Thursday, September 08, 2011

Wrong Union, But "War" Nonetheless

Appears as though the Longshormen heeded the call of Teamsters' Hoffa.

Hundreds of Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha.

...Most of the protesters returned to their union hall after cutting brake lines and spilling grain from car at the EGT terminal, Duscha said.

There were 19 arrests later.  Most curious:  the employer in question IS using UNION LABOR--just not the ILWU, which apparently thinks it has "territorial rights" to everything.

Apparently Hoffa's words actually do have consequences, eh?


TerryN said...

Have the dems blamed the Tea Party for this yet?

Anonymous said...

Once again, our resident malcontent Malkin chooses to sensationalize matters per her usual partisan self rather than be a serious journalist and investigate WHY this incident occurred.

Yes, the actions of SOME of the longshoremen are deplorable. But, as far as I have read, no injuries were reported and no arrests were made.

And, like any brotherhood or sisterhood, its members will generally refuse to condemn such actions publicly, which is definitely wrong. But time and time again in our American society, we have generally seen that ANY cohesive group--from liberals to conservatives, from workers to management--will tend to look the other way when matters become personal or violent in deference to solidarity and the overall cause.

Again, the actions taken by the Longshoremen are the wrong approach.

Now, the Longshoremen are ONE group, out of thousands of unions who have generally been peaceful in their efforts, who heeded Hoffa’s call.

So, why? And here, Malkin fails miserably to inform her lemmings.

There have a number of incidents this past summer between the union and the owner of the new train superterminal, which is joiintly owned by foreign and American investors, in Seattle. This company had contracted with other workers--some union, some non-union--to perform their work.

But the work had already been designated to the Longshoremen by the Port Authority in a past agreement. The Port Authority and the Longshoremen have sued in district court against the company (EGT Development) for violating the existing arrangement. EGT countersued, saying it has the right to pursue its own contract. But, from what I have read, it appears that the lease negotiated between the Port Authority and EGT in 2007 called for EGT to honor that existing contract (I would imagine until it expired).

Then EGT contracted the supervision of the work to another company, General Construction, which has been involved in a series of arguments with the Longshoremen, who chose to go on strike.

The question is, who is right in this legal matter?
To me, the contract between the Longshoremen and the Port Authority ought to be honored by EGT.

To the Longshoremen, who believe that their livelihood is being threatened, they are going to do what they think will bring more attention to their situation, even if the methods employed are fraught with implications and could undermine their position.

Dad29 said...

It was reported in Seattle that there were 19 arrests.

Well, ya know, court stuff takes time. At least the union gets to have its day in court, unlike folks who are simply hit by regulators (see, e.g., Labor Dept's abuse of homebuilding contractors.)