The government must not control an individual’s labor

Workers have a fundamental right to organize and negotiate collectively. Without this right,… Workers have a fundamental right to organize and negotiate collectively. Without this right, they would fall to the mercy of the corporations who employ them. For the government to deprive workers of this right is to deprive them of their voice and any ability they have to protect their personal interests.

Yet President Bush is being pressured by manufacturers and retailers all over the country to deliver this fate to members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

During recent contract negotiations, their members were accused of organizing a deliberate work slowdown. Their employers, the Pacific Maritime Association, responded by locking them out of the ports where they work. The PMA is trying to silence the workers’ voice from coming through in a new contract.

So far, no agreement has been met and some say the results could be catastrophic. The lockout has caused the closing of 29 Pacific ports in California, Oregon and Washington. More than 162 ships float idle outside the docks where their cargo is going to waste. Around 7,700 tons of meat from Australia is in danger of going bad unless it can be unloaded soon.

Japan feels its delicate export-based economy faces serious danger if the lockout is allowed to continue. And most clothing retail outlets fear that a prolonged strike will serve to dry up Christmas sales. The 29 ports in question account for more than 50 percent of apparel imports into the United States. In fact, most experts estimate the crisis to be costing the U.S. economy more than $2 billion a day.

It’s hard to believe the lockout of these 10,500 employees over pensions and other benefits can be causing so much trouble. But it is.

So what’s to be done? Well, many manufacturers are calling on President Bush to utilize the Taft-Hartley act. This act grants the president power to force striking employees back to work if their strike dictates a matter of national emergency. Manufacturers claim this will bring a quick and harmless end to what might otherwise be a catastrophe.

The manufacturers have a point here; but it is selfish and not to be considered.

First of all, the act only explicitly pertains to strikes. The situation on the West Coast is still technically a lockout. The whole discussion may prove irrelevant.

Second, this situation doesn’t even resemble a national emergency. While some technological, automotive and food companies will be hurt, the majority of goods that come through the ports are for clothing outlets. Not getting the new fleece pullover from Old Navy you really wanted hardly constitutes a national emergency.

Thirdly, the estimated $2 billion a day is hardly a blow to the national economy. Two billion dollars isn’t even one-tenth of a percent of the economy. Individual citizens have more money than that.

That figure is also bound to decline as the lockout continues and companies find new ways of getting their goods into the states. Dennis Carl, chairman of Australia Meat Council’s shipping committee, stated they would begin sending their shipments to Canada. Various other companies have already begun to look into alternate ways to reach U.S. markets. Wal-Mart has begun flying their goods in.

Lastly and most importantly Taft-Hartley should not be utilized for the very nature of the question. The question at hand is labor. The labor of those who belong to the ILWU. Not my labor, not your labor, not Japan’s labor, Australia’s labor, the labor of Gap managers or anyone else’s. It’s their labor and if they don’t feel that they are getting a fair return for it they have every right to withhold their labor.

For a government to interfere with a private government by forcing it or its employees to do anything in the name of the national interest is just plain wrong. A citizen’s labor is not for the government to control.

Question, comments, insight or instruction? wminton@pittnews.com