News / January strike at US east and Gulf coast ports now inevitable, say forwarders

Photo: ILA

Hopes of a resolution to the ongoing stand-off between dockers and employers at ports on the US east and Gulf coasts are rapidly diminishing – neither side budging over automation.

With a “tentative agreement on wages” that ended a three-day closure of ports in October, the ILA union and port employer association USMX said they would extend the current master contract and negotiations until 15 January, six days before Donald Trump returns to office.

If those tentative signs brought hope, the situation has hit an impasse, with the ILA strongly opposed to USMX plans for port automation.

Last night, USMX said: “Modernisation and investment in new tech are core priorities required to successfully bargain a new master contract with the ILA – they are essential to building a sustainable and greener future for the US maritime industry.

“Due to the lack of available new land in most ports, the only way for US east and Gulf coast ports to handle more volume is to densify terminals.”

At one unnamed USMX terminal, it said, “modern crane technology” more than a decade ago had resulted in a near-doubling of its 775,000-container capacity, and it had also spiked worker numbers from 600 to 1,200 a day.

“Moving more containers through the existing terminal footprints also means higher wages from the increased cargo, bringing in more money for volume/tonnage bonuses,” it added.

But the ILA contends that the “employers’ push” for semi-automated rail-mounted gantry cranes (RMGs) not only “jeopardises jobs”, but also “threatens national security and puts the future of the workforce at risk”.

Citing the introduction of semi-automated RMGs at a greenfield terminal on the US east coast in the 2000s, the union said it had been sold the idea as a “vision”, but that did not materialise.

“What seemed like a win for one port turned out to be the project that is becoming the model for automation that could potentially chip away at many jobs at almost every other terminal along the east and Gulf coasts,” said ILA EVP Dennis Daggett.

He said a “new technology clause” in the master contract “required employers to file a letter of intent 120 days before implementing new equipment”, but added: “However, after that notice was filed, employers essentially had free rein to unilaterally introduce whatever they wanted, without protecting the job functions or the roles of the workforce. It was a loophole that came at a cost to ILA members and their families.”

And, in a post last night, Mr Daggett challenged the suggestion that RMGs were semi-automated, stating: “The reality is that 95% of work performed by RMGs is fully automated.”

The union added that with increased digitisation and automation would come increasingly interconnected systems.

“Imagine if a foreign adversary, like China, exploited these vulnerabilities and hacked our port systems,” said Mr Daggett. “With ports increasingly dependent on automation and green energy technologies, an attack could cripple the US economy overnight. This isn’t hypothetical – it is a new form of warfare that we are not prepared to defend against.”

For forwarders, the stalemate at the ports has left many fearing a second strike is an inevitability. One of those fearing the worst is the SVP international of forwarder Team Worldwide, Bob Imbriani, who told The Loadstar the potential repercussions from a January strike were big. Dave Minnebach, VP global ocean commercial development of AIT Worldwide Logistics, added that such a strike was “likely to be much longer before work is resumed”.