Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 46, 15 November 1948, p. 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 7 – Optimism among top labor leaders following the unexpectedly re-election of president Truman last week gavie rise to two moves designed to effect a quick settlement of the 66-day old pacific coast maritime strike.
First of these moves was a letter from Vincent J. Malone, president of the striking independent Marine Firemen’s Union, addressed to J.B. Bryan, president of the Pacific American Shipowners’ Association. Malone’s letter began with the announcement that “the results of the presidential election makes pointless any further continuation of the current strike or lockout.”
The second move was made by CIO President Philip Murray who is pressing for re-opening of negotiations and has offered to underwrite any new contract to insure “faithful performance.”
The employers, within the councils of the PASA and the Waterfront Employers Association, have already adjusted their tactics to the Truman election victory.
Almon E. Roth, who now presents himself as president of the San Francisco Employers’ Council and who was president of the Waterfront Employers Association until 1938, has come up with a “peace formula” which calls for a ten day period of negotiations after which time the final offer of the operators will be submitted to a secret referendum of the strikers. According to this “Roth formula” the Employers’ Council and the national ClO shall be parties to the negotiations and both shall underwrite any future contract. As was to be expected, PASA and WEA approved the proposal.
A meeting of the striking CIO, longshoremen’s coastwise, negotiating committee has been called by Harry Bridges, president of the ILWU. This was the first such meeting since the strike began Sept. 2.
According to a press release from longshore headquarters, the negotiating committee was convened
“to review the entire stride picture and to make a bid to open negotiations with the shipowners for settlement of the strike.
“Meanwhile all locals of the union were warned not to be misled by announcements of so-called settlement formulas. It was emphasized that the union has received nothing of any definite nature to justify such reports.”
The strikers, who now have been more than two months on the picket lines, are more determined than ever to win their demands. The employers have up to now offered a miserly 10 cents per hour wage increase for longshoremen. The minimum demand of the union is 15 cents, and has been won in existing contracts with Griffiths & Sprague and Mutual Stevedoring Co., which are not affiliated with WEA.
Seamen are demanding a minimum wage increase averaging approximately $17.50 per month, bringing the monthly scale for firemen-watertenders to $222.69. This demand had been acceded to by the employers in the case of the Marine Firemen’s Union. However, the similar wage demands of the CIO Marine Cooks have not been met.
Even more important to the striking unions are the questions of manning scale, no-strike clause in the new contract, and a common expiration date for the majority of maritime unions.
The seamen’s unions have demanded maintenance of present manning scales. This is an absolute minimum demand in face of the growing unemployment in this industry as the size of the U.S. merchant fleet is slashed by foreign-flag competition, backed by American capital.
Furthermore, most contracts have in the past contained a no-strike, clause guaranteeing that there would be no strikes or work stoppages during the life of the agreement. However, there are usually provocatidns on the part of the employers which force temporary work-stoppages. Under existing laws unions can be sued in the courts for such stoppages. As a measure, of protection against these employer provocations and subsequent court actions, all the striking maritime unions went on record to eliminate the no-strike pledge and substitute a “willing and able clause” which specifies that no member of the union shall be required to work under provisions of the contract unless he is willing and able to do so.
Another key demand of the striking maritime unions is for a common expiration date of their contracts. At present the contracts of most maritime unions end June 15. However, some unions have signed two year contracts, others only for one year. The contract of the CIO National Maritime Union on the east coast expires June 15, 1949, whereas the AFL Seafarers’ International Union has a contract which runs to June 15, 1950. On the west coast, all the present striking unions – the independent Marine Firemen, the CIO-MC&S and the CIO-ILWU – can win uniform expiration dates as was the case before their last contracts expired June 15.
The employers have persistently maneuvered to stagger the expiration dates of the several maritime unions so as to weaken the striking power of organized maritime workers. They have succeeded to the extent that the AFL Sailors Union and the AFL-ILA longshore local in Tacoma on this coast have retained the Sept. 30 expiration date.
In the first flush of enthusiasm following the election of Truman some of the statements of the pro-Truman union officialdom indicated that the important demand of uniform expiration dates might be lost sight of.
In his letter to the ship operators, V.J. Malone of the Marine Firemen made a number of proposals for quick agreement which included: “Entering into an agreement for a period of four years, with wage reviews at agreed-on periods.”
If this is picked up by the operators, and the membership of the Marine Firemen’s Union accepts such an agreement, the MFOW would be working under a contract which expires in 1952. Other unions will likely have contracts of shorter duration. This would enable the employers to isolate the CIO maritime unions on this coast and attempt to smash them in another strike a year or two hence.
The union officials now seem inclined to cling to the groundless hope that a long period of “labor peace,” guaranteed by a new Truman Democratic Administration, lies ahead. This was clearly expressed by V.J. Malone in the following telegram to Mr. John R. Steelman, labor advisor to President Truman:
“Undoubtedly labor’s vote was a dominant factor at the polls. We urge President call conference labor representatives AFL, CIO, railroad brotherhoods, independents to map four year period of labor peace and cooperation based on (one) repeal of Taft-Hartley and substitution of labor law less punitive and more just. (Two) Encouraging long term agreements of up to five years with periodic wage reviews. (Three) Broader job opportunities. In case of maritime industry more generous policy on charter and sale of ships to American flag operators and carriage of defense supplies and relief cargoes in more American bottoms.”
This false optimism is not shared by rank and file leaders of local strike committees up and down the coast. They show no willingness to turn the future independent existence of their unions over to the tender mercies of a Truman administration on the basis of election promises.
Acting to strengthen the power of the strike and force the operators to meet their full demands, the local strike committee of the ILWU last week sent their chairman, James Kearney, who is also president of ILWU local 10, to the Pacific Northwest to investigate movements of ships and cargoes in that area. He brought back a report designed to tighten the strike on all fronts.
Members of the CIO Marine Cooks, encouraged by this move of the longshoremen, also voted in their last membership meeting to overhaul their local strike committee and clamp down on cargo movements.
These moves by the strikers prepare the unions to take advantage of any opportunities for a just settlement of the strike that may now appear with the resumption of negotiations.
Main Militant Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 28 March 2023