On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:26:22AM -0700, kelitapetita at earthlink.net wrote:
> I think it might be good to find out what productivity levels for longshore
> work on the East Coast are, for comparison. If they are higher, are they
> working less safely than the ILWU? Are employers really encouraging workers
> to be hasty, which I would guess results in more damage to cargo (higher
> costs)?
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu