Dockworkers went on strike at ports stretching from Texas to Maine on Oct. 1, and there are no signs at this point that it will end quickly.
The International Longshoreman's Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) — representing port companies along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf Coast — were in talks for months prior to the walkout. President Joe Biden has rejected calls to end the strike by enforcing the Taft-Hartley Act, a 1947 law that would force the ports to reopen while negotiations continued but would restrict the union's strength by eliminating its ability to strike.
The National Association of Manufacturers, which had called for intervention, says the strike could cause "dire economic consequences," threatening up to $2.1 billion in trade each day.
The Alliance for Chemical Distribution said in an Oct. 1 news release that there's fault to be found from the 47,000 dock workers and 36 ports.
"For months, there has been an unwillingness to formally negotiate in good faith, with both sides allowing a strike to occur despite having months to negotiate and reach an agreement," ACD said. "... This strike will result in severe delays, reroutes and greater uncertainties on the delivery of essential products at countless U.S. ports."
This isn't a simple matter of offering up more money or more flexible benefits or hours. The Washington Post columnist Heather Long writes that the key issue is the rise of automation at ports. Investments in new equipment mean that docks can essentially run with almost no people involved, much like a molder's "lights out" operations.
That level of automation, however, means far fewer jobs, so union members are looking for security.
"Rotterdam [in the Netherlands] was the first major port to automate and is often held up as the global ideal," Long writes. "But its enhancements also came with generous early-retirement packages for workers."
