Recent Posts
- Global Trade Wake Up Call
- Letters of Credit: Global Loss of Trust
- Unfinished Business
- Scary Story
- Complacent Rail Carriers to Blame?
- Scanning For Votes
- New Presidential Priorities
- Consumer Confidence & The Supply Chain
- Sustainable Event Staging
- Cross-Border Relief
Recent Comments
- G.West on Letters of Credit: Global Loss of Trust
- S. Clariday on Letters of Credit: Global Loss of Trust
- Cindy Wong on Complacent Rail Carriers to Blame?
- STEVE CHARLES on Complacent Rail Carriers to Blame?
- Timma146 on U.S. Exporters: All Dressed Up and No Place to Go?
Most Commented On
- If the price is not right, how do you win on service? (6)
- The ILWU: Back to its Marxist Roots (5)
- Fixing transport infrastructure: Where’s the leadership? (3)
- Complacent Rail Carriers to Blame? (2)
- Letters of Credit: Global Loss of Trust (2)
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
Blog
ILWU To Exporters: "Drop Dead"
July 14, 2008
As U.S. shippers try to meet the surging demand for raw materials and high-end manufactured goods, the main challenge has been to locate containers, chassis, and outbound carriers. A much more serious impediment has surfaced now that the International Warehouse and Longshore Union has stalled its contract talks with the Pacific Maritime Association. Last week the bosses instructed their gangs to "go slow" with loading cargo. The result: one vessel departing from the Port of Tacoma sailed minus 83 boxes. While we understand the collective bargaining process of the union, this kind of behavior reflects poorly on the ILWU, and brings into question its sincerity and good faith during negotiations.
Posted by Patrick Burnson on July 14, 2008 | Comments (2)
In response to: ILWU To Exporters: "Drop Dead"
Kevin commented:
Anyone surprised? Go figure that the ILWU would not accept a mutual extention on the contract when it expired. They aren't fools from the respect that they know the economy can't afford a prolonged strike (think back a few years when the cost was reportedly near $1 billion/day during the strike). Possibly the ILWU will consider how many jobs & how much income they will end up taking away from blue collar families trying to put food on the table while the ILWU tries to line their pockets further (after alredy getting basicly NO COST healthcare, 30 hour work week (and HUGE OT pay), plus MANY, MANY other benefits. Maybe through this process the other US ports can take some of the business away permantently S. California (the "s" stands for socialist).
In response to: ILWU To Exporters: "Drop Dead"
Mike Arbunich commented:
Unions once stood for what was right for this country. This is now the 21st Century and the ILWU and in many cases the ocean carriers still think its the 20th (and I'm giving them both credit). The ILWU knows this is as serious a contract as ever because of the challenges with the economy and this frigin' industry. Where's Charles Bronson when you need him?