Skip to content Skip to footer

Longshoremen Threaten Strike as GOP Pushes Biden to Intervene in Contract Battle

Over 25,000 workers may walk off the job Tuesday, shutting down ports across the East Coast if a deal isn’t reached.

In an aerial view, operations are seen in the Port of Houston Authority on September 20, 2024, in Harris County, Texas.

The president of the AFL-CIO sent a letter to House Republicans on Thursday asking them not to intervene in contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association and the U.S. Maritime Alliance, which could lead to the first East Coast port strike since 1977 if a deal is not struck by October 1.

The letter came in response to another letter sent by Republican lawmakers to U.S. President Joe Biden on September 19, urging him to “find a reasonable resolution to these contract disputes” and to “utilize every authority at its disposal to ensure the continuing flow of goods” if a strike does occur.

“Averting a strike is the responsibility of the employers who refuse to offer ILA members a contract that reflects the dignity and value of their labor,” AFL-CIO president Elizabeth H. Shuler wrote in response to the GOP representatives. “The fight for a fair contract for longshoremen is the entire labor movement’s fight.”

A potential strike would see between 25,000 and 50,000 workers walk off the job on Tuesday at 36 locations along 14 East and Gulf Coast port authorities, including 10 of the busiest in North America.

The union wants substantial raises to cover the cost of inflation. While West Coast port workers make a base wage of $54.85, their East and Gulf Coast counterparts make only $39.

The ILA is also demanding better healthcare, and a promise not to install automated or semi-automated terminals at the ports. However, negotiations between the union and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) broke down in June when the ILA said that USMX had begun using an automated gate to allow trucks into ports, in violation of the current contract.

The union has since contacted USMX to discuss wage increases, but the company has not upped its offer.

“My ILA members are not going to accept these insulting offers that are a joke considering the work my ILA longshore workers perform, and the billion-dollar profits the companies make off the backs of their labor,” ILA president and lead negotiator Harold J. Daggett said in a statement on Monday.

“The blame for a coast wide strike in a week that will shut down all ports on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts falls squarely on the shoulders of USMX,” Daggett continued.

In their letter, the Republican representatives warned about how the strike “would result in delays and dire impacts to our supply chains, our economy, and the American consumer.” They evoked the “supply-chain crisis” during the COVID-19 pandemic that was a major driver of inflation, saying that a one-week strike would cause a one-and-a-half month backlog.

However, Shuler said that the GOP letter made a strike — and its economic consequences — more likely, not less. That’s because the leaning on Biden to use his authority to “ensure the continuing flow of goods,” suggested Shuler, could reasonably be interpreted as a request for him to file a judicial injunction under the Taft-Hartely Act to stop a strike from taking place.

“History tells us that when companies can count on an injunction against a strike, they do not negotiate in good faith to reach an agreement. By even suggesting a possible injunction, your letter makes a deal less likely and a strike all the more likely,” Shuler said.

This is especially the case because the Biden administration told Reuters earlier this month that it had “never invoked Taft-Hartley to break a strike and are not considering doing so now.”

“Yet,” Shuler told the representatives, “your letter tries to suggest otherwise, giving the companies reason to dig in their heels. Instead of calling for government intervention, a far more productive tact would be to press the companies to meet the workers’ very reasonable demands.”

Shuler defended the workers’ rights to wages that keep pace with living costs as well as job security in a changing technological landscape.

“Like workers in many other industries — from hospitality to healthcare to film and television — they need fair contract provisions that protect their jobs from being eliminated by automation,” Shuler said.

She also noted that the port workers had made significant sacrifices to keep the ports moving during the early years of COVID-19.

“Throughout the pandemic, longshore workers never took a day off, risking their health and lives to make sure shelves were stocked and the supply chain remained strong,” Shuler wrote. “The public strongly supports these front-line workers and their just demand for economic security.”

She continued: “It adds insult to injury to encourage USMX to provoke a strike rather than agree to a fair contract for the workers who kept food on the table and our economy running through the darkest days of the COVID-19 crisis.”

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.