Government Interventions in US Port Strikes

For the past month, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) has been threatening port strikes on the East and Gulf Coasts if an agreement is not reached with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) to increase worker wages. The current contract ends on Monday, September 30th and a strike would take place the following day.

A recent USMX press release stated “Despite additional attempts by USMX to engage with the ILA and resume bargaining, we have been unable to schedule a meeting to continue negotiations on a new Master Contract. We remain prepared to bargain at any time, but both sides must come to the table if we are going to reach a deal, and there is no indication that the ILA is interested in negotiating at this time."

Then, on Thursday, September 26, USMX filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). "Due to the ILA’s repeated refusal to come to the table and bargain on a new Master Contract, USMX filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charge with the NLRB and requested immediate injunctive relief – requiring the Union to resume bargaining – so that we can negotiate a deal."

With the disaster port strikes would cause to US supply chains and small businesses, we wanted to provide some more color on what happened with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) West Coast port strikes of 2014-2015. Here's a breakdown of how the situation was handled and what roles Congress and the presidential administration can play in ending port strikes, including the imminent one on October 1st.

2014-2015 West Coast Port Strikes Resolution

Negotiations and Mediation

• The ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) were locked in prolonged negotiations, leading to a slowdown in port operations.

• The federal government intervened by appointing a federal mediator in January 2015 to help facilitate discussions between the two parties. Mediation played a crucial role in eventually reaching a tentative agreement.

Federal Pressure

• In February 2015, then-President Barack Obama dispatched Labor Secretary Tom Perez to the West Coast to directly assist in the negotiations. This high-level intervention indicated the administration's growing concern over the economic impact of the strike.

• Under pressure from both the administration and the public, the ILWU and PMA were urged to finalize an agreement to avoid further disruption.

Economic Impact

• The strike and port slowdown had a significant impact on the U.S. economy, affecting industries relying on imports and exports.

• This economic pressure added urgency to the negotiations, as continued disruptions would have far-reaching consequences.

 Resolution

• A tentative five-year agreement was reached in February 2015, which was later ratified by both parties. The agreement included terms on wages, pensions, and work rules.

What Congress and the Presidential Administration Can Do to End Port Strikes

Mediation and Arbitration

• The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) can be called in to mediate disputes. This agency provides mediation services to help resolve labor disputes in industries that have an impact on interstate commerce.

Presidential Intervention (Taft-Hartley Act)

• The president can invoke the Taft-Hartley Act, which allows the government to obtain a court order to stop a strike or lockout for an 80-day "cooling-off" period if it deems the strike to be a national emergency.

• During this period, the two sides are expected to continue negotiating while port operations resume, mitigating immediate economic impacts.

Legislative Action

• Congress can pass legislation related to labor disputes, though this is often seen as a last resort due to its impact on collective bargaining rights.

• For example, in situations where a strike poses a threat to national security or has a severe economic impact, Congress could intervene to impose terms or mandate arbitration.

Economic and Political Pressure

• The administration can apply economic and political pressure on both sides to reach a resolution, emphasizing the broader economic consequences of prolonged disruptions.

• In some cases, public statements or involvement of high-level officials can facilitate a sense of urgency in negotiations.

The Constitution Partners team remains on top of this issue. Please reach out with any questions. As always, you can view live updates on USMX-ILA negotiations here.