You don't think the fear of losing Boeing and what that would do to the political capital of those politicians had any thing to do with those vote totals. I think letting corporations comparison shop for tax breaks is a slippery slope. Then 9 months later they move 2000 engineering jobs anyway. I guess $8.7B wasn't enough for them to actually keep their word. The union didn't draw up that deal it was force fed to them by the company. They voted it down once by a 40% margin. The union did not want to vote on it again. Then the governor put the full court press on them in concert with community pressure to vote on the proposal again. It passed by 2% on fear, but like you say they still have their jobs.

If the PMA gave the ILWU everything they were asking for wouldn't they have had a deal? I outlined the arbitrator issue above. That was the only thing standing in the way of a deal. So why would PMA let all that cargo sit while they layed over shifts for ILWU appointed arbitraitor David Miller? Unless he was worth it.

The common denominator between Boeing and this contract dispute with the PMA is the PR giant Burson-Marsteller. They tried to use a similar game plan by creating a crisis, and controlling the narrative. To create pressure from the public and the government to accept a deal that would damage the long term future of the ILWU. Did they succeed? It looks like there is a tentative agreement on a contract, we'll have to read it and see. It sounds like they agreed to a change in the arbitration process. Its a shame that couldn't have happened sooner.

Another point of information. The PMA is set up so that every member company has a vote on the process. There are a few employers that have been gaming the system through acquisition. In the past acquisitions were absorbed into the parent company. A few of the larger companies learned that if they kept acquisitions as a subsidiary they could keep that extra vote. It has led to 2 or 3 companies being able to dictate the direction of the association. Many of the other companies were not happy, some broke ranks and worked anyway. This resulted in some heavy fines for member companies that did not follow the directive.

Rev, The Governor applied pressure to the union to have a second vote on the proposal that had been overwhelmingly been rejected. He implied that the state had done their part, and if the rank and file voted it down it was on them. He was doing Boeing's bidding for them. That is hanging them out to dry IMO.

My take on the 'facts' are as follows. I think the vote on the tax break had more to do with the fear of the ramifications to political careers if Boeing left, than it did the benefit to the State of Washington. That contract wasn't drawn up by the union it was dictated to them by Boeing. They already had a contract. When that contract was voted down by more than a 2 to 1 margin the union did not want another vote.

ex·tor·tion/ikˈstôrSH(ə)n/
noun
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

The word extortion has been thrown around a lot in this thread, but its mostly been misused. So as a courtesy I'm including the definition. The only party using threats was Boeing, unless you know of any force or threats I'm unaware of.

Refer back to the definition, because I'm not getting the joke.

I'm sorry, but I think you're argument about the Governor giving the tax break to appease unions is misguided. Particularly, given the issues above. I assure you he didn't get a flood of union contributions on that day. He probably closed the doors of a few halls to fundraisers. I also think you are misinformed about the amount of labor money contributed to campaigns. Labor is outspent by business 65 to 1. How much influence do you think 1.4% buys?

Its pretty clear that we're not going to agree when it comes to unions.

What would you call it when union members refuse to work, or threaten not to work, and or threaten potential strikebreakers.


I'm afraid that your numbers are wrong. According to the PDC In 2014 unions contributed $8,676,028. or 9% of all contributions while business contributed $24,151,106. or 25% of all contributions, and PAC's, which unions also contribute to, offered up $15,851,166. or 17% of all contributions. So yes I do think polititions are very interested in those funds.


Perhaps not, as I don't see the Unions as being all good or all bad. And I don't consider business to be all good or all bad, I think that they both have a part to play, but I readily admit that I have a hard time finding much room to sympathise with the Longshoreman in this instance.

Full vessel operations start tonight in Seattle.

We have not refused to work, threatened not to work, and I have no idea what strikebreakers you are speaking of.

You are correct, I blew that one and used federal #'s associated with lobbying instead of campaign contributions. Thats what I get for posting at that hour. My apologies, for the mix up. The federal #'s and percentages I researched form secretsout.org are much different than yours. I assume yours refer to Washington state only, I'll take your word for it. It doesn't change my opinion that the Governors actions will put him in a less favorable position with labor.

I think you are right in that no side is all good or all bad. As a longshoreman, I regret that you feel the way you do about us. I can only assume that it stems from your belief that we are overcompensated. My views on alleged compensation have been covered so I'll skip it. The fact is that this dispute had nothing to do with compensation. Since 2002 the issues that have been contentious are related to technology, jurisdiction, and job security. You could make a case for medical this year due to the issues with Obamacare, yet that was still agreed upon in August. The wage negotiations have never seemed to involve much of a struggle, almost as though they are a throw in from PMA. Maybe they view it as an investment toward bolstering their case that we are ungrateful and overcompensated. In any event, I doubt there are many people on here that would balk on a pay increase if offered.