That's right. Shipping clerks who are making at least twice as much as most other clerical workers in the nation are striking because they want more pay. These guys make 96k in salary, plus 66k in benefits. Look at that again: they make more in benefits than the average salary in the US. And they are striking for more pay. Oh, and they also want to dictate that if a worker retires, the company has to hire a replacement, whether enough work exists to justify that position's continuance.

It gets even better. The company wants to use new computer systems in order to deliver better customer service, but the paper pushers don't want that, because they are worried it would lead to outsourcing. So, instead, they strike, making it even more likely that the company will just ship their jobs overseas.

Not only are they affecting their own jobs, they are fucking over other people's jobs, people who happen not to be a part of this union. 500 greedy people are threatening the jobs of more than a million people. Remind me again, why unions are good? Cause I'm not seeing it.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ports-strike-20121201,0,4917459.story
http://www.lbpost.com/ryan/10098
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/02/us-usa-port-losangeles-idUSBRE8B101R20121202

12/2/2012 10:50:15 AM

Can you try and do some deeper analysis?

I'm not saying I'm #1 fan of these unions, but I'm 100% certain the story here is more interesting than what you've posted in this thread.

(I've done very little reading on this topic, but it seems to me that the workers ought to take a modest pay cut in exchange for some temporary guarantees against outsourcing, but I imagine management probably wants to outsource everything they possibly can...so...?)

12/2/2012 11:40:52 AM

Quote :

"I've done very little reading on this topic, but it seems to me that the workers ought to take a modest pay cut in exchange for some temporary guarantees against outsourcing"

Actually, no. They could take that deal right now without having to take a pay cut, because the company has already said it will not send away the jobs. It's offered a guarantee and will write said guarantee into the contract. Hell, it has even offered to self-impose fines if any non-union worker performs union work.

12/2/2012 11:44:30 AM

I want to read about that. Where is that information?

12/2/2012 11:49:40 AM

I posted 3 news articles in the OP. I think it's in the 3rd one, probably in the first, too.


edit: nope, here are some more
http://northridge.patch.com/articles/strike-day-3-halts-work-at-u-s-s-busiest-seaport-long-beach-los-angeles-regional-economy-national-impact-1-billion-daily-goods-movement-presidential-intervention-global-shipping-petroleum

Quote :

"The clerical workers union accuses the Harbor Employers Association, which represents 14 of the world's largest shipping companies, of using technology to outsource workers' jobs. John Berry, the lead negotiator for the employers, strongly disputed the claim. "Not one OCU job has been sent overseas, or anywhere else," Berry said. On the contrary, Berry argued, the employers have guaranteed that no OCU workers will be laid off under a new contract and that they will be paid every week of the year. The employers are also offering to self-impose fines every time a non-union employee performs union work, barring exceptions in the contract, Berry added."

[Edited on December 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2012 11:57:40 AM

Thank you for posting a more informative link. According to the second link you posted, employees did offer to forgo a pay increase (but employers say they demanded more in benefits).

Considering what this Berry fellow is saying, I still don't see how this matter will be resolved with both sides feeling good. I don't think workers are concerned about their own jobs; they're concerned about future jobs. Or maybe I should say: the union isn't concerned about current jobs; it's concerned about future jobs. I suspect those "exceptions in the contract" are probably an issue.

I don't see either side as being particularly sympathetic. It's weird. These workers are supposedly being offered a guarantee that they will never be laid-off, which is incredible. But, on the other hand, if this business is lucrative enough to make such an incredible offer, then maybe they've got a little more to give.

12/2/2012 12:45:40 PM

let them lose their jobs and bring in new people who want to make good money. who cares?

fuck unions.

12/2/2012 1:12:05 PM

This is not the first time this has happened with this particular union. I think it was about 15 years ago when they fought against automation and efficiency while seeking guarantees of more pay and benefits.

Fuck 'em.

[Edited on December 2, 2012 at 3:21 PM. Reason : Sorry, it was only a decade agao.]

12/2/2012 3:10:05 PM

I need to get a job with these assholes

12/2/2012 3:17:20 PM

Good luck with that.

Like with the longshoremen, you pretty much have to be a relative of a union member in order to get a job there.

12/2/2012 6:09:40 PM

You know, I actually don't mind longshoremen having a union. It's a legitimately dangerous and physically demanding job. If they want to unionize to protect themselves and work for higher pay I have no issue with it, they can pull it off.

Data entry clerks who check stuff in and can basically be replaced with bar code scanners... get fucked with your union.

12/2/2012 6:38:08 PM

A group of people joining together in order to increase their quality of life?

Why I never.

12/2/2012 6:49:16 PM

Workers should feel free to band together and unionize, employers should be free to tell them to go and jump up their own ass.

If you're running a cash register, or doing data entry your union is a waste of time because you're completely replaceable and you have no leverage even through collective bargaining.

If you're doing a difficult job that either requires specific and real skills or is difficult to staff based on the physical demands or danger your union will actually have some teeth.

That's the difference between longshoremen and clerks.

12/2/2012 6:52:45 PM

I'm not sure why the pay rate in this case is such a point of interest to the people in this thread.

Does it make sense for the owners of a lucrative business to rake in huge profits, paying the executives $texas, while paying their other employees the lowest tolerable level?

You can make the argument that these employees are low skilled and "replaceable" but that isn't an argument for paying them as little as possible, while all the business' profits go to the stop. Unions wouldn't be as necessary (and they are decreasing in size and power anyway-- they're losing the battle against the corporations) if more companies practiced profit sharing.

12/2/2012 7:39:59 PM

A corporation's goal is to return profits to its shareholders, not to pay as much as possible to its employees. That's the difference between a corporation and an employee co-op. There are definitely companies that are better to work for, and ones that treat their employees like shit, but at the heart of it, every firm wants to be more efficient and will compensate employees at the lowest level they can while still retaining great talent.

You don't become more efficient by holding onto dead weight jobs and not updating your technology, which is what the union wants in this case, and the last time they went on strike.

12/2/2012 7:45:59 PM

^ exactly. The post above yours is absurd.

12/2/2012 8:31:06 PM

Quote :

"compensate employees at the lowest level they can while still retaining great talent."

I'm not sure who the 'great talent' is in this case. You've posted several times about how worthless you think low-skill workers are.

In any case, it takes two parties to determine the rate of compensation. It's not simply a function of how little an employer is willing to pay.

12/2/2012 9:18:58 PM

I was speaking in general terms. People frequently overvalue how important they are in the grand scheme of things. If you don't want the pay they offer, counter offer. If they tell you no then you can either look for other employment or take it.

Every worker has value to their employer, you just have to realize what it is before you overplay your hand. Workers at hostess, unskilled unionized laborers like cashiers, people who are already compensated well above the average for their position... you don't have leverage.

I have no problem with people seeking as much pay as they can get, but don't expect sympathy or to win your showdown with an employer when it's clear you're already overpaid and are replaceable.

12/2/2012 9:25:55 PM

Well in this case, the clerical workers clearly have a ton of leverage because their strike has shut down the ports, costing $1 billion per day.

12/2/2012 10:04:17 PM

Quote :

"If you don't want the pay they offer, counter offer."

Which is exactly what's happening.

I agree that specialization increases leverage. So do numbers.

12/2/2012 10:07:57 PM

It's not like it has stopped shipping though, it's just caused it to get rerouted to different ports for the most part. Shit like this is just going to mean less work in the future and ultimately be counterproductive, especially with the Panama canal being improved allowing for shipping directly to the East coast or gulf in a year or 2.

12/2/2012 10:17:17 PM

It's not like it has stopped shipping though, it's just caused it to get rerouted to different ports for the most part. Shit like this is just going to mean less work in the future and ultimately be counterproductive, especially with the Panama canal being improved allowing for shipping directly to the East coast or gulf in a year or 2.

12/2/2012 10:17:51 PM

Don't really disagree.

But it's still their right to seek higher wages.

12/2/2012 10:33:47 PM

^ It is, and it shouldn't be. State power should not be used to force one party to negotiate with another.

12/3/2012 12:56:32 AM

Quote :

"It's not like it has stopped shipping though, it's just caused it to get rerouted to different ports for the most part."

Billions of dollars in lost revenues for the Port of Long Beach and the Port of LA. The strike is accomplishing exactly what it set out to do, by hitting the management where it hurts most: their pockets.

Unlike the grocery cashiers union, this union has a ton of leverage because the Teamsters and Longshoremen stand with them when they strike. They can absolutely screw the ports, and they know it. How the hell do you think they got such insane compensation packages in the first place?

[Edited on December 3, 2012 at 1:07 AM. Reason : 2]

12/3/2012 1:04:38 AM

^^ Yeah, no one is surprised you don't like labor laws and you don't like freedom of association.

12/3/2012 1:16:39 AM

That's not really what he's saying....

12/3/2012 2:01:04 AM

Quote :

"You can make the argument that these employees are low skilled and "replaceable" but that isn't an argument for paying them as little as possible, while all the business' profits go to the stop."

LOL, yes it is.

12/3/2012 7:43:20 AM

These workers obviously do something important or this would not be an issue and they wouldn't have such high pay.

12/3/2012 7:50:41 AM

You have got to be fucking high.

12/3/2012 7:59:44 AM

Still alittle sleepy bc I havent had coffee yet.

If you for some reason think these people are over payed then it's the shipping companies that are at fault. They hired the workers didn't they?

12/3/2012 8:11:31 AM

Quote :

"A corporation's goal is to return profits to its shareholders, not to pay as much as possible to its employees."

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/

Quote :

"Sunday, Dec. 2, 2012 – Due to labor action, seven container terminals at the Port of Los Angeles are not in operation as of Sunday, Dec. 2. Those terminals include China Shipping (Berth 100), Yang Ming (Berths 121-131), Yusen (Berths 212-225), Evergreen (Berths 226-236), APL (Berths 302-305) , APM (Berths 401-404) and California United (Berths 405-406). One container terminal, TraPac, remains open."

You can find the share price for these companies. For instance, Yang Ming:

http://www.google.com/finance?q=TPE%3A2609

Basically all of them has lost money over the last 10 years. None of them are doing well, all of them look like terrible investments over the entire time frame we have share prices listed for them. Even TraPac, the one who apparently avoided this, has nothing but bad news out there about it.

I understand the argument "they had to do it for their shareholders", but I just want to be crystal clear that the evidence has never supported such a position. Is there a case of a company taking a hard-line stance against unions and boosting shareholder value? I'm pretty sure not. But then again, there might not be a case of their caving to unions and increasing shareholder value. If we go by financials, the best thing to do may be to close shop once a union comes into the picture period.

You know, when you defend workers getting screwed based on shareholders, you need to be reminded that shareholders are getting screwed too.

12/3/2012 8:34:21 AM

I would assume someone who owns a large amount of stock in these companies understands the risk. If they don't they should fire someone.

12/3/2012 8:54:43 AM

Fuck these assholes.

12/3/2012 9:12:07 AM

Quote :

"These workers obviously do something important or this would not be an issue and they wouldn't have such high pay."

Shh, this only applies when talking about executives!

12/3/2012 9:17:39 AM

Doo doo, pee pee, they should all be fired, I work so damn hard and am awesome.

*puts on sunglasses, pops sweet wheelie on motocycle and rides off*

YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH

12/3/2012 10:06:35 AM

Oh, irony of ironies...

The workers are saying they are worried about their jobs being outsourced, so they went on strike.
Because the port can no longer handle the traffic due to the strike, a port 200 miles away in Mexico is offering to take in all the ships that would have gone to the Long Beach port. >.<

12/4/2012 9:09:22 PM

Well I guess the only solution is for our workers here in America is to accept conditions identical or worse than those in Mexico.

12/5/2012 8:55:00 AM

Or, you know, they can accept the negotiated wage which was far above what their Mexican counterparts accept without using violence against their employer (in this case, government violence if the employer attempts to fire the unionized and hire new workers).

12/6/2012 1:59:38 PM

They want to ship these American jobs overseas, further wrecking our economy.

You fucks that are against them are anti-American and need to leave the country and find a job in China.

12/6/2012 3:08:13 PM

The union should be dissolved. A clerical field like that is not going to be prone to monopsony.

12/6/2012 3:58:16 PM

LOL pryderi.

if i didn't know better, i would think you were an alias set out to make liberals look stupid.

12/6/2012 11:25:24 PM

When it comes to these negotiations, expect plenty of this

for one of these



s,

12/11/2012 1:09:26 PM

Well, hopefully they will have fewer issues with unions fucking up the program in Michigan now, as--YES, MICHIGAN--became right-to-work today.

12/11/2012 9:54:41 PM

I read about that. I slow clapped.

12/11/2012 10:13:36 PM

.

[Edited on December 11, 2012 at 10:13 PM. Reason : chrome]

12/11/2012 10:13:36 PM

fire anyone who isn't a cool top gun jockey

12/12/2012 9:39:45 AM

fire anyone who isn't a cool top gun jockey

12/12/2012 9:39:45 AM

In that case, maybe Chrysler can re-fire those asshole who got busted getting drunk and high on their lunch break multiple times by a news channel. Apparently they went to arbitration and for some reason, Chrysler was forced to re-hire them. No word on if they got back pay for the 2 years they have been off the job.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/10/chrysler-workers-fired-for-drinking-back-on-job-against-automake/

12/12/2012 11:12:18 AM

Quote :

"If you for some reason think these people are over payed then it's the shipping companies that are at fault. They hired the workers didn't they?"

A lot of times they need to in order to stay competitive. Some organizations will only deal with companies who hire union workers. Contracts sometimes come with a clause of hiring union workers. Also, the National Labor Relations Act prohibits hiring discrimination based on union affiliation.

I have a friend that works at Ford and is constantly berated and treated like an asshole by union guys, and nothing can be done about it. He's one of the nicest people I know. They get paid ridiculous salaries (starting at six digits), and most of them are hired in because they know someone or are family members of another union member, not because they are highly skilled. I don't know know whether or not the shipping union in the OP is similar.

I'm 100% for unions and collective bargaining, but if you can't admit there are big problems on both ends, you're delusional or misinformed.

[Edited on December 12, 2012 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2012 12:42:09 PM