If your are referring to me. I see benefits as a portion of my pay, but I think that it would be dishonest for an employer to release that amount and represent it as wages. Upon further research it doesn't matter, thats not what they did anyway. I found another press release on JOC.com where they were specific about WAGES and went into further detail. There example fit me exactly, I have never earned within $75k of what they said that person would make in WAGES. The truth wouldn't have the same impact for them and that is why they choose to lie about it.

I am hardly ungrateful for my benefits. I have a 6 year old that has autistic like symptoms and requires 4 therapy appointments a week. Those benefits allow me to get her the help she needs to hopefully help her on a path to a normal life. I can't imagine what I would do without them.

The PMA has chosen to slowdown the flow of cargo by only working 28% of the available hours to load and unload those ships. Thats holding hostage.

If stalling negotiations and rarely even being available to negotiate from August to November isn't intentional sabotage I don't know what is.

We are willing to go to work to try to clear the backlog. That option is not being made available to us. I am deeply sorry that others are caught up in this mess. This situation was avoidable. It seems clear to me that you believe that we should take whatever is on the table for the greater good. Why don't you feel that way about the employer who is making the problem worse? The main issue remaining is not about money or benefits its about jobs in the future. More specifically its about the employer making deals to implement technologies in the last 2 contracts and not living up to their end of the compromises. The arbitrator that made it happen is their golden goose and he makes any contract we sign a mirage that changes with his rulings. They want their golden goose so bad they are willing to let all that cargo sit.

I felt the need to respond in this thread, because its been difficult to watch this situation develop. To see the information that is out there and know that a lot of it is untrue. To see the opinions develop based off of that propaganda. To know that these people have no idea how much pride you take in your work, and how hard you work to be as productive as possible on the job. I say this without hesitation. I love my job, and I'm very good and productive at what I do.

I wanted to give the other side of the story. I've tried to do that, but I'm coming to the conclusion that most people are going to pick one side or the other regardless of the narrative. I don't know that I expected anything different, but its probably a waste of everyones time for me to continue posting on this subject.

Happy Fishing

To say that you recognize benifits as "a portion of your pay " but to suggest it is somehow dishonest for an employer "represent it as wages" is contradictory and further emphasizes my original point.


You claim it isn't you and appealing to a higher power is not taking responsibility for your and your "bargaining unit's" actions. So you feel sorry but are also unwilling to work toward change.


Am I missing something?

To be truthful I was using the word "pay" with regard to benefits as you had in your previous post, "total compensation" would be a better way of saying it. It wouldn't be dishonest if it said our total compensation was $# and it was actually correct, but when they give $147k as wages (which is complete BS) Then say and medical and pensions. They are talking about 3 different things all of which have an assigned value. The dishonesty comes in when they use an amount that isn't correct and is inflated.

Their claims about production loss do not even match their own statistics. In Tacoma they say vessel production is down 40-60%. When their own statistical graph shows the move counts going from 26 to 19 a 27% decline in production, more dishonesty.

Starting on 11/2/14 day shift through the night shift on 11/6/14 they unilaterally fired all longshore personnel between 2 and 4 hours into each shift. They fired units where production was normal or better than normal too. One of those nights we were 10 minutes from finishing the vessel I was working so that it could sail when they fired us. It made no sense. This really screwed up the logistics of the container yards. Depending on the equipment and layout of the yard, we found ourselves digging out a lot more cargo. As they would run out of room and cargo was coming in for new vessels it was getting stacked in front of and on top of containers for vessels that were calling first. When you have to constantly move several containers to get the ones you need it takes a toll on production. While there are still container flow problems from when the yards were full, there is now considerable space in the container yards. The congestion problem PMA claims is the reason they are only working days no longer exists, its now only a mixed cargo problem that could be fixed quickly by loading out that cargo.

Thats the background, that leads me to say as I did in my last post. We want to go to work to clear the backlog, but that requires them to hire us. It is impossible to make any headway by only working days. I'm not sure how that equates to not being willing to work to fix the problem.

Am I missing something?

JTD, I have another couple questions for you regarding your previous post. In that post I didn't read through the name calling to where you said the ILWU was resorting to extortion.

Do you consider the tactics used by The Boeing Company to fleece the state of Washington out of $9 billion in tax revenue, and get Boeing employees to agree to a concessionary contract in order to keep the jobs here in Washington extortion?

Do you have the same contempt for Boeing that you do for thew ILWU?

I'm particularly interested, because the department of revenue is going to want to make up that $9 billion. My guess, is they will be knocking on the doors of small business owners such as yourself with there hand out. IMO what Boeing did is extortion and to pass that cost along to other businesses is absurd. I don't need to study who it hurts before I decide that its wrong. Then 9 months later they announce 2,000 engineer jobs are leaving to the midwest. I guess $9 billion wasn't enough for them to keep their word. That is exactly the kind of double dealing we've been experiencing. I'm sorry if you can't understand that. The rules are different for the big guys.

I know your cherry picking points and trolling me a little bit. This is the last time I'll go down that road. If you have honest questions or want to have a civil dialogue about this I'll do my best to respond.

We've actually discussed the Boeing strike previously here and that thread is in the archives. But-

I think Boeing considered relocating in an effort to lower their labor costs and at the same time played the State of Washington perfectly. Why wouldn't they play out a strategy to win on two fronts at the same time? That is just being smart. I also see that assertion as a separate topic- what is fair for big business in Washington has nothing at all to do with a union strike or a competitive wage. I believe that is the center of the issue where we fundamentally disagree though; there is a presumption of union workers of entitlement, that they somehow deserve more than what is competitive in the market whether company is successful or not or that there is any correlation between profits and wages. Which, if there was such a correlation, it would make sense in a down economy, or less profitable year, that wages would then be reduced because THAT would be fair although inconvenient. Union workers live in some delusional reality where they believe they are special, exempt of rising costs and beyond any economic pressure at all. Unfortunately that isn't how the world works.

That said, I don't think Boeing or any big business for that matter, should have any tax credit but apparently the Governor and Legislature doesn't agree with us.

In my trade, when an employee intentionally compromises performance, restricts sales or quality they deserve to be dismissed, plain and simple, particularly in a market where there is an over abundance of available labor. Raises are earned, not asked for or delivered with ultimatums.

What I find most offensive is the union's willingness in this case to jeapordize other businesses and families with the slow down. God forbid I was on the downhill side of that; I can't imagine what it would be like, for example, to have a shipment of perishables wasted when my business or pay check depended on delivery. That is a LONG list of people affected by this situation and that is shameful IMO. If you are truly part of a "collective" then, logically, you are just as responsible for the actions of the entire unit and I think you have to shoulder the responsibility for the actions of your union. Suggesting it isn't YOUR fault is a cop out.

You are correct in that I was trolling a little. I wanted to hear your side of the story and am willing to hear more. I'd love to be convinced or sold on all of the reasons why I am wrong or don't understand the bigger picture. How the union is somehow helping anyone but themselves, actually saving Washington money, contributing more or valiantly fighting evil on some other undisclosed front. I could go on and on but it would probably just get more facetious.

For disclosures sake, one of my best friends is a union spokesman for a giant manufacturer located on the Tacoma tide-flats (whatever the position is called- I can't remember other than I have sat across the table in negotiations with them and reps many times) and we vehemently disagree and have had many heated discussions in the driftboat on these very topics. We are both passionate and hot-headed and those dialogues have made some unproductive days of fishing more interesting. You are probably a great guy, I appreciate the exchange and respect (kinda) your position. I respect you took the time to post and took the time myself because, in spite of me being a jerk, you kept your cool and that alone deserves a response. I get you want to do the best for your family, as we all try to- none of this (from me) is personal.

I know I am not alone when I say I hope you resolve this quickly.

Well done JTD and Longie. It's nice to see mature adults speak their mind without going postal on each other. All in all, i'm sure both of you just want to make a living and provide for your families like the rest of us.

JTD I really appreciate your response and welcome your change in tenor. I put a lot of effort into double checking the facts that I do not have committed to memory, so that any numerical data I was reporting was as factual as possible. Thanks for letting me know that my time and effort was not wasted. The most frustrating part of this dispute to me is seeing opinions formed based on information I know to be false. To do the same would make me a hypocrite. Everything else is my honest opinion based on my knowledge of how the operations work and what I have been told about the negotiations.

The reason I asked about Boeing is, that I agree with you. They deserved no tax break. No state should engage in that sort of agreement and place that additional burden on the rest of its tax payers. It places states in a competitive bidding situation that is bad for their constituents and only stands to escalate. My problem with the way the IAM situation went down, is not the threat to leave for lower labor costs. First, this didn't occur during a labor dispute it was mid contract. Second, having worked on the wingline there when I was younger, I don't believe they really wanted to relocate. I think they just wanted a more favorable labor deal and long term agreement. This is where the connection comes in. How did they achieve it? They created fear in the community about what might happen if they left the region. This led to pressure on politicians to make sure it didn't happen. Then the focus turned to the IAM and the pressure of letting the community down resulted in a narrow yes vote on the offer. Now fast forward to today. What is similar? PMA is using the same PR firm that Boeing used to control the message and get what they wanted. Now, with the cargo backlog, we have people and businesses affected by a crisis that they have nothing to do with. We have a community that is concerned and rightfully so about the impact to the local and national economy. IMO this is exactly what the PMA and their PR firm wanted. You see, these people that are impacted by this they are our friends, our neighbors, and our community. The same cannot be said for the members of the PMA. I believe it was the PMA's plan all along to put us in the same difficult situation with the community as they did with IAM to get us to sacrifice our future.
It already worked twice so why not?

You might be surprised to find out that I share your disdain for poor work ethic. Most of us on the waterfront are hard workers who take pride in our work, the few that don't get the label POS. I think you can figure it out, once earned its a hard label to shake.

One of my best friends growing up is self employed and we have a similar relationship to you and your friend. I've learned a lot about the struggles of small business through my conversations with him. Its one of the reasons I'm aware of the effects of a big tax break.

When it comes to my unions service to the community, and willingness to stand up for those in need here and around the world. I'd have too say its one of the things about our history I'm most proud to be associated with. Sadly, over the last several years we have to really assess the risks, of taking stands like we did against Aparthied and South Africa. The penalties of doing so are real and severe. I've already been too long winded and my kids are getting restless, but If your interested about our contributions to the community both service and monetary I'm sure you can find out more online or I can elaborate more when I have time.

I too look forward to a resolution, my gut tells me we are real close. The thing that gives me pause is the strategy I outlined above, but after examining the facts I think the labor secretary is going to lean on PMA real hard.

Base pay plus burden for a company paying benefits for an employee doesnt mean 150K a year is getting rich.... Sounds like middle claas at best pay to me...

Timber, I'm have no reason to disparage PMA for my compensation. It is fair, I only wish more working people enjoyed the compensation that I receive. The problems I have with PMA are not with my compensation, unless its there misrepresentation of it. What is considered middle class has certainly not kept up with inflation over the last 30 years.

Hank, in regard to the "work safe" issue. There are several reasons production is down, I've went into a few of them previously. I can tell you that due to the layovers impacting the hours that I'm available to work. I only worked 4 shifts (33 hours) last week and production was normal on all of them. On the day I serviced truck drivers for the gate operation, there was almost zero wait time. Production was down however, because the gate was not accepting exports. The instructions I have received from my leadership several times in the last couple months is as follows. "Do your job. Do not go rogue,do not do anything stupid, do not lose your cool, because that is what the employer wants. Leave the contract to your leadership and your negotiating committee."

The current full scale wage is $35.68 and I would be very surprised if anyone had a problem with the proposed wage increase as presented.

I've never received guarantee pay, its not really possible in most ports. It is real in very small ports that do not see much work, but even the smaller ports have been seeing more work in the last few years. These small ports maintain a very small membership 8 or 10, and many of them choose to travel to other ports for work instead of collecting the guarantee.

I have 12 years of seniority and I receive 3 weeks of vacation. We do not have sick leave, for the record(not complaining).

I've posted on the pension before. It is a great and generous benefit. The amount given is for those with 40 years of uninterrupted service. With pensions, the question always is. Will it be there when I retire?

The mechanic issue was negotiated in the 08 contract in exchange for language the PMA wanted on automation. Some PMA member companies sold their chassis to leasing agents and the leased them back to avoid the maintenance. This backfired when the leasing companies ran out of chassis, stranding cargo and leading backups that are ongoing. The reason it was a big issue again is because of the arbitrator in question.

When I saw the employers version of the arbitration issue, I thought there is no chance this would stand in the way of a deal. I wasn't aware of the issue, because it had been playing out in So Cal. The way the arbitration system is set up is as follows. There are four regional arbitrators covering WA, OR, N. Cal, and So. CAl. There is a coast arbitrator that handles appeals. The four regional arbitrators are picked, 2 by the employer and 2 by the union. They are supposed to rule based on the language in the contract. When there are true gray areas its understood that the 2 are probably going to see through the eyes of the employer, and the other 2 the union. However, its very important to the credibility of the system that all 4 are fair. This one arbitrator has not been, in fact over 50% of his rulings have been overturned by the coast arbitrator. The irony is that he was one of the unions picks.

So why is this such a big deal? It gives the employer a 3-1 advantage
in the arbitration process, and of the 3 he is the most biased in favor of the employer, and its not close. It often takes months for the coast arbitrator to overturn his decisions, at which point the damage has already been done, sometimes irreparably. His decisions have nullified gains in job jurisdiction that were given in exchange for language on technology and automation that will cost jobs in other areas. This was language PMA said they had to have. We compromised and we got burned, not by the language, but by the arbitrator. From the unions position it doesn't matter what the contract says, if we arbitrate in front of this guy we lose. Now, consider that most of the work is in his region.

We don't want the right to terminate arbitrators that rule against us. We want to repick our arbitraitor, because the one we have isn't satisfying the most fundamental requirement of the job. Which is fairness.

The employers have admitted that there is a problem with the arbitration process. They just don't want to do anything about it, because it couldn't be going better for them.

How important is it to the PMA? 46 ships and counting at anchor and 4 2/3 of the last 5 days with no ship work. All over letting us repick our choice of arbitrator. Hmm, is this guy important to them? Don't think too hard thats a tough one.

He was just trolling.........
So fuk you cocksucker....

You find a four year old clip of one knucklehead and paint it as the view of 20,000 longshoreman. Is this the kind of in depth analysis I should expect from you?

I'd love to get to work, if PMA would quit shutting down the ports.

Any union contract that jeopardizes the employers ability to be profitable, serves neither party. If the employer fails, the terms don't matter, there is no job. Even after paying us they made $370 billion, sounds like they could afford it. I have no problem with their margins, like I said my job depends on them being successful, and they are.

You should probably stop getting your propaganda from talk radio. The ILWU cut ties with Trumka and the AFL-CIO, and I doubt union lobbyists get much traction when they are being outspent by business by 6500% ($2.93b to $44m).

It's just about baseball season. So if you have anymore slow cheese to throw across the plate, I'll be happy to put it in the cheap seats for ya.

There is more I'd like to say, but I think I'll take the high road, relatively speaking. I know the truth is on my side.

As do I.

Well said longie. Nice to see the true colors of many who post here. I'd like to see the pay stubs from the ones sitting across the bargaining table.

I'd like to see exactly what they contribute in terms of value to society also. Laffin.

Reagan was the president of the screen actors guild union. For all the positive things he did he did much more to screw America including the air traffic controllers. Reagan will be remembered for running up the national debt six fold from $550 Billion to $3 Trillion in eight years. Who the best president is depends on your political bias.

Yes he was, was your point to show his balance?


I've always thought that his handling of the air traffic controllers was praiseworthy.


When Reagan took office the GDP was 2.79 trillion and the military budget had been decimated by Carter, when Reagan left office the GDP was 5.1 trillion and the military had been brought back to such a point that the Berlin wall was about to fall.

When Reagan left office the national debt was 54.4% of the GDP, it is now well over 100%.

At least Reagan didn't support America:

Velociraptor's came out of modern day locations Russia, Mongolia, China.
He's firing a German MP-7.
He's sporting a Russian RPG
He's riding on a Mexican made saddle and bridle.
The US Flag and saddle blanket was made in India.
The hat is obviously a foreign Stetson knock-off.
All his textiles came from China.
He's not even wearing good old American cowboy boots.

PMA FINAL proposal was on the table this morning at 06:00.

I never heard a word about it at all so business as usual today.

He knew the tools, how to use them, and when to use them.