OAKLAND, Calif., Oct. 9 — Erik Ragland was among the thousands of longshoremen who returned to work today along the West Coast under a federal court order. His sweaty handshake and the sheet of perspiration seeping from beneath his hard hat were proof enough of that.þþBut like many of his fellow union members, Mr. Ragland was steaming about a lot more than a hard day's work in the sun. He was grateful to be on the job for the first time in nearly two weeks, he said while catching his breath during a break from unloading a container ship on the waterfront here. Money has been so tight that earlier this year he moved in with his parents, he said.þþBut do not expect Mr. Ragland, 33, to be happy. In his view, the order to reopen the ports to the longshoremen, issued Tuesday at President Bush's request, was a tactic of the port operators to break the union. Mr. Bush had no business interfering in their contract negotiations, he said, and by doing so, he tipped the balance against the union workers.þþÿThe Pacific Maritime Association has been using devious tactics,ÿ Mr. Ragland said of the group that represents the shipping lines and terminal operators. ÿThis is slickery and trickery at work. The plan all along was to get Bush to come in.ÿþþThe association denies the contention, insisting it had no choice but to close the 29 West Coast ports because longshoremen, working without a contract since June, had engaged in a work slowdown. The union said workers were only observing safety regulations because five longshoremen have died on the job this year. þþÿWe regret that it came to this, and did everything we could at the bargaining table to avoid it,ÿ Joseph Miniace, president of the association, wrote in response to the order. ÿThe union wasn't willing to go along.ÿþþMr. Bush stepped in after the two sides deadlocked in sessions with a federal mediator and his advisers suggested that the mounting toll on the economy was too great. The injunction issued Tuesday night will remain in effect until next week, when a hearing will be held on whether to grant a full 80-day injunction.þþYet if part of the idea behind the required reopening of the ports was to cool tempers, indications among the workers were not encouraging.þþAs trucks lined up at the Port of Oakland, the longshoremen spoke bitterly of their employers and indicated they had no intention of working faster. About 225 vessels were idled by the lockout, including 30 anchored here and in the San Francisco Bay, and it was unclear how long it might take to cope with the backlog.þþÿFor a lot of people it is tough being out of work; a lot of us don't make the kind of money they say we make,ÿ said Ernest Evans, a longshoreman for 35 years. ÿWe want to work, but not under these circumstances.ÿþþMr. Evans said he remembered when President Richard M. Nixon intervened in the last big contract dispute, in 1971. That time, the union was on strike, and after being forced back to work for 80 days under the Taft-Hartley Act, returned to the picket lines for another month or so.þþÿThe employers didn't want to negotiate before we were ordered back to work, and they still didn't want to negotiate after the 80 days,ÿ Mr. Evans said. ÿI see the same thing happening again.ÿþþEusebio Perez, who is scheduled to retire next month, was also pessimistic. Mr. Perez was listening to the radio in his pickup truck after being told there was no equipment to operate. With so many workers returning, the terminal operators were scrambling to decide which ships to load and unload first. The confusion left some people being paid to wait.þþDuring the strike in 1971, Mr. Perez worked odd jobs at night to keep his house. This time, Mr. Perez, 66, is not worried about the money, but he fears for his union friends — and the union itself.þþÿFrom the bottom of my heart I disagree with President Bush,ÿ Mr. Perez said. ÿThese companies are not playing fair with us. þþOne of the central issues in the dispute involves how to deal with new technology management wants to introduce to speed the movement of cargo. That technology would most directly threaten the marine clerks, union members who deal mostly with paperwork rather than loading and unloading ships. The union fears the loss of those jobs, which are generally higher paying, would be a devastating blow, particularly since many longshoremen aspire to be clerks.þþOne clerk, Roger K. Alexander, said he had been working despite the lockout since late last week because of an agreement to exempt military supplies from the stoppage. Even with the exemption, though, some commercial vessels carrying military cargo were snarled in the shutdown, leading President Bush and others to worry about its handling.þþMr. Alexander said he sympathized with Mr. Bush's predicament, but he hoped people would try to understand the union's position. After years of fighting to keep jobs, it would be suicide to accept a contract that allowed the new technology jobs to go to nonunion workers, he said.þþÿWe are not union thugs,ÿ he said. ÿWe are just trying to keep our share of the pie.ÿþþ
Source: NY Times
