Comments

1
Well, Occupiers, that's gotta be some piss in your punch bowl. How about trying to coordinate with the unions next time?
2
The Dec 12 port shutdown was not called by the Occupy movement as a whole, but by a small group of people with inflated egos who claim to speak for "The Working Class" - but who would never actually stoop to talk with actual workers.
3
The ILWU already took a black eye over what's gone on down in Longview the last few months; a general strike of the ports could really kill them in the community. I think the idea actually has a lot of merit in terms of showing that it's labor that makes commerce work, but the organization piece isn't there yet.
4
Hey maybe Occupy Seattle can clash with the longshoremen unions. Then we can have tit for tat protests against the city, police, longshoremen union .... and if they have time, protest against the very things they originally were against when this all started a few months ago. 1%? Whats that all about, this is all about union brutality!! Damm those under cover union provocateurs, making us look bad when we smash truck windows.
5
The OWS crowd vs. the ILWU folks? That's a pretty short fight, ending with a lot of hipsters with broken vanity eyeware.
6
Occupy Seattle has lost all credibility with me. I used to be on board, but they have become an embarrassment.
7
I don't see how you help the 99% by causing them to lose money by keeping them from going to work.

S*** rolls down hill, when you hurt the machine per se, when you hurt businesses the employees take it the hardest.

@ my job we had to take mandatory unpaid time off because the executives overspent on a merger attempt, and some other issues related to sales, and didn't want to go over their budget/hurt their compensation or hell, just go above and explain the situation.

So imagine what would've happened if say someone decided to boycot my employer en masse....

...a bunch of people in the 99% lose their jobs.

These things need to be thought out better, Occupy has a good underlying premise, but it can't succeed if they're attacking the people they want to help.
8
Cal Winslow has a helpful analysis of this situation:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/05/t…
9
Face it, the highlight of the Occupy movement was closing the Port of Oakland for what….a few hours? Nice sunset, people waving flags, anarchists smashing up businesses on the way back. Like a dated, fading rock band wanting to relive its youth, old OWS is going to roll out next week for a reunion tour that will surely prove once and for all what a relic and sham they've become.
10
Without the ILWU, this whole port occupation business is idiotic. This only serves to antagonize the unions.
11
This is a stupid idea. Um, what part of "Occupy Wall Street" do you not understand? Wall street is the financial industry that fucked our economy with out-of-control lending and mortgage speculation. Shipping ports are NOT Wall Street. Other than Boeing, the shipping port in Seattle probably comes in a close second or third place as far as providing decent paying labor jobs in this state.

Shut down the banks on Wall Street, you idiots, not the shipping ports.
12
@ 11, actually, taking action at the ports makes sense, since most of that commerce is the result of those decisions made by Wall Street. It's just stupid if they don't get the unions on board, not to mention yet another example of upper-middle class folks (which is what most occupiers are) presuming to tell working class people what their best interests are.
13
@12, I understand what you're saying about commerce decisions being made by Wall Street, Matt, but hitting the shipping ports is a diluted message at best, and will impact hard working laborers far more than it will the Wall Streeters that are the supposed targets of this whole movement.

Focus, people, focus.
14
I responded to the ILWU's statement:

http://oneangryqueer.blogspot.com/2011/1…
15
The only way the labor situation in this country will improve is the kind of broad, cross-profession action that is being attempted here. In other words: bargaining for the whole 99%. If workers don't understand that standing divided is no longer an option after what happened in Wisconsin this year, they better wake up soon.
16
for all the commentors hear who really don't know whats going on, of course the union doesn't officially recognize the port shut down. that would be political suicide and would cost them alot in lawsuits. there is rank and file support and active organizing in seattle and a number of other cities. the leaderships views are not synonymous with the rank and file.

aweful reporting eli sanders. did you even go down to the hall and talk to any of the ID's or casuals? or anyone?
17
Hi! See you at the port! We know this is the greatest movement of our time. Workers of the world unite! :D
18
Of course the union bureaucrats are opposed to taking an active role in shutting down the port. If they did, that would violate their contract and they would be sued, as they were sued for $300,000 in the Longview case. That doesn't mean rank & file workers don't support such actions. All these things are more complicated than you seem to think. When Occupy Oakland shut down their port on November 2, the ILWU also opposed it, but still 30% of workers refused to work that day, and the president of the Longview local of ILWU went down to Oakland and thanked OO for standing in solidarity with port workers. Even if agitators talked to workers or their official representatives, it's not like that information would be public. The unions don't want to shoot themselves in the foot.

In response to the person who said "this is about Wall Street, not about ports," that person needs to learn a little more about how our economic system works. This shutdown of the West Coast was originally proposed by immigrant truckers in LA who are organizing against Stevedore Services of America, whose major shareholder is Goldman Sachs. If Goldman Sachs isn't Wall Street I don't know what is. When Occupy Oakland's responded to that call to shut down the West Coast, OO declared this would also be in solidarity with the longshoremen of Longview, in their struggle against EGT Development, whose majority shareholder is Bunge - one of the three big companies that monopolize the global grain shipping industry.

So don't try to paint this as if it were Occupy vs. Labor. Occupy is composed of working-class people - both employed and unemployed, both in union and non-union. In general I would say Occupy is a movement of working-class people who have lost faith in our official representatives - including both politicians and union bureaucrats. We are taking matters into our own hands.
19
Of course the union bureaucrats are opposed to taking an active role in shutting down the port. If they did, that would violate their contract and they would be sued, as they were sued for $300,000 in the Longview case. That doesn't mean rank & file workers don't support such actions. All these things are more complicated than you seem to think. When Occupy Oakland shut down their port on November 2, the ILWU also opposed it, but still 30% of workers refused to work that day, and the president of the Longview local of ILWU went down to Oakland and thanked OO for standing in solidarity with port workers. Even if agitators talked to workers or their official representatives, it's not like that information would be public. The unions don't want to shoot themselves in the foot.

In response to the person who said "this is about Wall Street, not about ports," that person needs to learn a little more about how our economic system works. This shutdown of the West Coast was originally proposed by immigrant truckers in LA who are organizing against Stevedore Services of America, whose major shareholder is Goldman Sachs. If Goldman Sachs isn't Wall Street I don't know what is. When Occupy Oakland's responded to that call to shut down the West Coast, OO declared this would also be in solidarity with the longshoremen of Longview, in their struggle against EGT Development, whose majority shareholder is Bunge - one of the three big companies that monopolize the global grain shipping industry.

So don't try to paint this as if it were Occupy vs. Labor. Occupy is composed of working-class people - both employed and unemployed, both in union and non-union. In general I would say Occupy is a movement of working-class people who have lost faith in our official representatives - including both politicians and union bureaucrats. We are taking matters into our own hands.
20
the unions are on board, especially the ILWU, the members are at every planning meeting. Who do you think thought of this? Ever hear of Taft- Hartley? the unions can't legally support this strike but Occupy can do it for them. The pres. of the Longview local 21 can and does support this because they are under a FLB regulated dispute. You have to know about labor laws and a union's history to know about this issue. The same tactic of using proxy pickets were used in the 30's.
21
the unions are on board, especially the ILWU, the members are at every planning meeting. Who do you think thought of this? Who do you think picked the date? Ever hear of Taft- Hartley? the unions can't legally support this strike but Occupy can do it for them. The pres. of the Longview local 21 can and does support this because they are under a FLB regulated dispute. You have to know about labor laws and a union's history to know about this issue. The same tactic of using proxy pickets were used in the 30's.
22
Seriously, Eli, did you even talk to any rank-and-file port workers about this? It's clear from labor law that this union cannot openly support this in print without being threatened with a lawsuit. You need to talk to rank and file longshoremen (who, if they comment, will likely have to be cited as anonymous) and especially the port truckers, who have all been very receptive to us when we hand out fliers every other day at the port itself. If you look at the history of community pickets, you will also see that the ILWU can rarely publicly support the picket before it happens, though these shut downs have been successful in the past and have large support from rank and file ILWU members. The union IS NOT the union leadership. It is the workers themselves. The union leadership does NOT declare support for an event and then wait for the workers to follow. It follows the workers when they act.

Furthermore, for everyone complaining about workers losing a day's wages -- again, familiarize yourself with labor law! If they do not cross the picket they will STILL GET PAID! The only people losing wages here will be the truckers, who will lose the last hour's wages -- but the truckers we talked to all encouraged us to start EARLIER, to have a bigger impact, since they themselves are living under poverty wages and struggling to unionize.

Please, be a journalist and talk to some of these people. If you would like, you can contact my e-mail and I will give you the contacts for some of the rank and file port workers and truck drivers. Or you can just, you know, go down there.

Ian's response (#14, above) is also great -- it includes all the detail about how these touchy union legalities work.
23
The president of the Longview local of ILWU supports this action. Occupy does not have to have the support of particular union leadership in order to do actions to defend the interests of working people.
24
Just so you all know, the ports will be shut down. The ILWU has to say it doesn't support the actions for legal reasons, so heres how it works: protesters get down to the port. Picket out front. Some of the workers say that this picket makes their job site unsafe. Then, contractually, after an arbitrator judges the situation, the workers are allowed to leave work.

Its basically an unofficial strike.
25
The ILWU Declined To Accept Occupy's "Collect Call" To Shut Down West Coast Ports.

When asked why, a labor official stated "Well, we felt uncomfortable, frankly, due to the substantial influence of Socialists and Communists in Occupy's leadership."
26
here is what the president of ILWU local 21 has to say about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGqncu3wl…
27
@Baton The labor official meant he was scared of losing his cushy middleman gig if workers start organizing in a truly effecting way outside of the current profession-based, emasculated norm.

Also, Occupy doesn't even have a leadership.
28
Wow, there sure are a lot of experts here on longshore labor relations who have never worked in the industry. Hell, why have unions at all? We can just ask Occupy Seattle for all of our advice. We can exchange the paternalism of Wall Street and the Democrats with the paternalism of hip activists.
29
Nobody in Occupy wants to tell you what to do. The entire point of the movement is to empower individuals to take action. If you think the particular action is just, then join in! If not, don't!

It's extremely short-sighted to assume that the current union structure is anything but a sinking ship, however. You've been made junior partners to multinational corporations in the campaign finance battle. It's only a matter of time until you're completely neutered, legally. The only way to stop that is more broad-based goals and actions so everyone feels like they have a stake in the labor battle.
30
@baton message read the history of ILWU. they put out a good history primer for their casuals. maybe it will shed some light on the inaccuracy of your comment. there are so many fucking red diaper babies in ILWU its not even funny. the union itself was one of the few CPUSA unions not to be raided and destroyed.

on another note: its interesting that the "voting" membership of the ILWU is only about half of its actual workforce. the great majority of its casual membership are unrepresented by the leadership but represented by the contract.
31
What Crap Journalism. Propaganda for simple minds that have no understanding of labor struggles and the history or current legal agreements of the ILWU. This was in the Stranger? Please don't allow this half ass puff in your publication!
32
Let's be clear about what it means for the ILWU to not officially support the shutdown. The ILWU is under contract and cannot strike. When the Port of Oakland was shut down during the general strike on November 2nd, the ILWU took pretty much the same official stance. But for those who were there, virtually every car and truck carrying workers to or from the port while we were blockading honked, raised their fists, whistled or in some way indicated their support. The rank and file were thrilled that we were there.

Now I do not claim to know how the rank and file feels this time. But I can tell you for sure that the official position of the ILWU and the feelings of the rank and file are very different things.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.