How Occupy helped labor win on the West Coast

Defiance of labor law and movement support yield a union victory in Washington state

Topics: The Labor Movement, Occupy Wall Street,

How Occupy helped labor win on the West CoastOccupy protesters block an entrance to the Port of Longview in Longview, Wash., Monday, Dec. 12, 2011. (Credit: AP/Don Ryan)

Earlier this month longshore workers in Washington state reached a contract with a boss that has spent the past year fighting to keep their union out.  That company, the multinational EGT, sought to run its new grain terminal in the town of Longview, as the only facility on the West Coast without the famously militant International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU).  A victory by EGT would have emboldened employers up and down the coast to seek to free themselves of ILWU influence.  And if the union — with the help of the Occupy movement — had not defied the law, EGT would have succeeded.

The Longview struggle began last March when, after initial discussions with ILWU Local 21, EGT announced its intention to run its new grain terminal without them.  The ILWU held protest rallies, and joined the Port of Longview’s lawsuit charging that EGT was bound by the union’s contract with the publicly owned port.  The union may have had a good legal case.  But so did Washington’s Boeing workers when their boss blamed their strikes for its decision to take new work to South Carolina. Boeing mostly got away with it anyway.

Rather than putting all their faith in the law while EGT did its work without them, ILWU members chose to get in the company’s way.  Literally.  Beginning in July, union members blocked railroad tracks to prevent grain shipments from passing.  According to media reports, workers also tore down fencing and dumped grain.  Police charged that workers threw rocks at them; labor denied members were violent, and charged that police beat and pepper-sprayed workers without justification.  The ILWU did not formally endorse its members’ actions, but its international president was among the dozens arrested.  In September, 200 union members and supporters lined up outside the building housing the sheriff’s office and announced they had arrived to turn themselves in for nonviolently defending their jobs.



Pre-planned arrests for blocking traffic have become a common, and sometimes effective, tactic for unions seeking to embarrass employers or draw attention to their struggles.  But what took place in Longview was something very different: willful, repeated refusal to obey laws restricting union power.

As union negotiator Joe Burns documents in his recent book “Reviving the Strike,” it was once commonly assumed – and even taught in economics textbooks — that labor’s leverage came from the power not just to refuse to work at a company, but to prevent any work from taking place.  Today, following decades of laws and court rulings, the production-halting strike is nearly extinct.

Indeed, when ILWU members moved from protesting EGT to blocking the tracks, a judge slapped the union with fines and injunctions.  The National Labor Relations Board — the same agency Republicans love to hate for enforcing labor law against companies – had asked the judge to act.  Workers’ production-halting actions continued despite an early September restraining order.  Whereas the town’s political establishment would otherwise have been content to wait for a judge to sort out both sides’ claims, the unions’ escalation sparked the town sheriff and county commissioners to publicly request a judge to expedite the case.  But after a judge issued a $250,000 fine and the threat of increasing punishment, the ILWU trimmed its sails, returning to more traditional protests and an unsuccessful attempt to recall the sheriff.

That’s where Occupy came in.  “It’s pretty impressive, the level that [ILWU members] were willing to fight,” says Paul Nipper of Occupy Longview.  Inspired in part by ILWU’s industrial activism – including repeated San Francisco Bay Area port shutdowns as well as the Longview blockades – Occupy repeatedly set out to shut down West Coast ports, beginning with coordinated actions Dec. 12.

ILWU’s and Occupy’s different decision-making processes sparked some tension, and a few on each side conformed to stereotype: the hippie-bashing union staffer versus the contemptuously condescending activist. But Occupy, not being a labor union, could keep the threat of industrial action alive after the prospect of massive fines curtailed ILWU militancy.  And occupiers were steadfast in declaring its solidarity against EGT. The involvement of another union, an Oregon Operating Engineers local brought in by EGT to soften the appearance of union-busting, would have been excuse enough for some progressives to stay out of the dispute.  Occupy didn’t.

The situation escalated last month, as the (then undisclosed) date approached for the first grain ship to enter the Port of Longview.  Both occupiers and labor activists throughout the West Coast planned to come to Longview to meet it.  In a letter to members, ILWU International president Bob McEllrath expressed sympathy with Occupy, disclaimed any ILWU involvement in disruptive action, urged members to participate in legal protests, and decried “a federal labor law [the Taft-Hartley Act] that criminalizes worker solidarity, outlaws labor’s most effective tools, and protects commerce while severely restricting unions.”  Occupiers pledged to stop the grain shipment from taking place.  News broke that the ship would be escorted by the National Guard.

Before that showdown could occur, ILWU and EGT announced a deal that paved the way for ILWU labor to staff the Longview terminal.  Among its provisions, the agreement required ILWU to explicitly discourage further demonstrations against EGT by Occupy (it also reportedly included a few other concessions to management).

While the ILWU leadership has avoided gloating, occupiers and some ILWU members have been quick to claim victory.  In an emailed statement from an Occupy group, Bay Area longshore worker and ILWU Coastwide Caucus delegate Clarence Thomas said, “It wasn’t until rank and file and Occupy planned a mass convergence to blockade the ship that EGT suddenly had the impetus to negotiate.”

It’s not by accident that the tactics that allowed the ILWU to defend itself from EGT are the same ones that earned it fines and injunctions.  As AFL-CIO organizing director Elizabeth Bunn observes, there’s “a very close correlation between changes that employers insist on” in the law, “and the effectiveness of the tactic” that gets banned.  In other words, the more effective a union tactic at leveling the playing field against the 1 percent, the more likely courts or Congress have been to make it illegal.

The challenge of defending – let alone improving – workers’ standards within the confines of restrictive labor law is felt throughout the movement.  The Teamsters’ inability to shut down art shows helps explain how Sotheby’s auction house has gotten away with locking out unionized art handlers for months.

This summer’s strike by Communications Workers of America members at Verizon had barely begun before management was in court getting injunctions to limit the size of pickets.  In both of these struggles, labor is on defense.  Both have drawn the support Occupy Wall Street.  Neither has yet succeeded.

These restrictions help explain why unions increasingly rely on political, media, community and consumer pressure campaigns for leverage over employers – though, in a predictable perversion of anti-racketeering law, these campaigns have also come under legal assault from big business.

Joe Burns’ book suggests that unions spin off legally separate activist organizations, which could engage in more militant tactics without the restraints of labor law and without potentially devastating financial and legal liability for unions.  Occupy, though neither a formal organization nor a union front group, has illustrated the promise of such an approach.  But Burns also argues that unions may need to act, as ILWU members did, to “repeal” labor law “through non-compliance.”

The most famous example of such a strategy was executed by the United Mine Workers’ 1989 Pittston Coal strike, under its then-president Richard Trumka, who is now the president of the AFL-CIO.  Faced with a intransigent employer and an impossible legal regime, Trumka chose a strategy of non-violent militancy that racked up tens of millions in fines.  Trumka predicted correctly that if the UMW could get management to cave, it could get the fines dropped.  If the UMW had lost the strike, it would have been bankrupt. Trumka later said that labor would be better off if the National Labor Relations Act – including both “the affirmative protections of labor that it promises but does not deliver” and the “provisions that hamstring labor” – was abolished.

Interviewed in September, Burns predicted the Longview example could spread, as other workers watch ILWU members “understanding that the rules of the game are fixed,” and “going out into the streets trying to defend traditional unionism, and traditional union standards.”  Now that longshore workers have beat back EGT, more workers may conclude that the only thing riskier than defying labor law is continuing to comply.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>