Frank Leys describes the political background to the ITF ports of convenience campaign

Eighty per cent of consumer goods are transported by sea, and must at some stage be loaded and unloaded from a ship. This means that at least 80 per cent of consumer goods are handled at least twice by those workers we call dockers, stevedores, longshoremen, wharfies or whichever term is used. Let me call them dockers here, first of all since that is what I was called when I worked in the port of Antwerp, secondly, since when the European Commission wanted to introduce self-handling of goods by seafarers, the slogan “proud to be a docker” reflected the unity of those who earn a living by handling cargo.

When you look at the contribution of dockers to the world economy, one would expect that these professionals would be enjoying excellent conditions worldwide. But look at the facts, and it is clear we still have a long way to go. Even in the ports where acceptable standards are in place, these conditions are being challenged.

Global companies

The term Global Network Terminals (GNT) must sound familiar to everyone’s ears by now, especially taking into account the commotion surrounding the takeover of P&O by DP World. More than half the world’s container terminal capacity is managed by a small group of companies, some of which are state run organisations. These GNTs are responsible for more than 50 per cent of the world’s container throughput, and they are setting the standards of the industry.

The same operator in one part of the world, that respects workers’ rights and maintains a social dialogue, might be acting as a union buster in another. Where in one port the company will employ the existing registered dockers, in other ports it will sack the existing workforce, specifically those who stand up for their rights, and employ non-unionised and casual labour. In some cases the company will even set up a “trade union-like” institution to suggest to the outside world that the company is worker-friendly.

The reality is that some of the world’s biggest container terminals do not even employ their dockers. They leave that to agencies that will hire workers on a contractual basis and deny them job and income security. When the terminal operator is challenged to assume responsibility on labour-related issues it simply waives its responsibility, stating that it is not a party to the labour contract and has nothing to do with the employee. “Go and see the contractor”, is its answer.

We remain convinced however, that dockers around the world should enjoy the freedom to join a trade union, which represents them in negotiations with the employer over labour-related issues.

Casualisation

ILO Dock Work Convention 137 provides that dockers should be registered and should enjoy permanent or regular employment that assures them an income. This convention was agreed in 1973. The reality in the 21st century is that dockers in many ports are hired and fired at will. While dockers’ work in some of the major ports is still regulated, these rules are seen by some neo-liberal decision makers as unacceptable restrictions on the market.

International institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO, and regional institutions such as the European Union are key driving forces behind liberalisation and deregulation. They reason that the invisible hand of the market will create benefits for all. Transport has to be cheap and efficient.

Employing casual workers in the ports seems to be the preferred way to cut costs further: dockers who are on call and who you only pay a lump sum per shift – no overtime, no social benefits, no social protection. This is the magic answer to the demands of capital.

It goes without saying that casual workers who have not received adequate training, are a risk to the safety of their fellow workers and themselves. Work accidents hurt not only the victims, but are also bad for productivity.

On the subject of productivity, well-trained, well-remunerated labour is undoubtedly more productive. Many terminal operators now regularly use contractors and casual labour. The Maritime Department of Hong Kong (until recently the world’s largest container port), has since February 2005 issued six notices in relation to the safety requirements that must be observed during container operations, and we are convinced that this list will get longer.

Additionally there is the issue of security in ports. Everyone is entitled to work in a safe and secure environment. A secure port environment does not go together with a casual, non-registered workforce. Who knows the wharfs, warehouses and sheds better than those dockers who work there on a regular basis? They can and should play an important role in the implementation of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. Their representatives are or should be members of the Port Security Advisory Committee. They are the eyes and ears of the Port (Facility) Security officer.

Ports in the supply chain

Worldwide we are confronted with an offensive against trade union rights and the effective unionisation of dockers. Goods are increasingly produced, packaged and sold across national borders and the economy is largely dependent on a global supply chain without disruption. The repercussions of blockages in the flow of goods were demonstrated by the US West Coast ports dispute of 2002, and are now common knowledge.

Another example of the vulnerability of this “just in time” manufacturing process was revealed when a car plant had to go on part-time working because the vessel that carried the containers with the spare parts it needed to continue working, had run aground. This demonstrates an obvious but key point – that all the links in the supply chain are crucial to the end result.

One of the most important links in the chain is the port and its workers. Historically, dockers have been militant and well organised. They do not just take “no” for an answer. Might this be the reason why they are seen as a major risk factor in disrupting the flow of goods? Those shippers of goods, often large conglomerates, do not like risks. So in order to minimise the risk of disruption and maximise the profits, they want to remove this perceived obstacle of organised dockers.

There will always be a need for people who handle cargo – a need recognised even when the European Commission believed that this could be done as well by those who transport the goods, the seafarers. Workers who enjoy little or no protection are more vulnerable and less likey to revolt. Break the union and its members is the goal. Bring in the casual workers, and if they do not suit the purpose there will be more available where they came from. Of course this is not the case everywhere. Some enlightened employers rightly speak of “human capital” – a happy worker is an indispensable part of the company.

Competition

The port industry is already very competitive. Shippers of large quantities of goods can set the rules. Competition can only be beneficial when it promotes efficiency in a safe working environment, and the benefits of that efficiency are distributed among all the workers. Competition at all costs, by contrast, jeopardises the health and safety of workers and promotes a downward spiral for wages and labour conditions. You can only stretch a wire so far before it breaks.

At the ITF we want to emphasise once more that those who earn a living from working in the port should be able to do this in a workplace where at least the conditions as described in the core labour standards, covered in the eight fundamental ILO conventions, are respected.

Dockers should enjoy decent working hours, earn fair wages, benefit from occupational health and safety regulations, work in a secure environment, and work to high professional standards.

We will not accept ports of convenience – in other words, substandard ports – in the 21st century. There is no need for them. Ports and terminals around the world must ensure acceptable standards are in place and that workers are free from exploitation.

Frank Leys is ITF dockers’ secretary.