCARE people into FREAKING the FUCK OUT. PISSES ME OFF. [editline]9th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;33637508]And there we go, nobody caring about the Occupy Protesters planning to shutdown shipping ports during the busy shopping season.[/QUOTE] No, I don't give a fuck that protestors are protesting in a manner that will do something for a change. Let them block the ports, maybe people can feel here what it's like to maybe live without that 60" flat screen for a few days. Maybe it will wake them up in some way. someone get me a fucking Advil, I'm about to pop.

It might wake them up, but not to what you think. when I saw this, I thought "Occupy Whoville", only difference is instead of the whos accepting the Grinch, they get upset at him.

[QUOTE=Glaber;33637747]It might wake them up, but not to what you think. when I saw this, I thought "Occupy Whoville", only difference is instead of the whos accepting the Grinch, they get upset at him.[/QUOTE] When you hear about political news do you always draw a Dr. Suess parallel in your head?

The fox shit aside, the original story [url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iDSBbs_xcVuYto_mtK8ARsWBZbAw?docId=f81e9f0e1a3d49d9814415469376dfdc]is from the AP[/url], it is true- and expected. From the start those organizing this call knew that the Union bosses were going to be the one that would pose the biggest obstacle in advancing their plea for solidarity. By the way, the bit with "to build an identity that is bigger than their recently dismantled tent camps" is rather condescending on the part of the AP writer. But anyways... Contrary to popular opinion, Unions don't exist as part of a vast conspiracy to undermine corporations and 'murica. Those that exist today, especially larger ones, have essentially become co-opted by their respective industries. Especially in unions with a 'bureaucratized' leadership, it's easy for the corporation to ensure that in the end they won't pull anything too big. Case and point just look at the way the UAW essentially sold its membership up the river by accepting management's terms. The article assumes too much (or rather leads in that direction) in that this is a resounding 'no', when it is not. It's only got a few statements from ranking local or regional officials, along with the union release from President McEllrath to warn locals from participating- from the with a token statement from a worker in solidarity with them. However one shouldn't ignore what obstacle that a union, especially one that might be compromised with their leadership and relationship they have with management- can pose to a protest movement. The big problem as it stands is that the old union leadership and the Democratic Party- and the Republican one, by extension of their own grassroots, or rather astroturfed movements- don't want a protest movement that rejects the ballot box as a means to get something done. Many Occupiers correctly identify that that kind of 'activism' is a dead end and is only manipulated to benefit certain people. There's already been tensions with this- and you can already see some of the groups trying to go in pushing for a drive to channel Occupy's energies into electoral politics. The SEIU and some other pro-DP groups have already attempted to do this with their Take Back the Capitol Movement with respect to Occupy DC to make it seem the only way to get things done is to continue working through voting. But a wildcat strike, which is probably going to be the likely choice because the union bosses don't want a strike, is difficult. Most workers will not risk such a thing- even if they sympathize with the aims of Occupy, simply because of the legal problems with it. As things stand a wildcat strike removes your right as a worker and clears you to be fired. Most people don't want to touch that in the current economic climate. As such it would require a repeat of what happened at Oakland- give an opening for workers to step off the line with out giving management an excuse to can them. Article only mentions this in passing but the ILWU is in conflict with the EGT (a capital firm focused on port infrastructure and what not), that has seen the usual signs of tensions. The workers demand better conditions and pay as the firm enjoys profit off them, they get into action, the firm brings in scabs, media spins, the whole nine yards. It's still ongoing and affects many of those in the area. Occupy was hoping to move in solidarity with this ongoing dispute on the side of the workers, but this would essentially shift the 'bargaining' power within the union away from the bosses to the rank-and-file union members, which in the state of bargaining between union and management, is undesirable and to be avoided from their (the bosses) perspective. These kind of strikes are always looked down upon by both management (naturally) and the Union leadership because they go beyond the usual playbook and gives people ideas. Scott Olsen, the Occupy Oaklander and Iraq War vet who got badly injured by the police, had this statement with respect to the call for action: [url]http://westcoastportshutdown.org/content/iraq-war-vet-scott-olsen-longshoremen-please-honor-picket-line[/url] [quote]You do the work—THEY, the global maritime bosses, profit at your expense. Your safety and your jobs are always at stake. OUR LONGVIEW LONGSHORE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ARE UNDER THE GUN FOR ALL OF US! THAT’S WHY OCCUPY OAKLAND IS CALLING FOR A PORT SHUTDOWN DEC. 12. The bosses have been getting away with it for far too long. We can beat them, but we have to work together—unions, rank and file workers and Occupy. I was on my second pump to Iraq when ILWU—when you—led by your Vietnam vets, shut down the West Coast ports on May Day 2008 to stop the war. The best support I could have asked for in Iraq was from you brothers and sisters who wanted us home, alive and well- sooner, not later. I spent two pumps in Iraq looking for our enemies. Only after coming back home did I discover our greatest enemy—that is the enemy we are fighting now. Please honor our Occupy picket lines. United we are stronger. As you say in your union, “AN INJURY TO ONE IS AN INJURY TO ALL.” The only ones who will tell you otherwise are those that want to continue profiting off your backs. You all work hard at a dangerous job. You deserve to see something out of that. I plan on standing tall again on December 12, and I look forward to standing with our longshoremen. PLEASE DO THE LABOR MOVEMENT PROUD LIKE YOU’VE DONE BEFORE AND HONOR OUR COMMUNITY PICKET LINE. Scott Olsen 12/7/11[/quote] The last major strike of this sort that was initiated by ILWU and other unions was back in 2002 (ignoring the protest strike of 2008 against the wars which Olsen mentions) . It was once again over working conditions and pay, and once again management and their allies pulled media spin (ex you're hurting a bad economy! Just wait until things get better... again and again, over the years). The strike actually went along for a while, involved at least 10,000 dockworkers, and brought about 29 ports to a stand still. It was only ended when President Bush [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/us/president-invokes-taft-hartley-act-to-open-29-ports.html]invoked the Taft-Hartley Act[/url] to invalidate strike action and essentially make it 'illegal' to strike, citing the importance of those ports to the national economy and the war in Afghanistan and as such that they must stay open (The last president to invoke those powers was President Nixon- over another strike by dockworkers in 1971). Again, promises of 'we'll address your grievances but you are damaging the economy and putting jobs on the line', only for it to get kicked aside and ignored with management and union bosses throwing together a token agreement (benefiting the former) and moving on. Nothing got accomplished- the president essentially helped management out in this case when an opening presented itself. Big problem with this whole call to action from Occupy (IMO) is that it's been poorly planned as far as I can see. The word is not getting out to the right people and the planning to carry out such a strike action doesn't seem to be there. They're trying to plan in days what usually is done within the span of a much longer amount of time (weeks, if not a few months) during other industrial disputes that lead up to shutdowns, strikes, etc. The wrong people are hearing about the strike and getting informed about it to put it simply.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;33637766]When you hear about political news do you always draw a Dr. Suess parallel in your head?[/QUOTE] Not unless it can possibly be tied to How the Grinch Stole Christmas somehow and it's December, also it has to be before Christmas. Otherwise, I don't think about it Yaw M en.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;33637766]When you hear about political news do you always draw a Dr. Suess parallel in your head?[/QUOTE] Basically you're asking him if he has major aspergers. he's got a hard on for sonic and mlp while subsequently not being capable of identifying properly with people and being an overall social retard. Dr. Seuss parallels for politics are a new form of sperginess to me, though.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;33637766]When you hear about political news do you always draw a Dr. Suess parallel in your head?[/QUOTE] at least it wasn't a my little pony parallel these protests are sure gonna piss everypony off!

[QUOTE=Glaber;33637950]Not unless it can possibly be tied to How the Grinch Stole Christmas somehow and it's December. Otherwise, I don't think about it Yaw M en.[/QUOTE] That's not how you spell my name, fucker.

[quote]in a bid to gum up the engines of global commerce.[/quote] Yeah where do you think American jobs are going [editline]9th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;33637449]cocaine was registered as a miracle drug that could cure all your ails.[/QUOTE] You mean it's not!?

Am I the only one who noticed that once a Glaber thread starts up, by two pages in he's stopped commenting on it completely? Is this simply because you've moved on to another topic?