Peter Friedmann

Despite some strident language from union leaders, shippers using US east coast ports should expect an agreement between employers and dockers to be in place before the present contract ends in October, according to Peter Friedmann (above), executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (Ag-Trans).

A veteran shipper lobbyist who has represented Ag-Trans in Washington since its inception, he told delegates at last week’s TPM conference in Long Beach, organised by S&P, that the recent ‘form book’ would suggest the White House administration will ensure that no stoppages take place at east and Gulf coast ports.

The labour contract between USMX, employers at 36 ports on the east and Gulf coasts, and the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), representing some 70,000 dock workers, is set to expire on 30 September. Negotiations started last February, but fizzled out with the two sides far apart on pay.

Since then, ILA president Harold Dagget warned that union members should be prepared to begin a strike on 1 October.

However, when asked about the potential for the White House to get involved, he said: “I don’t have a relationship with the ILA in the way I do with the [west coast docker union] ILWU, but if you look at the major labour disputes that have taken place recently, involving the rail unions, UAW, Teamsters, and so on… in each dispute, this administration has weighed in, and when it does the result is unusually to the benefit of the unions.

“Biden says he’s the best friend labour has ever had in the White House, and he’s right – if the White House gets involved; I wouldn’t want to be in the terminal side this year,” he added.

While that particular trade conduit may not be as vulnerable to disruption as some fear, Mr Friedmann was pessimistic about the wider environment, particularly the trade tension troubling the relationship between the US and China.

He said: “Our members need cargo to come in from China so we can get those containers and load them with cargo to go back, but it is a difficult time to promote that, because this is an election year and election years are always protectionist – the politicians all compete on who is the most protectionist.

“From my point of view, tariffs are bad. But there will be more tariffs this year because the White House sees that they are incredibly popular. We are now five years into Trump’s tariffs and not a single member since has introduced a bill to lower tariffs – if anything, they are proposing more.

“Our biggest challenge is this non-partisan protectionism – and if the objective is to bring manufacturing back home, then we all know that this actually means industry moving to Mexico,” he added.

Comment on this article


You must be logged in to post a comment.
  • Dwight Campbell

    March 12, 2024 at 3:04 pm

    I have always found it interesting that the electorate will happily vote for someone that increases their cost of doing business by adding tariffs on imported goods, while their own paychecks dwindle under inflation.

    When you see that line item on the invoice for extra charges on imports, remember – you voted for it.

    I can only guess that tariffs sound like something that is magically paid for by someone else. Like everything else, it is always paid for by the end user.

    • Gavin van Marle

      March 12, 2024 at 6:50 pm

      “Like everything else, it is always paid for by the end user.” Exactly the point Peter Friedmann was making