International Longshore & Warehouse Union President Robert McEllrath has sent a letter to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka informing him that after a 25-year partnership, the ILWU is disaffiliating itself from the larger union.
“It is with regret but resolve that we have come to the point where the International Longshore and Warehouse Union must cut formal ties with the AFL-CIO,” McEllrath wrote in the letter, which was sent Aug. 29, on the eve of Labor Day Weekend. “The ILWU has been independent and unaffiliated for most of its history. Today, the ILWU returns to that tradition.”
Among the primary reasons McEllrath cited for the split were picket line crossings by AFL-CIO affiliates during an action against the Pacific Northwest grain terminals.
“A particularly outrageous raid occurred in 2011, when one affiliate slipped in to longshore jobs at the new EGT grain facility in the Port of Longview, Washington, and then walked through ILWU picket lines for six months until we were able to secure this critical longshore jurisdiction,” McEllrath wrote.
McEllrath’s laundry list of complaints also included incidents that have taken place in Southern and Northern California.
“In Los Angeles and Oakland, another affiliate is imposing internal union fines against dual union members for the ‘crime’ of taking a job as a longshoreman,” McEllrath wrote, implying the purpose of the fines was preventing the ILWU from filling new waterfront jobs that replace traditional longshore work due to new technologies.
“Throughout the Pacific Northwest, we are daily seeing still other affiliates blatantly cross the picket lines of ILWU members who have been locked out for months by the regional grain industry,” the letter maintains, citing how some of the Building Trades affiliates have displaced ILWU workers in the loading of barges at Terminal 46 in Seattle.
“These multi-state attacks against the ILWU are being coordinated in large part by a law firm with close ties to the Federation,” McEllrath wrote. “We see this situation only getting worse as the ILWU is about to start West Coast longshore negotiations and face the challenge of the ports soon being run by robotics and computer-operated machinery over the next five to ten years. The survival of the ILWU and the job security of our members depend on our having these remaining jobs. We will not let other affiliates jeopardize our survival and block our future as the primary waterfront workforce.”
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Port Metro Vancouver Mid-Year Volumes Strong
Canada’s largest seaport, Port Metro Vancouver, saw six percent growth in cargo volumes through the first half of 2013 compared with the same six months last year, according to newly released data.
The data includes new records in key sectors, and a strong 2013 cruise season, according to the port.
The 2013 mid-year cargo volume statistics report shows that Port Metro Vancouver handled over 66 million tons of cargo through the end of June, compared with 62 million tons in the first half of 2012, a 6.3 percent increase.
“What we have seen to the mid-point in 2013 is continuing strong demand for Canadian natural resources, with all the major economic benefits that provides for the local and national economy,” Port Metro Vancouver President and Chief Executive Officer Robin Silvester said in a statement.
Total foreign tonnage at Port Metro Vancouver posted a seven percent increase with 52.7 million tons handled. Total domestic tonnage also increased by three percent to 13.7 million tons.
“Port Metro Vancouver’s strong 2013 mid-year growth is clear proof that our Asia-Pacific Gateway strategy is working,” Canada Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt said in a statement.
The port also saw a 21 percent increase in paying cruise passengers during the first half of 2013, with the number rising from about 262,600 to nearly 318,000. The number of voyages was up over 27 percent, going from 76 during the first half of last year to 97 within the first six months of 2013.
The data includes new records in key sectors, and a strong 2013 cruise season, according to the port.
The 2013 mid-year cargo volume statistics report shows that Port Metro Vancouver handled over 66 million tons of cargo through the end of June, compared with 62 million tons in the first half of 2012, a 6.3 percent increase.
“What we have seen to the mid-point in 2013 is continuing strong demand for Canadian natural resources, with all the major economic benefits that provides for the local and national economy,” Port Metro Vancouver President and Chief Executive Officer Robin Silvester said in a statement.
Total foreign tonnage at Port Metro Vancouver posted a seven percent increase with 52.7 million tons handled. Total domestic tonnage also increased by three percent to 13.7 million tons.
“Port Metro Vancouver’s strong 2013 mid-year growth is clear proof that our Asia-Pacific Gateway strategy is working,” Canada Transportation Minister Lisa Raitt said in a statement.
The port also saw a 21 percent increase in paying cruise passengers during the first half of 2013, with the number rising from about 262,600 to nearly 318,000. The number of voyages was up over 27 percent, going from 76 during the first half of last year to 97 within the first six months of 2013.
Port of Port Angeles Commission
Removes Board President
The controversy surrounding the resignation of former Port of Port Angeles Executive Director Jeff Robb has claimed another victim: port board member Jim Hallett, who has been removed from his position as Board of Commissioners president.
All three members of the board, including Paul McHugh and John Calhoun, voted Aug. 26 to remove Hallett as board president in the wake of a rift between board members that opened as a result of the situation surrounding Robb who, citing what he called “serious health issues,” resigned as executive director of the Port of Port Angeles in June.
He was immediately hired by the port commission at the same salary to fill a newly created job, environmental affairs director, but the vote was 2-1, with Hallett against. Hallett later said he was unhappy with the way the situation was handled and that other candidates should have been interviewed for the previously unannounced position.
Commissioner Calhoun later revealed that Robb was given the job because the port feared the potential of a lawsuit over a dysfunctional relationship between Robb and senior staff members.
The handling of Robb’s resignation and immediate rehiring has drawn the ire of local, regional and state watchdog groups, including the Washington Coalition for Open Government, which on July 22 sent the commission a letter chastising it for its actions and petitioning for the removal of Robb from the environmental affairs director post.
At the Aug. 26 meeting, Hallett’s board colleagues said his stance on the controversy had compromised his effectiveness.
“I am concerned whether you, now, as chairman of the commission, are as effective as we would like because of all the fallout from all this issue,” Calhoun said to Hallett.
Ultimately, both Hallett and McHugh agreed with the assessment and Hallett yielded his seat as president to Calhoun. “I suppose I could say I'm relieved,” Hallett said, “but that wouldn't be a true statement.”
Calhoun is expected to remain board president until after the Nov. 5 elections, where a successor to McHugh’s seat will be voted in. McHugh was eliminated in the primaries; Port of Port Angeles employee Colleen McAleer and event-services company owner Del DelaBarre will face off in the election.
All three members of the board, including Paul McHugh and John Calhoun, voted Aug. 26 to remove Hallett as board president in the wake of a rift between board members that opened as a result of the situation surrounding Robb who, citing what he called “serious health issues,” resigned as executive director of the Port of Port Angeles in June.
He was immediately hired by the port commission at the same salary to fill a newly created job, environmental affairs director, but the vote was 2-1, with Hallett against. Hallett later said he was unhappy with the way the situation was handled and that other candidates should have been interviewed for the previously unannounced position.
Commissioner Calhoun later revealed that Robb was given the job because the port feared the potential of a lawsuit over a dysfunctional relationship between Robb and senior staff members.
The handling of Robb’s resignation and immediate rehiring has drawn the ire of local, regional and state watchdog groups, including the Washington Coalition for Open Government, which on July 22 sent the commission a letter chastising it for its actions and petitioning for the removal of Robb from the environmental affairs director post.
At the Aug. 26 meeting, Hallett’s board colleagues said his stance on the controversy had compromised his effectiveness.
“I am concerned whether you, now, as chairman of the commission, are as effective as we would like because of all the fallout from all this issue,” Calhoun said to Hallett.
Ultimately, both Hallett and McHugh agreed with the assessment and Hallett yielded his seat as president to Calhoun. “I suppose I could say I'm relieved,” Hallett said, “but that wouldn't be a true statement.”
Calhoun is expected to remain board president until after the Nov. 5 elections, where a successor to McHugh’s seat will be voted in. McHugh was eliminated in the primaries; Port of Port Angeles employee Colleen McAleer and event-services company owner Del DelaBarre will face off in the election.
Port of Everett Schedules Tank Farm Hearing
After more than a decade in the works, the Port of Everett Commission is expected to soon authorize Executive Director John Mohr to take the necessary steps to compete the transfer of the Mukilteo Tank Farm property from the U.S. Air Force.
The Port Commission is expected to hold a public hearing Sept. 10 to amend the Comprehensive Scheme of Harbor Improvements in order to accept the nearly 21 acre waterfront parcel. Once the Port Commission accepts the transfer of the property, the Air Force will execute the transfer of the property to the Port of Everett.
The port’s been working with the city of Mukilteo, city of Everett, Washington State Ferries, Sound Transit and Community Transit since 1999 to secure the tank farm for transportation and community access purposes.
“We are so thrilled with the forward progress on the transfer of the Mukilteo Tank Farm,” Mohr said. “It has been a long time in the making. We all look forward to the day that the people of Mukilteo and Everett will have the long-awaited access to their waterfront.”
The port is currently in negotiations with Washington State Ferries, Sound Transit and the City of Mukilteo to enable the envisioned multi-modal facility, which includes the relocation of the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal to the tank farm property.
The Port Commission is expected to hold a public hearing Sept. 10 to amend the Comprehensive Scheme of Harbor Improvements in order to accept the nearly 21 acre waterfront parcel. Once the Port Commission accepts the transfer of the property, the Air Force will execute the transfer of the property to the Port of Everett.
The port’s been working with the city of Mukilteo, city of Everett, Washington State Ferries, Sound Transit and Community Transit since 1999 to secure the tank farm for transportation and community access purposes.
“We are so thrilled with the forward progress on the transfer of the Mukilteo Tank Farm,” Mohr said. “It has been a long time in the making. We all look forward to the day that the people of Mukilteo and Everett will have the long-awaited access to their waterfront.”
The port is currently in negotiations with Washington State Ferries, Sound Transit and the City of Mukilteo to enable the envisioned multi-modal facility, which includes the relocation of the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal to the tank farm property.
Fidley Watch: Safe Harbors
By Chris Philips, Managing Editor, Pacific Maritime Magazine
Last month, US Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, Port of Seattle CEO Tay Yoshitani, and Port of Tacoma CEO John Wolfe held a press conference at the Port of Seattle to announce proposed legislation they claim will significantly strengthen American ports, including many in the Pacific Northwest.
Their legislation proposes to eliminate the harbor maintenance tax (HMT), a federal tax imposed on shippers based on the value of the goods being shipped through ports. The tax is intended for the maintenance of federal navigational channels, but while HMT revenues are about $1.6 billion per year, only $850-900 million per year is spent on harbor maintenance, leaving waterways under-maintained while building up a surplus approaching $7 billion. The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) says the lack of funding has resulted in full channel depth and width only being available about 35 percent of the time.
The HMT has also been blamed for the rerouting of cargo from Pacific Northwest ports to Canadian ports in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, BC. Those ports are maintained with a different funding mechanism, and are able to avoid the roughly $110 per 40-foot container paid into the HMT by US-bound carriers.
Murray and Cantwell’s bill proposes to replace the HMT with a Maritime Goods Movement User Fee, the proceeds of which would be “fully available to Congress to provide for port operation and maintenance.”
The senators claim the bill would double the amount of funds available for American ports, and ensure that shippers couldn’t avoid the fee by using ports in Canada and Mexico. The senators further claim the bill would set aside a portion of the user fee for “low-use, remote, and subsistence harbors that are at a competitive disadvantage for federal funding.”
So far so good, but the senators from Washington State couldn’t resist a partisan jab at perennial scapegoat “big oil” in their legislation. The Senators say the Maritime Goods Movement User Fee would also pay for infrastructure investments “by closing loopholes that allow the largest oil and gas companies in America to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies every year, even though they enjoy profits in excess of $100 billion annually.”
The Harbor Maintenance Tax and its disadvantages are well documented, and this editor would not hesitate to characterize the dislike of the HMT as universally bipartisan. While the Maritime Goods Movement User Fee is a good start toward a discussion about removing or revising the HMT, using legislation such as this as a cudgel to collect more taxes from oil and gas companies sounds less like the strengthening of US ports and more like an early Senate re-election campaign.
Senator Cantwell’s office said the legislation has not been formally introduced to the Senate, and therefore the text of the bill wasn’t available at press time, so there is still time to rewrite the bill to reflect the needs of the US commercial maritime industry as a whole, without adding unnecessary partisan rhetoric. We hope Senators Murray and Cantwell will reconsider the anti-oil language and write a bill that will gain the support of both sides of the aisle.
Last month, US Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, Port of Seattle CEO Tay Yoshitani, and Port of Tacoma CEO John Wolfe held a press conference at the Port of Seattle to announce proposed legislation they claim will significantly strengthen American ports, including many in the Pacific Northwest.
Their legislation proposes to eliminate the harbor maintenance tax (HMT), a federal tax imposed on shippers based on the value of the goods being shipped through ports. The tax is intended for the maintenance of federal navigational channels, but while HMT revenues are about $1.6 billion per year, only $850-900 million per year is spent on harbor maintenance, leaving waterways under-maintained while building up a surplus approaching $7 billion. The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) says the lack of funding has resulted in full channel depth and width only being available about 35 percent of the time.
The HMT has also been blamed for the rerouting of cargo from Pacific Northwest ports to Canadian ports in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, BC. Those ports are maintained with a different funding mechanism, and are able to avoid the roughly $110 per 40-foot container paid into the HMT by US-bound carriers.
Murray and Cantwell’s bill proposes to replace the HMT with a Maritime Goods Movement User Fee, the proceeds of which would be “fully available to Congress to provide for port operation and maintenance.”
The senators claim the bill would double the amount of funds available for American ports, and ensure that shippers couldn’t avoid the fee by using ports in Canada and Mexico. The senators further claim the bill would set aside a portion of the user fee for “low-use, remote, and subsistence harbors that are at a competitive disadvantage for federal funding.”
So far so good, but the senators from Washington State couldn’t resist a partisan jab at perennial scapegoat “big oil” in their legislation. The Senators say the Maritime Goods Movement User Fee would also pay for infrastructure investments “by closing loopholes that allow the largest oil and gas companies in America to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies every year, even though they enjoy profits in excess of $100 billion annually.”
The Harbor Maintenance Tax and its disadvantages are well documented, and this editor would not hesitate to characterize the dislike of the HMT as universally bipartisan. While the Maritime Goods Movement User Fee is a good start toward a discussion about removing or revising the HMT, using legislation such as this as a cudgel to collect more taxes from oil and gas companies sounds less like the strengthening of US ports and more like an early Senate re-election campaign.
Senator Cantwell’s office said the legislation has not been formally introduced to the Senate, and therefore the text of the bill wasn’t available at press time, so there is still time to rewrite the bill to reflect the needs of the US commercial maritime industry as a whole, without adding unnecessary partisan rhetoric. We hope Senators Murray and Cantwell will reconsider the anti-oil language and write a bill that will gain the support of both sides of the aisle.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Federal Judge Rules
in Port of Portland Labor Dispute
A federal administrative law judge on Aug. 28 issued a ruling ordering the International Longshore & Warehouse Union to stop disrupting operations at the ICTSI terminal at the Port of Portland, where there’s been an ongoing dispute regarding territorial rights to certain jobs on the docks.
In his 52-page ruling, National Labor Relations Board Judge William Schmidt ruled that ILWU members did not have the rights to a handful of jobs plugging in, unplugging and monitoring refrigerated containers at the ICTI terminal and that the work rightfully belongs to a different union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
Schmidt also wrote that the longshore union had engaged in “systematic sabotage” at the terminal during a 10-day period last year during the height of the dispute.
Schmidt’s order directs the ILWU to clearly post notices for 60 days at their Portland offices and San Francisco headquarters admitting it violated federal labor law and that it would no longer make any threats, engage in work slowdowns or stoppages at the disputed terminal. .
The order also directed the ILWU to cease filing nuisance grievances and lawsuits against ICTSI and shipping companies that are intended to hinder port operations. The labor dispute dates back to 2011, when ICTSI Oregon entered into a 25-year agreement with the port to operate the dock at Terminal 6, and chose to honor a collective-bargaining agreement between the port and the District Council of Trade Unions, of which the IBEW is a member.
The IBEW had performed the work since operations began at the terminal in 1974.
The ILWU, however, began to claim that under the collective bargaining agreement between the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association – of which ICTSI is a member – longshoremen should be doing the work.
In August 2012, the NLRB ruled that the disputed jobs should go to the IBEW and not the ILWU, which the longshore union appealed.
Schmidt then took a year considering the appeal before issuing his ruling this week.
The ILWU has said it is still reviewing the decision and has not decided whether it intends to appeal the decision.
In his 52-page ruling, National Labor Relations Board Judge William Schmidt ruled that ILWU members did not have the rights to a handful of jobs plugging in, unplugging and monitoring refrigerated containers at the ICTI terminal and that the work rightfully belongs to a different union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
Schmidt also wrote that the longshore union had engaged in “systematic sabotage” at the terminal during a 10-day period last year during the height of the dispute.
Schmidt’s order directs the ILWU to clearly post notices for 60 days at their Portland offices and San Francisco headquarters admitting it violated federal labor law and that it would no longer make any threats, engage in work slowdowns or stoppages at the disputed terminal. .
The order also directed the ILWU to cease filing nuisance grievances and lawsuits against ICTSI and shipping companies that are intended to hinder port operations. The labor dispute dates back to 2011, when ICTSI Oregon entered into a 25-year agreement with the port to operate the dock at Terminal 6, and chose to honor a collective-bargaining agreement between the port and the District Council of Trade Unions, of which the IBEW is a member.
The IBEW had performed the work since operations began at the terminal in 1974.
The ILWU, however, began to claim that under the collective bargaining agreement between the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association – of which ICTSI is a member – longshoremen should be doing the work.
In August 2012, the NLRB ruled that the disputed jobs should go to the IBEW and not the ILWU, which the longshore union appealed.
Schmidt then took a year considering the appeal before issuing his ruling this week.
The ILWU has said it is still reviewing the decision and has not decided whether it intends to appeal the decision.
North Korean Ship Carrying Cuban Arms Intercepted by Panama
By Emily Keyes, PMM Editorial Intern
An incident involving the transportation of Cuban owned Soviet-era weapons aboard a shady North Korean flagged vessel that was detained by Panamanian officials, complete with a rioting crew and suicidal captain, sounds more like a film plot for a movie during the Cuban Missile Crisis than a news brief in 2013. (Warning the following is not a screenplay for the next Hollywood hit movie.)
The North Korean flagged cargo ship Chong Chon Gang, which had left the Russian Pacific in June, drew suspicion and international surveillance as she made her voyage through the Panama Canal and then “disappeared” on her way to Cuba, as a result of the vessel’s satellite tracking system being intentionally shut off, only to reappear at the Panama Canal on July 10, 2013.
The Chong Chon Gang has a checkered past of illegal drug and arms trafficking in states such as Iran, Ukraine, and Syria. Once the vessel reached the Atlantic entrance of the Panama Canal Panamanian authorities boarded the vessel on the suspicion that the vessel was carrying illegal drugs.
The crew violently resisted the boarding, and even tried sabotaging their own ship by cutting the cables on the onboard cranes used to offload the vessel, raising even more suspicion. The captain attempted suicide by trying cut his own throat. No drugs were found, but Soviet-era arms were found buried under 200,000 sacks of Cuban brown sugar that had to be offloaded by hand. Panamanian officials seized the vessel and the 35 crewmen were detained, and later charged with threatening Panamanian national security.
After two days of silence, Cuba acknowledged that among the cargo was 240 tons of “obsolete defensive weapons” that belonged to Cuba but was being sent to North Korea for refurbishment. Among the “obsolete” arms were two anti-aircraft missile systems, nine missiles in parts and spares, two MiG-21 jets and 15 motors for the airplanes.
The President of Panama, Ricardo Martinelli, posted a photo on the social media site “Twitter” of the undeclared weapons, and Panama has formally asked for assistance from the United States, Great Britain and the United Nations in handling the incident.
The United Nations imposed sanctions on North Korea because of their nuclear weapons and missile-development programs. The UN currently has international sanctions against North Korea to prohibit the sale, transfer or maintenance of most arms and related material to, and from, North Korea. Small arms and light weapons are exempt from those bans.
The United Nations Security Council will hear the case on whether there was a breach of the arms embargo. US officials say the shipment violates UN sanctions against North Korea. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) of Florida called the situation a “wake-up call” and Senator Marco Rubio (R) of Florida said the weapons shipment was a “flagrant violation of multiple United Nations Security Council Resolutions.” It is unknown what, if anything, was unloaded in Cuba from the Chong Chon Gang. Some analysts suspect that North Korea is supplying Cuba with missiles. With Cuba just 90 miles from the US coastline, the relationship between the two communist states is of great concern.
The President of Panama has said “the world needs to sit up and take note: you cannot go around shipping undeclared weapons of war through the Panama Canal.”
Emily Keyes is a third year Global Studies & Maritime Affairs student at California Maritime Academy and an editorial intern at Pacific Maritime Magazine.
An incident involving the transportation of Cuban owned Soviet-era weapons aboard a shady North Korean flagged vessel that was detained by Panamanian officials, complete with a rioting crew and suicidal captain, sounds more like a film plot for a movie during the Cuban Missile Crisis than a news brief in 2013. (Warning the following is not a screenplay for the next Hollywood hit movie.)
The North Korean flagged cargo ship Chong Chon Gang, which had left the Russian Pacific in June, drew suspicion and international surveillance as she made her voyage through the Panama Canal and then “disappeared” on her way to Cuba, as a result of the vessel’s satellite tracking system being intentionally shut off, only to reappear at the Panama Canal on July 10, 2013.
The Chong Chon Gang has a checkered past of illegal drug and arms trafficking in states such as Iran, Ukraine, and Syria. Once the vessel reached the Atlantic entrance of the Panama Canal Panamanian authorities boarded the vessel on the suspicion that the vessel was carrying illegal drugs.
The crew violently resisted the boarding, and even tried sabotaging their own ship by cutting the cables on the onboard cranes used to offload the vessel, raising even more suspicion. The captain attempted suicide by trying cut his own throat. No drugs were found, but Soviet-era arms were found buried under 200,000 sacks of Cuban brown sugar that had to be offloaded by hand. Panamanian officials seized the vessel and the 35 crewmen were detained, and later charged with threatening Panamanian national security.
After two days of silence, Cuba acknowledged that among the cargo was 240 tons of “obsolete defensive weapons” that belonged to Cuba but was being sent to North Korea for refurbishment. Among the “obsolete” arms were two anti-aircraft missile systems, nine missiles in parts and spares, two MiG-21 jets and 15 motors for the airplanes.
The President of Panama, Ricardo Martinelli, posted a photo on the social media site “Twitter” of the undeclared weapons, and Panama has formally asked for assistance from the United States, Great Britain and the United Nations in handling the incident.
The United Nations imposed sanctions on North Korea because of their nuclear weapons and missile-development programs. The UN currently has international sanctions against North Korea to prohibit the sale, transfer or maintenance of most arms and related material to, and from, North Korea. Small arms and light weapons are exempt from those bans.
The United Nations Security Council will hear the case on whether there was a breach of the arms embargo. US officials say the shipment violates UN sanctions against North Korea. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) of Florida called the situation a “wake-up call” and Senator Marco Rubio (R) of Florida said the weapons shipment was a “flagrant violation of multiple United Nations Security Council Resolutions.” It is unknown what, if anything, was unloaded in Cuba from the Chong Chon Gang. Some analysts suspect that North Korea is supplying Cuba with missiles. With Cuba just 90 miles from the US coastline, the relationship between the two communist states is of great concern.
The President of Panama has said “the world needs to sit up and take note: you cannot go around shipping undeclared weapons of war through the Panama Canal.”
Emily Keyes is a third year Global Studies & Maritime Affairs student at California Maritime Academy and an editorial intern at Pacific Maritime Magazine.
