WSJ Bosses Want To Eliminate Right To Strike By Putting Longshore Workers Under Railway Labor Act

WSJ Bosses Want To Eliminate Right To Strike By Longshore Workers
http://online.wsj.com/articles/douglas-holtz-eakin-how-to-free-u-s-ports...

How to Free U.S. Ports From Chronic Union Problems
By Douglas Holtz-Eakin - Wall Street Journal
Dec. 5, 2014

[A labor dispute on the West Coast is already slowing commerce, but a work stoppage would be disastrous.]

Once again, ports on the West Coast are being held hostage by union longshoremen, with potential to harm average Americans, the U.S. economy and U.S. military personnel overseas who may not receive needed supplies in time. After decades of union work slowdowns and other disruptions, Congress has a chance to limit future damage by bringing longshoremen under the same law that protects the rights of many workers and employers in transportation industries.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has been working the West Coast ports without a contract since July 1, while negotiations continued with the management group, the Pacific Maritime Association. ILWU members can make upward of $200,000 annually, with generous benefits; the union wants to preserve their compensation packages while fighting automation at the ports. The Pacific Maritime Association counters that the lack of automation makes the ports uncompetitive.

Recently, the association accused the union of deliberately slowing work at the critical California ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as well as at other ports up and down the coast. Retailers face delays getting inventories for holiday shopping, crops are rotting while waiting for export, and no relief is in sight.

The cycle of disruption goes back years. In 2008, the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association began negotiations early but still missed the deadline for reaching a contract. There was no lockout, but slowdowns hampered the ports until a deal was reached in August. The 2002 negotiations were even more disruptive and eventually involved then-President George W. Bush . After 29 West Coast ports were closed for 11 days when longshoremen refused to work at all, Mr. Bush chose to invoke his powers under the Taft-Hartley Act to get the ports open, and ordered the longshoreman back to work. The same sort of disruptive tactics played out in 1999 and in negotiations dating to the 1970s.

While work slowdowns are entirely legal under the National Labor Relations Act, when every negotiation brings on a slowdown, the national economy is damaged.

As currently reported by the Journal of Commerce on its website, “No recent negotiation between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Association, representing waterfront employers, has been free of disruption.” In 2002, President Bush expressed his concern over the ability to move military supplies as well, and pointed to harm to the U.S. economy of roughly $1 billion daily.

This time around, in work commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation, the modeling group InForum estimates that the economic damage from a work stoppage at the 29 West Coast ports would be roughly $2 billion a day.

Maritime economist John Martin of Martin Associates reaches a similar conclusion. He calculates the impact of a port shutdown starting at $688 million a day, growing to $1 billion daily at 11 days, and more than $2 billion at 20 days. Past that, Mr. Martin anticipates structural shifts in which firms reconfigure their logistics lines and customer-supplier relationships.

Ports are an essential part of modern commerce, yet there is no end in sight to the disruptions. As soon as the 2014 negotiations are (finally) concluded, businesses will have a reprieve only until the next costly negotiation.

Modern commerce doesn’t face a similar threat when airline pilots fail to reach a contract agreement. Nor is it disrupted when rail personnel find themselves unable to come to terms with railroads. Instead, those negotiations are conducted according to the Railway Labor Act.

A cornerstone of the RLA is that its purpose, as stated in the statute, is to “avoid any interruption of commerce” while providing for “the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes” that arise in labor matters. Labor contracts under the RLA do not expire. Instead, they become “amendable” and remain in force until a new agreement is reached.

If negotiations are not productive, then federal mediation is required before either unions or employers can engage in “self help” like slowdowns, strikes or lockouts. The National Mediation Board, which oversees the process, says that 99% of all of its mediation cases since 1980 have been handled without interruption.

In contrast, the commerce shipped through the West Coast ports is governed by the National Labor Relations Act. That law has no protections to ensure a timely and orderly settlement of disputes as a means to avoid interruptions of commerce. The obvious question, then, is: Why not put the ports under the Railway Labor Act and extend to shipping the protections that adequately safeguard our nation’s airlines and railroads?

It will take an act of Congress to end the cycle of slowdown, lockout and economic harm. Labor relations should have a clear framework that protects workers, and the RLA has proved effective in that regard. It is time to extend the law to apply to longshoremen as well.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin is president of the American Action Forum and a former director, from 2003 to 2005, of the Congressional Budget Office.