Lawmakers Blast Feds on Port Talks

Accusing the federal government of tipping the scales in favor of shipping companies and importers, pro-union legislators Friday denounced the Bush administration’s intervention in the labor talks underway at West Coast ports.

Members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union packed a hearing at the Port of Los Angeles to cheer on lawmakers irritated by what they said was Beltway meddling in contract negotiations between the union and the employer group representing the carriers.

The contract, which covers more than 10,500 union members at 29 West Coast ports, expired July 1, and bargaining on a new agreement has been contentious. The ILWU has complained that the Labor Department has been pressuring the union to settle, with federal officials going so far as to suggest that Navy personnel could be brought in to operate the ports to protect national security in the event of a strike. That, in turn, has annoyed pro-labor lawmakers who say the Bush administration’s threats have impeded a settlement by giving carriers a reason to avoid bargaining.

“My message to the Bush administration is: ‘Stay away,’ ” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), who was invited to address the hearing, which was organized by state lawmakers. Harman’s congressional district includes the port community of San Pedro. Federal intervention “is the wrong thing to do.”

Federal officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Times this month that they have outlined four steps the Bush administration or Congress might take in the event of a West Coast port strike or slowdown.

The most likely option would be for President Bush to declare a national emergency, then invoke the Taft-Hartley Act that would delay a strike for 80 days. Other options include sending Navy personnel to run the ports, breaking the union’s West Coast bargaining unit or backing legislation that would impede the union’s ability to strike.

The prospect of federal intervention has incensed some California lawmakers. Friday’s meeting at the Banning Landing Community Center in Wilmington was a joint hearing of the California Senate and Assembly committees devoted to labor issues. Sen. Richard Alarcon (D-Sylmar) and Assembly member Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) made clear their displeasure with the Bush administration’s attempts to inject itself in the bargaining.

“They should be spending more time going after corporate crooks on Wall Street instead of going after hard-working people on the docks,” Alarcon said, to cheers from crowd.

Although the hearing resembled a pro-union rally, one representative of the employers’ group, the Pacific Maritime Assn., did speak on behalf of the shipping lines. Jack Suite, director of contract administration for the PMA, said federal officials’ “monitoring” of such high-profile negotiations isn’t unique, and that the union isn’t the only party feeling the heat from Washington.

“The administration has put tremendous pressure on the PMA to be responsive to the ILWU,” said Suite, who denied that the employers are dragging their feet or spoiling for a strike. “We fully expect to negotiate the contract to a successful conclusion without a strike or a work disruption.”

The stakes are high. Ports from San Diego to Seattle move about $300 billion worth of goods a year, accounting for about 7% of the nation’s gross domestic product and supporting 1.4 million American jobs. One university study estimates a West Coast dock strike could cost the U.S. economy as much as $1 billion a day.

Conflicts center on outsourcing of union jobs and the introduction of labor-saving technology. The last West Coast port strike was 1971.