Post by HardTimeTrucker on Feb 8, 2010 23:32:26 GMT -5
Rift in the Road
www.joc.com/node/416502
Bill Mongelluzzo
Feb 8, 2010
The Journal of Commerce Magazine
As groups take stand on harbor trucking regulation, major divisions in reform effort are evident
Ports, cities and labor unions are sharply at odds not only with each other but within their own ranks over efforts to overhaul regulation of harbor trucking, and the rifts will make it even harder for groups proposing changes to win an amendment to federal law.
Late last month, the organization representing the nation’s ports signaled what may be the deepest division so far, issuing a policy statement that ports have all the authority they need under existing law to ban old, polluting trucks from marine terminals.
With that, the Association of American Port Authorities’ Legislative Policy Council on Jan. 25 effectively said, “Thanks, but no thanks,” to forces attempting to exclude ports from the federal pre-emption authority over trucking. Those forces include some of the AAPA’s largest members, including the Port of Los Angeles, which has been spearheading the effort.
Los Angeles, the nation’s largest port, is spending up to $265,000 for a Washington lobbying firm, the Gephardt Group, to gain support for amending federal pre-emption of regulation of the rates and services of truckers engaged in intrastate commerce. The mayors of New York and Newark, N.J., have publicly endorsed such an amendment, and the leadership of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has endorsed the plan. The Port of Oakland Board of Harbor Commissioners has said federal pre-emption should be “reviewed” as part of a larger national goods movement program.
They are asking legislators in Washington to amend long-standing principles of trucking regulatory oversight, which would make it easier for the Teamsters union to organize harbor truck drivers, now dominated by owner-operators.
The issue is tied in with port clean-trucks programs and a decade-long battle by the Teamsters to organize the mostly independent contractor drivers that haul containers to and from marine terminals. Framers of federal pre-emption of state regulation of trucking prices and services, most recently included in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act in the 1990s, never intended the FAA act to be a clean-air or labor bill. The act is intended to maintain federal authority over trucking to avoid a patchwork of varying regulations across the country.
That is exactly what has developed in Southern California, where the Los Angeles clean-trucks plan seeks to mandate a 100 percent employee-driver force — one that could be organized by the Teamsters — while Long Beach, which draws upon the same harbor drayage pool, allows owner-operators to work side-by-side with employee drivers.
Labor and environmental groups are working in Washington to find a sponsor for a provision, probably within the next surface transportation reauthorization plan, that would allow ports to regulate local harbor trucking for purposes of the environment, safety and security.
Although the AAPA panel rejected the plan, the policy statement does not represent the views of all of the approximately 140 member ports.
The issue can be especially perilous for ports in labor-friendly cities that have been targeted by environmental organizations as likely candidates to support an amendment. Environmental groups rarely describe the effort to amend the act as a labor issue. Rather, they say it is a clean-air issue and that ports opposing the amendment, by definition, favor dirty air and the health risks associated with diesel emissions.
Long Beach infuriated environmental and labor interests earlier this year when it approved a settlement in a lawsuit filed by the American Trucking Associations over the clean-trucks programs in both Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Likewise, the Port of Seattle has found itself in the public spotlight for its stance on the issue. Tay Yos#*tani, executive director, was one of the members of the AAPA Legislative Policy Council to vote in favor of the policy statement. The AAPA will not say who the other five members are or how they voted.
The Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, an environmental and labor group, charged Yos#*tani went beyond simply voting on the panel. According to Heather Weiner, director of the coalition, Yos#*tani attempted to influence other port directors on the committee. “We are very upset at what happened,” she said.
Yos#*tani said that at the AAPA meeting he discussed Seattle’s clean-trucks plan and how it would ban old trucks and reduce emissions without controversial elements in some port programs, such as dirty-truck fees and employee-driver mandates. “I was sitting at a meeting with other port directors giving my opinion. Is that advocacy?” he said.
The increasingly politicized nature of the debate is leading some port executives to sidestep discussion of the issue. Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, who is also an AAPA Legislative Policy member, said she respects the privacy of the committee’s voting policy.
Knatz said, however, she was pleased the AAPA policy statement recognized port concessions as one of the tools a port can use to address clean-air issues. Los Angeles is attempting to use its concession agreements with truckers to enforce its clean-trucks and labor goals.
Fred Potter, the union’s port division director, said the AAPA’s policy statement does not pay attention to public health or the public interest, and the AAPA is not listening to public officials. “The problems for ports generated by arcane 20th century statutes persist, and so the amendment process must and will go forward,” Potter said.
The debate has dragged another powerful union into the skirmish. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union at the international level supports the Teamsters’ efforts to organize harbor truck drivers, said Lindsay McLaughlin, the ILWU’s legislative director in Washington.
However, McLaughlin pointedly limited the ILWU’s support to giving ports regulatory authority over matters pertaining to the environment and truck safety. The proposed amendment would likely include “security” in its wording. Proponents believe having a national security element would make it easier to amend federal law.
McLaughlin stated, however, there are already a number of layers of security requirements at ports that directly affect longshoremen, and the industry does not need another layer.
The ILWU has a long history of allowing its locals autonomy on many issues, and there are divisive views on pre-emption within the union.
Max Vekich of Local 52 in Seattle and a member of the ILWU Legislative Committee, said it is frustrating for his members to see low-paid harbor truck drivers struggling to make a living. “The drivers would be better off if they were organized,” he said.
Although local officials in Southern California have not taken a stand specifically on amending the federal pre-emption act, Local 13 President George Lujan was pictured in a local advertisement saying the Port of Long Beach clean-trucks plan is effective in reducing truck emissions. The Clean and Safe Ports Coalition in Southern California opposes the Long Beach plan because it does not have an employee-driver mandate.
Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bmongelluzzo@joc.com.
www.joc.com/node/416502
Bill Mongelluzzo
Feb 8, 2010
The Journal of Commerce Magazine
As groups take stand on harbor trucking regulation, major divisions in reform effort are evident
Ports, cities and labor unions are sharply at odds not only with each other but within their own ranks over efforts to overhaul regulation of harbor trucking, and the rifts will make it even harder for groups proposing changes to win an amendment to federal law.
Late last month, the organization representing the nation’s ports signaled what may be the deepest division so far, issuing a policy statement that ports have all the authority they need under existing law to ban old, polluting trucks from marine terminals.
With that, the Association of American Port Authorities’ Legislative Policy Council on Jan. 25 effectively said, “Thanks, but no thanks,” to forces attempting to exclude ports from the federal pre-emption authority over trucking. Those forces include some of the AAPA’s largest members, including the Port of Los Angeles, which has been spearheading the effort.
Los Angeles, the nation’s largest port, is spending up to $265,000 for a Washington lobbying firm, the Gephardt Group, to gain support for amending federal pre-emption of regulation of the rates and services of truckers engaged in intrastate commerce. The mayors of New York and Newark, N.J., have publicly endorsed such an amendment, and the leadership of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has endorsed the plan. The Port of Oakland Board of Harbor Commissioners has said federal pre-emption should be “reviewed” as part of a larger national goods movement program.
They are asking legislators in Washington to amend long-standing principles of trucking regulatory oversight, which would make it easier for the Teamsters union to organize harbor truck drivers, now dominated by owner-operators.
The issue is tied in with port clean-trucks programs and a decade-long battle by the Teamsters to organize the mostly independent contractor drivers that haul containers to and from marine terminals. Framers of federal pre-emption of state regulation of trucking prices and services, most recently included in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act in the 1990s, never intended the FAA act to be a clean-air or labor bill. The act is intended to maintain federal authority over trucking to avoid a patchwork of varying regulations across the country.
That is exactly what has developed in Southern California, where the Los Angeles clean-trucks plan seeks to mandate a 100 percent employee-driver force — one that could be organized by the Teamsters — while Long Beach, which draws upon the same harbor drayage pool, allows owner-operators to work side-by-side with employee drivers.
Labor and environmental groups are working in Washington to find a sponsor for a provision, probably within the next surface transportation reauthorization plan, that would allow ports to regulate local harbor trucking for purposes of the environment, safety and security.
Although the AAPA panel rejected the plan, the policy statement does not represent the views of all of the approximately 140 member ports.
The issue can be especially perilous for ports in labor-friendly cities that have been targeted by environmental organizations as likely candidates to support an amendment. Environmental groups rarely describe the effort to amend the act as a labor issue. Rather, they say it is a clean-air issue and that ports opposing the amendment, by definition, favor dirty air and the health risks associated with diesel emissions.
Long Beach infuriated environmental and labor interests earlier this year when it approved a settlement in a lawsuit filed by the American Trucking Associations over the clean-trucks programs in both Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Likewise, the Port of Seattle has found itself in the public spotlight for its stance on the issue. Tay Yos#*tani, executive director, was one of the members of the AAPA Legislative Policy Council to vote in favor of the policy statement. The AAPA will not say who the other five members are or how they voted.
The Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, an environmental and labor group, charged Yos#*tani went beyond simply voting on the panel. According to Heather Weiner, director of the coalition, Yos#*tani attempted to influence other port directors on the committee. “We are very upset at what happened,” she said.
Yos#*tani said that at the AAPA meeting he discussed Seattle’s clean-trucks plan and how it would ban old trucks and reduce emissions without controversial elements in some port programs, such as dirty-truck fees and employee-driver mandates. “I was sitting at a meeting with other port directors giving my opinion. Is that advocacy?” he said.
The increasingly politicized nature of the debate is leading some port executives to sidestep discussion of the issue. Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, who is also an AAPA Legislative Policy member, said she respects the privacy of the committee’s voting policy.
Knatz said, however, she was pleased the AAPA policy statement recognized port concessions as one of the tools a port can use to address clean-air issues. Los Angeles is attempting to use its concession agreements with truckers to enforce its clean-trucks and labor goals.
Fred Potter, the union’s port division director, said the AAPA’s policy statement does not pay attention to public health or the public interest, and the AAPA is not listening to public officials. “The problems for ports generated by arcane 20th century statutes persist, and so the amendment process must and will go forward,” Potter said.
The debate has dragged another powerful union into the skirmish. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union at the international level supports the Teamsters’ efforts to organize harbor truck drivers, said Lindsay McLaughlin, the ILWU’s legislative director in Washington.
However, McLaughlin pointedly limited the ILWU’s support to giving ports regulatory authority over matters pertaining to the environment and truck safety. The proposed amendment would likely include “security” in its wording. Proponents believe having a national security element would make it easier to amend federal law.
McLaughlin stated, however, there are already a number of layers of security requirements at ports that directly affect longshoremen, and the industry does not need another layer.
The ILWU has a long history of allowing its locals autonomy on many issues, and there are divisive views on pre-emption within the union.
Max Vekich of Local 52 in Seattle and a member of the ILWU Legislative Committee, said it is frustrating for his members to see low-paid harbor truck drivers struggling to make a living. “The drivers would be better off if they were organized,” he said.
Although local officials in Southern California have not taken a stand specifically on amending the federal pre-emption act, Local 13 President George Lujan was pictured in a local advertisement saying the Port of Long Beach clean-trucks plan is effective in reducing truck emissions. The Clean and Safe Ports Coalition in Southern California opposes the Long Beach plan because it does not have an employee-driver mandate.
Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bmongelluzzo@joc.com.