Welcome to CrossDock,

In this issue, we dive into the story of the longshoremen – from how they first came together to the key moments that shaped their union. We’ll also look at whether their pay is really as high as some reports claim and why they’re so fiercely against automation in the industry.

Note: To never miss an update, move CrossDock to your Primary tab. It’s easy:

1. Drag this email from your Promotions tab to the Primary tab.

2. When a message pops up asking if you want to do this for future emails, click "Yes" to ensure all future emails land in your Primary inbox.

On the Waterfront ⚓️

17,000. 

That is the average volume of containers processed at the Port of New York and New Jersey on a regular day. But on October 1, 2024, the port was anything but regular. The bustling hub stood eerily silent. The number of containers processed that day was 0.

Giant cranes in the ports, normally in constant motion, stood frozen like oversized toys. The familiar rumble of trucks was replaced by the chants of striking workers, holding placards at the picket lines as they demanded fair wages and job security.

The strike by over 46,000 longshoremen affected 36 ports along the East and Gulf coasts. The standoff between the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) seriously threatened the vital flow of goods across the U.S. East and Gulf Coast ports. The strike brought operations at some of the nation's busiest ports to a deadlock, causing significant disruptions in supply chains and instilling fears of a potential economic catastrophe. 

However, as of October 3, the storm had passed. The president intervened, a deal was struck, hands were shaken, and potential economic losses that could have amounted to billions of dollars were averted — at least for now.

Much has been said about the strike — the demands, the negotiation deadlocks, and the economic fallout. But in this issue, we turn our attention to the longshoremen, the workers at the center of it all. To truly grasp their role and significance, let's journey back in time to uncover their story.

Men Along the Shore

In the 19th century, America was experiencing a profound transformation, both culturally and economically. The country was shedding its agrarian identity and riding on the Industrial Revolution wave. Factories sprang up, cities expanded rapidly, and the economy shifted from agriculture to manufacturing and trade. This era of change was driven by new technologies and industries, reshaping the landscape and pushing America toward its future as a global industrial power. 

At the core of this transformation stood America’s major ports, powering the nation’s economic growth. Ports like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and San Francisco were crucial in facilitating the movement of raw materials and finished goods. These bustling hubs connected the country's manufacturing centers to global markets.

These ports saw a constant flow of goods — from textiles, timber, and coal to the rising demand for consumer products like tea, spices, and machinery. As ships grew in size and frequency, the need for skilled dockworkers to manage the loading and unloading of cargo became increasingly vital to the economy. Enter the longshoremen. These workers were responsible for loading and unloading ships, ensuring the smooth movement of cargo through the ports.

By the late 19th century, New York alone employed over 40,000 longshoremen, reflecting the heavy demand for labor in the shipping industry. Across other key ports like Boston and San Francisco, the numbers were also significant, with tens of thousands of workers unloading ships daily.

Birth of ILA 

Longshoremen worked under harsh conditions, and the threat of unemployment always loomed large. Every day, they gathered at docks, hoping to be selected for a day’s labor through the “shape-up” system, which left them vulnerable to exploitation, inconsistent wages, and dangerous, unregulated work environments. Injuries were common, and the long hours often came with little pay or job security.

Under his leadership, the ILA quickly grew, advocating for better wages, safer working conditions, and job security for dockworkers along the East Coast, Great Lakes, and Gulf Coast.

The first litmus test for the ILA came in the form of the 1907 New York longshoremen's strike – a watershed moment in the union’s history. The strike occurred in response to low wages and dangerous working conditions that longshoremen faced daily. The workers, many of whom were immigrants from Ireland and Italy, had long suffered the brunt of the shape-up system, where they had no guarantee of steady employment or fair pay.

The strike began when longshoremen demanded wage increases from 35 cents to 45 cents an hour for loading and unloading cargo and better treatment overall. Their demands were initially ignored by shipping companies, leading to a large-scale strike that paralyzed the port of New York, one of the busiest in the country at the time.

During the strike, longshoremen formed picket lines, and the shipping industry came to a standstill. The strike gained momentum and spread to other ports along the East Coast. The export and import volume took a massive hit, affecting the revenue of the shipping companies. According to a New York Times report, steamship lines shipped $7,000,000 less in freight in just one week.

After weeks of tense negotiations, shipping companies conceded to many of the workers' demands, including wage increases, signaling a victory for the longshoremen. 

This strike not only improved working conditions for the New York dockworkers but also set a precedent for future labor movements across U.S. ports, strengthening the influence of the ILA and workers' unions across the country. This early strike was a pivotal moment for the ILA as it demonstrated the power of collective action and solidified the union's role in fighting for dockworkers' rights.

Breakup

The break-up of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) and the formation of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in 1937 was a defining moment in U.S. labor history. At the heart of the split was Harry Bridges, a charismatic and outspoken leader on the West Coast who sought more radical reforms for dockworkers. 

Bridges advocated for greater worker control, direct action, and stronger opposition to employer power, which put him at odds with the more conservative leadership of the ILA, which primarily focused on East Coast operations. As tensions escalated, Bridges and his supporters broke away from the ILA, officially forming the ILWU. At the time of the 1937 split, ILA's West Coast division had approximately 30,000 members. 

The split was not just about geographical differences—it also reflected contrasting ideologies. The ILWU embraced more progressive tactics, emphasizing worker solidarity and collective bargaining strength, while the ILA maintained a more traditional approach to negotiations. 

The ILWU quickly grew in power along the West Coast, organizing longshoremen and warehouse workers in key ports like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle. The union became known for its militant strikes, including the historic 1934 West Coast Waterfront Strike, which secured significant gains for dockworkers.

Although the ILA and ILWU evolved into separate entities, both unions continued to fight for the rights of longshoremen, but the split highlighted the varying labor strategies shaping America’s port labor movement. The ILWU's radical methods contrasted sharply with the ILA's focus on incremental change, leaving a lasting impact on labor relations in the maritime industry.

However, the biggest change in the life and work of longshoremen came in the shape of a box that forever changed the global trade and shipping industry. 

The Box

The story of containerization in the U.S. began in the 1950s when Malcolm McLean introduced a revolutionary idea that would change global shipping forever. McLean envisioned a system where goods could be packed into standardized metal containers, reducing the need for manual labor and streamlining the transfer of cargo between ships, trucks, and trains.

His vision became reality in 1956 when the Ideal X, an oil tanker converted to a shipping container, made its first voyage from Newark to Houston, carrying 58 containers. This moment was a turning point for the maritime industry, laying the foundation for what would become the global standard in shipping.

As containerization spread, U.S. ports began to retool for this new method. The Port of Oakland became the first major U.S. port to fully embrace container shipping. Other ports along the East and West Coasts followed, adapting their infrastructure to accommodate the massive cranes and container yards needed to handle the new shipping method.

However, this technological advancement came at a cost for the longshoremen who had long worked the docks. For generations, these men were responsible for the physically demanding task of manually loading and unloading ships.

With containerization, entire ships could be loaded or unloaded in hours rather than days, with just a handful of workers using cranes. For the longshoremen, the shift to containers meant fewer jobs and a loss of the labor-intensive work that had defined the industry.

Impact of Containerization on Longshoremen

Before containerization, the process of unloading a ship required teams of 20 to 30 longshoremen working for days. After containerization, that same job could be done by 6 to 8 workers in a matter of hours. The transformation was revolutionary. For example, the Port of New York, which employed around 35,000 longshoremen in the 1950s, saw its workforce shrink to just 3,500 by the mid-1970s, even though the volume of cargo being processed had increased. 

Recognizing the inevitability of containerization, the longshoremen’s unions — the International Longshoremen’s Association on the East Coast and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union on the West Coast — knew they had to adapt or risk losing everything. Rather than resist the technological shift outright, the unions negotiated landmark agreements to protect their members. 

In 1960, the ILWU struck the Modernization and Mechanization Agreement (M&M Agreement), a deal that accepted the rise of containerization but ensured that longshoremen would be compensated for job losses. The agreement provided for "mechanization and modernization" payments to workers who lost jobs due to automation, securing financial stability even as the nature of port work changed. The ILA followed suit on the East Coast, negotiating similar protections for its members, including severance pay and job guarantees.

Although containerization drastically reduced the need for manual labor, the unions ensured that the longshoremen were not left behind. These agreements cushioned the impact of job losses and allowed the unions to maintain their relevance in the rapidly changing shipping industry.

In the end, containerization reshaped the global supply chain, making it faster, cheaper, and more efficient. But it also marked a significant shift for the longshoremen, whose work had been the backbone of maritime trade for generations. Through strategic negotiations, the unions ensured that their members continued to benefit from the shipping industry’s success, even as their role evolved.

No Show Day 

It’s usually the ILWU that makes the headlines for strikes, but this time, it was the ILA’s turn. The October 2024 strike was the first major strike in nearly 50 years for the ILA. This wasn’t just any strike either — it was a complete shutdown of 36 ports from Maine to Texas.

And at the heart of the strike were two core demands. First, the ILA called for a substantial $5-an-hour pay raise each year of a six-year contract, amounting to a 77% wage increase over the contract’s duration. The longshoremen, many of whom earned up to $39 an hour under the previous agreement, argued that they deserved more — especially given the essential work they performed during the global pandemic.

It is worth noting that port workers on the East Coast and Gulf Coast handle a significant share of U.S. imports, accounting for approximately 43% to 49% of all goods entering the country. 

But it wasn’t just about pay. The ILA was also firm in its stance against automation. With more and more ports around the world adopting automated systems to replace human labor, the union demanded a guarantee that U.S. ports wouldn’t follow suit. Their goal was to prevent any form of automation or semi-automation from creeping into their industry, fearing it would lead to massive job losses. They wanted "airtight language" in the contract to protect their jobs from being replaced by machines.

Finally, the timing of the strike was strategic. Not only was it peak season for shipping, but the presidential election was looming, adding political pressure to the mix. By striking when the economy was most vulnerable, the ILA aimed to force employers to meet their demands quickly and decisively.

One of the most debated points during the strike centered around the earnings of longshoremen. There have even been claims that some longshoremen earn more than the President of the United States. But do they?

Money Matters

First, let’s start with the basics. Port workers on the East and Gulf Coasts, after six years on the job, earn a base pay of $39 per hour. That’s quite a bit less than their West Coast counterparts, who currently make $54.85 an hour — a rate that’s set to increase to $60.85 by 2027, not including overtime or benefits. With a 40-hour workweek, West Coast workers are bringing in over $116,000 a year, while those on the East Coast make around $81,000 for the same amount of work.

To put things in perspective, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, the average salary in the United States was approximately $59,000 in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Other blue-collar workers in the logistics space, such as truck drivers and warehouse employees, typically earn less than longshoremen. Warehouse workers usually make between $30,000 and $50,000 annually, while truck drivers earn around $45,000 to $70,000 per year. 

According to ILA, these earnings and job opportunities can all go down the drain if automation is allowed in the American ports. But is it true? 

Man Vs Machine  

"We got to keep fighting automation and semi-automation," ILA leader Harold Daggett urged workers during the strike outside the Maher terminal in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Holding signs that read "Machines don't feed families" and "Fight automation, save jobs," the workers demonstrated their commitment to protecting their jobs from the increasing threat of automation.

So, is port automation a job killer, as the longshoremen claim? 

Sadly, there is no definite yes or no to this answer.

According to a United States Government Accountability Office report, automation at ports in other countries has led to job losses in some cases, but often, rather than being fully eliminated, many existing roles are simply transformed. Workers are typically retrained to adapt to new technologies and take on more specialized, technical tasks as the nature of port operations evolves. 

Even with the introduction of new technologies, ILA members have been logging more work hours. Since 2019, their work hours have increased by 13.4%, while cargo tonnage has only risen by 5.1%, according to the 2023 USMX annual report. This suggests that despite automation, there’s still a growing demand for manual labor at ports, showing that new technologies haven't fully replaced traditional longshore work.

While automation brings clear benefits like cutting costs and reducing human error, it doesn’t automatically lead to major performance improvements at ports, according to a 2018 McKinsey report. The study found that automation alone isn’t enough to drive significant gains in efficiency.

Final Thoughts 

The ILA strike, which briefly halted operations at ports along the East and Gulf Coasts, has now been resolved with a tentative agreement. This agreement extends the current Master Contract until January 15, 2025, providing both sides time to revisit unresolved issues.

Though the strike disrupted port operations for a few days, the overall damage was minimal. Had the strike dragged on for weeks, the impact on the global supply chain would have been far more severe, potentially stalling major shipping routes and disrupting goods flow worldwide.

For now, the situation has stabilized, but there’s a sense of anticipation. The temporary nature of this agreement leaves many in the industry waiting to see how the next round of negotiations unfolds when the contract deadline approaches on January 15, 2025. 

Thank you for reading. We’ll see you at the next edition!