The port shutdown

[DaringMehring]

Who else is participating? I'm going to be, in San Diego. I'm afraid down here, we might not be able to actually accomplish it. Our Occupy is small, and the Labor Council has advertised for it on its facebook page, but hasn't committed support. We have a big port and assertive police. I don't want to show up in a group of like 10 people, and get arrested (with 9 of the people thinking we won by getting arrested because the cops are our friends and we made our point symbolically). But have to make the attempt regardless.

What's the scenarios in you guy's cities?

(12/12 is the date for this action; west coast ports)

[Summerspeaker]

I'll be in Los Angeles for the shutdown and plan to support folks there however I can.

[Ele'ill]

http://westcoastportshutdown.org/

I'll be posting appropriate updates in the Occupy Portland thread as well as here.



Portland's http://shutdowntheport.com/

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

From Boots Riley:

For those who want detailed info about 12/12:

The nationally coordinated, brutal police attacks on the Occupy Wall Street Movement were supported by the 1%. We will strike back with our own coordinated attack on the 1% -

The December 12th West Coast Port Shutdown in order to economically disrupt “Wall Street On The Waterfront.”

WHY?

When we say “Wall Street On The Waterfront”, we point particularly to EGT and Goldman Sachs. The West Coast Ports will be blockaded on December 12th in solidarity with Longshoremen and port truckers struggles against EGT and Goldman Sachs.

EGT is an multinational grain exporter consortium. Bunge Ltd is the largest partner in EGT who reported 2.5 billion dollars in profit last year alone and has direct ties to Wall Street and has caused economic despair in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and now the United States.

EGT has been rupturing ILWU jurisdiction in Longview, Washington and bringing in scab labor.

We will blockade all the ports on the West Coast in solidarity with the Longshoremen in Longview in their struggle against EGT.

We are also blockading the ports in solidarity with the struggle of port truckers against Goldman Sachs.

-Goldman Sachs owns a large part of the SSA port terminals and is guilty of facilitating the exploitation of low paid, non-union and short-run, port truck drivers who have struggled for dignified and humane conditions in the workplace for several years now.

These independent truck drivers are majority immigrant workers who are pitted against each other, receive low wages and unreliable hours while Goldman Sachs, the shipping companies, and their underlings reap record profits.

EGT and Goldman Sachs are the 1%. The OWS movement is committed to shutting down the 1% and is using its collective power in to shut down sites of profit.

HOW?

Since the Anti-Apartheid movement, the ILWU has respected and will continue to not cross community picket lines.

The OWS movement will mobilize to the ports and create picket lines at the terminals and gates and will wait until the local arbitrator rules in favor of the Longshore workers not having to cross the lines due to safety regulations.

The Rank-And-File of the ILWU have a long history of promoting social justice issues through shutdowns and not crossing picket lines. The rank and file of the ILWU not only support the occupy movement and December 12th, but are a part of the occupy movement, since they are among all of us who are struggling to take our lives back from the 1%.

The rank-and-file are with us on this.

Occupations up and down the coast will take on the model of the November 2nd blockade of the Port of Oakland during the General Strike. In this instance, 50,000 people marched onto the Port, also in solidarity with the Longshoremens struggle against the EGT, and the Longshoremen did not cross the picket lines.

Important to note:

If there is police violence- or attempts by the police to disrupt the port blockade in any city on the West Coast, the OWS movements in other locations will extend the duration of their blockades in solidarity.

-Participating: Occupy Oakland, Occupy Los Angeles, Occupy Portland, Occupy San Diego, Occupy Tacoma, Occupy Seattle, and Occupy Vancouver.

[Welshy]

^Does this mean that the protesters have gotten the ILWU involved? Earlier I had heard that the ILWU wasn't going to go along with this and that the protesters were just block the ports themselves.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If it goes down as scheduled, it'll probably be exactly what is says above:

"Community picket lines" will be set up by protestors at shift change; the ILWU-affiliated port workers will show up at work, see the lines, and call out an arbitrator; the arbitrator will rule that the workers don't have to cross the lines for "safety reasons;" the ports will effectively be shut down -- but not necessarily by strike/industrial action.

Sounds like an attempt at a replay of the Oakland "general strike" on a larger scale.

[Jose Gracchus]

Some may not like it, but were at a stage of struggle in incubation at best. Besides, I am not here to slight the opponents of bourgeois austerity with wagging-finger that this isn't 10s, 20s, 30s, or 70s-style struggle. Good for them for working the system built to canalize and sequester class struggles.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I am not here to slight the opponents of bourgeois austerity with wagging-finger that this isn't 10s, 20s, 30s, or 70s-style struggle.

Did someone do that here?

[Chicano Shamrock]

This is a bad idea. Port workers are only working a few times a week. Lower ranked workers are working maybe once a month. This will just push port workers away from this movement.

This is a bad idea in LA.

Now if people had worked with the ILWU it would be one thing but to stop work when someone's pocket is hurting is a recipe for disaster.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

via Boots Riley's twitter: "Clarence Thomas of ILWU just spoke on the effectiveness of Nov2 PortShutDown&potential4much more from #OWS. Hint Hint."

[Jose Gracchus]

Did someone do that here?

No, but I have heard things to that effect. I was not pointing a barb toward anyone.

[black magick hustla]

i am not sure about this. according to some of my contacts both in oakland and seattle, it seems to be very activisty, and along the lines of "leftist students striking for workers". activists meeting with union leadership to get sanction, etc. i am not going to condemn it, but it seems to have a very voluntarist vibe.

[9]

i am not sure about this. according to some of my contacts both in oakland and seattle, it seems to be very activisty, and along the lines of "leftist students striking for workers". activists meeting with union leadership to get sanction, etc. i am not going to condemn it, but it seems to have a very voluntarist vibe.

This is the impression that I have gotten as well.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

It's really hard to evaluate the OWS movement from the outside. It's really encouraging to see such a commitment to economic blockades and workplace disputes but I don't really have a grasp of its politics. For those involved do you feel on the outside of the movement? Is there revolutionary theory to back up its practical content?

[Ele'ill]

It's really hard to evaluate the OWS movement from the outside. It's really encouraging to see such a commitment to economic blockades and workplace disputes but I don't really have a grasp of its politics. For those involved do you feel on the outside of the movement? Is there revolutionary theory to back up its practical content?


If I understand your question correctly- I think it's a combination of things. I think liberals are ignoring the revolutionary implications of the movement but are still going along with the direct action style tactics and internal democratic processes that are being created and tried. There are a lot of radicals on both coasts that are very close to the organizing efforts regarding everything and I do see a shift of some sort occurring where non-radicals are becoming more radical in their thought process. One of the things I've heard from radicals, liberals and the 'non-political' or 'non-activist' types is that there's always something going on and it's easy to get involved. It's not a super secret elitist invite only get together to talk and act on some niche topic that has little or nothing to do with revolutionary socialism. We need to start thinking about what we all have in common, housing, work, school etc.. I see a shift of focus from 'camping' and 'yelling' to more mature revolutionary action. I'm an optimist though.

[KurtFF8]

This is a bad idea. Port workers are only working a few times a week. Lower ranked workers are working maybe once a month. This will just push port workers away from this movement.

This is a bad idea in LA.

Now if people had worked with the ILWU it would be one thing but to stop work when someone's pocket is hurting is a recipe for disaster.

Do you think that Boots Riley is being dishonest in his account of this action is shaping up then?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Do you think that Boots Riley is being dishonest in his account of this action is shaping up then?

Dishonest about what? I don't know who is saying what but I am giving my opinion as a rank and file member of the ILWU.

Btw ILWU clerical staff walked off the job today and picketed four port terminals in LA/LB harbor. They are picketing job outsourcing and corporate greed.

I'm just put off by the LA scene because I know most of them were just there to party and be a hippy. Now they want to come down somewhere and do a job action where they have no stakes if things go bad. It's not a playground at the port like it was at occupy LA

[DaringMehring]

Dishonest about what? I don't know who is saying what but I am giving my opinion as a rank and file member of the ILWU.

Btw ILWU clerical staff walked off the job today and picketed four port terminals in LA/LB harbor. They are picketing job outsourcing and corporate greed.

I'm just put off by the LA scene because I know most of them were just there to party and be a hippy. Now they want to come down somewhere and do a job action where they have no stakes if things go bad. It's not a playground at the port like it was at occupy LA

I wouldn't take such a narrow view. The victories of the 30s were won because the community at large would side with the strikers. Actions like the port shutdown are going to try to rebuild that type of whole-community struggle. It's more than just about one shift; it's about bringing a whole new layer of the population into the workplace struggle.

I agree with you that in principle, the ones who should be calling this are the workers, and that there is the possibility of people playing games with the lives and livelihoods of others. But while the whole thing is imperfect, from a social angle, it is the increased connection between social forces that need to connect, for us to win, in a type of action, that needs to be explored, deepened, etc. for us to win.

In other words, I think we have to support and participate in this, to try to make it good, rather than crying about its imperfections and the possibility for it to be bad.

We need the struggle to draw in more and more people, like it did in Oakland with their port shutdown.

[A Marxist Historian]

I wouldn't take such a narrow view. The victories of the 30s were won because the community at large would side with the strikers. Actions like the port shutdown are going to try to rebuild that type of whole-community struggle. It's more than just about one shift; it's about bringing a whole new layer of the population into the workplace struggle.

I agree with you that in principle, the ones who should be calling this are the workers, and that there is the possibility of people playing games with the lives and livelihoods of others. But while the whole thing is imperfect, from a social angle, it is the increased connection between social forces that need to connect, for us to win, in a type of action, that needs to be explored, deepened, etc. for us to win.

In other words, I think we have to support and participate in this, to try to make it good, rather than crying about its imperfections and the possibility for it to be bad.

We need the struggle to draw in more and more people, like it did in Oakland with their port shutdown.

Well, this is all very well, but we need to recognize that the ILWU is a major social force, and OWS, well...

There was mythology spread by certain ILWU activists, who should have been spending more time organizing their fellow workers and less time speechifying at OWS, that the port shutdown in Oakland was an action of the longshore rank and file.

A lot of people believed this till the facts came out, and I was one of them. Unfortunately it wasn't true.

The longshoremen (and women) have every reason to be taking action to shut down the ports now. And if a rank and file movement to shut down the ports develops, in rebellion against the untrustworthy ILWU bureaucracy, OWS should support it. It would be very timely.

But a general strike of the workers is a general strike of the workers. What happened in Oakland was an angry protest of the citizens of Oakland that shut down the port, which most longshoremen supported, passively at least.

The stars aligned nicely for this to work out in Oakland. Repeating this on a coastwide scale will only work *if* the ILWU ranks are the initiators. Otherwise there could be a fiasco.

-M.H.-

[KurtFF8]

This may be helpful



There are some misconceptions about whether ILWU supports
The December 12th West Coast Port Shutdown.

ILWU national leadership released a statement saying they "don't endorse" the December 12th Shutdown.

This is exactly how it was done on November 2nd as well. They participated in and supported it just as much then as they do now.

Here's how it works:
We block the gates to the docks, the arbitrator comes and declares it unsafe for the longshoremen to go to work, and the longshoremen then go home- with pay.

ILWU has to officially say that they don't "endorse" the shutdown, this is the only way that they will be able to claim that the blockade is a safety hazard for longshoremen.

If they endorsed it, there would be no safety hazard. How could there be a safety hazard from an action that they endorse? It would be a "strike", no pay for longshoremen that day, and ILWU would be liable for a lawsuit in the millions.

Do not believe the rumor that this means the longshoremen rank-and-file, and the President of the locals don't individually support us. They do. ILWU just can't officially do it as an organization.

This action is in support of Longshoremen in Longview, WA who are militantly fighting union-busting activities by the grain company EGT. The actions of the rank-and-file there are not officially endorsed by ILWU either. These are technicalities for legal reasons, not a measure of support in this case.

Here's what ILWU Local 21 President Dan Coffman said to Occupy Oakland last week at a public rally: "You can't believe what you people have done for my people!"

ILWU Local 10 Executive Board member Clarence Thomas said publicly: "These Ports are public. People have a right to come to the Port and protest. The ILWU has historically honored picket lines at the Port.”

The ILWU has always honored community pickets. They understand solidarity. This is all part of how it works.

They supported the November 2nd shutdown under the exact same circumstances. The longshoremen support this one too.

Please let folks know about this. The details of this action have caused some confusion among people that need to be clear about their support.

The December 12th West Coast Port Shutdown.
Let's do this.

[A Marxist Historian]

This may be helpful

[/B]

Well, if the way Boots Riley runs it down is the way things are, then this at least will do no harm and not cause a fiasco.

But this kind of bureaucratic buck-passing that the ILWU is engaging in gives you the simulacrum of a general strike, not the real thing. And both OWS and ILWU bureaucrats go home happy afterwards, having put on a spectacle that might help Obama win the elections next year.

But it doesn't either throw a real scare into the capitalists or mobilize the longshore workers for mass action. It is "condescending saviors" acting on behalf of the workers rather than mass action of the working class.

So if there was a real general strike the ILWU would get fined? I think it was Harry Bridges himself who said that the only illegal strike is one that loses.

The contract is about to run out anyway. At best, this is simply a dry run for what the ILWU should be doing the day the contract runs out. Then, we could have a real general port strike--the last thing the ILWU bureaucrats want. In fact, the real reason the ILWU bureaucrats are "supporting OWS" is as a cover for a sellout when the contract runs out.

Then again let us not forget the port truckers, whom the ILWU, in best oldstyle craft union fashion, have left to the tender mercies of Hoffa Jr., who refuses to bring them into the Teamsters on the threadbare excuse that they are "independent contractors." If OWS LA were to help the port truckers shut down the port, with or without the cooperation of ILWU bureaucrats, now that would be a real blow in the class war.

-M.H.-

[DaringMehring]

But this kind of bureaucratic buck-passing that the ILWU is engaging in gives you the simulacrum of a general strike, not the real thing.

Yep.

So, is an attempt at a mass action simulating a general strike better or worse than no attempt?



And both OWS and ILWU bureaucrats go home happy afterwards,

OWS doesn't have bureaucrats in any meaningful sense. Your abusing the word bureaucrat.


having put on a spectacle that might help Obama win the elections next year.


Huh? What on earth does this have to do with Obama's re-election? Nonsense. A fake, canned response.



But it doesn't either throw a real scare into the capitalists


It sure as hell does. They're pumping money into their ideological and state-force apparatuses to break OWS, and this is the last direction they want to see it take --- away from the camps and to this big semi-public workplace.



or mobilize the longshore workers for mass action.


Sets the stage for that.



It is "condescending saviors" acting on behalf of the workers rather than mass action of the working class.


Its a variety of social strata including the working class. It isn't a perfect, socialist and class-conscious movement of the proletariat. No big revelation given our conditions in the USA.



So if there was a real general strike the ILWU would get fined? I think it was Harry Bridges himself who said that the only illegal strike is one that loses.


Nice quote I like it. Source?



The contract is about to run out anyway. At best, this is simply a dry run for what the ILWU should be doing the day the contract runs out. Then, we could have a real general port strike--the last thing the ILWU bureaucrats want. In fact, the real reason the ILWU bureaucrats are "supporting OWS" is as a cover for a sellout when the contract runs out.


Good you have a crystal ball into the bureaucrats' minds.

Why don't you think, that these actions, strengthen the later possibility of such a strike? After all such a strike *can only be won if the community mobilizes to support it* and this is proof that the community will...



Then again let us not forget the port truckers, whom the ILWU, in best oldstyle craft union fashion, have left to the tender mercies of Hoffa Jr., who refuses to bring them into the Teamsters on the threadbare excuse that they are "independent contractors." If OWS LA were to help the port truckers shut down the port, with or without the cooperation of ILWU bureaucrats, now that would be a real blow in the class war.


I don't understand this. You must know something I don't. The Teamsters have been fighting to get the "independent contractors" organized for years; it was one of the main reasons behind the CtW-AFLCIO split.

Second, by your warped logic, if OWS tried to help "without the cooperation of ILWU bureaucrats" you'd surely say they were "condescending saviors."

Your whole approach is negative and nonsensical.

Sparts on the sidelines like always I guess.

Maybe you can send someone to hand out a leaflet telling the people out on that day why they're stupid and doing pointless stuff...

[RedTrackWorker]

I wish I knew more about what's going on with this. Boots seems solid and trustworthy--but outside Oakland and even in Oakland, can they get enough people to actually do this? I don't see much momentum building up to it--but I may just not be seeing it.


Then again let us not forget the port truckers, whom the ILWU, in best oldstyle craft union fashion, have left to the tender mercies of Hoffa Jr., who refuses to bring them into the Teamsters on the threadbare excuse that they are "independent contractors."

Isn't it the government blocking them from legally doing it on the excuse they're contractors? (Not to say both the ILWU and the Teamsters couldn't handle that a better way.)

[KurtFF8]

OGqncu3wlEI

[A Marxist Historian]

Yep.

So, is an attempt at a mass action simulating a general strike better or worse than no attempt?



OWS doesn't have bureaucrats in any meaningful sense. Your abusing the word bureaucrat.



Huh? What on earth does this have to do with Obama's re-election? Nonsense. A fake, canned response.



It sure as hell does. They're pumping money into their ideological and state-force apparatuses to break OWS, and this is the last direction they want to see it take --- away from the camps and to this big semi-public workplace.



Sets the stage for that.



Its a variety of social strata including the working class. It isn't a perfect, socialist and class-conscious movement of the proletariat. No big revelation given our conditions in the USA.



Nice quote I like it. Source?



Good you have a crystal ball into the bureaucrats' minds.

Why don't you think, that these actions, strengthen the later possibility of such a strike? After all such a strike *can only be won if the community mobilizes to support it* and this is proof that the community will...



I don't understand this. You must know something I don't. The Teamsters have been fighting to get the "independent contractors" organized for years; it was one of the main reasons behind the CtW-AFLCIO split.

Second, by your warped logic, if OWS tried to help "without the cooperation of ILWU bureaucrats" you'd surely say they were "condescending saviors."

Your whole approach is negative and nonsensical.

Sparts on the sidelines like always I guess.

Maybe you can send someone to hand out a leaflet telling the people out on that day why they're stupid and doing pointless stuff...

I do not oppose this action, and neither do the Spartacists. Will this help push things in the direction of real mass action in the future? I hope so, but I have my doubts. The Spartacists definitely have their doubts.

Here's their statement on it:

http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/991/occupy.html

I am simply trying to explain the facts of life, to those who haven't been around as long as I have.

On "bureaucrats," I said "OWS and ILWU bureaucrats." When I used the word "bureaucrat" did I intend it to apply to OWS as well as the ILWU? The rules of English grammar leave that ambiguous, which is exactly the way I like it. The ILWU definitely has bureaucrats. Does OWS? Varies from place to place. In New York it does, seems to me. Or did.

Can I read the minds of ILWU bureaucrats? Yup, I can. I've been there and done that. My two decades of experience as a union activist in the Bay Area have their uses.

As for the Teamsters, sure of course they are in favor of organizing independent contractors, the Teamsters have been doing that in the trucking industry since the 1930s and even earlier. If you think they've been doing such a great job of that at the port of LA, talk to some of the independent truckers there, who'll tell you different. With all its flaws, the ILWU is a helluvalot better union than the Teamsters.

It doesn't exactly help that the main orientation of the Teamsters is to campaign against Mexican truckers on US roads, given that huge numbers of those port truckers are Mexican and undocumented.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I wish I knew more about what's going on with this. Boots seems solid and trustworthy--but outside Oakland and even in Oakland, can they get enough people to actually do this? I don't see much momentum building up to it--but I may just not be seeing it.



Isn't it the government blocking them from legally doing it on the excuse they're contractors? (Not to say both the ILWU and the Teamsters couldn't handle that a better way.)

Yes. But the LA port truckers are a mass movement, and have been for years. At some point, the law will have to be defied. No doubt the bureaucrats hope that if they maneuver cleverly enough, they can get the law changed through lobbying and so forth.

There is about as much chance for that as for a snowball in hell.

-M.H.-

[Chicano Shamrock]

I wouldn't take such a narrow view. The victories of the 30s were won because the community at large would side with the strikers. Actions like the port shutdown are going to try to rebuild that type of whole-community struggle. It's more than just about one shift; it's about bringing a whole new layer of the population into the workplace struggle.

I agree with you that in principle, the ones who should be calling this are the workers, and that there is the possibility of people playing games with the lives and livelihoods of others. But while the whole thing is imperfect, from a social angle, it is the increased connection between social forces that need to connect, for us to win, in a type of action, that needs to be explored, deepened, etc. for us to win.

In other words, I think we have to support and participate in this, to try to make it good, rather than crying about its imperfections and the possibility for it to be bad.

We need the struggle to draw in more and more people, like it did in Oakland with their port shutdown.
Now I realize that ILWU members couldn't really have been involved with this because it would have been a strike and illegal. I wasn't exactly thinking about it before.

It's not exactly my narrow mindedness that made that post. I am torn on the idea of the whole thing. On one hand I think hitting the bosses is nice. On the other I have been really put off by Occupy LA and I don't think most would know what is going on at the port. Hell I don't really know what's going on down there and I am down there every day.

Well fuck it I love a day off. Free time is my favorite time. :)

[Summerspeaker]

Have y'all seen this interview (http://www.workers.org/2011/us/ilwu_1215/) with two ILWU members?


The ILWU is not some special interest group. We are a rank-and-file militant, democratic union that has a long history of being in the vanguard of the social justice and labor movement.

We don’t cross community picket lines. When people begin to do so they have completely turned their backs on the ILWU’s 10 guiding principles. Is it coincidental that Harry Bridges’ name has not been asserted in relation to the OWS movement and the history of militancy? Is it an accident? How can we not talk about Harry Bridges? That is how we got what we have today.