1 - American Memory

258
alTorded union employees during such period will constitute strike benefits for
such employees. Since military cargo is exempted from strike action, PMA says
tliat the combined work opportunity represented by the two exemptions will
significantly increase the union's ability to withstand a strike and thus reduce
nmnagement's economic power in the dispute.
With the conclusion of U.S. involvement in the Viet Nam conflict the average
monthly volume of strike exempted military cargo, other than liquid bulk,
moving through U.S. Pacific Coast ports has been dramatically reduced—from
517,000 revenue tons in 1971 to 308,000 revenue tons in 1973 or by over 40%. The
estimated average monthly volume of commercial cargo, other than liquid bulk,
moving in 1973 between U.S. Pacific Coast ports and Hawaii, Guam and the
oflier Pacific islands specified in the bill is 301,000 revenue tons. Therefore, a 30
day resumption of operations In 1973 under injunctions contemplated by the
hill when combined with the customary exemption of military cargo would
have resulted in a total strike exemption for 600,000 revenue tons of cargo as
compared with the exemption for military cargo alone of 517,000 tons during
the 1971 longshore strike.
It should be noted that military cargo moves predominantly from San Fran-
cisco Bay ports and as a consequence the total work opportunity made possible
in part by this bill will be centered at such ports. According to the ILWU's house
paper, The Disimtcher, between February 17-19. 1972, nine thou.'Jand five hundred
and sixty-four ILWU members participated in the ratification vote on the agree-
ment settling the 1971-1972 longshore strike. It is Interesting to note that of
(he votes cast by the San Francisco locals 74% were in favor of the agreement
while only 70% of the votes cast by all other West Coast locals were favorable
to tlie agreement. If the work opportunity represented by strike exempted cargo
Is to be considered as a strike benefit, then one would have expected a much lower
percentage of favorable votes by the San Francisco locals.
With minor exceptions cargo moving between the U.S. Pacific Coast and the
Islands specified In the bill is handled through the ports of San Francisco Bay
(Oakland and San Francisco city) and Los Angeles Harbor (Los Angeles city
and Long Beach), California; Portland. Oregon; and Seattle, Washington, but
primarily through the two Indicated California ports. For example, in calendar
year 1973 only 1.8% and 3.6% of the total non-bulk cargo handled at the ports
of Portland and Seattle involved cargo moving to and from the islands covered
by the bill. Even for the two California ports the percentage of cargo to be ex-
empted by this bill and as military cargo is modest. In 1973 the ports of Ix>s
Angeles Harbor and San Francisco Bay handled 14.1.')6.000 tons and 9,347,000
tons of non-bulk cargo respectively of which only 13.7% and 6.4% was cargo
moving to and from the communities specified in the legislation.
As a practical matter, enactment of this legislation and such use as may be
made by the chief executives of the island communities of their permissive au-
thority to seek an injunction will neither abridge or weaken the union's right to
strike nor weaken its strength within tJie collective bargaining process, i.e.:
1. In respect to the longshore union only 3 to 4% of the total man-hours
expended on cargo moving through U.S. Pacific Coast ports will be strike ex-
empted, which is not significantly greater than the volume previously exempted
as military cargo.
2. Those members of management who would resume operations under the
strike exemption contemplated by the bill would not. because of their minority
position within the management group, be able to add anything to the bargaining
strength of the management side of any dispute.
3. Because of the economic Incentives previously referred to^retroactlve wage
payments, and the potential impact of economic regulation by the FMC—those
members of management resuming operations would still be fully subject to the
economic pressures being applied by the union.
Mr. Chairman, it is our belief that the operation of this legislation if enacted
will not change the economic bargaining power of either side to a collective bar-
gaining dispute. To the extent that the Governor of Hawaii or the Governor of
Guam elect to exercise their authority to seek an exemption for their com-
munities of any Pacific Coast longshore or offshore maritime strike, we are pre-
pared to provide within our capability the necessary service while at the same
time continuing to participate in the collective bargaining process in the same
manner and to the same degree as we would in the absence of such enacted