• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

OWS shuts down Oakland port. 150 workers sent home without pay.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Slayven

Member
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/12/BAJK1MBE5E.DTL&tsp=1

(12-12) 11:58 PST OAKLAND -- Almost half the berths at the Port of Oakland have temporarily ceased operations today after hundreds of protesters spent the morning blocking intersections in the port.

Roughly 150 longshoremen on the dayshift were sent home with little to no pay after they were either unable to get to work or the big rigs used to haul containers couldn't reach the berths, said Craig Merrilees, spokesman for the International Longshore Worker's Union. Fifty longshoremen are still working today, Merrilees said.

The employees were sent home after the companies that own the different berths in the port decided to shut down and send workers home. The port's 15 other berths remain in operation, Merrilees said.

"There have been disruptions, there have been distractions, but we are not shut down," said Isaac Kos-Read, spokesman for the port.

The next shift of workers is expected to start later this afternoon and demonstrators have pledged to again disrupt operations.

"We have a lot to be proud of today," said Clarence Thomas, a longshoreman after getting the text alert from protest organizers saying they had successfully closed the port and were pulling out. Thomas said he supported the movement.

"We're very very happy," added Judy Greenspan, 59, a public school teacher in Richmond. "Despite all the premonitions of violence, this has been peaceful throughout. I hope we can redouble our efforts again this afternoon."

The group of protesters succeeded in stopping a line of big-rigs from entering the Port of Oakland for nearly five hours this morning during their march to shut down the busy cargo terminal.

Organizers have pledged to march to the port and shut down the terminal, one of the busiest on the West Coast. Some unions, including the one representing Oakland teachers, are supporting the day-long strike while others, like the longshoremen's union, say shutting down the port will harm hard-working stevedores and truck drivers.

Carrying signs saying "Shutdown Wall St. on the Waterfront" about 200 protesters marched the three blocks from the West Oakland BART Station to the port entrances before sunrise today.

A group of roughly 100 marchers were met by a line of police officers in riot gear near the intersection of Seventh Street and Middle Harbor Road. Protesters began marching in a circle, preventing trucks from getting through. At least one demonstrator set up a tent in the intersection.

Around 8:45 a.m. two lines of 50 police officers in riot gear marched toward the group and formed a line on one side of the group for 15 minutes. About 25 officers then walked away, seeming to suggest the standoff would continue into the late morning.

Before dawn, one trucker, clearly frustrated, blew his air horn and tried to drive through the crowd.

"It pisses me off," said Mark Hebert, 47, another trucker waiting to get into the port. "I am losing money. I don't get paid when I am just sitting here. I've got a truck payment, and insurance payment just like everyone else. "

Some longshoremen scheduled to begin work at 8 a.m. decided they didn't want to cross a picket line and went home. Others, though, said they needed the money.

"They have some legitimate points and what not, but we are part of the 99 percent and they are stopping us from coming to work," said Tim, a 44-year-old longshoreman who didn't want to give his last name. "The 1 percent's cargo doesn't come in here. The caviar comes in from Russia first class, not on a slow boat from China."

Oakland police Sgt. Arturo Bautista was trying to negotiate with protesters to move back.

"I am here because I am a union member. Unions have been decimated," Charles Smith, 68, a retired wastewater treatment plant worker said as he trudged to the port. "I am getting tired of seeing my neighbors getting hurt and I am fighting the good fight."

Demonstrators are trying to close ports up and down the West Coast.

"It's necessary. It is a way to strike back, to show our numbers and show what the people can do," said William Lovell, 44, who said he participated in the now-dismantled Occupy SF camp. "We are politely breaking the rules as gently as we can."

At a news conference this morning, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said while she agrees with the concerns of the Occupy movement in general, she did not want to see the port closed.

"We're working hard today to keep the port operations going with minimal disruption," Quan said. "We urge the demonstrators who are coming to the port to respect the rights of the 99 percent who are trying to work today and to keep their protest peaceful. So far, it seems to be going well and operations are minimally disrupted. We hope that this will continue for the day."

Dan Siegel, Quan's legal adviser who quit when she supported a raid of the downtown Occupy camp, spent the morning at the protest. He said the mood was almost "festive."

"It started out kind of tense, there were a lot of threats from police and politicians," he said. "I think ultimately we had large enough numbers (that) police decided to pull back and allow us to picket."

Omar Benjamin, the port's executive director, said, "These are good jobs held by real working people and working families. Disrupting the port hurts them."

He said a balance was necessary to keep the city's economic engine going while allowing demonstrators to protest.

"It is our responsibility to keep our port open and fully operational," Benjamin said. "That's why our goal today is to minimize disruptions to workers and working families that depend on the port of Oakland. We will do so in a way that places paramount importance on everyone's safety and security, and which is respectful of everyone's First Amendment rights."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/12/BAJK1MBE5E.DTL#ixzz1gMYqB6Qf

Sickening. Can't they figure out a constructive way to protest without causing harm to those their supposedly fighting for?
 

Oppo

Member
I don't think it's sickening. It's in the long-term interest of those same longshoremen (and you'll notice from the article, some of them support the movement.)
 
I really want to meet the bright minds that came up with this shit. This is not the way the movement received such great support during the beginning. This is not the way we will see a real positive effect on politics.
 

HTuran

Member
I haven't really been following the movement, but isn't one of their complaints focused on the lack of jobs? Is this an "...if I can't have it, no-one can!" blockade?

EDIT: Reading further, it seems some of the workers support it. I guess it's about over-work?

"They have some legitimate points and what not, but we are part of the 99 percent and they are stopping us from coming to work," said Tim, a 44-year-old longshoreman who didn't want to give his last name. "The 1 percent's cargo doesn't come in here. The caviar comes in from Russia first class, not on a slow boat from China."

Seems reasonable.
 

Tapiozona

Banned
Wow, some real Einstein's in the OWS crowd. Shut down the ports so the longshoremen can't work and be paid.

Though longshoremen are some of the most overpaid people on the planet. A while back they tried to strike in San Fran until the media caught wind of how much money they made. It was something along the lines of 100k a year on average.

Another point of contention is how longshoremen should be compensated. Longshoremen are among the most highly paid union workers in the country. Currently, the average annual salary for a full-time longshore worker is $106, 833. Nonetheless, the ILWU insists the PMA boost those salaries by a whopping 57% over three years. Not surprisingly, the PMA has refused.
 
I don't understand the negative reaction

...boycotts and not buying a product out of principle to harm to manufacturer for unethical practices leads to people not getting paid or losing their jobs.

Should we seriously hate every single boycott or disturbance that is done because someone will get hurt?
 

Slayven

Member
I don't understand the negative reaction

...boycotts and not buying a product out of principle to harm to manufacturer for unethical practices leads to people not getting paid or losing their jobs.

Should we seriously hate every single boycott or disturbance that is done because someone will get hurt?

what universe is a boycott and this the same thing?
 

SRG01

Member
I don't think it's sickening. It's in the long-term interest of those same longshoremen (and you'll notice from the article, some of them support the movement.)

Blocking the ports is about as effective as punching your neighbour in the face after your boss laid you off from work. It's impossible for them to gain any sympathy when their efforts are so misguided and aimed at the wrong parties.
 

Oppo

Member
How exactly?

Because the real issue is the jobs, and the downward pressure put on jobs. It's kind of an insidious loop.

These guys don't get paid while they are sitting in their trucks blocked by the protest. Why not? Because their fucking job sucks. This may as well be a snowstorm. They probably wouldn't get paid for that either.

Why do they put up with such a shitty job? Because they have no union protection and/or are just happy to have anything, with unemployment so high.

So they end up standing athwart of the very people who are protesting to voice their dissatisfaction over these inequalities, while at the same time being forced to reconcile the fact that these protesters are in the near-term, immediate sense costing them money, while leaving the underlying reasons for this situation in the first place obscured in the abstract.

I really am not surprised to see this narrative of the fuckwitted, state-funded hippies who are dirty but have iPhones and shit bothering the poor hardworking middle class. Some of them are fuckwits, no doubt about it, but that is just a minor detail, a tree in the forest. It provides a nice us-vs-them frame that sidesteps the larger issues.

Tapiozona said:
They actually are. They make well over 100,000 a year.
That is not the 1%, not even close, even if that is true, which I suspect not.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
People in this country have forgotten how to protest.
 

Crazylegs

Member
I don't think it's sickening. It's in the long-term interest of those same longshoremen (and you'll notice from the article, some of them support the movement.)

Ha! Longshoremen get a day off work and I'm guessing they get some pay since it's a picket line issue. Support? Really?
 
Because the real issue is jobs the downward pressure put on jobs. It's kind of an insidious loop.

These guys don't get paid while they are sitting in their trucks blocked by the protest. Why not? Because their fucking job sucks. This may as well be a snowstorm. They probably wouldn't get paid for that either.

Why do they put up with such a shitty job? Because they have no union protection and/or are just happy to have anything, with unemployment so high.

So they end up standing athwart of the very people who are protesting to voice their dissatisfaction over these inequalities, while at the same time are forced to reconcile the fact that these protesters are in the near-term, immediate sense costing them money, while leaving the underlying reasons for this situation in the first place obscured in the abstract.

I really am not surprised to see this narrative of the fuckwitted, state-funded hippies who are dirty but have iPhones and shit bothering the poor hardworking middle class. Some of them are fuckwits, no doubt about it, but that is just a minor detail, a tree in the forest. It provides a nice us-vs-them frame that sidesteps the larger issues.

Are you trying to tell me Longshoremen don't have a union?
 

DiscoJer

Member
I don't understand the negative reaction

...boycotts and not buying a product out of principle to harm to manufacturer for unethical practices leads to people not getting paid or losing their jobs.

Should we seriously hate every single boycott or disturbance that is done because someone will get hurt?

The trouble is lack of discrimination. If they were against a certain company's products for unethical behavior, then sure, go ahead and organize a boycott.

But this seems to be just general douchebaggery, "Let, let's show those evil corporations by blocking the ports so they can't sell anything"

All it's going to hurt are average people who will have to cope with higher prices of goods, shortages, and in this case, workers not earning any money while their bills pile up.

Because the real issue is the jobs, and the downward pressure put on jobs. It's kind of an insidious loop.

These guys don't get paid while they are sitting in their trucks blocked by the protest. Why not? Because their fucking job sucks. This may as well be a snowstorm. They probably wouldn't get paid for that either.

Why do they put up with such a shitty job? Because they have no union protection and/or are just happy to have anything, with unemployment so high.

So they end up standing athwart of the very people who are protesting to voice their dissatisfaction over these inequalities, while at the same time are forced to reconcile the fact that these protesters are in the near-term, immediate sense costing them money, while leaving the underlying reasons for this situation in the first place obscured in the abstract.

I really am not surprised to see this narrative of the fuckwitted, state-funded hippies who are dirty but have iPhones and shit bothering the poor hardworking middle class. Some of them are fuckwits, no doubt about it, but that is just a minor detail, a tree in the forest. It provides a nice us-vs-them frame that sidesteps the larger issues.

That makes no sense. There aren't enough jobs in the country, and you're going to great more, better paying ones by stopping the in flow of things which actually create jobs, by the selling of them?

And longshoreman have unions. It's also not a shitty job. Try digging ditches or doing farmwork sometimes (I have). That's shitty.
 

Oppo

Member
Are you trying to tell me Longshoremen don't have a union?

Well I'm thinking of the guy in the truck who isn't being paid - if he IS in a union, he really ought to take up this issue of not being paid due to circumstances beyond his control. I don't know any union workers who have to deal with that.
 
They actually are. They make well over 100,000 a year.

I'm not going to speak for American longshoremen, but I know my that my father (who is a longshoreman here in Canada) may make over $100,000 on paper, a very large portion of that goes to taxes. Obviously it's different in the States, but still.
 

Oppo

Member
That makes no sense. There aren't enough jobs in the country, and you're going to great more, better paying ones by stopping the in flow of things which actually create jobs, by the selling of them?

You have't heard of a strike? The only real playing card that employees have is to stop work. I admit it's a crude hammer and one too often used for not-great reasons.

Protest is having a similar effect.

And longshoreman have unions. It's also not a shitty job. Try digging ditches or doing farmwork sometimes (I have). That's shitty.
No doubt. I was under the impression that the driver quoted in the article was not a longshoreman but rather just a freight trucker.
 

GavinGT

Banned
They actually are. They make well over 100,000 a year.

To be fair, they hardly get any hours, so some of them have to resort to smuggling Russian prostitutes into the country in large shipping crates. Sometimes, the air pipe gets bent and the crate gets left in the stacks and the prostitutes die. Then Lieutenant Daniels gets stuck with over a dozen bodies and no leads.

These things affect everyone.
 

TheMan

Member
I haven't been following very closely, but have OWS protesters ever actually blocked wall street investors/traders/bankers/etc (the people who are much, much closer to the root of the financial collapse)?
 
Well I'm thinking of the guy in the truck who isn't being paid - if he IS in a union, he really ought to take up this issue of not being paid due to circumstances beyond his control. I don't know any union workers who have to deal with that.

The guy on the truck is either part of the Longshoremen, or he is a Teamster. Despite being a union job, they still aren't paid on salary, they are paid on work. If they can't work, they don't get paid. They are paid relatively well when they do work, and they get benefits through the union no matter the work.

These are blue collar workers who should be the ideal if you're part of the OWS: Unionized, well paid, and they get benefits. Instead, you're fucking them over. Good on you.
 

GavinGT

Banned
I haven't been following very closely, but have OWS protesters ever actually blocked wall street investors/traders/bankers/etc (the people who are much, much closer to the root of the financial collapse)?

No, because those guys have helicopters, and they just fly right over them.
 

Oppo

Member
I haven't been following very closely, but have OWS protesters ever actually blocked wall street investors/traders/bankers/etc (the people who are much, much closer to the root of the financial collapse)?

The problem on a physical level for Occupy Wall Street is that not a ton of actual crucial activity takes place physically on Wall Street.
 
To be fair, they hardly get any hours, so some of them have to resort to smuggling Russian prostitutes into the country in large shipping crates. Sometimes, the air pipe gets bent and the crate gets left in the stacks and the prostitutes die. Then Lieutenant Daniels gets stuck with over a dozen bodies and no leads.

These things affect everyone.

Unrelated (mostly) but as much as I loved the first season of the Wire, going to the docks (where I previously worked and despised) in the second season just brought back too many shitty memories and I stopped watching it entirely.

Did I make a mistake? Should I just skip the second season?
 

TheMan

Member
The problem on a physical level for Occupy Wall Street is that not a ton of actual crucial activity takes place physically on Wall Street.

so why don't they pick a big bank, like say, BOA, and just block the HQ or at least a prominent branch? I just don't understand what good they've accomplished at a fucking boat dock of all places.
 
Unrelated (mostly) but as much as I loved the first season of the Wire, going to the docks (where I previously worked and despised) in the second season just brought back too many shitty memories and I stopped watching it entirely.

Did I make a mistake? Should I just skip the second season?

You should watch the second season, just skip over the dock stuff, I can fill you in on what happens.
 

GavinGT

Banned
Unrelated (mostly) but as much as I loved the first season of the Wire, going to the docks (where I previously worked and despised) in the second season just brought back too many shitty memories and I stopped watching it entirely.

Did I make a mistake? Should I just skip the second season?

I enjoyed the second, but the fourth is definitely the best. Skip season 2 if you must.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom