I have heard unconfirmed reports from the employers that of the 5 fatalities the ILWU is claiming, one was a drunk longshoreman (determined through a post incident breathalyzer), and 2 were not ILWU at all, but were sailors. They also say that 1 was a gate guard who ran in front of an ingating truck.
Anyone know if this is true or have information on the effects, if any, the west coast "work to rules" approach is having on east coast productivity?
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:25:29 -0700 alex lantsberg <wideye at ziplink.net> wrote:
> my point wasn't a question of whether the
> safety rules were a contract
> sticking point, but whether the worker's strict
> compliance with safe
> procedures with the presence of state OSHAs on
> the docks would be a viable
> unspoken tactic to engage in during the T-H
> period.
>
> and no, its employees' adherence to safety
> rules. its clear that the
> employers want the workers to proceed in a
> hasty and rushed manner to
> maximize throughput. the workers are taking it
> upon themselves to maintain
> compliance with their contract and the law.
>
> alex
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On
> Behalf Of Brian O. Sheppard
> x349393
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:02 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Bush War on Labor: ILWU
> Injunctions and Links for Action
> and Legal Background
>
>
>
>
> You mean the *employers'* adherence to safety
> rules, right? ILWU spokesman
> Steve Stallone has never admitted that the
> workers were engaged in a
> slowdown, but did admit workers were working
> "carefully" in light of the
> fact that 5 dock workers have died during the
> past year due to unsafe
> working conditions. It's not legally prudent to
> admit to a slowdown
> anyway, though I and many others think a
> slowdown was certainly justified
> given the PMA's bad faith attitude (i.e. union
> busting attitude) after the
> ILWU contract with the PMA expired on July 1.
>
> The safety issue doesn't seem to be the most
> important for the ILWU right
> now. A strong union contract that demanded
> safety pecautions could take
> care of these concerns. The ILWU's main concern
> is still about the union
> status of new hires that could be brought in
> with the new technology the
> PMA wants to introduce; the ILWU is NOT
> necessearily against new
> technology - just against non-ILWU laborers
> working with any new technology
> the PMA bosses
> want to introduce.
>
> Brian
>
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, alex lantsberg wrote:
>
> > i heard on david bacon's KPFA segment that
> the ILWU is trying to get
> CalOSHA
> > and other state OSHAs to have staff at the
> docks to monitor the worker's
> > adherence to safety rules.
> >
> > what are the chances of the state agencies
> backing up the ILWU in their
> work
> > practices and putting pressure on the bosses
> for encouraging unsafe
> working
> > conditions?
> >
> > al
>
> --
>
>
> "At times one remains faithful to a cause only
> because its opponents do
> not cease to be insipid." - Friedrich Nietzsche
>
>
>
>