thinks (or maybe it's true) that all they have to do is threaten to strike and they will get what they want.
What I don't understand is the comment in the second paragraph about the Waterfront Commission
of New York and New Jersey. What's this all about? The contract covers all of the US East/Gulf
ports. Is the Waterfront Commission still influenced by the mafia?
When we met during the week of August 20th, USMX presented the issues that we believed
were critical to successfully reaching an agreement. Those issues all center around inefficiencies
that have crept into our operations over the years. I’m referring to archaic work rules and
manning practices, and the system of guarantees and overtime pay practices that result in
millions of dollars being paid for time not worked. These inefficiencies are causing many of our
ports to become prohibitively expensive, harming our competitive ability and threatening the
long term viability of our operations. USMX was hopeful that we would receive the same
consideration from the ILA as we had given it on its critical issues. Instead, our presentations
were simply rejected without any consideration, and when management objected to this lack of
consideration, the ILA responded with a threat to strike.
Many of these issues are the same ones cited in a recent report compiled by the Waterfront
Commission of New York and New Jersey. I’m somewhat at a loss to understand why the ILA
would appear to be willing to have an outside agency attempt to force a solution on the parties,
rather than have the parties address the issues in the collective bargaining arena, at the
bargaining table, where they properly belong.
click here for link to complete letter
No comments:
Post a Comment