Breeding insecurity

Western leaders are obsessed with security, yet they are making dangerous mistakes in their dealings with labour in the ports

Governments around the world are increasingly focusing their attention on the security of their ports.

Ports and ships coming into port carrying sealed containers from around the world are now seen as the weakest link in the chain of transport security.

Much of this focus has been on the role of employees. In the wake of 11 September 2001, investigations at US airports revealed slack security, largely due to the use of subcontractors who were employing low paid casual workers to operate security machines.

As a result, in November 2001 the US government brought 28,000 airport security workers back into federal employment.

But the linkage between a stable and committed workforce and improved security is not one the current US Administration is comfortable with.

Incredibly, concerns about “swelling the ranks of unions” almost overcame all the post-11 September security arguments in favour of reform at the airports.   

Anti-union opportunism

In its seaports, the US government is looking for security solutions that are less likely to enhance the position of organised labour.

One result has been to focus on the new technology of logistics. The use of electronic tracking, and screening, and electronic handling of documentation could both increase the speed and volume of goods going through the ports and extend the capacity to screen for security.

But the introduction of this new technology is also being seen as an opportunity to introduce subcontracted non-union workers into the ports.

The bitter dispute in the US West Coast ports was mainly focused not on whether it was possible to introduce new logistics technology into the ports, but in preventing this being used to create a new non-union workforce.

The employers wanted the jobs operating new logistics and information and security technology to go to subcontractors and to be outside of organisation by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU).

By-passing experience

In Europe the authorities are just as determinedly blind to the obvious security benefits of a stable, committed workforce. The European Parliament and Council of Transport Ministers have said they will liberalise the port industry to introduce more competition both between and inside ports, and to let ships’ crews work cargo while they are in port. This will enable port customers and shipping lines to by-pass the experienced, trained and unionised workforce in most European ports.

Kees Marges, Secretary of the ITF Dockers’ Section, said: “Introducing more and unregulated competition, as currently planned, will open the door to all sorts of employers who have to bid the lowest possible price to get contracts at the expense of good recruitment, vetting and training procedures. Shipping lines will prefer to pick the cheapest unregistered port labour on offer. The result will be ports of convenience, mirroring the substandard flags of convenience that the ITF has now been fighting for more than 50 years.”

Although the current text of the proposal for the EU Directive includes certain social and safety conditions, they are not compulsory. Most port managers will be able to forget them as soon as a shipping line puts them under pressure. As soon as one port operator ignores them, managers in the same and in neighbouring ports will be under pressure to do the same because of increased competition.

Marges said: “The safety and security of ports is being promoted, quite rightly, after the events of 11 September 2001 – more, instead of less labour market regulation, and full registration of reliable port workers, will be needed in the future. The EU liberalisation plans are being discussed just when port security demands port workers who are registered, trained and experienced – not unregistered casual workers who are used as cheap labour.”

The pressure for more security in the ports comes at a time when the battle concerning the ports workforce of the future is reaching a critical point. Bewilderingly for unions, when the rationale for better security should reinforce the arguments for better trained and more regulated labour, efforts are being stepped up to casualise the workforce.

Just how critical a stage has been reached was demonstrated in the US late last year. On 8 October President Bush invoked the Taft Hartley Act, banning union action for 80 days, claiming grounds not only of military, but economic security. This measure was hailed by the global corporations who had become uncomfortably aware of the vulnerability of their global supply chains.

Paying the price of fear Ordinary seafarers face dramatic new restrictions in a bid to improve maritime security, while the flag of convenience system remains an unchecked potential conduit for international terrorism more>>