A Big Win

Here's some unmitigated good news -- a huge victory for a labor/environmental alliance a the Port of Los Angeles that stands an excellent chance of improving air quality around the port while improving living standards for the people who work there. It'll also put pressure on the nearby Port of Long Beach to follow suit. This is the biggest port in the United States, so it's obviously a big deal, and a big organizing coup for the good guys -- the success of the labor/environmental is great news for the progressive coalition.

Comments

Matt:

Are you ESL by any chance?

Posted by blah | March 24, 2008 5:30 PM

Dude, get off his case. The whole "Matt makes spelling mistakes OMG Zoinks!" thing was funny for like the first 100 times. Now it's just old.

Posted by Francisco The Man | March 24, 2008 5:33 PM

It's not just spelling mistakes. He writes as if he learned grammar in a language other than English.

Posted by blah | March 24, 2008 5:37 PM

A friend of mine worked on this campaign. It really is a major victory. Here's the press release.

Posted by Antid Oto | March 24, 2008 5:39 PM

This is the result of many years of work by San Pedro and Wilmington activists who have been calling attention to the pollution problems generated by port activities. The ships are responsible for half of the pollution, while the trucks are responsible for maybe one-eighth. This program is long overdue and will help, but the big step will be requiring ships to run off dockside electricity while they are tied up, and to burn low sulfur fuel within 20 miles of the port. Maersk is already using low sulfur fuel, and we are hopeful that other shippers will follow suit. The ports of L.A. and Long Beach combined produce about one-fourth of all the diesel pollution in the area.

Posted by Bob G | March 24, 2008 5:49 PM

But when are they going to dredge the harbor and reopen the grain pier?

Posted by laborlibert | March 24, 2008 6:02 PM

Probably the wrong approach, compared to Long Beach. LA said the 16,000 truckers, mostly contractors, must now become employees of concession holders. This amounts to what is called inverse condemnation in CA. Taking the good will associated with 16,000 small businesses. Upshot? Likely class action. Could be say $100,000 in damages and fees per case, or $1.6 billion. Why?
To support unionization efforts. I am not sure unionization is better that 16,000 independent contractors, with good trucks.

Recall that the POLA/POLB business has been flat the last two years, and may decline next year. If you have independent contractors with good trucks, they can go to where the work is (and are not just tied to one port).

The model union folks in the area - the longshoremen - are making 100,000 to $200,000 per year. Is that going to happen to truckers, now at $10-15 per hour (after expenses)? Color me skeptical. Something about there can only be one block of monopoly power in a distribution chain. Too easy for shippers to move traffic to Mexico, Oakland, SF, Vancouver, etc. Too easy for LA-metro area land traffic to move more to trains.

Compare POLB, which says that if you get the truck up to current air quality standards, it is ok to stay independent. Simple and legal. Loans and grants are available for truck improvements/replacements in either case.

Both are huge advances from an environmental perspective. Kudos to Janice Hahn, City Council member for the area, for getting a lot of good things done. POLA is more legally suspect, and that could mean more delayed (and more expensive).

Next step - get the trains cleaned up. They are really ugly polluters working the long hauls through AZ, etc.

Posted by cfw | March 24, 2008 7:06 PM

The plan would, essentially, improve quality-of-life around the ports, and give local unions some strong leverage at the docks, at the expense of people who ship things through there, which is kind of the entire rest of the country. So, from a constituent service perspective, it's a wise decision from the local pols involved, but an open question whether they can hold their ground against national-level pushback.

Posted by Senescent | March 24, 2008 7:16 PM

Pressure on Port of Long Beach to follow suit?

Did you read the article, Matt?

Long Beach rejected a similar agreement with the backing of the Teamsters, i.e. every trucker who doesn't live in Janice Hahn's district.

Since Long Beach's costs are now considerably less than L.A.'s, and since they have the backing of the national unions, and since the Long Beach Port commisioner just rejected a similar plan, where exactly is this pressure supposed to come from?

Posted by heedless | March 25, 2008 4:29 AM