From the ILA web-site...
click here for link
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO Contract Issues with United States Maritime Alliance
|
| 12/20/2012 |
THE ISSUE: CONTAINER ROYALTY
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO wants to maintain
Container Royalty Fund as it is in current contract. USMX, the
employer group representing ILA employers, wants to put a cash ceiling
or CAP on how much money is put into the Container Royalty Fund for
current longshore workers and ultimately, eliminate the Container
Royalty Fund.
The first container royalties were established in the 1960s as a
way to protect members of the International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO (ILA) in New York from job losses created by containerization
and its introduction of automated cargo.
Container Royalty came about from negotiations and sacrifices made
by ILA members since the late 1960s. Container Royalty supplements the
members' income and keeps his benefits package financially strong.
Container Royalty eligibility must be earned by an ILA member reaching a
certain amount of hours worked each year. ILA work isn't like other
professions: no ships mean no work, but employers depend on a strong
and skilled workforce when ships need to be worked. Container Royalty
helps keep an ILA workforce available.
When containerization started the ILA was faced with a huge
displacement of worker whose jobs were eliminated by the ominous steel
boxes. The ILA was at a crossroad - allow containerization to be
implemented or refuse. The ILA agreed to allow containerization to
flourish but negotiated a fee based on the weight of each loaded
container to be used for annual payments to the longshore workers whose
job opportunities had been compromised due to containerization. As the
number of containers being handled increased, the negotiated payment for
each worker increased. Rather than being an annual bonus for each
worker, as USMX suggests, this payment is compensation for the job
opportunities lost by permitting containerization.
United States Maritime Alliance now wants to limit the amount of
money that is paid ILA members and goes into various Container Royalty
Funds by placing a CAP on the money collected in any given contract
year. Container Royalty is collected by the amount of tons of
containerized cargo ILA members handle. A total of $4.85 is collected
on each ton of containerized cargo handled and is distributed to ILA
workers as part of a Wage supplement and to the ILA members' health care
fund, called MILA.
USMX ultimate goal is to eliminate Container Royalty, based on their last proposal to end it in 25 years.
ILA has suggested a way for Container Royalty to end now. If the
Carriers don't want to pay Container Royalty, then bring back all the
warehouses, and start stuffing and stripping again. A Carrier does not
have to pay Container Royalty on a Container that has been stuffed and
stripped by the ILA.
Automation continues to reduce the number of hours for hard working
ILA members. Container Royalty wage supplements are more important
today for ILA members than its ever been to keep America's commerce
moving with skilled, trained longshore workers.
WAGES:
ILA and USMX have exchanged proposals and demands regarding on
Wages based on a tentative six-year contract. The ILA has put in its
demands wage increases that are reasonable and would enable our
employers to remain competitive.
In its contract proposals to the ILA, USMX continues to treat ILA
workers like second-class citizens. In all its public pronouncements on
wages, USMX fails to note that longshore labor cost amounts to between
3% and 4% of the shipper's total cost. Unlike other hourly workers who
work a 40-hour workweek, most longshore workers make themselves
available for work on a daily basis. Early on, the ILA negotiated a
guarantee of a day's pay. Otherwise, the employer had no obligation to
pay if a vessel did not arrive on schedule. To the employer's benefit,
Guarantee Annual Income no longer exists.
Also very important to note: For over 20 years, our employers
enjoyed paying tiered wages where newer longshore workers were paid much
less than their senior counterparts. The system was unfair and there
was never light at the end of the tunnel. History shows that management
enjoyed huge savings while ILA members, their locals, the Districts and
the International all suffered with reduced revenues.
ILA HEALTH CARE FOR WORKERS:
The ILA's National Health care program is called "MILA"
Part of MILA is funded through Container Royalty money mentioned earlier.
USMX current proposal is that our MILA fund is so solvent that they'd like to defer payment of CR 4 for two years.
USMX views this as a loan, promising to pay it back within third
year of agreement. Their math is fuzzy. They claim CR 4 contributions
down the road will be greater than the current $1.15. We think their
contributions would end up being less with even a 5% bump in container
growth.
USMX pledged early in negotiations that no matter what we agreed to
with MILA, our fund would be sound and secure because they'd
automatically pump money into the fund if the current $800 million
reserve were to fall below $600 million. They called it a trigger and
that it would kick in when the fund went below $600 million. CR-4 would
restart.
Somehow, talk of a "trigger" has stopped. Their new formula? They
only want a 6-month reserve with no trigger. That formula would take
our current $800 million reserve down to the $200 million mark.
They will "Guarantee" the current benefit for the life of the
contract if we agree to that two-year deferred payment to CR-4. The ILA
asks "What reserve will we have at the end of a contract with this
formula?" We are unsure about the impact from OBAMACARE.
ILA refuses to jeopardize the future of our MILA program by
shortsighted decisions. Healthcare is extremely important to our
members and their families and we want it financially secure.
OTHER ISSUES:
ILA and USMX did reach tentative agreements on automation and container chassis work and on some jurisdiction language.
LOCAL ISSUES:
All local issues and negotiated in the local port area. All ILA
ports from Maine to Texas still need to resolve local agreements.