The horror of Sept. 11 left more in its wake than 16 smoking acres in Manhattan. A rush to security at all costs became the rule of the day and civil liberties were treated as collateral damage. The Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001 currently being considered in Congress—with its provisions to screen and ban waterfront workers from the docks as security risks—is one of those overreactions.

Although the nation’s ports are certainly vulnerable to attack, the port security bill started moving quickly because it was already in the works before the attacks. But back then it was a bill aimed more on the war on drugs than the war on terrorism. It was introduced after a couple of incidents of some Florida longshore workers allegedly aiding a drug smuggling operation. It started off as overkill—requiring criminal background checks on all longshore workers because of the actions of a very few.

Change to “anti-terrorism”

So when the bill was reconfigured and renamed as anti-terrorist legislation, it continued to call for criminal background checks as if longshore workers were terrorist threats. It could take away many work opportunities from some of our brothers and sisters for incidents long past. We had to try to stop that from happening.

There was a time just a few months ago when it seemed we could not slow this bill steamrolling through Congress. But we have, and now we have more allies on board and cooler heads are considering our reasoned proposals. 

A version of this bill passed the U.S. Senate Dec. 20, just before Congress adjourned for its holiday break. Before it was finalized, it contained provisions prohibiting any activities that could interfere with operations on the docks. The language was so broad it could have made any strike, job action or labor dispute a criminal offense. But we were able, with the help of Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), to get that section of the bill deleted. That was a major victory for the ILWU and all waterfront workers.

A voice in determining “secure areas”

The Senate version still contains the criminal background checks for our members. But we were able to reduce the span of time those checks for felony convictions cover from the last 10 years to the last seven years on workers with access to ocean and passenger manifests and for those who work in “controlled access areas.” The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with local port security committees, will figure out what the controlled access areas are in each port. The bill mandates that longshore unions or other transportation workers have a seat on local committees where designated secure areas will be determined. The Pacific Maritime Association argues that an entire terminal is a secure area and so every worker should be subjected to criminal background checks. The ILWU argues that the legislative history and the statute are clear that there are designated areas within ports and terminals that are secure rather than the entire facility being secure. This is an important distinction since we insist that most of our workers do not hold security-sensitive jobs or work in secure areas so they should not be subjected to these intrusive, unfair background checks. And we were able to get an appeals process in place for those who fail the background checks. We are also trying to make arrangements for any ILWU member who fails the background checks to work in non-security sensitive areas of the ports.

The bill will next go the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for more hearings. The first one will be with its Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime in mid-February. The Longshore Division’s Legislative Action Committee will testify at that hearing on the background checks provision, trying to convince the Congressional representatives to exempt workers with 10 or more years of waterfront employment. We are also proposing that that no worker with a past criminal record be banned without due process protections, including a determination that they actually pose a terrorist security risk.

Proposals for real security

We are working to change this bill around, to delete the anti-worker provisions and add authentic security provisions. To that end we will be proposing to the Transportation Committee that the bill include provisions for the inspection of the outside seals on all containers and the internal inspection of all empty containers, and that those inspections be done by the marine terminal operators in designated staging areas before the containers enter the secured areas of the facility.

Additionally, we will propose the bill mandate procedures for marine terminal operators to confirm that complete and adequate documentation of the contents, ownership and transportation itinerary are on the site and accompany each container before it enters the facility. And finally, we will suggest that real security requires that all flag of convenience vessels reveal the true owner of their vessels.

What are vessel owners hiding?

Owners of many vessels hide themselves behind faux corporations in countries like Panama and Liberia. Many of these vessels exploit labor in third world countries, refusing to pay sailors a decent wage while U.S. sailors continue to experience the decline of a U.S. flag merchant marine and declining job opportunities. Whether the owners of these vessels hide because they are ashamed of their treatment of crewmembers or whether they are hiding because of shady tax and business deals, they must be identified in the interest of security.

More unions join in the effort

When we started this fight against the anti-worker, anti-union provisions of this bill shortly after Sept. 11, the ILWU stood way out front making these arguments. But now we have the East and Gulf Coast International Longshoremen’s Association, the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Department with us. While we cannot be certain we can defeat all the offensive sections of the bill or pass all our recommendations for real port security, there is some reason for optimism. The further we get from Sept. 11, the more the hysteria is subsiding and the more opportunity there is for real dialogue and the search for real answers to security challenges. Given the hostile atmosphere in Washington, D.C., we have not done badly in getting our message across. We’ve had some setbacks but achieved some improvements in seaport security legislation. We plan to work to greatly improve seaport security legislation as it moves through the House of Representatives.

As the VOICE went to press, an update on the port security measure was published by ILWU Washington Representative Lindsay McLaughlin in the Waterfront Warrior, Vol. III, No. VII, April 19, 2002. An excerpt reads: “The House of Representatives may place HR 3983 on the suspension calendar as early as April 23, 2002. The suspension calendar means that the full House will consider the bill and that no amendments will be in order . . . I strongly believe it is in our best interests to pass the bill under the suspension calendar as opposed to opening the bill up for amendments. We would most certainly end up in worse shape after the Republican-dominated House had an opportunity to amend . . .” For the complete article, visit: www.ilwu.org/ waterfront_warior_frame1.html

New trustees join Local Executive Board

Two new trustees joined the ILWU Local Executive Board as of its last meeting in March. Pam Green (left), Chair of Unit 3402 - Foodland Super Market, Ltd. replaced Merton Davalos as Kauai Division trustee when Davalos moved to a non-bargaining position at Wilcox Memorial Hospital. Mary “Swanee” Rillanos (right), Secretary-Treasurer of Unit 1503 - Mauna Kea Beach Hotel on the Big Island replaced Malcolm Osaki of Hawaii Motors as Hawaii Division trustee. Osaki stepped down when a transfer in ownership at Hawaii Motors caused the unit to be lost last December. Trustees and other Local Executive Board Members will be up for election again in the fall of 2003.