The clerical workers had not been asked to take a pay cut or to give back any of their benefits. None of the workers had been laid off. The strike was not in protest of a worker or workers having been treated unfairly. ILWU International on it website offered a concise explanation for why the strike had occurred:

“We’re drawing the line against corporate greed and outsourcing that’s destroying the good-jobs that support working families in our community…The jobs here come with excellent wages and benefits – but they’ll eventually disappear if companies keep outsourcing them to India and Taiwan.”

The striking workers did not want management to fill their slots when they became ill or retired with workers beyond the ports’ surrounding communities. The jobs would be permanently available for Union members to fill. I must mention that the workers had stayed on the job even though their contract had long ago expired. From what I had learned it did not seem like the sides were in disagreement on the overall terms of the new contract. Yet, the Union demanded the resolution of the issue of job security for potential future workers. During the contract negotiations management consistently denied outsourcing any jobs to any foreign country.

The strike had serious economic repercussions up and down the chain of businesses that rely on the port system. It has been estimated that the strike cost the port about 1 billion

Dollars everyday. Truckers were idle. Many Southern California logistics workers had they pay halted. Ships incurred additional costs because they were unable to unload their cargo and keep up their schedule. The short-lived strike is believed to be one of the principal reasons why cargo handling at the L.A. port was off 16% over November 2011.

On December 6, 2012 the strike had come to an end. The port that handles about 44% of all container cargo that enters the U.S. began spinning up operations to resume loading and unloading ships.  It is not surprising that the workers and management reached an agreement a few hours before federal mediation was scheduled to take place. The Union claimed that it obtained from management certain protections against the outsourcing of jobs. Management released a statement that the new agreement gave it work rule changes that eliminated work featherbedding and allows for the termination of up to 14 positions during the life of the contract. It is fair to say that neither side received all of what it wanted.

What the strike demonstrated more than anything else was that a few workers could hold the L.A. port complex and a large section of the country as economic hostages. Labor had demonstrated that it still can command political and economic power. There is no dispute that the workers are handsomely paid for their services. They have job security and liberal benefits. Most U.S. workers can only dream of having a clerical position like the ones held by the striking workers. These workers who apparently have everything that a worker would want managed to put together a strike that was respected by all of the union workers at the port facilities. The strike effectively shut down the port complex. In my opinion one had to appreciate labor’s teeth and bite. There can be no doubt that organized labor can still wield substantial political and economic power and influence in the U.S.

Yet, the argument that the L.A. port management could not disperse its operations to different locations because it would take away from potential future workers (whoever they might be) runs counter to generally accepted principle of management’s prerogative. In essence the workers were demanding that all future clerical jobs slots be filed by people at the LA port complex or from the local community. In order to satisfy this