Ore. governor tries to head off strike at Port of Portland

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Gov. John Kitzhaber on Friday tried to head off a walkout at the Port of Portland that could mean the port's first longshore union work stoppage in decades.
The governor told both sides that he expects them to reach agreement in last-ditch talks set for Saturday, The Oregonian reported.
Marine terminal security guards represented by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union plan to strike Sunday because contract talks that began in June 2011 have failed to yield an agreement. The longshoremen who load and unload ships are expected to honor the picket line, effectively closing three terminals.
Representatives of both the port and the union told the governor there was room for a deal, Kitzhaber spokesman Tim Raphael said.
The port has faced a triple play of labor problems this year.
State mediator Robert Nightingale was set to join talks Saturday in a final effort to avoid a work stoppage that would disrupt the flow of shipping containers, auto imports and other cargo.
The strike possibility has led some businesses to use ports on Puget Sound, and shipping lines were evaluating whether to bypass the city. When ships are diverted and cargo rerouted, that adds costs, and potentially harmful delays for imports or exports of perishable or seasonal items.
The long-range concern is some shippers might permanently skip the port because of the labor issues. Portland's Terminal 6 is by far the smallest of the West Coast's six container-shipping ports, and it's already at a disadvantage with other Pacific ports because it's about 100 miles from the ocean.
"As long as it's a temporary disruption and we don't lose any shippers, or we don't lose any manufacturing expansions as a result of their fear that they can't move their goods, we'll be OK," state economist Mark McMullen said. "As long as it's short term, it should just be a disruption and not a disaster."
The sides agree on most aspects of a contract, but workers want an assurance their jobs won't disappear if terminal operators or carriers want to hire their own, lower-cost security personnel. Port officials believe companies would be more likely to do business in Portland if they're not handcuffed to job guarantees.
"They'd probably call it a job guarantee; we characterize it as an outsourcing problem," union spokesman Craig Merrilees said.
The pending strike is just one of three separate labor conflicts at the Port of Portland.
The first began this summer when the ILWU and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers clashed over which union should have the job of plugging in and unplugging refrigerated shipping containers. The National Labor Relations Board and a federal judge concluded that longshoremen engaged in slowdown tactics during the dispute, causing truck traffic to be backed up for more than a mile.
Two major shipping lines that use Terminal 6 - Germany's Hapag-Lloyd AG and South Korea's Hanjin - briefly diverted ships during the tension. Though the NLRB eventually concluded the work belongs to the electrical workers, the longshore union continues to fight for the jobs.
Separately, in a standoff that involves several ports, the union contract between longshoremen and companies that operate grain terminals on the Columbia River and Puget Sound expired Sept. 30. The companies have made what they say is their last offer, and are awaiting a response.
A strike or lockout would disrupt trans-Pacific grain shipments, affecting U.S. farmers exporting wheat, corn and soybeans to Asia.
But the current focus is on 25 security guards from Local 28, and how longshore workers would respond to their walkout.
In a failed attempt to win an emergency injunction preventing a strike, port lawyers said this week that, in 2011, marine cargo at Portland Harbor generated $6.2 billion in total economic activity in the region and supported about 18,000 jobs. They warned that farmers wouldn't be able to export perishable products during a strike and mills that depend on steel scrap might have to close.
"The port believes that a strike would have a great negative impact on our local economy, and we're going to continue all efforts to avoid that strike, including mediation, arbitration and all the routes we have," said Kama Simonds, a port spokesman.
Merrilees said the union is also anxious to get a deal done, but the guards feel the port's offer "is the beginning of a race to the bottom."
"The port is a source of good-paying, blue-collar jobs that are increasingly hard to find," he said. "The port should be standing up and advocating for those jobs."
The governor told both sides that he expects them to reach agreement in last-ditch talks set for Saturday, The Oregonian reported.
Marine terminal security guards represented by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union plan to strike Sunday because contract talks that began in June 2011 have failed to yield an agreement. The longshoremen who load and unload ships are expected to honor the picket line, effectively closing three terminals.
Representatives of both the port and the union told the governor there was room for a deal, Kitzhaber spokesman Tim Raphael said.
The port has faced a triple play of labor problems this year.
State mediator Robert Nightingale was set to join talks Saturday in a final effort to avoid a work stoppage that would disrupt the flow of shipping containers, auto imports and other cargo.
The strike possibility has led some businesses to use ports on Puget Sound, and shipping lines were evaluating whether to bypass the city. When ships are diverted and cargo rerouted, that adds costs, and potentially harmful delays for imports or exports of perishable or seasonal items.
The long-range concern is some shippers might permanently skip the port because of the labor issues. Portland's Terminal 6 is by far the smallest of the West Coast's six container-shipping ports, and it's already at a disadvantage with other Pacific ports because it's about 100 miles from the ocean.
"As long as it's a temporary disruption and we don't lose any shippers, or we don't lose any manufacturing expansions as a result of their fear that they can't move their goods, we'll be OK," state economist Mark McMullen said. "As long as it's short term, it should just be a disruption and not a disaster."
The sides agree on most aspects of a contract, but workers want an assurance their jobs won't disappear if terminal operators or carriers want to hire their own, lower-cost security personnel. Port officials believe companies would be more likely to do business in Portland if they're not handcuffed to job guarantees.
"They'd probably call it a job guarantee; we characterize it as an outsourcing problem," union spokesman Craig Merrilees said.
The pending strike is just one of three separate labor conflicts at the Port of Portland.
The first began this summer when the ILWU and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers clashed over which union should have the job of plugging in and unplugging refrigerated shipping containers. The National Labor Relations Board and a federal judge concluded that longshoremen engaged in slowdown tactics during the dispute, causing truck traffic to be backed up for more than a mile.
Two major shipping lines that use Terminal 6 - Germany's Hapag-Lloyd AG and South Korea's Hanjin - briefly diverted ships during the tension. Though the NLRB eventually concluded the work belongs to the electrical workers, the longshore union continues to fight for the jobs.
Separately, in a standoff that involves several ports, the union contract between longshoremen and companies that operate grain terminals on the Columbia River and Puget Sound expired Sept. 30. The companies have made what they say is their last offer, and are awaiting a response.
A strike or lockout would disrupt trans-Pacific grain shipments, affecting U.S. farmers exporting wheat, corn and soybeans to Asia.
But the current focus is on 25 security guards from Local 28, and how longshore workers would respond to their walkout.
In a failed attempt to win an emergency injunction preventing a strike, port lawyers said this week that, in 2011, marine cargo at Portland Harbor generated $6.2 billion in total economic activity in the region and supported about 18,000 jobs. They warned that farmers wouldn't be able to export perishable products during a strike and mills that depend on steel scrap might have to close.
"The port believes that a strike would have a great negative impact on our local economy, and we're going to continue all efforts to avoid that strike, including mediation, arbitration and all the routes we have," said Kama Simonds, a port spokesman.
Merrilees said the union is also anxious to get a deal done, but the guards feel the port's offer "is the beginning of a race to the bottom."
"The port is a source of good-paying, blue-collar jobs that are increasingly hard to find," he said. "The port should be standing up and advocating for those jobs."
Like I stated in the other article about this issue. Â The owner of the Port is fed up with the union garbage and will just use the other ports he owns. Â This article actually touches where I stated earlier that puget Sound/seattle ports will be where our products will go if this persists.
Â
Â
All this for 2 damn jobs and a stupid contract with a bully of a union. Â This is also why the Port won't be sold but torn down and the inventory transferred to another location. Â Not worth the hassle inheriting a contract with these jokers. Â The Longshoreman's union is damaging so much infrastructure in this city. Â They should be dis-banded immediately.
Stop Outsourcing and there won't be a problem.
 @lee986321 Outsourcing has NOTHING to do with this issue.  Seriously lee986321, do some real research before you spout garbage that has nothing to do with the issue here.
Â
The issue involves a very unruly union that feels they are the ONLY ones entitled to jobs at this port. Â Cause what other union shows up with baseball bats attached to their signs? Â Or sabotage rail carts risking the safety of operators and fellow workers alike. Â Or how about that instance where they stormed the terminal, tied up the security guards and held them hostage?
Â
Now the union wants to complain about the same security guards they initally held hostage months ago. Â This dilemma has no real merit to them. Â They want to intimidate and threaten to get their way as MUCH as possible.
Â
Â
Your mis-information can be just as damaging as what these knuckleheads are trying to pull. Â The truck drivers are suffering through hell from this. Â Being stuck in their trucks for hours at a time just to pick up ONE load, Â or having their hours cut from 55+ a week to barely 32 a week.
Â
The unions current actions are hurting many who are not being acknowledged by the news or anybody else for that matter. Â How about the consumer who has waited 2-3 additional months for a product to arrive in stores? Â I'm seeing product show up in Mexico and the U.K. before it hits our shelves. Â the Halo action figures are a great example. Â Figures that were due in stores back in March still have not shown up on our shelves.