ILA refuses to accept automation as solution for U.S. ports woes
"Attention should be directed towards improving foundational systems that connect ports to the broader economy."
International Longshoremen's Association (ILA), representing over 45,000 port workers across the U.S. East Coast, is in no mood to withdraw from the proposed strike from January 15, 2025.
The major issue of contention between ILA and United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), representing port owners and carriers, revolves around automation - a topic that was kept in abeyance when a compromise was reached in October 2024.
The tentative deal included a 62 percent wage hike over six years. That would raise average wages to about $63 an hour from $39 an hour over the life of the contract.
Dennis A. Daggett, Executive Vice President, ILA writes in a blog that it is time to rebut claims of inefficiency in U.S. ports. "I understand it’s nearly impossible to rebut every inaccurate report that circulates in the media. However, this particular narrative is too misleading and damaging to ignore, and it needs to be addressed. The recent wave of reporting criticising the efficiency of U.S. ports is not only inaccurate but also irresponsible. The claims are largely based on skewed interpretations of data that fail to account for the fundamental differences between U.S. marine terminals and transshipment hubs in other parts of the world.
"Let’s address the comparison to ports such as Dar es Salaam in Tanzania and Pointe-Noire in the Republic of Congo, cited in the World Bank and S&P Global Market Intelligence survey. These rankings heavily favor transshipment hubs, which are fundamentally different in operation from U.S. ports. Transshipment ports primarily handle containers that are unloaded from one vessel and immediately loaded onto another, with minimal interaction with inland transportation systems or domestic cargo. In contrast, U.S. ports are full-service gateways that handle a complex mix of imports and exports, integrating rail, trucking, and warehousing to deliver goods across a vast geography. Comparing these two types of facilities is like comparing apples to oranges."
USMX, on the other hand, claim that modernisation and investment in new technology 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 U.S maritime industry.
"Port operations must evolve, and embracing modern technology is critical to this evolution. It means improving performance to move more cargo more efficiently through existing facilities - advancements that are crucial for U.S. workers, consumers, and companies.
"Due to the lack of available new land in most ports, the only way for U.S. East and Gulf Coast ports to handle more volume is to densify terminals – enabling the movement of more cargo through their existing footprints. It has been proven this can be accomplished while delivering benefits to both USMX members and to the ILA."
ILA is not buying any of these points: "U.S. ports handle one of the highest volumes of cargo in the world. The Port of Los Angeles processes over nine million TEUs annually while the Port of New York and New Jersey handles approximately 9.5 million TEUs. These ports are not only managing import and export cargo but are also critical links in a supply chain that serves vast regions of the country. This includes moving goods to distribution centers and rail networks spanning thousands of miles. The scale and complexity of these operations far exceed the operations of most transshipment ports.
"Despite the challenges, longshore workers represented by the ILA and other unions consistently demonstrate exceptional productivity. During the Covid-19 pandemic, when global supply chains faced unprecedented disruptions, U.S. port workers kept the economy moving under extreme pressure. Their contribution is unparalleled and often unrecognized in these so-called efficiency studies."
Lars Jensen writes in his LinkedIn post: “They promote the total volume handled by Los Angeles/Long Beach as an example of ports exceeding the operations of most transhipment hubs. Curious as there are terminals in LA/LB which are using the kinds of automation that the ILA is fighting against.”
More jobs, higher wages..or is it?
USMX claims it has not, nor has it ever been, seeking to eliminate jobs "but to simply implement and maintain the use of equipment and technology already allowed under the current contract agreements and already widely in use, including at some USMX ports.
"A USMX terminal where modern crane technology was implemented more than a decade ago was previously limited to a 775,000-container capacity using traditional equipment. Yet, that same terminal nearly doubled its volume after incorporating the use of modern rail-mounted gantry cranes into its daily operations. The added capacity delivered an equal increase in hours worked, leading to more union jobs, as the terminal went from employing approximately 600 workers a day to nearly 1,200. Moving more containers through the existing terminal footprints also means higher wages from the increased cargo, bringing in more money for volume/tonnage bonuses."
ILA, on the other hand, highlights outdated infrastructure that supports U.S. ports such as highways, bridges, rail systems and dredging operations. Daggett writes: "Many of these critical connections to the ports are decades behind the needs of modern commerce. Trucks transporting goods often face bottlenecks on congested and deteriorating highways. Aging rail systems struggle to keep up with the demands of intermodal transport. Dredging operations to accommodate larger vessels lag behind, forcing delays and inefficiencies.
"Is that the ILA’s fault, too? Instead of pointing fingers at the workforce, attention should be directed toward improving these foundational systems that connect ports to the broader economy. Without such investments, no port can achieve optimal efficiency, regardless of its operations."
USMX insists investment in new technology and modernised operations does not mean fewer jobs. "Instead, it will create new opportunities for the ILA. We need a master contract that allows us to plan for the future and to ensure that the ILA are our partners in charting this path forward."
ILA is critical of the growing influence of private equity firms in controlling the narrative. "These firms, which often have investments in ports and infrastructure globally, may benefit from casting U.S. ports in a negative light to push automation and deregulation agendas. This coordinated narrative overlooks the proven productivity of human-operated facilities, such as those in the U.S., in favour of unproven automation schemes.
"Rather than unfairly criticise the system, we should focus on making investments in infrastructure, technology and workforce training to enhance port operations. The ILA and its members are ready and willing to be part of this progress, particularly when it comes to adopting technology that promotes efficiency without replacing the critical role of a human performing that task. However, we will not stand for reckless mischaracterisations of our industry and our work."
