A possible strike that may have hurt the American economy was avoided Wednesday when U.S. longshoremen negotiated a contract agreement with ports and shippers.
A week before a deadline of January 15, the U.S. Maritime Alliance of ports and shipping industries and the International Longshoremen’s Association union announced that they had tentatively agreed to a six-year deal.
The agreement, according to a joint statement from the two parties, “makes ports on the East and Gulf coasts safer and more efficient, and creating the capacity they need to keep our supply chains strong.” It also protects union jobs.
In order to give union members an opportunity to examine and ratify the deal, they stated that they would not be making any of its terms publicly available. Weeks are expected to pass throughout the ratification process.
The tentative agreement “shows that labor and management can come together to benefit workers and their employers,” according to a statement released by President Joe Biden on Wednesday evening.
“I applaud the dockworkers’ union for delivering a strong contract,” Biden stated. As we cooperated to untangle international supply systems, their members maintained our ports open throughout the outbreak. We are grateful to the port operators and carriers who are vital to the prosperity of our country.
In October, the 45,000 longshoremen went on strike for three days. After agreeing to a six-year, 62% pay hike that would have raised the top-end hourly wages from $39 to $63, they put a stop to the walkout. However, the truce was only valid if an agreement on automation was reached by January 15th. The union was concerned that machines, particularly semi-automated cranes, would eventually replace human labor.
The arrangement would offer the ports more flexibility to implement updating technology, according to a source involved with the discussions who asked to remain anonymous because the specifics had not been made public. However, they would have to hire new employees when they do, and complete automation is not an option as a concession to the union.
A day after the two parties started talks, an agreement was reached on Wednesday. “This is a win-win agreement that creates ILA jobs, supports American consumers and businesses, and keeps the American economy the key hub of the global marketplace,” the statement read.
If a strike had gone much longer than a week, it would have closed ports on the East and Gulf coasts and started to hurt the economy, according to experts.
At American ports, automation has long been a controversial topic. Longshoremen fear that human labor will be replaced by robots like semi-automated cranes that don’t require separate operators. The ports may require fewer people as they become more efficient, which could result in a gradual reduction in the number of employees and the union, even if they agree to preserve current positions as they modernize.
U.S. ports are lagging behind more automated ports like those in Rotterdam, Dubai, and Singapore, according to port operators and shipping corporations.
The union had received input from Donald Trump, the incoming president.
Trump said on social media last month that more port automation would hurt workers after meeting union president Harold Daggett at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida: “The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt and harm it causes for American workers, in this case, our Longshoremen.” “I know just about everything there is to know about” automation, Trump continued.
During the three-day strike in October, some cargo ships in Houston were forced to be delayed or rerouted to other ports.
Ed Emmett is a Rice University fellow focused on energy and transportation. He said that because the strike was brief, it had little impact on the national and local supply chains.
“I think this is a good example of management and labor working together to make things happen without affecting the general public,” he said.
This report was contributed to by Patricia Ortiz.
