The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) abruptly ended negotiations with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) on Tuesday afternoon, November 12, 2024, in response to USMX's insistence on including language in its contract proposals that would advance automation and semi-automation at U.S. ports. The ILA rejected these provisions, which the union believes would result in significant job losses for its workers.
The ILA and USMX had previously engaged in tense negotiations, including a significant strike earlier in the year that lasted several weeks. The strike was fueled by unresolved issues over wages, working conditions, and the future of automation. The ILA demanded higher wages and better benefits to account for increasing workloads and rising living costs while raising concerns about automation’s potential impact on jobs. The strike caused widespread disruptions at ports, highlighting the deep divisions between labor and management. A temporary resolution was reached in October, extending the Master Contract until January 2025, but the automation issue remained unresolved, leading to the recent breakdown in talks.
In early October, following a three-day walkout at all ILA-USMX ports on the Atlantic and Gulf Coast, both parties had reached a tentative agreement on wages. The Master Contract was extended until January 15, 2025, and a temporary resolution on pay was agreed upon. However, several unresolved issues, particularly the future use of automation, remained a point of contention.
The two sides were scheduled to meet for four days this week in New Jersey to finalize a new Six-Year Master Contract Agreement. A key issue for the ILA was securing a clear commitment from USMX regarding the future of automation at port terminals. ILA President Harold Daggett had made it clear that the union would not accept any language that could pave the way for automation or semi-automation, insisting on "airtight language" that guarantees no job losses to machines. However, when negotiations resumed on Tuesday in Teaneck, New Jersey, USMX introduced a new proposal advocating for the use of semi-automated equipment at ILA ports. The ILA immediately rejected this proposal, viewing it as a direct attack on their workers' livelihoods.
The ILA saw this proposal as part of a broader effort by USMX to replace human workers with automated technology. As a result, the ILA announced it was breaking off talks and called USMX's actions a betrayal of the spirit of negotiations. The union's leadership expressed disappointment that USMX had ignored the ILA's long-standing position against automation, despite the billions of dollars in profits employers continue to earn. The potential consequences of automation on the workforce are significant, with the risk of job losses across the industry.
In a statement, the ILA expressed frustration with the tactics being used by USMX. "We are disheartened that after making progress in our talks, management resorted to tactics designed to mislead and divide," the union said. The ILA accused USMX of employing a "bait-and-switch" strategy by initially offering concessions on manning levels, only to later propose semi-automation, which the ILA fears could eventually lead to full automation and job losses. The "bait-and-switch" strategy refers to USMX's early concessions on manning levels, which were followed by proposals for automation measures that the ILA believes would undermine those initial agreements.
"We’ve seen this strategy play out in other parts of the world and other industries, and we will not allow it to happen on the East and Gulf Coasts," the ILA vowed.
The ILA emphasized its support for technological advancements that improve productivity, but it does not believe automation is the solution. "Automation is not the panacea it’s often portrayed to be," the union stated. They pointed to their track record of improving productivity at terminals without resorting to automation. For instance, at a major New Jersey terminal, daily gate moves increased from 1,500 to nearly 10,000 without extending processing times. "We’ve proven that efficiency and productivity can be achieved without reducing jobs," the ILA said. The union also highlighted advancements in ship-to-shore cranes and container-handling equipment that have made operations more efficient.
The ILA’s stance remains firm: they support modernization, but only in ways that enhance safety, efficiency, and worker well-being. "The ILA has always supported modernization when it leads to increased volumes and efficiency," the union explained. "But we draw the line at automation that eliminates jobs."
Despite their frustration, the ILA remains open to future negotiations and hopes USMX will reconsider its position. "We remain hopeful that USMX will alter its unwinnable strategy and return to the bargaining table," the union said. "Our resolve is firm: we will not surrender any ILA jobs."
In response, USMX issued its own statement, acknowledging that while positive progress had been made on several issues, no agreement could be reached on "a range of technology issues." USMX reiterated its position that the industry must continue modernizing to meet future supply chain demands, emphasizing that automation is not intended to eliminate jobs but to increase efficiency and capacity. "What we need is continued modernization that improves worker safety, increases efficiency, and grows jobs," USMX said. "The ILA’s insistence on restricting the use of technology is a step backward that could hurt workers in the long run."
USMX argued that the technology it is advocating for has been in use at some ports for nearly two decades and is necessary to keep U.S. ports competitive and able to handle growing global trade. "Automation will help keep supply chains strong, increase capacity, and ultimately benefit American businesses and workers alike," USMX asserted.
The ongoing dispute over automation highlights broader tensions between labor unions and management about the future of work amid advancing technology. The ILA’s decision to break off talks underscores the challenges of balancing innovation with job security. As both sides prepare for what could be a prolonged battle, the question remains whether a compromise can be reached that meets both the need for modernization and the protection of workers’ livelihoods.
For the ILA, the fight goes beyond wages—it's about ensuring longshore workers continue to have a place in a rapidly changing industry. "We are not anti-technology," the union stated. "We are anti-automation that replaces jobs." The ILA’s future strategy will likely focus on safeguarding the human workforce while seeking technological improvements that benefit workers without diminishing their numbers.
As the negotiations continue, both the ILA and USMX will need to navigate these complex issues to avoid further disruptions and find a resolution that preserves the integrity of the workforce while adapting to the needs of an evolving industry.
Comments