Frank Leys warns of the need to stay vigilant despite the defeat of the second EU port liberalisation package in January

When I first heard what the European Commission was proposing — seafarers handling cargo and self-handlers (companies providing handling services) hiring people who aren’t registered dockers to do dockers’ work — it felt like we were returning to the 19th century. Were we heading back to an age where the only thing needed to work in the docks was brute strength and a willingness to spend half of your hard earned wages in the foreman’s wife’s shop or pub if you wanted to work the next day?

The massive rejection by the European Parliament in January of the second tabling of this directive was a huge victory for common sense, for committed opposition by trade unions and for virtually the whole industry, which united against it.

I am one of the third generation of a family of dockers at Antwerp, where three of my brothers still work. I know that ports have changed: technology has reduced manual handling — even if there are still places where cargo in 50kg bags is moved by hand. Safety is important in all industries, but particularly so in the maritime sector where lethal risks proliferate. Safety has to be one of the major concerns of all players in the industry.

When I started in the port 25 years ago, we loaded and unloaded goods using ship-to-shore cranes that could lift five tonnes. The crane driver was an experienced worker, but if the lifting gear or a cargo hook accidentally swung against one of the workers slinging the goods, it might hurt like hell, but you’d live through it.

Safety stakes are high

These days, you’re more likely to see mobile ship-to-shore cranes, which can lift over 100 tonnes. You can imagine what someone hit by one of those hooks will look like. Dockers are no longer hired on street corners, they are trained professionals who have vocational instruction before they ever go near a ship.

They get more training every time they are given a new responsibility, such as driving forklifts and straddle carriers. I have always respected seafarers for their skills of seamanship, and the first officers for their ability to plan the stability of the vessel, but it is crucial that its actual loading and unloading be left to experienced workers. Consequently, we reject self-handling by already fatigued seafarers and unregistered workers ashore.

Security in ports has become a main concern since 9/11. Different schemes have been developed to monitor who and what enters the port area. One can only imagine what would happen if chemical port installations or containers carrying dangerous goods were to become the target of terrorists.

Dockers have been provided with specific identity cards that give them entry to the port area only once their backgrounds have been checked. Dockers are the eyes and ears of what happens in the port area and they will be one of the first to notice that something strange is going on. The use of casual workers hired by companies offering their services to shipping companies does not go hand in hand with maximising security in the port area.

Productivity seemed to be another aim of this latest Commission initiative. I don’t claim to be an academic who has read all the studies that have been written on this issue, but I do know that it has been proven that European ports are among the most productive in the world.

A victory for common sense

Bearing all this in mind, what a relief it is to be celebrating the European Parliament’s massive rejection in January of the second tabling of the Commission’s ports directive. With this victory, we can chalk one up to commonsense, to opposition by trade unions, and to virtually the whole industry uniting in rejection of the package.

Much of the maritime world was stunned when the outgoing European Commissioner, Loyola De Palacio launched this doomed enterprise in 2004, by returning a directive that had already been rejected by parliament, putting it back on the table just a few days before she left office.

Fortunately our representatives have listened on this occasion to the voice of those men and women who voted them into the European Parliament.

Yet as workers, we are under the impression that the decisions of the European institutions have too often brought negative consequences for labour. Might the “No” vote of the French and Dutch workers reflect the fact that they no longer see the European community as respecting their interests?

From the beginning, workers across Europe have said that we do not want or need this directive. If we were wrong, would we have been joined not just by national governments, but by the major stakeholders in the industry, all united in disbelief that the corpse of this pointless and damaging legislation was dragged as far as it was?

Yet even as we congratulate ourselves and thank our colleagues worldwide for their support, we must remain vigilant. You never know when the next attempt to turn the industry on its head may come.

Frank Leys is ITF dockers’ secretary.

The doomed directive: key dates December 1997: The European Commission publishes a green paper on seaports and maritime infrastructure. January 1999: A European Parliament resolution rejects the need for a legislative framework to ensure market access for port services. February 2001: Commission proposes a European directive (ports package) on market access to port services, including the right of port users to self-handle and of service providers to employ personnel of their own choice. The ITF predicts a “war on the waterfront”. September 2003: unions take part in ITF action week for European dockers and a series of 24-hour strikes. November 2003: Following vigorous trade union protests, European Parliament rejects ports package I in the third reading. October 2004: Outgoing European Commissioner of transport Loyola de Palacio presents a proposal for a new directive – repackaged but essentially similar to its predecessor. November 2004: ITF and ETF issue a joint statement expressing deep concern and launch campaign, including online petition, to stop ports package II. June 2005: European Parliament committee on transport and tourism holds a public hearing on the directive. 22 November 2005: Unions mark meeting of European Parliament transport committee in Brussels with demonstrations involving dockers from Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Denmark, Germany, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain. Confused committee voting resulted in draft directive going to plenary session of the European Parliament without amendments. On the same day 15,000 “Stop PPII” postcards were delivered to transport commissioner Jacques Barrot, along with 20,000 signatures collected from the online petition. 16 January 2006: More than 6000 dockers from 16 countries demonstrated in Strasbourg and attempted to convince the European Parliamentarians to reject the proposal. Delegations from Australia, Canada and the USA joined their European counterparts. 18 January 2006: European Parliament rejects Ports Package II by 532 votes to 120, with 25 abstentions.