Longshore workers say they don't want to strike at grain terminals
Longshore workers said Monday they don't want to strike at grain terminals in the Northwest and they want to continue contract talks with terminal owners beyond a Wednesday deadline.
International Longshore and Warehouse Union spokeswoman Jennifer Sargent said the union has proposed additional dates for talks to the Pacific Northwest Grain Handlers Association, which represents the owners of six grain terminals along the Columbia River and in Puget Sound that ship wheat, corn and soybeans to Asia.
There was no immediate response from the terminal owners.
The contract ran out in September. Terminal owners made what they called a last best offer Nov. 16 and set a Wednesday deadline, at which point they reserved the right to implement it.
The union says the earliest members could vote on the latest offer would be Dec. 21-22. Union members have not authorized a strike.
"The union is motivated to keep the grain flowing as we have done nonstop for the past 80 years," Sargent said in a statement. "We believe that additional negotiating would be fruitful and have proposed additional dates to the multinational owners of the grain terminals."
Association spokesman Pat McCormack said the talks are focused on differences over work rules, not pay or benefits.
The region's nine grain terminals handle wheat, soybeans and corn from the Northwest and the Dakotas that is headed primarily for Asia. The shipments amount to about a quarter of U.S. grain exports. The contract talks affect six of those terminals. Three are in Portland, Ore., and three in Washington state, at Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver.
Any interruption in handling cargo would disrupt Asian markets for U.S. grain and overwhelm storage facilities in the U.S., the association said in a statement.
Top markets for wheat shipped from the Northwest are Japan, the Philippines, Korea and Taiwan, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics cited by the association. Nearly all the soybeans go to China. Yellow corn goes to Korea, Japan and China.
Over the weekend, a strike by Port of Portland security guards was averted after the port and another branch of the ILWU reached a tentative agreement.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Or.......lets do this. Shut down the port and tell the workers and the union to go to hell.
Here is the inside scoop to this story. Longshore work is simple a specialized labor ready setup. If the union fell, there would not be enough steady work to hire employees at the terminals. This is why employers hire Longshoremen to do the work. Next longshoremen have grade level's A- Full Union, B - Half Union/PMA, C - PMA. The grain wants the ability to fire anyone. According to the contract you sign once you begin the union latter if you are fired for any reason as a C level you are out of the whole system. Now the union believes that to be unfair, because currently they have to have a probable cause to fire an employee. Their are simply trying to protect the new guys. Their next issue with the grain is having to work 12 hours in a day with no overtime pay after 8 hours. So that is what is currently going on their. The reason they do not want to strike is because work has been really slow. To give you an idea. C level have to get out at least once a month or they are fired. They have to go down twice a day to see if they can get out. If there is no work in a month they are fine, but if they miss, then they are done. Right now they are getting out around once every three to four weeks.
Nice assessment but Oregon law dictates overtime as anything over 40 hours, so overtime is protected by law. Anything after eight hours has not been the norm in the private sector for over 20 years by some employers.
Â
As for the business being slow, they can thank their last strike and deliberate slow down that forced companies like Fred Meyers to move shipments to other ports like Seattle. They now want to be paid for the lost business they created. Work less, get paid more, NOT IN THIS ECONOMY!  The Port of Portland should not reward these idiots for the damage they have causedÂ
 @MadMax64 Once you are an A, or B status you can travel from coos bay up to seattle and work. Plus you will receive compensation for the travel. The C man does not have that ability. So that is the person who is affected by this mess. And I know what the law is on overtime, which is why I believe they want the ability to fire anyone. Essentially they can work someone up to 40 hours in a week and then fire them if the are getting close to OT. Some jobs are for longer than a one day period. A and B are only allowed to get those jobs. C have to go back to the hiring hall at the end of a shift and wait their turn again on the board. If a C level is hired for more than 3 days, potentially he could be fired in order to prevent the OT being achieved. Again however since they are not in the Union PMA says they are out for good. So this is one of the reason's why they are fighting them.
Or perhap they have listened to what happened to 18,000 Hostess employees that went out on strike and are now unemployed. If they move all the shipping to other ports, these guys will also be unemployeed...I keep hoping that will happen and love the see the estatic look on thier faces and how happy they are with their union, when they sign up for unemployment.
'Longshore workers said Monday they don't want to strike at grain terminals in the Northwest'
Â
...then, don't.Â
Â
'Association spokesman Pat McCormack said the talks are focused on differences over work rules, not pay or benefits.'
Â
Allow me to preface this by saying that I have no firsthand knowledge of exactly what the sticking points are. None the less, my wordsmithing RADAR is bleeping overtime on this statement. Paid holidays, time off accrual, sick leave, and such points could easily be promoted as 'work rules' by the union PR branch. Thereby playing into the NW 'big bad business' mentality.Â
Â
Basically, the ILWU put out a press release to offer clandestine threats to the owners because they refuse to return to the capitulate to the (ever increasing) list of monitary demands made by the unions. They throw in some PR and spin wordplay in order to give the appearance that they are the 'good guys' in this, and make sure to put in veiled threats of a strike if they don't get their way.Â
Â
Â
 @MarkKpic Looks like your normally functioning radar might be off.
The work rules dispute has more to do with hiring and firing: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Grain-handlers-announce-last-offer-to-longshoremen-4046584.php
Â
The terminals want "provisions that allow management to fire workers without cause and hire workers directly instead of going through the union hiring hall."
Â
I know that a lot of the folks who comment on this site think those rules would be just great because they would help pave the road to 'high production/low pay' and that when unions negotiate it's extortion and that our priorities as a nation are out of balance when working people can make good money, etc.
 @Max Quinn Thank you, Max. I've been able to find scarce information with regards to actual substance of the negotiations.Â
Â
On one side, I can see the terminal owners/operators position when it comes to firing people. On the other hand, I can see their point about hiring, and the net effect on the prevailing wage of employees.Â
 @wondering Glad things have worked out for you. Though, if an employer offered you a bad deal, and you refused it, wouldn't you be holding up commerce in a small way? It would always be better for commerce if you just took whatever you were offered.
Â
And what about lockouts? When management locks out employees (see the NHL), isn't that same as a strike (commerce-wise)?
@Max Quinn  Yes, and when the contract is up, the union should not be allowed to hold up commerce via striking. I've had many contracts with employers, and when the contract is up, I either sign a new one or my job is replaced by someone else. Of course, nobody else ever took my job, because with a proper education (which is available to everyone), my skill set and work ethic is such that my employers are more than happy to give me reasonable raises.
 @wondering That's why the have contracts and spend time negotiating them - so that they (union and management) can have their own rules to play by.
@Max Quinn  Why is it unacceptable? Last I checked, WA state is a "hire at will, fire at will" state. The union thugs should not have their own set of rules to play by.
 @MarkKpic I largely agree. I can see the terminals having more ability to fire people WITH cause - it does unions real harm when they defend bad employees. The hiring provision that the terminals want, though, is pretty much unacceptable.
Imagine if these guys had to work as if their job depended on it like the rest of us have too.
Â
High pay low production!
Watch and see. Once these crybabies don't get what they want they will threaten a strike.
"They don't want to"...... But they will. Unions= Legalized extortionists.
8.6% unemployment in Oregon. Let them strike. Plenty of people that want a job are waiting in the wings. Merry Christmas.
"Longshore workers said Monday they don't want to strike at grain terminals in the Northwest and they want to continue contract talks with terminal owners beyond a Wednesday deadline."
Â
Of course they don't want to strike. They just want to extort more than the average $150K per year they are each making plus excellent benefits. There aren't many legal jobs to be found where a person can make that kind of money with a high school or less education. It is just another example of how out of balance our priorities are in this society.
Â
The terminal operators should stick to their last best offer and, if necessary, lock out the union employees (workers is too generous a term) and hire replacements. Many people would be willing to work for half the average longshore workers' pay and benefits and be more productive.Â