January 2003 • Vol 3, No. 1 •

As ILWU officials campaign for the ranks to ratify the recently negotiated tentative agreement, some voices from inside the union are saying it’s not the sweet deal the officials claim. In fact, they say, it’s so bad the union negotiators should go back to the bargaining table. At this point, it’s not possible to gauge how much support the contract’s critics have in the ranks. What the members decide won’t be known until their votes are tallied late in January.

One thing is clear; the opponents aren’t raising petty differences. Their most serious charge is that the contract was negotiated with a gun to the union’s head, the Taft-Hartley Act, under which they were compelled to return to work, ending an employer-led lockout. The critics say that, in effect, they were stripped of their right to strike, the union’s real power. Without that strike power the union couldn’t really protect its members from the shipping and stevedore companies’ assault on their traditional jurisdiction. Twice before, they point out, the union waited for the expiration of the Taft-Hartley Act and then bargained with their strike power intact, a power they used. Not to have waited, as the union did in 1948 and 1971 and then strike, if necessary, was a serious mistake, one that resulted in a “coerced” deal. The critics advocate that the ranks vote down the tentative agreement, and make the bosses negotiate, knowing the union might strike.

The coerced deal has cost the jobs of 400-600 marine clerks, in the short run. Only time will tell how many future jobs have escaped the union’s jurisdiction. The union failed to get the same wage increase for all its members, further widening the pay gap between the “skilled” workers, on the one hand, and the dockmen, lashers, and tractor drivers on the other. The much-touted pension increases are real enough, but since the companies will be able to reduce their pension funding reserves from 85 percent to 65 percent of the anticipated pensions costs, the companies get the benefit of a $400 million cushion right up front. Moreover, the critics fear the reduction in pension funding (reserves) could one day force the union to seek government money for their pensioners as the steel workers have done. While the critics haven’t made the very important point that the six-year term of the proposed pact will further prolong the demobilization of the membership, they do point out that without a cost-of-living clause, their wage increases (distributed unequally), are likely to be outstripped by inflation. The low wage increases and the six-year contract term were necessary, both the union and the bosses have said, to pay for the expected rise in health costs. But the workers already have what is called “maintenance of health benefits,” so they won’t gain anything new. In fact the wage concession, at the very least, seems to allow the companies to keep their labor costs at one percent of gross revenues.

Aside from the contract terms, the critics lambaste AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Rich Trumka for his part in the negotiations and in his helping to sell the pact. They insist that Trumka not be part of the new negotiations they are seeking. That President Bush, the bosses and the union’s president, James Spinosa agree that the contract is good for the dockworkers and should be voted up, is a warning sign. Since when did the bosses and the government really care about the dockworkers? They also criticize the ILWU leaders for not trusting the ranks, feeding the members rumors, not giving the ranks a voice in deciding whether or not to extend the old contract, and not asking the ranks for strike authorization.

One of the proposed pact’s critics is a local ILWU officer, Business Agent Jack Heyman of Local 10. In an Internet statement he says the contract “is a 180 degree turn in direction at a very dangerous time. If it passes, it will be a historic defeat, not just for the ILWU, but for the working class in this country and internationally. It will be interpreted that coercion by employers and the capitalist government works, even against strong unions with international links.”