Post by HardTimeTrucker on Dec 19, 2008 20:37:11 GMT -5
The JOURNAL of COMMERCE
ILA Criticizes Maersk Move from Charleston, SC
December 19, 2008
The International Longshoremen's Association said the decision by Maersk Line to withdraw from the Port of Charleston after failing to win concessions from union locals showed "that it places its dedicated ILA workers at the end of [its] corporate greed chain, behind shareholders and profits."
Maersk announced Thursday that by the end of 2010 it would shift its seven weekly port calls at Charleston to other ports after ILA locals voted down a proposal to allow Maersk's terminal operations, now staffed by ILA labor, to be operated as a common-user terminal staffed by non-union state employees.
Maersk had approached the South Carolina State Ports Authority about ways to reduce costs to compete with other lines operating from common-user areas at the port. The authority suggested either reducing Maersk's dedicated space and equipment, or converting the space to a common-user terminal with gates staffed by state workers. Maersk pursued the latter option, but the ILA locals refused to waive their contract.
A statement from the ILA's New York headquarters said, "The ILA locals were defending a contract, supposedly negotiated in good faith by Maersk Line, to protect its membership with decent wages and benefits. Maersk Line has made it clear in its own statement regarding the move that it places its dedicated ILA workers at the end of their corporate greed chain, behind shareholders and profits.
"The so-called solution offered by the South Carolina State Ports Authority represented an attempt to break down workers' conditions by stripping ILA members of jobs with decent wages and benefits, and giving them state workers earning much less. South Carolina citizens should be outraged that their taxes are being used to support the South Carolina State Ports Authority intent on destroying the local economic engine with low-paying jobs which hurts everyone."
A ports authority spokesman said the state agency has no taxing authority, receives no operating subsidies and "has had no capital subsidies in more than 30 years."
A Maersk spokesman noted that the ships being switched from Charleston will be handled by ILA labor in their new ports. He also said Maersk was merely seeking cost parity with competitors that operate from common-user areas at Charleston and that like Maersk are signatories to the ILA's coastwide master contract.
ILA Criticizes Maersk Move from Charleston, SC
December 19, 2008
The International Longshoremen's Association said the decision by Maersk Line to withdraw from the Port of Charleston after failing to win concessions from union locals showed "that it places its dedicated ILA workers at the end of [its] corporate greed chain, behind shareholders and profits."
Maersk announced Thursday that by the end of 2010 it would shift its seven weekly port calls at Charleston to other ports after ILA locals voted down a proposal to allow Maersk's terminal operations, now staffed by ILA labor, to be operated as a common-user terminal staffed by non-union state employees.
Maersk had approached the South Carolina State Ports Authority about ways to reduce costs to compete with other lines operating from common-user areas at the port. The authority suggested either reducing Maersk's dedicated space and equipment, or converting the space to a common-user terminal with gates staffed by state workers. Maersk pursued the latter option, but the ILA locals refused to waive their contract.
A statement from the ILA's New York headquarters said, "The ILA locals were defending a contract, supposedly negotiated in good faith by Maersk Line, to protect its membership with decent wages and benefits. Maersk Line has made it clear in its own statement regarding the move that it places its dedicated ILA workers at the end of their corporate greed chain, behind shareholders and profits.
"The so-called solution offered by the South Carolina State Ports Authority represented an attempt to break down workers' conditions by stripping ILA members of jobs with decent wages and benefits, and giving them state workers earning much less. South Carolina citizens should be outraged that their taxes are being used to support the South Carolina State Ports Authority intent on destroying the local economic engine with low-paying jobs which hurts everyone."
A ports authority spokesman said the state agency has no taxing authority, receives no operating subsidies and "has had no capital subsidies in more than 30 years."
A Maersk spokesman noted that the ships being switched from Charleston will be handled by ILA labor in their new ports. He also said Maersk was merely seeking cost parity with competitors that operate from common-user areas at Charleston and that like Maersk are signatories to the ILA's coastwide master contract.