Thesis

American Public University System DigitalCommons@APUS

Master's Capstone Theses

11-2015

Worldwide Seaport Congestion James A. Braveboy

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.apus.edu/theses

Part of the Transportation Commons

This Capstone-Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@APUS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Capstone Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@APUS. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended Citation Braveboy, James A., "Worldwide Seaport Congestion" (2015). Master's Capstone Theses. Paper 97.

1

WORLDWIDE SEAPORT CONGESTION

A Master Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

of

American Public University

by

James Anthony Braveboy

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

of

Masters of Arts

October 2015

American Public University

Charles Town, WV

2

The author hereby grants the American Public University System the right to display these contents for educational purposes. The author assumes total responsibility for meeting the requirements set by United States copyright law for the inclusion of any materials that are not the author’s creation or in the public domain. ©Copyright 2015 by James A. Braveboy All Rights Reserved.

3

Dedication I dedicate this thesis to my late mother Willie Mae Henry whose spirit is always with me.

I also would like to dedicate this thesis to my wife, my family, my friends, and the faculty of

American Military University for standing by me and supporting me in so many ways over the

course of my studies and as I completed my thesis. Your understanding of the time and energy

displaced from pleasurable to academic pursuits is appreciated and will always be remembered.

Thank you!

4

Acknowledgements I would like to thank GOD who is the head of my life. I would like to also thank the men

and women who serve in the United States Armed Forces and those who serve the country in

numerous other incredible ways – be it law enforcement, fire fighters, paramedics, doctors and

nurses. These selfless individuals embody the American dream and what we all should strive to

be. I would also like to thank Professor Keith Wade for his guidance and support while I was

completing this thesis and my course of studies. I would also like to thank all of my professors

and instructors who have taught me during my Master’s degree experience. I have learned so

much about who I am not only as a person but as an academic, and as a citizen.

5

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

WORLDWIDE SEAPORT CONGESTION

by

James Anthony Braveboy

American Public University System, October 25, 2015

Charles Town, West Virginia

Professor Keith Wade, Thesis Professor

Seaport congestion, or the back-up of cargo ships in ports worldwide, is a growing phenomenon

in light of the globalization of the container shipping industry. Cargo ships filled with

merchandise sit in ports for many weeks, unable to unload, destabilizing economies that depend

on maritime import/export in both the developed and developing world. Given the development

of post-Panamax, or super-sized, liners, along with alternate sea routes such as the Northern Sea

Route and the newly-widened Panama Canal, shipping should be faster and easier than ever; this

is however not the case, and this thesis explores several theories as to why. Using the U.S. West

Coast as a jumping off point, this thesis contends that that a major source of friction and

contribution to the problem of massive seaport congestion worldwide is the dissonance between

globalized worldwide shipping networks that operate on sea, and the locally-based, unionized,

and heterogeneous dock workers they encounter in port.

6

TABLE OF CONTENT CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………..……………………………8 Problem Statement……………………………………………………………..........9 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………….. 13 Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………..… 13 Definition of Key Terms…………………………………………………………… 17 Research Design and Data Analysis Method………………………………….........18 II. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………...19 III. METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………….……………38 U.S. West Coast Labor……………………………………………………….......... 39 Analyzing Labor…………………………………………………………………… 40 Globalization Theories……………………………………………………………... 41 Ways Around………..………………………………………………………………42 IV. RESULTS………….……………………………………………………………..... 43 U.S. Labor in the Global Shipping Landscape…………………………………….. 43 Multi-port Options for Conglomerate Liner Companies……………………………47 Liner Companies as Multinational Corporations …………………………………...51 Alternate Sea Routes………………………………………………………………...55 V. DISCUSSION………..………………………………………………..…….……....58

7

Synthesis of Results………………………………………………………………...58 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………..59

List of References…………………………………………………………………...62

Appendices…………………………………………………………………………. 65 Appendix 1: Summary of Documents by Category………………...........................65

Appendix 2: Map of Case Studies Relatedness to Major Topics…...........................67

Appendix 3: Theories of Labor……………………………………………………..68

Appendix 4: Ducruet and Notteboom’s Visualization of the Global Liner Shipping Network in 1996 and 2006………………………………………………………….69

8

Chapter I: Introduction

In October of 2002, operations shut down along U.S. West Coast commercial seaports

between Portland, OR and Long Beach, CA due to a labor dispute between the Pacific Maritime

Association (PMA) and the International Longshore and Warehouse Association Union (ILWU).

The result of the shutdown, as Day and Arnold (2002) noted, was that over one hundred and fifty

freighters were sitting stagnant off the U.S. West Coast (p. 35), unable to unload their cargo. The

seaport congestion caused by the 2002 shutdown posed major complications that could have

potentially altered both logistics and the economy worldwide. In 2002, concerns over effects on

the market were swirling. Economic theorists predicted a transnational marketplace meltdown

affecting the U.S., Asia and Oceania (Woodyard, 2002, p. 5), but President Bush’s use of Taft-

Hartley Act managed to rescue the economy and squash anxiety for the next twelve years.

Tension along the stretch from Portland to Long Beach skyrocketed once again in

February 2014, as congestion reached a critical due to labor disputes. Not surprisingly, this

second incident resulted in many companies deciding against shipping to U.S. West Coast ports

in favor of new alternatives. The recent labor-induced congestion along the West Coast seaports

is related to several issues unique to the contemporary globalized seaport and maritime economy.

As Burnson (2015) points out, the post-Panamax era ushered in new scenarios for both labor and

logistics (Logistics Management). Many of these new challenges continue today not only to

rework and reroute seaport congestion, but also how we think about global shipping and

logistics, congestion on the seas, and the maritime economy.

Proposed resolutions to the contemporary issues of seaport congestion include opening

the Northern Sea Route along the Arctic Circle in Russia (Blunden, 2012). McCalla et al. (2004)

describe the way that globalization has created a lag in the container shipping industry between

9

ultra-modern at-sea operations, which are highly conglomerated, and land (dock) operations,

which still run heterogeneously. According to Jaffe (2010), the rapid divergence of new super-

sized (post-Panamax) freight liners away from congested West Coast ports via the Panama Canal

to Gulf and East Coast ports also destabilizes the monopoly on competitive wages that the West

Coast-based ILWU historically has had over the East Coast-based International Longshoremen’s

Association (ILA). Ducruet and Notteboom (2012) illustrate the shift in port hierarchies through

a series of network maps that reveal the decreasing importance of the U.S. West Coast ports and

overall congestion worldwide, indicating not solutions created by global reorganization, but

simply reorganization in the face of rapid global growth.

The general problem faced by commercial shipping industry today is unresolved

worldwide seaport congestion. An unanswered question remains: is globalization incompatible

with the shipping industry, or does the industry simply need to catch up in order to resolve issues

such as congestion? The discrepancies within the global shipping industry that are in contention

today are problems of old methods meeting new, but the question begs further examination. This

document will assess the contemporary causes and proposed solutions to worldwide seaport

congestion and identify the challenges that contribute to the ongoing problem. Also included in

this document will be the purpose of study, significance of the problem, research questions,

definition of key terms, research design and data analysis method.

Problem Statement

General Problem

Before the era of modern globalized business, seaport operations were run

heterogeneously both on the high seas and on the docks; multiple companies operated lines on

the oceans, and multiple companies and operated on the docks and in the ports. Shipping lines, of

10

which there were many, chose where to dock and unload their cargo based on the best rates they

could negotiate with port authorities and longshoremen. While the latter is still true, the era of

multiple shipping companies is disappearing in favor of a conglomerate model at sea –a result

typical of globalization. The clash between large conglomerate companies at sea and multiple,

small-interest companies and workers on the docks have contributed directly to seaport

congestion in the contemporary era as labor disputes become more frequent.

Superficially, seaport congestion appears to be the result of human need in an era when

business increasingly neglects the human, but research proves it a complex and tangled web of

various interests, both human and economic. Workers fighting for fair wages, safe conditions,

and proper working hours prompt slowdowns or even shut downs of business along the docks,

which in turn causes congestion along whole stretches of seaports. Large cargo liner companies,

often in conjunction with the port cities competing for their business, have sought to revolve

congestion issues by widening important waterways such as the Panama Canal so that larger

ships may pass through to different ports and deal with different companies and laborers.

Logistics theorists have also considered alternate sea routes; consequently, politicians have

argued over who can claim the Arctic Ocean paths above Russia, or whether or not it is safe to

dock ships near Yemen. A general problem of the modern globalization of the seaport shipping

industry, however, is the lack of resolution at the level of human labor relationships. This can be

seen, as McCalla, Slack, and Comtois (2004) and others have noted, in countless examples of

labor struggles in industrial ports, resulting in massive seaport congestion – where globalized

ocean liner companies have docked in an attempt to do business with unionized, heterogeneous

maritime land laborers.

11

Specific Problem

The two major labor disputes within twelve years on the U.S. West Coast have proven

the potential of local labor relations to break down worldwide economies by clogging the

network at its most basic level. Between the 2002 shut down and the 2014 slowdown, a marked

change has taken place. As Fransoo and Lee (2013) point out, “containerized ocean transport has

become the lifeline of almost any global supply chain (p. 253). Since the early 1990s

containerized transport has been growing at almost three times the world GDP rate of growth,

and yet now an unbridled potential has come into play: The Panama Canal expansion project,

which has an intended completion date of April 2016, symbolizes the globalization-era shipping

industry (Allen, 2012). The term post-Panamax comes from this literal and figurative expansion.

Oversized cargo ships already dock in ports Southampton, and Liverpool UK (“CMA CGM

Marco Polo visits UK for first time,” (2012), and with the expansion nearing completion, they

will soon be moving freight around the world en masse (Ducruet and Notteboom, 2012).

According to Olney (2003), ILWU membership of longshoremen, clerks, and foremen on

West Coast docks had remained steady from 1980-2000, but the amount of cargo handled on the

docks increased by 128%, while employment of workers overall had increased by over 50%

from 190,000 to 290,000 (p. 39). Therefore, almost half of the employees working on West

Coast docks did not have collective bargaining rights, and according to Olney were working in

terrible conditions. Today, as Brunson (2015) notes, shippers are sick of back up and congestion

on the West Coast: “Total imports along the East Coast have increased by 16% while import

traffic along the West Coast is down by 4% (para. 4).” Not only does this shift represent a shift

in logistics made possible by the post-Panamax moment, but is also represents a vast shift in the

dynamics of human labor. Resolving seaport congestion at the level of business logistics in the

12

era of the globalized economy indeed seems irreconcilable with the demands of human labor on

land, and so this paper asks whether the two can continue to cohabitate, as Hesse (2006)

suggests, or if another business model is needed to sustain the industry and economy.

Type of study

This study will be a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data that will examine the

causes and proposed resolutions to seaport congestion, with specific emphasis on globalization

of the container shipping industry, as well as organized labor. It will utilize present statistics on

labor and shipping from recent studies and compare them against studies that predate the post-

Panamax era for optimal efficacy (Blunden, 2012; Ducruet and Notteboom, 2012; Fransoo and

Lee, 2013; Muirhead et al. 2015). Maps and charts also help to explain the present redirection of

cargo ship congestion in seaports worldwide. Where present research is deemed inadequate or

inaccurate, suggestions will be proposed and alternatives examined. To provide a fair scope,

labor issues will be investigated from the perspective of both the unions (ILWU and the ILA)

and the Pacific Maritime Association, while issues related to the Panama Canal will also be

investigated from multiple perspectives (developed versus developing world, and multiple

political and economic views, for example) (Boyle 2015).

Additional qualitative review in the form of textual analysis of sources such as primary

sources from the two West Coast incidents place and give voice to the element of human labor

that is so deeply in contention with the global marketplace that the cargo liner system

increasingly operates within (Burnson, 2015; Cummings et al. 2002; Day and Arnold, 2002;

Mongelluzzo, 2015; The Economist 2002; Woodyard 2015). This methodology ensures both a

sound analytic approach to the problem of seaport congestion while also helping to identify and

13

address the lack of discourse around human labor in the global marketplace within the container

shipping industry.

Purpose of Study

The importance of this assessment is to provide an alternate perspective to shipping

companies, port authorities, maritime associations, and union leaders and laborers of the

relationship between large conglomerate ocean liner companies and small, heterogeneous land

workers in order to prevent (what are otherwise preventable) situations of seaport congestion due

to lack of understanding between the two groups. Breaking down the complex problem into a

dialogue which accounts for all sides of the issue can and should result in smoother seaport

operations and a stronger seaport community. By validating measures such as post-Panamax as

essential components of a globalized economy, yet not the solution to worldwide seaport

congestion, parties can remove some of the stigma from the building of these larger ships and

focus on building relationships with workers and employers instead. This assessment will assist

with exploring modern economic trends in seaports, promote healthy labor-employer

relationships in a global maritime context, and generate new ideas about ways in which

congestion at seaports worldwide can be alleviated vis à vis inter-organizational negotiation. The

scope of this assessment is multidisciplinary and as such extant research is far-reaching; this

assessment draws from recent works in economics, logistics, business, and political science with

the intention to add complexity and nuance to these fields.

Theoretical Framework

Hypothesis

Globalization has vastly altered the container shipping industry. As McCalla et al. (2004)

note, the differences in carrier lines have all but disappeared, and these “conformities are best

14

seen in the extension of services to all world markets through the alliances or multinational

mergers among the world’s largest shipper container companies” (p. 474). This, however, is not

the case for maritime land operations which as the authors note remain, “differentiated and

distinctive.” In other words, conglomeration defines sea operations while specialization defines

those on the docks. This marked contrast at least in part accounts for some of the massive seaport

congestion experienced worldwide recently. With the implicit industrial emphasis on profit, and

the innovative drive, as demonstrated by the ongoing widening of the Panama Canal to

accommodate super-sized liners and provide access to more ports, and the promotion of alternate

sea routes to alleviate congestion, the at-sea globalization model is the privileged business

model, leaving heterogeneous land operations behind. When sea and land operations go toe to

toe in the ports under this new globalized atmosphere, the dissonance is clear and can be

confirmed in the resultant labor strikes and slowdowns that directly cause seaport congestion,

affecting the global cargo shipping industry and the economy worldwide.

Significance of the Problem

During the 2002 shut down of the U.S. West Coast ports, up to 150 freighters sat off the

coast of Long Beach, causing shipping companies to look for alternate accommodations, and

losing up to $1 billion in revenue per day as business stagnated. The shutdown prevented

Americans from getting goods such as produce and poultry from other countries, and was also

troubling to countries such as Pakistan, where the economy relies on clothing industry-related

exports and the need to fulfill multilateral trade quotas for these products (Day and Arnold,

2002). The potential for economic disaster is inherent in letting freighters sit along the coast. The

wide-reaching effects of seaport congestion demonstrate the fragility of the globalized economic

model in that multiple linked economies have the potential to collapse based on a simple shut

15

down of two or three major ports in one country. While the U.S. has a developed economy,

smaller developing countries would have a much harder time recovering from such a collapse.

As Mongelluzzo (2015) points out, the effect seaport congestion caused by port shut downs

could devastate the economies of East Asia (“LA-Long Beach, Oakland, PNW reaches critical

level”).

Additionally, the focal cause of seaport congestion discussed in this paper – a friction

between multinational at-sea operators and specialized maritime land labor – has not fully been

explored from the perspective of land labor, taking into consideration the modern needs and

demands of dock workers. Studies such as Blunden (2012), Ducruet and Notteboom (2012),

Jaffee (2010), and Turnbull and Wass (2007) among others, all cite this dissonance but do not

explore the nuances of maritime land labor from land labor’s perspective. Clues as to why and

how seaport congestion emerges from this point of contention are found in labor journal articles

about specific incidents (such as Olney’s 2003 “On the Waterfront” analysis of the 2002

shutdown), but this thesis attempts to provide a more complete picture by combining existent

research on globalization with such case studies in order that the cause of these problems

becomes better understood, and hopefully, avoidable.

Research Questions

The primary research question of this assessment is: Would a reconciliation between

heterogeneous, multi-company, often unionized land (dock) labor and homogenous,

conglomerate shipping lines operating at sea alleviate seaport congestion? Are other

stakeholders, such as port authorities, regional and national governments, non-unionized labor,

and hinterland transport companies equally to blame for this problem? The disparity between

pre- and post-Panamax freight shipping, which can also be described as container shipping

16

before and after hyper-globalization, causes friction in the supply chain, but this is only one

element that contributes to congestion worldwide. Theorists also postulate that congestion is due

to the increased demand for seasonal products, and emergent retail cycles, increased liner traffic,

new access to ports in the developing world due to the opening of the Panama Canal expansion,

among other reasons. However, in the age of post-Panamax, while many focus on economics

trends and the truly awesome logistics of the new super-sized container ships built especially for

the Panama Canal’s new third set of locks, it is worthy to examine the reasons that U.S. West

Coast ports is losing business due to repeated bouts of congestions offshore directly resultant

from disputes at the human/land versus corporation/sea level.

Secondary questions include: What are the benefits to a globalized maritime economy,

and is it possible or even preferable to maintain a heterogeneous economy on the docks? Post-

Panamax liners are beginning to dock in ports around the world and may potentially bring

growth to the economies of the communities they are landing upon. Globalization links networks

of economies together through supply chains that necessitate organization that the container

shipping industry is still working out, possibly at the expense of organized and working class

labor. It is still unclear what will happen in the future between large organizations that control

shipping such as the Pacific Maritime Association, and the unions that control labor on the

docks.

Additional questions: Do alternate “solutions” to the problem of seaport congestion, such

as the Northern Sea Route, operate like a band aid, and neglect to address the real problem at its

core and instead redirecting attention for the time being elsewhere in order to bide time and clear

the air, so to speak? Politically charged conversations over international waters and war-torn

territories stir up animosities between already fragile international political relationships. It

17

would seem prudent to shift away from such temporary solutions in order to find a successful

and lasting option to meet this challenge.

Definition of Key Terms

Alternate Sea Routes: the next operationally-ready sea shipping routes, such as the Northern

Sea Route in the Arctic Ocean above Russia, which could potentially replace the more congested

sea shipping routes such as those running through the Panama and Suez Canals (Blunden 2012,

pp. 115-129).

Conglomerate Liner Companies: As a result of globalization, shipping liner companies have

become conglomerates, or merged together under one multinational corporation while still

appearing to remain as distinct smaller companies (McCalla, Slack, and Comtois 2004, pp. 473-

487).

Containerization: A system of intermodal freight transport using containers of a standard size

made of weathering steel. Containers can be loaded and unloaded onto ships, railways, and semi-

trailer trucks without being opened, and are tracked using computerized systems (Ducruet and

Notteboom 2012, pp. 395-423).

Globalization: The international integration of politics, economies, worldviews, and cultures

(Hesse 2006, pp. 570-596).

ILA: International Longshoremen’s Association (East and Gulf Coast labor union).

ILWU: International Longshore and Warehouse Union (West Coast Labor Union).

Maritime Land Labor: Dock workers and other land laborers who work in ports. Workers can

be unionized or not, but workers with union contracts often receive better wages and working

conditions due to their collective bargaining power (Olney 2003, pp. 31-40).

18

Multinational Corporation (MNC): Organization that owns the means of production or

products in more than one country aside from their own (Abdulsomad 2014, pp. 415-426).

PMA: Pacific Maritime Association (association that controls land labor in West Coast ports).

Research Design and Data Analysis Method

This research design that will be used in this thesis will be a mixture of quantitative and

qualitative data that will examine the causes and proposed resolutions to seaport congestion, with

specific emphasis on globalization of the container shipping industry, as well as organized labor.

It will utilize present statistics on labor and shipping from recent studies and compare them

against studies that predate the post-Panamax era for optimal efficacy (Blunden, 2012; Ducruet

and Notteboom, 2012; Fransoo and Lee, 2013; Muirhead et al. 2015). Maps and charts also help

to explain the present redirection of cargo ship congestion in seaports worldwide. Where present

research is deemed inadequate or inaccurate, suggestions will be proposed and alternatives

examined. To provide a fair scope, labor issues will be investigated from the perspective of both

the unions (ILWU and the ILA) and the Pacific Maritime Association, while issues related to the

Panama Canal will also be investigated from multiple perspectives (developed versus developing

world, and multiple political and economic views, for example) (Boyle 2015).

Additional qualitative review in the form of textual analysis of sources such as primary

sources from the two West Coast incidents place and give voice to the element of human labor

that is so deeply in contention with the global marketplace that the cargo liner system

increasingly operates within (Burnson, 2015; Cummings et al. 2002; Day and Arnold, 2002;

Mongelluzzo, 2015; The Economist 2002; Woodyard 2015). This methodology ensures both a

sound analytic approach to the problem of seaport congestion while also helping to identify and

19

address the lack of discourse around human labor in the global marketplace within the container

shipping industry.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Because two major incidents of seaport congestion have occurred in the last fifteen years

on the U.S. West Coast, causing not only stagnation within the container shipping industry but

also a legitimate economic scare, there are a plethora of primary source articles that discuss these

occurrences, along with plentiful secondary sources providing direct analysis. These sources are

a rich trove of information for this thesis and shed light on the inner workings of labor and the

everyday details of logistics that are otherwise ignored in favor of broader trends and currents in

the industry. The 2002 shut down was certainly the “turning point” as far as the contemporary

moment and container shipping seaport congestion due to President Bush’s evocation of the

Taft-Hartley Act, which forced dock workers back to work from their strike while the union

leaders and heads of the Pacific Maritime Association attempted a détente.

In his timely October 10, 2002 article in The Nation, labor journalist David Bacon

explains the shut down from the standpoint of ILWU. Providing a first person perspective, he

describes the scene in San Francisco where workers have been locked out of their jobs by the

Pacific Maritime Association, who are punishing them for attempting to strike. Richard Mead,

the president of San Francisco’s dock workers’ local is quoted as saying, “‘If you want your

children and families to have the same kind of life you’ve had, you know what you have to do’”

(“A Union of the Line”). This poignant quote squarely places the needs of labor in the personal

and the immediate – as Bacon explains, the workers’ primary concerns are not actually wages

(they get paid very fairly due to collective bargaining they have maintained over the years), but

rather keeping their jobs in the face of an increasingly computerized industry. One of the main

20

points of contention between the PMA and the ILWU, and the reason for the shut down and lock

out in 2002, is the fact that the PMA insists on computerizing more and more jobs, such as crane

and clerical work. Bacon notes that the last major strike, in 1971, was because container cranes

reduced the number of West Coast longshore jobs from 100,000 to about 10,000. Additionally,

he mentions the Taft-Hartley Act, which at the time of writing had not yet been used by

President Bush, noting that the last time it was used was also during the 1971 strike, by President

Richard Nixon, though it was unsuccessful in resolving the dispute between the PMA and the

ILWU, and the federally-imposed cooling-off period was directly followed by a 134-day strike.

Cummings, Tejada, and Kim (2002) question in the Wall Street Journal President Bush’s

reluctance to use Taft-Hartley, stating that the “White House conducted an internal historical

review of the use of Taft-Hartley and found that it doesn’t often produce the kind of long-term

settlement both parties are seeking” (“Use of Taft-Hartley Often Gives Poor Result”). They note

that President Carter sought to use the injunction against coal miners in 1978, but was

unsupported, and along with Nixon’s use and failure with Taft-Hartley, been invoked and failed,

producing a strike after the cooling off period, have involved longshore workers. The authors,

like Bacon, site the threat of new technology in the field as the number one complaint of

longshoremen, and their willingness to defend their jobs at all cost as an indicator that the

injunction would likely fail again if used in the 2002 scenario. Both influential democrats like

Senator Ted Kennedy and major unions – the Teamsters and the carpenters – were courting

President Bush at the time of writing in an attempt to get him to back away from Taft-Hartley.

Soon after the Cummings et al article was published, Day and Arnold (2002) weighed in

the New York Times, drawing attention to the larger problems the shutdown posed to the global

marketplace. The authors point out that as the shutdown dragged on, “businesses from Japan to

21

Pakistan are growing increasingly worried that a protracted dispute between American

longshoremen and port operators could cripple Asia’s economic recovery” (“Shutdown of West

Coast Ports Puts Asian Businesses on Edge”). Some Asian-owned factories in the U.S., such as

Toyota, were already forced to shut down due to a shortage on parts coming from Japan.

Importantly, the article points out that a major reason for the slowdown that was the catalyst for

the dispute between the PMA and the ILWU was the fact that five longshoremen died the

previous year. The slowdown was seen as a safety precaution by the ILWU and hindering

business by the PMA.

A staff-written article from the Economist dated October 10, 2002 (“The President and

the Dockers: George Bush – Union Basher?”) examines the President’s October 8th decision to

use Taft-Hartley to re-open the twenty-nine closed ports along the West Coast, citing both

economic reasons and “national security.” The article notes that “the problem for the White

House was hat the costs of a port shutdown would have snowballed if the dispute had continued.

Export and imports are worth around 25% of GDP, and the west-coast ports carry over half the

cargo that is shipped in and out of America in containers.” This points out not only the economic

cost of the congested situation on the West Coast, but the possibly problematic nature of having

West Coast ports as the main importing and exporting option. While businesses seemed to be

elated, the article points out the costly political price – Bush infuriated union leaders, including

the AFL-CIO, and many Washington Democrats. The article also states that in the 2000 election,

Bush won only one third of union-household votes. Turning against collective bargaining could

result in poor campaign strategy among other things.

As noted in a January 2003 article entitled “Boss Delighted with the Longshore Pact”

from the IWW’s Industrial Worker, the shutdown was settled through the adoption of a new

22

contract in January, which provided longshoremen and dock workers with improved contracts,

and sought to relocate workers whose clerical jobs would be replaced with technology. The

article also notes that while it is unclear that the contracts could have been reached without Taft-

Hartley, many ILWU workers resent the government intervention, pointing out that “the

agreement was negotiated with a Taft-Hartley gun pointed at the union’s head” (para 4).

Unfortunately, one of the effects of using Taft-Hartley is the further disintegration of trust the

unions have for the government.

Again in the winter of 2015, the West Coast ports were congested beyond capacity and

maritime business ground to a standstill. Most of Asia’s cargo ships sat off the coast of Oakland,

California with no one to unload them as the ILWU and PMA faced off once again. The

congestion in Oakland had become so bad that the largest liner company, Maersk, was

terminating all voyages in Los Angeles instead of following their normal route which stopped in

Oakland before embarking for Asia, so as to avoid the congestion. As Mongelluzzo (2015)

pointed out in his Journal of Commerce article, “contract negotiations between the International

Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Association appear to be going

nowhere” (para 2). The 2015 standoff was directly caused by the PMA decision to cut yard crane

operator positions from over one hundred jobs to just about thirty-five. This article clearly points

to the way that labor issues in just a few ports (when taking into consideration the number of port

worldwide) can affect global economies.

Woodyard (2015) adds, in a timely article from USA Today, that U.S. Labor Secretary

Thomas Perez was forced to step in to the 2015 dispute because the congestion off the West

Coast was “threatening to cause billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy” (para. 1).

The author notes that two dozen ships each sat in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and

23

that twenty-seven other closed ports saw similar situations, leading to businesses and shipping

lines increasing frustration, and “impact already showing up in companies’ earnings reports”

(para. 8). Significantly, the author notes that an alternative that some companies have been using

is a re-route to East Coast ports; a downside to this is that shipping to the East Coast is more

expensive, though it is unclear how much this would affect overall profitability when measured

against avoiding West Coast congestion.

To elaborate on the phenomenon of shifting from West to East Coast, Burnson (2015)

provides an interview and analysis in Logistics Management ascertaining that “new evidence

[exists] that U.S. West Coast ports are losing market share to ports in the East and some Gulf

regions” (para 1), even before the completion of the expansion of the Panama Canal, which was

intended to provide such a passageway. Paul Rasmussen, of Zepol (a global trade and

intelligence provider) is quoted as saying “‘Shippers may be tired of West Coast back-ups, and

with more carriers adding more lines from Asia to the East Coast, it’s hard to blame them’” (para

3). The author also notes that imports on the East Coast have increase by 15% while imports on

the West Coast are actually down 4%, and that many shipping companies directly blame the

West Coast congestion for this shift. Specifically, shippers are impatient as “‘they feel like they

got ‘burned’ because others were not doing their jobs well enough… like a nine-month labor

contract to name one [example].’” (Quoting Rasmussen, para. 7-8). The ports with the most

increased traffic since the rerouting began are Newark/New York (12% increase), Savannah

(32%), and Houston (26%) (para. 10).

With a solid idea of what has happened and is happening with seaport congestion along

the U.S. West Coast based on primary sources, it is pertinent to examine the plethora of

secondary sources that analyze these occurrences. As a good starting point, the labor unions and

24

the PMA themselves provide solid histories on their own websites. The International

Longshoremen Association (ILA) is the East and Gulf Coast dock and maritime land labor

union, and it comes into play as cargo is increasingly rerouted to the East Coast to stave off the

congestion of the traditional West Coast ports (ilaunion.org/history). The ILA mythically traces

its’ history to colonial America, but more immediately to the dawn of labor unions in the 1800s,

and to the Great Lakes region specifically, where lumber handlers first organized under Dan

O’Keefe (“1800s Beginning of the ILA para. 2). The interesting thing about the ILA website is

the giant gap in its history between 1965 and 2000, or as it terms it, “the present.” According to

other sources, to be expounded upon further in this literature review, the ILA struggles to match

the ILWU in wages and benefits for its workers, and does not hold very strong collective

bargaining power. Perhaps this is because, historically, most cargo has been shipped to the U.S.

West Coast, where the ILWU has been forced to fight fiercely for its workers due to the high

import volume. However, one complication that could arise from the possible weakness of the

ILW presently is that with increased import volume on the East Coast and lower wages and less

bargaining power, it is possible that worker unrest could result in seaport congestion on the East

Coast as well, but with messier results than if there was stronger union protection.

The ILWU also tells its own story (https://www.ilwu.org/history/the-ilwu-story), though

their version is written in a more factual manner than the ILA, focusing on various strikes,

complaints, mergers, etc. that have taken place over the years. The ILWU’s history also seems to

skip through the 1970s and 80s, and does not mention the 1971 incident of President Nixon using

Taft-Hartley against the West Coast dock workers, though it does detail the 134-day strike. This

is particularly interesting because several authors and subjects they quote are outraged at use of

Taft-Hartley, not just by President Bush, but also retrospectively by Nixon. At any rate, the

25

ILWU presents an extremely organized, if not pointed, history of itself as the preeminent

longshore and warehouse union, and outlines all of the ways in which it is ready to respond to

the challenges (mostly technological) of the twenty-first century (something which the ILA does

not focus on at all).

In outlining the key players in U.S. maritime labor, the PMA cannot be ignored. Clearly

the Pacific Maritime Association views itself as a great peacemaking force, pointing out that

since 1949 “the PMA has negotiated several landmark labor agreements with the ILWU,

including the Mechanization and Modernization Agreement of 1960 that paved the way for

containerized cargo to reshape the industry” (http://www.pmanet.org/overview para. 1).

Referring to the most recent imposition of Taft-Hartley, the Association notes, “Most recently in

2002, the PMA and ILWU reached a landmark agreement that ushered in an era of technology

for the West Coast Waterfront” (para. 2). The overview goes on to explain the various

technologies that would be implemented, which according to the ILWU, replace hundreds of

jobs for their workers What is the most interesting about the PMA website when compared to the

two union websites is the lack of human element. It is easy to see how the clashes occurred: the

PMA is interested in business and economics while the unions are obviously interested in

protecting their workers, who provide a service that makes business possible. In the end the

question almost comes to down whether business is compatible with ethics.

With a solid handle on primary source data about the two different West Coast incidents,

as well as secondary sources that analyze these incidents, the literature review moves to an

exploration of secondary sources that help explain the larger matrices and systems at play with

the maritime economy, and specifically those which produce instances of seaport congestion

worldwide. These sources are divided into two main categories: labor and globalization.

26

Obviously these categories are not mutually exclusive; however, the labor category deals directly

with issues of labor on the docks and wharfs where cargo is received from shipping liners, while

globalization is a wider theoretical category that not only recounts specific examples related to

the cargo shipping industry, but also explores and analyzes issues related to globalized shipping

markets in general, and even expands to include global market theories such as the recent

disintegration of the Chicago School paradigm.

Olney (2003) analyzes the dissonance between globalized labor and dock worker

protection in his New Labor Forum article specifically about the 2002 shut down. The author

believes that the dock worker lockout and West Cost shutdown “reveals many underlying

realities of our political economy,” and outlines the contentious relationship between the PMA

and the ILWU, noting that the ILWU actually created the PMA in the 1930s to replace a

previous more domineering employer association that “was bent on destroying the union” (p.

34). Olney believes that the ILWU was under pressure from the federal government because

“any disruption of the ports by a strike or job actions would threaten national economic health

and security, and that failure to implement new technology as the employer was demanding

would threaten the security of U.S. seaports on the West Coast” (p. 35). Basically, the President

was concerned about lapses in security looking like terrorist threats, while ultimately contributed

to his decision to use Taft-Hartley. Importantly, Olney notes that this was the first time that Taft-

Hartley was used in the case of an employer lockout, which had been a response to the employee

slowdown that created seaport congestion – rather than in the case of an employee strike. Bush

was actually not keen to use Taft-Hartley because it did not help his electoral position with union

households.

27

Both Klein (2007) and Skidelsky (2012) discuss the disintegration of the Chicago School

paradigm in light of worker (and more generally, human being) livelihood in the face of the

increasing globalization of labor. Skidelsky posits that because of the global economic crash

experienced worldwide in 2008, “the world is 10% poorer than it would have been, had the

growth continued at 2007 rates, and the pain is not yet over” (p. 7). He notes that the economic

events of the first decade of the twenty-first century have shattered the rational-expectations

paradigm of the Chicago School, that is, that disaster provides opportunity for growth (such as

the model that Klein explains using the example of economic development in post-Katrina New

Orleans). Skidelsky goes on to insist that “from the point of view of order today, the basic issue

is whether we view the market system as conductive to harmony or conflict, and in what

proportions” (p. 12). Those who see the market system as harmonious, which for the sake of this

thesis is perhaps more aligned with the liner companies and those seeking to make a profit my

globalizing at-sea commercial shipping ventures, whereas those who view the market as

“unstable, disruptive or exploitative” (p. 12), such as unions and unionized dock workers, argue

for intervention and regulation. In the post-market crash globalized world, these competing

ideologies bump up against each other in the absence of a coherent dominant paradigm like the

now-defunct Chicago School viewpoint.

In “Labor and the Geographic Reorganization of Container Shipping,” Jaffe (2010) takes

some of these issues and considers them as particular to the maritime cargo industry.

Specifically, Jaffe focuses on the land labor element of the industry, noting that one of the

reasons that it has been relatively easy for shipping companies to switch from West to Gulf and

East Coast ports is that “the location of the port is less critical than the ability to move the cargo

quickly and efficiently” (p. 520), and therefore, there is an increased level of competition among

28

ports to receive cargo from liners companies. As early as 2000, the author notes, the West Coast

was losing opportunities, while the East Coast importation grew, mainly as a result of Chinese

companies to ship through these new routes. At the time of writing, the author predicted that the

post-Panamax expansion, then set to be completed in 2014 (though still not complete today),

would increase East and Gulf Coast importation by a whole quarter (p. 522). However, the main

important point that Jaffe makes is that the stress of efficiency – the ability to move cargo off

container ships and into the hinterland quickly – is why maritime land labor is so important when

selecting a port. Perhaps with a nod to the West Coast situation in 2002, Jaffe points out that “the

movement of cargo in the context of supply chains and logistics systems is a largely time-driven

enterprise. Holdups, delays, bottlenecks, and slowdowns are fatal kinks in the chain… higher

costs expenses may be acceptable where they are compensated with efficiency” (p. 525).

Therefore, it is easy to see how shipping companies would choose East and Gulf Coast ports

over congested West Coast ports, even though the West Coast is geographically much a closer

and more cost-efficient option.

Turnbull and Wass (2007) go on to defend the position of dock workers, introducing the

term “race to the bottom,” which is essentially the idea that companies will attempt to exploit the

cheapest and readiest forms of labor for the profit of the company– often resulting in the

exploitation of poor and developing world workers. In a way, this is a new model of imperialism.

The authors indicts what others have framed in terms of globalization, “the global domination of

an Anglo-American model of capitalism” (p. 582). However, the authors believe that the issue

facing the maritime land labor is more complex than simply a race to the bottom – they see it as

“a more complex mix of convergence and divergence… because social institutions do not adjust

automatically or instantaneously to market pressures – be they local, national, or global in

29

origin” (p. 582). One result of the current market, the authors note, is the decline of trade

unionism, or at the very least the restructuring of union authority toward passivity and response

to crises, led by management rather than a collective. This model is a response to the decreasing

importance of location, fewer restrictions on foreign investment, and lower costs of

transportation under globalization (p. 583), none of which focus on the integrity of the worker. In

fact, Turnbull and Wass go on to point out that one major thing standing in the way of the

“success” of globalization is “service quality” (p. 586). Some options in confronting these issues

include the background privatization of ports (in collusion with the port authority), called the

landlord model, which would force the integration of sea and land operations; the traditionally

used tool model, in which the state either invests in infrastructure and equipment, or provides

cargo handling services, and laborers are contracted by the state or by union halls, dispersing

them based on need to various locations; and the comprehensive model, which is mainly used in

developing economies and excludes the private sector completely, engaging in a socialized

maritime experience. In terms of the West Coast, the authors point out that they were the first to

become modernized and mechanized, and that the ILWU is one of the highest paid unions in the

world (p. 608). The tool model still exists in West Coast ports, and union hiring halls produce the

labor force, with the powerful ILWU continuously fighting against the landlord model, which

they believe would destroy workers, to the immense benefit of their employers (p. 609). These

intricate details of the systemic models behind dock work help explain the recent instances of

congestion on West Coast ports.

Ducruet and Notteboom (2012) write about “The worldwide maritime network of

container shipping: spatial structure and regional dynamics” in Global Networks, explaining that

a survey of the global shipping industry from 1996-2006 demonstrates “a period of rapid change

30

in port hierarchies and service configurations” (p. 395), reflecting the contentious dynamics that

other others have suggested to contribute to or outright create seaport congestion. Importantly,

they point out that most authors have focused on land-based transport and supply chain integrity

versus the issue of seaport congestion that is produced by land labor coming in contact with the

globalized ocean liner shipping companies (p. 396). Additionally, they point out that the

“development of liner shipping the last 30 years has exceeded the growth or world trade

volumes” (p. 398), meaning that dockside interactions are more important than ever, and it is

imperative that they run smoothly in order to accommodate this rapid growth. However, unlike

Jaffe, who concludes that geography is secondary to efficiency, Cucruet and Notteboom

“confirm the strong influence of geography and distance on the distribution of traffic” (p. 415),

but in a way they share a similarity in that they agree that “maritime linkages retain an important

regional dimension [with] a striking absence and decline of transatlantic linkages as already

verified in the global pattern of airline networks” (p. 415). Thus the authors actually point to a

similar pattern of shifting ports based on needs of shipping lines, but put in a larger global

context which demonstrates an increased preference for regionalism in light of globalization.

This ultimately creates clusters of congestion in various regions (China, the U.S. West Coast,

etc.) rather than spreading the liner traffic worldwide, as perhaps the qualifier globalization

would have us imagine.

Fransoo and Lee (2013) place container shipping squarely within a “critical” role in the

distribution supply chain, whereas most other authors view shipping as separate, or at least

different from, the land-based supply chain that moves products into the hinterland (p. 253).

“Containerized ocean transport has become the lifeline of almost any global supply chain,” the

authors contend (p. 253), but it is sorely understudied in terms of its significance within

31

transport. Fransoo and Lee note that the major issues challenging the global container shipping

industry are: “coordination of container shipments across the container supply chain; pricing and

risky management in the container supply chain; competition between ports, carriers, and

container terminals; and capacity management in the container supply chain” (p. 258). Nearly all

of these issues lead to “poorly controlled systems with extensive queuing characteristics under

complicated priority settings at each of the stages that the container needs to pass” (p. 259),

including at the point of contact between sea and land. Interestingly, the authors conclude that

“[cargo shipping] is heavily capacity oriented with a particular dominance of the ocean liner

companies that operate the still-scare capacity of vessels” (p. 265). In other words, congestion is

due in part to the globalization of at-sea shipping and to a genuine lack of appropriate vessel

volume.

Providing a concrete example of Fransoo and Lee’s dilemma, Hesse (2006) spearheads a

case study called “Global Chain, Local Pain: Regional Implications of Global Distribution

Networks in the German North Range,” which describes how northern German ports deal with

the increase in volume of freight in the face of a stagnant infrastructure. Hesse focuses

specifically on the Port of Hamburg, Germany, both because “containerization is the major

growth trend… [and] the handling of containers almost doubled between 2000 and 2006 to about

eight million TEU” (p. 576), and because the port has traditionally strong ties to both the East

Asia and the Baltic region, accounting for the high level of trade that takes place there. The

author insists that because of this particular dynamic, there is a high potential for “local pain,” or

the inability of ports to adequately physically accommodate the load they bear. “However,” the

author cautions, “the relationship between global systems and local places appears to be too

complex to suggest that particular local or regional places should [my emphasis] accommodate

32

the global need for increasing infrastructure supply” (p. 591). Therefore, it cannot be the job of

the individual port or even regional group of ports to accommodate the rapid global expansion

that they did not create but of which they bear the brunt of burden. Additionally, “the question of

scale is closely related to that of power” and with increasing complexity of systems, it is

increasingly difficult to tell “who commands and controls the chain” (p. 592). Hesse provides

valuable insight into the actual circumstances of globalization crashing into local labor and

infrastructure through his case study, which is reminiscent in some ways of the West Coast

situation in the U.S. and easily demonstrates how such situations can contribute to maritime

congestion around the globe.

In a further exploration of the sea-side of things, McCalla, Slack, and Comtois (2004)

tease out the distinctions between the drive toward homogeneity among ocean liner carriers

versus the continued use of the landlord model, which the authors describe as more as

differentiate and heterogeneous. The authors use case studies of three different areas – East Asia,

Northwest Europe, and North America, to examine the vertical and horizontal integration of

ocean carrier vessels and the formation of global networks that seem to disintegrate once the

vessels dock in port. Understanding globalization as an “established fact,” the authors point out

that “conformity and convergence have been felt most in the ocean operations of shipping lines.

Land operations have not taken on the same universal standard elements,” going on to point out

that they have found this to be true in each of their case studies around the world (p. 486). They

find this to be because at sea operations are by nature global – so to globalize them is intuitive.

However, land operations are local and regional, which is not at all the same model as the sea

operation model – natively these operations are heterogeneous. McCalla et al. provide an

excellent theoretical explanation for the friction between liner companies and maritime land

33

labor. When the friction becomes too great, it starts a fire called shut down, lock out, and

congestion.

To better understand the perspective of multinational cargo liner companies,

Abdulsomad’s 2014 article in AI & Soc explores the MNC, or multinational corporation

Abdulsomad contends that the modern MNC is “the result of rapid liberalization, globalization,

and technological changes” (p. 415). Specifically, the author notes that the factors listed above,

which have rapidly advanced in the last three decades, have forced MNCs to “rethink how

companies commercialize industrial knowledge” (p. 423), that is, there has also been a shift from

what Abdolsomad calls closed innovation to open innovation – closed innovation, which requires

control and internal focus, supposedly forces innovation from within. However, the open

innovation model allows that “valuable ideas can come from inside and outside the company and

can go to market from inside and outside the company as well” (p. 423). One of the examples of

these differences that the author provides on the same page in Table 1 is that under the closed

innovation model, “The smart people in our field work for us,” versus under open innovation,

“Not all the smart people work for us. We need to work with smart people inside and outside our

company.” Abdulsomad describes closed innovation as a characteristic of the twentieth century,

versus open innovation, which emerged with the technological boom at the turn of the twenty-

first. If we look at this from the perspective of the U.S. West Coast congestion issues, it is

perfectly timely – the economic shift correlates with the time that the clashes begin. As MNCs

emerge at sea, they run head into the lagging behind (for reasons of regionalism and

heterogeneity cited by other authors noted in this review) maritime land labor regime at port.

Although slightly old in terms of research lifespan, Yeung’s 1998 article “Capital,

34

state, and space: contesting the borderless world” helps historicize the impact of the shift

between the different types of business models, innovation processes, and overall way of

thinking about shipping and logistics under globalization. Interestingly, Yeung is writing a

decade before the worldwide economic crash that destroyed the Chicago School paradigm

(among other things), and so his criticism of the “borderless” world seems almost romantic – a

place where “the fortunes of individuals, firms, industries, and even nation states are so

intertwined that it becomes almost impossible to define the nation state without reference to the

broader economy” (p. 292). The problem of course with the borderless world where “geopolitics

have become irrelevant,” Yeung on the same page points out, is that the world does have very

real borders, and particularly for those who do not benefit from or are exploited by innovation

and progress. The important context that Yeung provides, which is evident in the 2002 and 2015

clashes between ILWU dock workers and the PMA on the U.S. West Coast, is that the discourse

of a borderless or hyper-globalized world “must be contested, because it has caricatured the

intricate and multiple relationships between capital, the state, and space” (p. 303). The author

goes on to point out: “First, the capitalist state continues to perform its functions in capital

accumulation and to exert influence in the global political economy. Second, capital is more

territorially embedded in places rather than having become ‘placeless…’ Territorial differences

and geographical unevenness remain integral to globalization processes” (pp. 303-4). This is

clearly the case in the instance of the container shipping industry. The distinction between global

and regional markets comes to light via the globalization model of business.

Along the same line of thinking, Greve (2009) discusses “the diffusion of competitive

advantage” (1) in his article of the same name in Strategic Management Journal. What is

interesting about Greve’s article is that while he agrees with previous theorists that geographic

35

location is important within the globalized marketplace, he takes a look at the ways in which the

diffusion of ship building technology (that is, how knowledge of new types of ships is spread

geographically. “Valuable innovations will spread slowly,” the author explains, “whenever there

are firms that cannot easily observe which other firms have adopted the innovation and what

their experience has been” (p. 18). Greve uses the example of the innovation of the post-

Panamax container ship and the double hull oil tanker, both of which had “slow and selective

diffusion” (p. 18) and both of which ultimately proved to be industry assets. Some of the

advantages of the slow diffusion model, as stated by Greve, include early adoption benefits – the

firms that adopt new and risky technology first often end up getting a larger market share of a

worthwhile product. Cluster theory and network theory, as explained by Greve, explain the way

that the information about these innovations, which ultimately influences where and when they

are adopted, is diffused (p. 19). To summarize, cluster theory is based on geography and the

“local cluster” that a firm and its suppliers belong to. However, because not all firms in the

clusters from Greve’s examples of the post-Panamax ships and the double hull oil tankers

adopted the new innovations readily, the author uses network theory to explain how affiliation

contributed to additional firms outside the cluster adopting the new ship types. Networking is

based on connection, trustworthiness, and indirect contact – and is used to explain the

proliferation of adoption outside the original cluster-geographic model of adoption. This also

provides insight into the different ways that maritime business can be run – locally, in clusters, or

globally, through networking. According to Greve, the simultaneous network and cluster model

were necessary for the slow diffusion of new ship building technology in these examples.

Theorists and businesses alike have tried to explore options for easing congestion strictly

within the global-as-globalized paradigm. That is, from the perspective of the sea-based

36

operations. It is from the perspective that the “alternate routes” discourse emerges, in which

Blunden (2012) is at the helm. In her International Affairs article “Geopolitics and the Northern

Sea Route,” the author discusses the “global consequences” of a “new sea lane” above Russia in

the Arctic Ocean (p. 115). This route was used by the Soviets but became defunct with the

declining Soviet infrastructure; however, today the route is expected to be the next operationally-

ready sea route due to Arctic melting and less development of the Northwest Passage. The author

notes that Russia’s Arctic Doctrine states that they are to rebuild the route between 2011-2015;

however, in 2015 it is clear that this did not happen, and at the time of writing, the author reports

that there was little investment or progress made in the venture (p. 117). Importantly, however,

Blunden makes an argument similar to but differently nuanced from other authors who have

noted the importance of regionalism and geopolitics: she states that transportation route shifts

have been historically equated with shifts in political power. “Today,” Blunden states, “the trade

routes between Europe and Asia, carrying a volume of trade previously unimaginable, pass

through choke-points, from the Strait of Malacca to the Suez Canal, that are highly vulnerable

both to congestion and to deliberate or accidental disruption. By 2018, the total world fleet is

projected to include 100,000 vessels of 500 dwt or more, compared with the 77,500 in operation

in 2008. In terms of volume, the increase is projected to be even more spectacular, reflecting the

development of ever larger vessels” (p. 117). Therefore, the importance of the Northern Sea Route

is imminent, but the question becomes how politics will develop around this shift.

Finally, Muirhead, Minton, Miller, and Ruiz (2015) provide a contemporary analysis of

the “Projected effects of the Panama Canal expansion on shipping traffic and biological invasions,

detailed in a recent issue of Diversity and Distributions. The authors’ main focus is actually on

changes biodiversity in the coastal U.S. due to a change in shipping traffic patterns resulting from

37

the expansion. However, in their exploration, they actually greatly detail and analyze the possible

changes due to post-Panamax. The authors note that “the increased capacity of the PC is likely to

affect global trade routes and associated species” (p. 76) – they describe the ways in which

organisms are transported via ballast water (water contained within the bottom of a ship during a

voyage to provide stability and buoyancy), which is now being diverted and increased because of

the canal expansion product. Muirhead et al. estimate that in the five years following the

expansion (2015-1019), “the Gulf and East Coasts would receive 78% and 99% median increase

in total ballast discharge and 172% and 182% increases in total wetted surface area… We further

predict that many ports in the Gulf and East Coast will receive up to three times the current

number of arrivals and increased ballast water discharge from this region after expansion” (p. 25).

Meanwhile, the authors predict that both ballast discharge and wetted surface area will decline

slightly on the West Coast. In a discussion of worldwide seaport congestion, what can this

possibly mean? Perhaps that regionalism is again important – especially when it comes to nature

and the way that restricting what might appear to be innocuous business models, which actually

affect not only workers around the world but also nature itself. Globalization, according to these

authors and many of the others covered in this review, seems to fail at attending to the particulars

– even, it seems, when the particulars (such as the natural habitat) are what sustain human life.

Overall, this literature review has attempted to begin with the most particular things to this

situation – the two recent instances of seaport congestion on the U.S. West Coast, which

threatened the worldwide economy due to the globalized nature of container shipping and the

businesses that use this method of import/export. Next, primary source information from the

involved parties – the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, the International

Longshoremen’s Association, and the Pacific Maritime Association – were analyzed to provide

38

historicity and perspective. Along with these sources, first and second hand accounts and analyses

of the 2002 and 2015 events were added for breadth and depth of knowledge. Additionally,

secondary sources focusing on labor were used to tease out common problems and trends within

maritime land labor, and the differences within the underlying dynamics between land and sea

labor in the container shipping industry. Finally, a survey of literature on globalization as it

pertains to multinational corporations, container shipping, port infrastructure and biodiversity was

added to really hone in on the global element that congestion in a string of ports along one

country’s coast can cause.

Chapter 3: Methodology

Type/Subtype of Research

This thesis takes a qualitative perspective, focusing on meaning, perspective, and analysis

in order to understand a phenomenon of the human condition as it meets up with the quite

unhuman-like, yet human-created, beast of globalization. It should be noted that the study

contains less quantitative data than originally prescribed; due to the evolutionary nature of

research and writing, it became clear that the case study format was the best fit for this body of

research. Given this, because this project focuses on two specific instances, it is by all means as

described by Joyner, Rouse, and Glatthorn (2013), a case study, and one which expands out into

the realm of the theoretical in order to delve deeply into the issue(s) at hand (p. 77).

As such, the study does not require participants, but the general context is located

philosophically at the intersection of discourses on globalization versus traditional discourses on

labor and the working class. Therefore, another perspective this study takes is one of

interdisciplinary, or perhaps multidisciplinary. Document analysis is the primary instrument used

in this thesis. The method of data collection had four main loci: case study primary sources, case

39

study secondary sources, labor secondary sources and analyses, and globalization secondary

sources, analyses, and theories. All documents had to be related to the following search terms:

container shipping; cargo shipping; U.S. West Coast lockout (shutdown and strike were also

terms entered); Taft-Hartley Act; seaport congestion; port congestion; containerization; maritime

land labor; globalization; maritime trade unions. The procedure involved with data collection and

analysis, shown in Appendix A, included separating articles into categories, piecing together the

primary source data to analyze the case studies and link them together (though it was unclear at

the beginning of data collection whether the two incidents were connected), writing a preliminary

literature review, and then writing a comprehensive literature review in which the links, theories,

chronology, and historicity all became clear. Finally, data was analyzed using key term

highlighting and direct comparison, as well as through concept mapping to produce a coherent

line of reasoning. The concept maps helped to set up the connections between the smaller, more

particular case studies, and the larger, more universal and theoretical concepts of globalization

and labor politics.

U.S. West Coast Labor

A close reading of documents related to the two U.S. West Coast incidents reveals not

only a clear pattern but also a more nuanced understanding of the way that the particular can and

does affect the universal. The sources all clearly demonstrate the phenomenon that theoreticians

predicted and have seen elsewhere – the way in which maritime land labor is out of step with the

increasing globalization of the maritime workplace economy. Additionally, this specific example

is simply one of many examples, as demonstrated by case studies done by other authors on similar

topics that points at least in part to the same conclusion. One consideration made in this thesis was

how the first world might be privileged by choosing U.S. examples for a paper about “worldwide”

40

seaport congestion. A critical consciousness and sensitivity to subject positioning is required in

order to use such an example. Additionally, beginning with the voice of subjugated labor in the

United States (as opposed to the Pacific Maritime Association or the voice of the conglomerate)

allows the reader to be placed squarely within the choppy swells rather than the smooth seas.

Primary sources for the 2002 shut down and the 2015 slow down ubiquitously

demonstrate the tension between politics and labor. In the articles about 2002, authors repeatedly

point out their concern first over President Bush’s possible use (or not) of the Taft-Hartley Act,

and then when he does evoke the Act, they react in kind. Authors writing for several different

outlets – David Bacon for The Nation (2002), Cummings, Tejada, and Kim (2002) for the Wall

Street Journal, Day and Arnold for the New York Times (2002) and a staff-written article in The

Economist (2002), all express trepidation and ambivalence out of concern for the economy should

the shutdown continue, and also should the president force the ports back open. The focus begins

with the particular situation at hand but in each case expands outward, offering varying levels of

doom for the global economic landscape should the shut down on the U.S. West Coast continue.

Interestingly, and perhaps because the shut down now had a precedent, in 2015, authors

(Mongelluzzo, 2015; Woodyard, 2015) did focus on the particular and expanded to the universal,

but in addition to this, they also moved toward a conversation about alternate sea routes, perhaps

also influenced by the nearly-completed Panama Canal expansion. Appendix A demonstrates the

ways in which each case study relates individually to issues of labor, globalization, and alternate

sea routes.

Analyzing Labor

The voices of labor unions (and their adversaries) demonstrate how, from a superficial

position at least, these organizations operate and attempt to position themselves in the

41

conversation about maritime labor in instances of worldwide seaport congestion. It is very clear

from various secondary sources (Olney, 2003) as well as from their own website

(https://www.ilwu.org/history/the-ilwu-story) that the ILWU is the premier longshore workers’

union in the United States. According to many sources, they have secured the highest wages and

most protection for workers in their industry – in the world. According to the Pacific Maritime

Association (http://www.pmanet.org/overview), the conversation around unions does not center

on workers but rather on innovation. The website espouses all sorts of new technology that has

industry come out recently on the docks – without a single mention of how this affects workers.

This disparity in the crux of the analysis around how labor is understood from different

perspectives by those directly participating in it.

Meanwhile, many theorists have actually gone and analyzed this crux in a manner similar

to this thesis, but either with larger, more general scope, or with specific (different) case study

locations. For example, Jaffe (2010) focuses on the switch from West to East and Gulf coasts due

to labor and congestion issues, taking into consideration the lesser strength of the ILA (who

describe their own history at ilaunion.org/history) and what impact this might have on both the

local and global economies. Wass and Turnbull (2007) contextualize the “race to the bottom” in

light of dock work in an increasingly globalized maritime economic system, discusses the

various models used in ports today. A complete outline of the ways that these different labor

theories, including those of Ducruet and Notteboom (2012) and Fransoo and Lee (2013) intersect

is available in Appendix B.

Globalization Theories

The broader and almost hidden context of seaport congestion is the globalization of labor.

As many theorists have pointed out, this mainly takes place at sea, through the conglomeration of

42

multinational liner companies. McCalla, Slack, and Comtois (2004) are the main authors who

contextualize this in a broad sense. They note that globalization is an “established fact” (p. 486),

which echoes the sentiments of other theorists on the topic, bringing together a broad consensus

that one major contributor to maritime congestion at port is land labor’s fundamental lag in catch

up, (or alternately, its refusal to comply with the tenets of globalization). The primary source

documents currently seem to imply the latter, but overall the literature leans both ways. For

example, Hesse (2006), points to the ways in which updating ports or finding solutions to

accommodate the crashing-in effect of globalization in Germany would benefit both the

economy and the workers. The task remains to assess the implications of each theory.

In a larger sense, Klein (2007) and Skidelsky (2012) discuss the disaster model also

known as the Chicago School paradigm of globalization, noting that disaster does not in fact

propel the economy but rather inhibit it. Analysis of this work, including the almost-psychic

seeming Yeung’s 1998 article about logistics under globalization, and Abdulsomad’s 2014

breakdown of the multinational corporation, provide inroads to the large and snarling beast of

globalization, revealing the many layers and complexities that have taken shape in recent history.

Entrenched in this research, they seem almost to overwhelm the tiny, particular conversations

about labor, and make it abundantly clear how the conflict began to start with.

Ways Around

Finally, a selection of work on alternate sea routes, the Panama Canal expansion, and

various shipping route traffic patterns provides insight as to how the problem is viewed singularly

within the context of globalization. This “ways around” approach is examined by Greve (2009),

Blunden (2012), and Muirhead, Minton, Miller, and Ruiz (2015), and eliminates a conversation

about labor altogether and focuses on how to manage seaport congestion in terms of what could

43

be called avoidance behavior or alternate solutions. In examining this body of work, it is

imperative to notice where conversations about labor are missing, and where proposed alternate

solutions avoid the actual problems caused by land labor conflicting with globalized maritime

shipping companies. Examining patterns of shift and change within port usage tell us more than

just docking capacities and liner preferences – it is possible that they also tell us much about labor

practices in these docks and the ways in which certain labor practices influence patterns of global

movement. Perhaps new routes that have the potential for catastrophic political conflict are not

necessary in light of fair labor practices. Confronting works on alternate shipping routes with the

very real realities of labor practices on the docks highlights the lack and almost wishful thinking

of this proposed solution.

Chapter 4: Results

U.S. Labor in the Global Shipping Landscape David Bacon, in his article from The Nation (2002), quotes Clarence Thomas, the

secretary treasurer of the San Francisco Longshore Local 10: “They can accuse us of anything

they want, but it’s not worth our lives to do this work at an unsafe pace” (para. 13). The

longshoreman is referring to the conditions imposed upon dock workers by the Pacific Maritime

Association: because the workers had slowed down, they were now forced to speed up. The

reason that workers had slowed down, according to Thomas, was because five men had died in

the last year trying to work at a pace rapid enough to accommodating ever-expanding volumes of

incoming cargo. When workers refused to labor at the pace imposed by the PMA, the PMA

locked them out of their workplaces, at docks from Oakland to Long Beach. The 2002 shut down

was not a strike, as is described in the popular media; it was a PMA-imposed lockout, causing

the already congested U.S. West Coast ports to stall to total gridlock.

44

The dual cases of U.S. West Coast congestion are intensely local – intimate, even. Stories

from longshoremen about the incidents revealed in the primary sources describe concerns over

feeding one’s family, continuing the tradition of labor that has been in the family for many years,

or a job that is the difference between making it and breaking it as a first generation American.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) boasts the highest wages and one of

the strongest collective bargaining capabilities of any union in country (Kirkham and Khouri,

2015, para. 3), and worker viability is central to the discourse. The congestion in the bay

surrounding the docks (the docks taking primacy in this version of the story) is merely fallout, a

consequence of greedy hyper-capitalist corporations, hungry consumers, and an unforgiving

PMA. If the story sounds historic, romantic even – it is. The dock workers’ perspective, and the

most immediate and tangible starting point for the issue of seaport congestion belongs squarely

within a socialist paradigm launched in the industrial nineteenth century.

The history of longshore unions dates back to early industrial America in Great Lakes

region, where lumbermen would gather logs “alongshore” the lakes and the St. Lawrence

Seaway. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), headquartered in Chicago, was

actually the first of such unions and was comprised of Canadian and American longshoremen.

With the rapid industrialization of the mid-1800s, the ILA expanded around centers of industry

and import, to be mostly comprised of East and Gulf Coast (ilaunion.org/history, “1800s

beginning of the ILA” para. 2). The ILWU soon followed, eventually monopolizing the West

Coast brunt of maritime land labor. Due to the increasingly globalized economy of the twentieth

century and the distribution of cheap labor vis à vis the developing world by the Cold War, the

ILWU ended up bearing heaviest weight of cargo of the American seaboards. Therefore, it

follows that the ILWU became stronger by necessity than the ILA, and ended up becoming the

45

“preeminent longshore and warehouse union” (https://www.ilwu.org/history/the-ilwu-story, “The

Warehouse Industry,” para 1). The ILWU articulates a response to the Pacific Maritime

Association’s present-day push for the mechanization of longshore jobs – by “mobilizing

community campaigns… negotiating the best possible protections, severance payments, and re-

training benefits for displaced workers… and by strengthening alliances with other unions for

collective bargaining” (para 30). Being situated next along the West Coast directly across from

the Asian developing world markets from whence the United States pulls so much of its import

volume, the ILWU is directly entrenched in the globalization crossfire and therefore forced to

respond in kind.

From the view of labor, the issue of seaport congestion and the subsequent government

involvement in its resolution is a direct attack on the livelihood of workers who are simply

following an ages-old blue collar tradition in addition to trying to make ends meet in a very

tangible sense. Even when the 2002 shutdown dissipated in January 2003, the ILWU was still

skeptical about the methods used to force the agreement, as well as the future of longshore work.

As noted in the January 2003 edition of the IWW publication Industrial Worker, “the agreement

was negotiated with a Taft-Hartley gun pointed at the union’s head” (“Boss Delighted with the

Longshore Pact,” para 4). President Bush’s intervention with Taft-Hartley, which many sources

corroborate as purely political (Bacon, 2002; Cummings, Tejada, and Kim, 2002; Day and

Arnold, 2002). “The President and the Dockers: George Bush – Union Basher?”) The Economist,

2002) yanked the dock workers’ plight from local and immediate onto the world stage by

acknowledging the global economic domino effect the demand for safer condition could and did

have.

46

Obviously the friction between the globalized, conglomerate liner companies’ manner of

handling business and the longshoremen’s demands and expectations of on-the-job safety

already existed. However, the articulation of these issues before the 2002 shut down, and then

following the almost-repeat situation in 2015, appears to have shifted from particular (specific to

job types, working hours, and even to Coasts) to universal (global v. local labor, worldwide

economies). Imperatively, when the situation nearly reprised early in 2015, the world finally

seemed to sigh and acknowledge the paradigmatic butting of heads. The 2015 slowdown, which

did not result in a full shut down, but caused massive seaport congestion along the U.S. West

Coast resulting in negative worldwide global economic ramifications, took place because the

PMA decided to cut crane operator positions from over one hundred jobs to around thirty-five

(Mongelluzzo, 2015). Again, the U.S. government stepped in, fearful that congestion along the

U.S. West Coast was “threatening to cause billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy”

(Woodyard, 2015) and could spread to affect economies worldwide. Paul Rasmussen, of Zepol (a

global trade and intelligence provider) is quoted in Burnson (2015) as saying “‘Shippers may be

tired of West Coast back-ups, and with more carriers adding more lines from Asia to the East

Coast, it’s hard to blame them’” (para 3). For the first time, the shift took place away from

resolving issues on the West Coast to other shipping options in relation to congestion and labor

activities. Theorists and businessmen alike actively sought possibilities to alleviate seaport

congestion, and in so many words, to not have to deal with the power of the unionized ILWU

dock workers (Burnson, 2015).

The decision by various cargo liner companies to shift their routes from the U.S. West

Coast to the East and Gulf Coasts is particularly staggering when the proximity of the West

Coast to the import markets of Southeast Asia is taken into consideration. In order to get goods

47

to the East and Gulf Coasts, these companies must cover thousands more miles of ocean, cross

through the still-in-progress Panama Canal expansion, and negotiate with new port authorities in

new cities, dealing also with the ILA instead of the ILWU. However, at this point it appears that

labor issues as the direct cause of seaport congestion has contributed to tangible shift in the

paradigm: imports on the East Coast have increased by 15%, while imports on the West Coast

are actually down 4% (Burnson, 2015). As a direct result of the labor strife and subsequent

congestion on the U.S. West Coast, shipping patterns markedly have changed even in the last

year. Considered at a local, micro level, it makes sense that the conversation about seaport

congestion is about labor rights and struggle of unionized workers against the demands of the

large conglomerate shipping companies and the intermediaries such as the PMA. However, while

this is a valid point, the plight of labor is only one piece of the puzzle necessary to unpacking the

contemporary crux of seaport congestion. The next section looks at the dockside situation from

the perspective of liner companies who are interacting with dock workers, as well as which

docking options are best for cargo shipping companies to utilize in light of the repeated instances

of congestion, with a mind toward avoiding such situations in the future.

Multi-Port Options for Conglomerate Liner Companies

With the knowledge that shipping patterns to and from the U.S. have shifted markedly in

the last decade due to instances of labor strife and seaport congestion effecting the global

marketplace, we turn now to an examination of multi-port options for conglomerate liner

companies and various factors that influence these decisions. Indeed, it is interesting to note how

quickly this shift has taken place, even while it has been a long time coming (consider the advent

of container shipping in the 1960s, the ongoing Panama Canal expansion, and the slow saturation

of globalization into economic landscape throughout the second half of the twentieth century).

48

As Jaffe (2010) points out, perhaps it has been relatively easy for shipping companies to switch

from West to Gulf and East Coast ports because “the location of the port is less critical than the

ability to move the cargo quickly and efficiently” (p. 520). Not only is efficiency important in

moving cargo from ocean liners onto dry docks, but it is also important throughout the supply

chain, when moving cargo into the hinterland to its final destination. Jaffe continues: “the

movement of cargo in the context of supply chains and logistics systems is a largely time-driven

enterprise. Holdups, delays, bottlenecks, and slowdowns are fatal kinks in the chain… higher

costs expenses may be acceptable where they are compensated with efficiency” (p. 525). The

decisions that cargo companies make about which port to dock in actually only comprise a small

part of the process of export/importation; repeated congestion at specific ports is a deterrent that

might be worth a few thousand miles and a few extra units of currency to avoid, if it means

securing a smoother supply chain.

However, it cannot be that geography simply doesn’t matter. Congestion at specific busy

ports is almost unavoidable in the newly globalized world because globalization has happened

too rapidly to keep up actual physical capacity – in this case, vessel volume. Currently too much

volume is being jammed through multiple ports that do not have enough capacity. Both Fransoo

and Lee (2013) and Hesse (2006) elaborate upon this. Fransoo and Lee point out that poor

capacity management leads to “poorly controlled systems with extensive queuing characteristics

under complicated priority settings at each of the stages that the container needs to pass” (p.

259), including at the point of contact between sea and land. Hesse uses the example of the

strategically located port of Hamburg, Germany, where ties to both the Baltic and East Asia have

seen a nearly double increase in cargo volume since 2000 and have put an intense strain on the

port infrastructure (p. 576). In Hamburg, there is an acute inability for the current infrastructure

49

to accommodate the volume of cargo that is attempting to be imported – however, because of

prime geographic real estate, the location is chosen again and again by liner companies, resulting

in massive congestion and “local pain,” as the author terms it. Therefore, regardless of efficiency

further along the supply chain, in this case the primacy of geography makes Hamburg, which is a

completely inefficient port, an excellent choice for large liner companies with cargo arriving

both from Asia and from the Baltic region. Hesse also points out that the port has no choice but

to adapt its infrastructure in order to accommodate this load - and it is easy to see how conditions

for laborers would deteriorate from privileging the needs of the liner companies over the sound

structure of the dry docks.

Speaking of working conditions, within the process of transitioning to a worldwide

economy, the term “race to the bottom” has emerged as an elephant in the room –something that

large conglomerate companies participate in and yet are rarely self-reflective over. “Race to the

bottom” is essentially the idea that large multinational corporations will find the cheapest and

readiest labor, which often resides in the developing world, and take advantage of the lack of

protections and regulations in these places in order to maximize profit and volume. In terms of

how this affects seaport operations and therefore worldwide seaport congestion, Turnbull and

Wass (2007) are correct in believing the issue is more nuanced: they see it as a “complex mix of

convergence and divergence… because social institutions do not adjust automatically or

instantaneously to market pressures – be they local, national, or global in origin” (p. 582). In

other words, the economic institutions and the humans doing the labor are not currently in sync

in this particular business model. In some places, specifically at sea, the economy is highly

standardized, whereas on land, it remains heterogeneous. According to Turnbull and Wass, one

50

major obstacle to the standardization of labor and economics both at sea and on land is “service

quality” (p. 586) – that is, the workers’ needs are in the way.

Options for rectifying this situation could include several models. The landlord model

requires the privatization of ports, which would integrate land and sea operations in collusion

with the port authority. The traditionally used tool model is when the state either invests in

infrastructure and equipment, or provides cargo handling services, and laborers are contracted by

the state or by union halls, dispersing them based on need to various locations. Lastly, the

comprehensive model is mainly used in developing economies and excludes the private sector

completely, engaging in a socialized maritime experience. The tool model is used on the highly

unionized West Coast, where the extremely powerful force of the ILWU continues to fight

against the landlord model because they believe it would destroy the workers’ livelihood

(Turnbull and Wass, 2007, p. 609).

The contemporary situation of seaport congestion begs several questions in relationship

to these models and docking choices made by shipping companies. The ILWU’s insistence on

the tool model leads to continuous shut down/slow down situations resulting in severe seaport

congestion affecting the worldwide economy, the result being a dramatic shift in shipping

patterns along the U.S. coasts. Is it ever possible for the unionized demands of labor to be

adequately met, while also meeting the needs of contemporary shipping companies’ dockside?

The landlord model seems to be, according to Turnbull and Wass and based on interaction with

the case studies from 2002 and 2015, a highly socialized model that could result in a “race to the

bottom” type of worker exploitation in the subtle way that globalization tends to foster such

dilemmas (and the comprehensive model is clearly the outright realization of the this). Where is

there space for a gentle and non-exploitative merger of land and sea labor?

51

Upon examination of perspectives beyond the immediacies of labor and the dry docks,

several underlying tensions are revealed. Supply chains must run smoothly – but is the choice of

port more important than the over supply chain, if the port cannot properly accommodate the

cargo volume, as is the case in Hamburg, for reasons of infrastructure, or in Long Beach, for

reasons of labor tension? If we focus on building strong dry dock infrastructures and reroute

shipping traffic to ports with strong infrastructures that can accommodate higher volumes, are we

neglecting the supply chain to the hinterlands, in turn causing congestion elsewhere? Where do

workers’ rights and safety fall along these auspices? In these examples the drive toward higher

economic output from the perspective of shipping is incompatible not only with human effort but

also with infrastructural integrity. The next section will further deconstruct the Multinational

Corporation and theories of globalization as they pertain to maritime commerce in order to see if

this holds true.

Liner Companies as Multinational Corporations

According to McCalla, Slack, and Comtois (2004), the globalization of business is an

established fact (p. 486). The authors examined case studies from around the world and found

that the vertical and horizontal integration of ocean carrier vessels was ubiquitous, and that the

formation of global networks seemed to always disintegrate once a vessel docked in a port.

Understanding how multinational corporations operate, alongside theories of globalization, may

help better understand why this phenomenon seems to universally take place, and also why the

solutions to seaport congestion offered from the stance of business (such as rerouting, exploring

new docking options, and alternate sea routes) mainly address global or universal solutions rather

than genuinely local ones that might chip away at the crux of the issue.

52

Yeung (1998) is an early theorist who writes about the shipping industry in “a borderless

world,” stating that “the fortunes of individuals, firms, industries, and even nation states are so

intertwined that it becomes almost impossible to define the nation state without reference to the

broader economy” (p. 292). The problem with this, as the author goes on to point out, is the fact

that the world does in fact have very real geopolitical borders and nation states with vested

interests. Other more recent authors collude on this viewpoint. In her 2009 exposé on the

globalization of first world products through the use of third world labor, Snyder also challenges

the Western capitalist notion that “the only borders that exist, exist in your mind” (p. 311). She

examines how global manufacturing affects textile workers around the world, for whom Export

Processing Zones, or EPZs, which are illegal in the U.S. due to worker protection laws but

rampant in the third world, are a tangible reality of national borders. These borders clearly

contain different political systems and economies and in the case of the international maritime

economy, they particularly affect whether one is a protected union dock worker or a third world

exploited laborer creating the products to be exported – or, perhaps whether a country has

enough capital and a democratic free market to support the formation of a conglomerate liner

company.

As though anticipating the 2002 and 2015 instances of seaport congestion, Yeung insists

that the discourse of the borderless world “must be contested, because it has caricatured the

intricate and multiple relationships between capital, the state, and space” (p. 303). For example,

the borderless world that conglomerate liner companies imagine when the effortlessly re-route

their cargo from the U.S. West Coast to the U.S. East Coast via the Panama Canal is actually a

series of international, cross-cultural, and multi-economic transactions rather than a simple geo-

re-positioning. The author goes on to point out: “First, the capitalist state continues to perform its

53

functions in capital accumulation and to exert influence in the global political economy. Second,

capital is more territorially embedded in places rather than having become ‘placeless…’

Territorial differences and geographical unevenness remain integral to globalization processes”

(pp. 303-4). It is dangerous to forget the particulars of the nation-states within the much bordered

world of the supposedly borderless economy. The 2002 and 2015 instances are examples where

the uniquely bordered world has been forgotten in favor of solutions that cater to business as

usual. For example, returning to the quote from the IWW Industrial Worker (2003) that states:

“the [2002] agreement was negotiated with a Taft-Hartley gun pointed at the union’s head” (para

4): while the outcome of the shutdown appears to have been a fair negotiation between the

ILWU and the PMA, resulting in the retention of many jobs and the appeasement of workers

through safety restrictions placed on pace of work, from a worker perspective it was clearly not

an agreement at all, but rather a force-fed acceptance of terms. To enhance an understanding of

how this relates to globalization, one needs only to look at the PMA’s version of 2002 events on

their website: “Most recently in 2002, the PMA and ILWU reached a landmark agreement that

ushered in an era of technology for the West Coast Waterfront” (http://www.pmanet.org/

overview, para. 2). The disparity in point of view hardly needs explication. However, diversified

land labor’s loss of voice, the glossing over of the worker’s position, is typical of a globalization

economy, and is the tender point of tension where the seaport congestion issue may never be

resolved should the paradigm of globalization persist.

Conglomerate liner companies are multinational corporations, or MNCs, meaning they

are massive firms with assets and facilities in multiple countries, the home base usually in a

modern, wealthy, (often) Western country. Abdulsomad (2014) describes the modern MNC as

“the result of rapid liberalization, globalization, and technological changes” (p. 415); therefore,

54

the MNC by definition relies on a political-economic world model of borderless-ness. One

interesting element that the author brings to light, which converges with Greve’s (2009)

discussion of competitive advantage in the container shipping industry, is a discussion of the

ways that innovation is disseminated in modern MNCs. Abdulsomad discusses open versus

closed innovation models – that is, prior to the MNC model, closed innovation, where companies

sought to contain all the best and brightest employees and ideas within their enterprise (think: the

early days of computer companies, such as IBM or Apple), took place. However, in the

globalized world of MNCs, open innovation, or idea-sharing has become the norm and

companies glean information from each other’s best and brightest, often sharing the wealth of

genius employees across the industry rather than attempting to retain them within a single

company (think: TED Talks or contemporary social media companies). Along these lines, Greve

(2009) adds that in the container shipping industry, new industry information about shipbuilding

is disbursed in various ways among the major MNCs, such as Maersk. Specifically, the author

focuses on the way that the adaptation of the post-Panamax liner, which proliferated with “slow

and selective diffusion” (p. 18) and yet proved to be, from the point of view of the MNC, an

industry asset. Greve uses cluster theory and network theory to describe the proliferation of the

post-Panamax liner ship model: mainly, that maritime MNCs within certain clusters of

geographic proximity as well as industry networks were the first to catch on to the oversized

post-Panamax, proceeding with caution only when they saw that the new model worked for the

early adopters (p. 19). What is perhaps most fascinating about the discussions of the new liner

models and the MNCs that support their construction and usage, is the absence of human

presence. Amid Abdulsomad’s discussion of open innovation and MNCs, the human brain power

behind the innovation is merely a cog in the machine of global business. The way the article

55

describes MNCs, it is almost as though the corporation has taken on personhood, and could

operate without the actual human minds that have supposedly done the innovating. There is no

mention of the actual people involved – who are the human beings who are the best and brightest

thinkers, working across corporations to come up with the latest innovative technology? Who are

the workers who produce this technology? The same goes for Greve’s discussion of the

proliferation of the post-Panamax liner; it is almost as though these enormous liners are ghost

ships. Who inhabits the networks that supposedly whispered about the new oversized cargo

ships? Who decided to take the risk? Who built the boats, who loads the cargo, and who is the

captain? All of these questions are lost on the MNC, whose business is business, rather than

labor.

It is easy to get lost in the rhetoric of the MNCs, the business networks they inhabit, and

the excitement of post-Panamax. Globalization and MNCs do not account for human labor and

the lives that it takes to create and maintain global networks of trade; nor do they account for the

fall out of lives affected by global trade. Therefore, when a problem arises in an international

port, such as the instances of seaport congestion on the U.S. West Coast in 2002 and 2015, it is

almost impossible to reconcile issues of labor under a world dominated by globalization and an

industry run by MNCs. An important question to ask is: why, for better or worse, is labor on the

docks not adapting? How long can dock workers hold out in the face of such a powerful and

intimidating presence? Based on an examination of the effects of globalization on the industry,

however, we can be sure that these instances of congestion will not stop until either the model of

globalization implodes or the dock workers give in. In the meantime, however, theorists and

shipping companies are still looking for ways to circumnavigate the problem. The final section

of results will describe the option of alternate sea routes, and the ways that patterns of congestion

56

in various high-traffic ports worldwide have been examined in order to side-step the ultimate

labor-globalization confrontation.

Alternate Sea Routes

Given that the contemporary condition of seaport congestion is created in the context of

globalization and favors the MNC model of conglomerate liner companies, it follows that a

dominant trend in research on both the business and theoretical end is finding ways around. That

is, how can we minimize congestion at seaports without actually having to deconstruct the

globalized model of business or address the issues presented by heterogeneous, unionized labor?

Two predominant themes that have arisen are analysis of traffic patterns at the world’s most

congested ports, and the examination of alternate sea routes. Both of these models offer to attach

proverbial Band-Aids to the escalating wound that is the congested seaport, location: global.

Ducret and Notteboom (2012) provide a complex network analysis of all of the world’s fleets

using graph theory and multiple types of mapping techniques. The authors conclude:” we

observe a certain robustness in the network structure. While transshipment hub flows and

gateway flows might slightly shift among nodes, topological properties remain rather stable” (p.

415). The authors believe that regardless of how the global shipping pattern morphs over time,

due to conglomerate liner companies’ needs and preferences as well as world politics, the

industry overall remains strong, with congestion occurring in many of the same main ports, or

shifting to new ports which become central hubs, but never alleviating itself altogether. This

might simply indicate that the frantic rate of commerce induced by globalization will always

necessitate a condition that land labor will not be able to meet, resulting in congestion.

Another option to try to ameliorate some of the world’s seaport congestion is to use

routes that are not currently in use. Ducruet and Notteboom note that there are definitely certain

57

passages, such as the transatlantic, which are avoided. This is most likely because the “new

world” of globalized industry and shipping is located around the Asia-Pacific area, which

ultimately causes the most congestion in Asian ports such as Shanghai, Hong Kong, and

Singapore (p. 410). All of these ports were considered highly congested in the authors’ study, in

both 1996 and 2006, as opposed to U.S. ports, for example, which shifted in importance over

time. For reference, Ducruet and Notteboom’s visualization of the global liner shipping network

in 1996 and 2006 appears in Appendix C. However, other routes have been left in the dust

completely and could be considered possibilities to open up not only ocean space but also ports

of call. Blunden (2012) discusses the “global consequences” for a “new sea lane” above Russia

in the Arctic Ocean (p. 115). This old route was used by the Soviets but fell out of favor once the

USSR began to decline; however, because it has already been tested and because of Arctic Sea

melting along with a lack of development of the rival Northwest Passage, Blunden contends that

the so-called Northern Sea Route is the next operationally-ready sea route.

However, there are certain political consequences to reviving an old Soviet sea route, in

addition to considerations about the globalization of container shipping and the contemporary

state of maritime land labor. As Blunden notes, the Arctic Ocean travel space is contested in

what seems to be mock-Cold War split: Russia lays claim to the shipping lane while the Western

countries insist that it is international water. It is somewhat ironic that even though Russia’s

Arctic Doctrine states that the former Soviet Union will prepare the passage for operational

readiness between 2011-2015, little progress had been made in the venture at the time of

Blunden’s writing (p. 117), and today the passage is quite nominally used (Petterson, 2014, para.

2). Historically, Blunden notes, transportation route shifts have been equated with shifts in

power; however, one must wonder if the same holds true for the world under a globalized

58

economy. Ducruet and Notteboom’s research demonstrates that the shift in port importance over

a decade relates to loci of manufacture and import/export, and sometimes to political situations

and uprising (for example, Yemen has been consistently avoided as a major docking option for at

least a decade), but not necessarily to great empires (p. 398). Perhaps, like the closed innovation

model, the idea is outdated and insufficient for the contemporary world economy. Regardless, it

is imperative to point out that opening the Northern Sea Route, shaky an idea as it is, has not

produced major results in alleviating seaport congestion around the world – according to

Petterson (2014), a totally of seventy-one vessels used to channel in 2013 (para. 3) – nor would it

make substantial changes in the worldwide situation were fully operational. Currently, Russian

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev estimates that the capacity, which is currently four million

tons, could be increased to 80 million tons in the next fifteen years and still not be at full capacity

(Kovalev, 2015, para. 2). The issue of worldwide seaport congestion appears to be a product of

increased volume under the conglomerated model of globalization, wreaking havoc on still-

stratified and human-centric model of labor it meets at the very local port of call.

Chapter 5: Discussion

Synthesis of Results

Superficially, the most immediate cause of seaport congestion is labor strife in port,

which produces friction between large conglomerate companies, maritime associations which act

as intermediaries for those companies, and unions or other organization representing maritime

workers. These struggles are a result of an increase in volume of cargo being shipping in new

supersized post-Panamax liners in addition to fleets already in use. Most port infrastructures

around the world are not equipped to handle this volume, and yet the trust of globalized business

pushes for products to be delivered – more, faster, bigger, and better. As outlined in the first

59

section of results, this drive negates the human element of labor and increasingly privileges

products and profits over worker viability. A seemingly viable option for container shippers

wishing to avoid congestion caused by such situations might be to simply chose another port –

but as we have seen in the second section, through an exploration of multi-port options, this is an

overly simplistic understanding of geopolitics, and one which neglects to account for port

infrastructures buckling under the sheer volume of cargo produced by the globalization of the

industry. A careful investigation of globalization and the multinational corporation helps to

understand why the above mentioned dilemmas are not taken into consideration until they meet

unhappy dock workers – and even when they do, the onus is placed on dock workers rather than

the conditions of the postmodern moment. MNCs are almost anti-human – large, decentralized

networks based in countries far away from the labor it takes to produce their products and

services, and operating in terms of networks and clusters; MNC liner companies and the

heterogeneous land labor run by unions are like oil and water, and the language and frameworks

within which MNCs operate does not account for human lives and labor. Given this, the MNCs

try to skirt around the issue of labor, not only portraying workers in a bad light for resisting the

auspices of globalization, but also insisting that the solutions lie in alternatives: alternative sea

routes. However, upon examination of two different theories, the patterns of worldwide sea

traffic disbursement and the Northern Sea Route, it is easy to see that both of these options

simply shift the problem of congestion around, or don’t substantially alleviate it. By unpacking

all of these layers, it is clear that human labor struggles are not a cause of seaport congestion but

rather a product of a globalized economic model, and all of the bagged that this model entails.

Recommendations

60

In light of what seem like the irreconcilable differences between conglomerate liner

companies and heterogeneous land labor that come to a head during instances of seaport

congestion such as those on the U.S. West Coast in 2002 and 2015, I have several

recommendations for further research. The first suggestion is to gain an explicit understanding of

where laborers see themselves located in the globalized economy. So far, their voice exists only

in the reactionary rather than from an objective, non-crisis point of view. Understanding how

dock workers view themselves as part of a new globalized labor workforce would shed light on

their role and perhaps help to engage MNCs or (more likely) theoreticians in a discussion about

the role of labor in the global industrial economy. Additionally, as time goes on and particularly

as the Panama Canal expansion is completed, it will be interesting to see how the East and Gulf

Coast ports and their labor forces are affected by what appears to be a trending shift away from

docking on the West Coast. Studies should be mindful of the logistics of ILA and whether it has

any interaction with it ILWU, which East and Gulf Coast ports become major hubs, and whether

or not regionalism has any significance on the overall congestion load of costal America, and

how choices to dock at ports are made. Additionally, shipping patterns to all of the Americas

would be useful to follow, to gain better insight into shifting world shipping trends. It is also

worthwhile to continue to study the ways in which port infrastructures accommodate (or cannot

accommodate) the colossal volume of cargo increasingly demanded by the globalized economy.

Presumably at some point, there will either be a major shift in the way that infrastructures are set

up, or there will be a major collapse. Either way, further research will enhance our readiness for

what is to come and our ability to troubleshoot. Alternate sea routes could be explored further,

but I do recommend their advanced explication; rather, continuing to focus on and track the

trending shipping patterns around the world will provide insight into the ways in which industrial

61

and technological shifts affect the viability of certain port over others, influencing the patterns of

journeys worldwide. This will not help us negate congestion, but at least it will help us to

anticipate it. Noticeably, none of these recommendations solve the dilemma of worldwide

seaport congestion as it is presented in this paper; this is because ultimately, and in conclusion,

by its very definition globalization is irreconcilable with heterogeneous, locally-based labor

models. One thing is absolutely certain, however: it would behoove us to further analyze this

problem the closest and deepest at its root – the crux of this irreconcilability – rather than

continue to find a way around the problem, as many of the “solutions” interrogated here have

done.

62

References List

Abduldomad, K. (2014). The transformation of multinational corporations from an innovation perspective: some notes on the theories of MNCs. AI & Soc. 29(3), 415-426.

Allen, G. (2012). The Race to Dig Deeper Ports for Bigger Cargo Ships. NPR: All

Things Considered. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2012/01/05/144737372/the- race-to-dig-deeper-ports-for-bigger-cargo-ships. Bacon, D. (2002). Union on the Line. The Nation, 275(14), 23-25.

Blunden, M. (2012). Geopolitics and the Northern Sea Route. International Affairs, 88(1), 115- 129. Bonacich, E. and Wilson, J. (2008). Getting the goods: Ports, labor, and the logistics revolution. Ithica, NY: Cornell UP. Boyle, R. (2015). The Panama Canal’s Massive Upgrade Could Transform Global

Shipping. Again. Popular Science, 268(3), 30-31. Broder, J.M. (2004). At Nation’s Ports, Cargo Backlog Raises Question of Security.

New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/27/us/at-nation-s- ports-cargo-backlog-raises-question-of-security.html

Burnson, P. (2015). Shippers not surprised by shift in ocean cargo vessel calls away

from West Coast. Logistics Management. Retrieved from http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/ article/shippers_not_surprised_by_shift_in_ocean_cargo_vessel_calls_away_from_west

Cummings, J., Tejada, C. and Kim, Q.S. (2002). Use of Taft-Hartley Act Gives Poor Result. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/

SB1033684691420473913. CMA CGM Marco Polo Visits UK for first time (2012). BBC News. Retrieved

from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-20645300 Day, S. and Arnold, W. (2002). Shutdown of West Coast Ports Puts Asian Businesses

on Edge. New York Times, Late Edition, Section 1, p. 35. Ducruet, C. and Notteboom, T. (2012) The worldwide maritime network of container shipping: special structure and regional dynamics. Global Networks, 12(3), 395-423. Fransoo, J.C. and Lee, C-Y. (2013). The Critical Role of Ocean Container Transport in Global Supply Chain Performance. Production and Operations Management, 22(2), 253-268. Greve, H. (2009). Bigger and Safer: The Diffusion of Competitive Advantage. Strategic

Management Journal, 30(1), 1-23.

63

Hesse, M. (2006). Global Chain, Local Pain: Regional Implications of Global Distribution

Networks in the German North Range. Growth and Change, 37(4), 570-596. International Longshoremen’s Association, “History.” Retrieved from http://www.ilaunion.org/

history/. International Longshore and Warehouse Union, “The ILWU Story.” Retrieved from: https://www.ilwu.org/history/the-ilwu-story/. International Workers of the World (2003). “Bosses Delighted with Longshore Pact” Industrial Worker. Retrieved from http://www.iww.org/history/campaigns/

ilwu2002/iww012003a. Jaffe, D. (2010). Labor and the Geographic Reorganization of Container Shipping in the U.S. Growth and Change, 41(4), 520-539. Johnson, B. (2008). U.S. ports battle for trade. National Real Estate Investor.

Retrieved from http://nreionline.com/property/industrial/ real_estate_us_ports_battle_0601

Juhel, M.H. (2001). Globalization, privatization, and restructuring of ports. International Journal

of Maritime Economics, 3(2), 128-138. Kirkham, C. and Khouri, A. (2015). “How longshoremen command $100k salaries in

an era of globalization and automation.” LA Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dockworker-pay-20150301-story.html

Klein, N. (2000). “The Discarded Factory: Degraded Production in the Age of the Superbrand,” 212-221. No Space, No Choice, No Jobs, No Logo. New York: Picador. Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Picador. Kovalev, A. (2015, June 8). Russian PM orders plan to increase Northern Sea Route capacity by

20 times. RT. Retrieved from: https://www.rt.com/business/265756-northern-sea-route- medvedev/

McCalla, R.J., Slack, B., and Comtois, C. (2004). Dealing with globalization at the regional and local level: the case of contemporary containerization. The Canadian Geographer, 48(4),

473-487.

Muirhead, J.R., Minton, M.S., Miller, W.A., and Ruiz, G.M. (2015). Projected effects of the Panama Canal expansion on shipping traffic and biological invasions. Diversity and Distributions, 21, 75-87.

Mongelluzzo, B. (2015). LA-Long Beach, Oakland, PNW congestion reaches critical

64

level. Journal of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/port- los-angeles/la-long-beach-oakland-pnw-congestion-reaches-critical- stage_20150203.html.

Olney, P. (2003). On the Waterfront: Analysis of the ILWU Lockout. New Labor Forum, 12(2), 31-40. Pacific Maritime Association, “Overview.” (2015). Retrieved from

http://www.pmanet.org/overview Pallis, A.A., Vitsonis, T.K., and DeLangen, P.W. (2010) Port Economics, Policy, and

Management: Review of an Emerging Research Field. Transport Reviews, 30(1), 115- 161.

Petterson, T. (2014). Northern Sea Route traffic plummeted. Barents-Observer.

Retrieved from http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2014/12/northern-sea-route-traffic- plummeted-16-12.

Skidelsky. R. (2012). After the crash: The future of globalization. Survival 54(3), 7-28. Slack, B. (1993). Pawns in the Game: Ports in a Global Transportation System. Growth and

Change 24, 579-88. Snyder, R. L. (2009). Fugitive Denim: A Moving Story of People and Pants in The Borderless World of Global Trade. New York: Norton. The President and the Dockers: George bush: Union Basher? (2002). The

Economist, 52, 55. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/1383406. Turnbull, P.J. and Wass, V. J. (2007). Defending Dock Workers – Globalization and Labor

Relations in the World’s Ports. Industrial Relations 46(3), 582-612. Woodyard, C. (2015). Perez steps into port labor dispute. USA Today, Section b, p.

5.

Yeung, H.W. (1998). Capital, state, and space: Contesting the borderless world. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 23(3), 2.

65

Author Year Source type Topic Notes Abdulsomad, K. 2014 Secondary Globalization

and shipping Peer reviewed article

Allen, G. 2012 Primary Post-Panamax ports

News article

Bacon, D. 2002 Primary Taft-Hartley Act News article Blunden, M. 2012 Secondary Northern Sea

Route Peer reviewed article

Bonacich, E. and Wilson, J.

2008 Secondary Logistics Peer reviewed article

Boyle, R. 2015 Secondary Panama Canal Popular media Broder, J.M. 2004 Primary Port security News article Burnson, P. 2015 Primary Shipping

patterns Trade journal

Cummings, J., Tejada, C., and Kim, Q.S.

2002 Primary Taft-Hartley News article

(no author listed) “CMA CGM…”

2012 Primary Post-Panamax ports

News article

Day, S. and Arnold, W.

2002 Primary W. Coast shutdown

News article

Ducruet, C., and Notteboom, T.

2012 Secondary Container shipping

Peer reviewed article

Fransoo, J.C. and Lee, C.Y.

2012 Secondary Supply chain logistics

Peer reviewed article

Greve, H. 2009 Secondary Logistics and competitive advantage

Peer reviewed article

Hesse, M. 2006 Secondary Globalization and port infrastructure

Peer reviewed article

ILA 2015 Primary Union Official website ILWU 2015 Primary Union Official website Jaffe, D. 2010 Secondary Labor and

container shipping

Peer reviewed article

Johnson, B. 2008 Primary Port selection Trade journal Jubel, M.H. 2001 Secondary Globalization

and shipping Peer reviewed journal

Kirkham, C., and Khouri, A.

2015 Primary Globalization and union labor

News article

Klein, N. 2000 Secondary Globalization and factory work

Academic press paperback

Klein, N. 2007 Secondary Globalization and capitalism

Academic press paperback

66

Kovalev, A. 2015 Primary Northern Sea Route

News article

McCalla, R.J. et al.

2004 Secondary Globalization and container shipping

Peer reviewed journal

Muirhead, J.R. et al.

2015 Secondary Panama Canal expansion

Peer reviewed journal

Mongelluzzo, B. 2015 Primary West Coast slow down

Trade journal

Olney, P. 2003 Secondary West Coast shut down

Trade journal

PMA 2015 Primary Pacific Maritime Association

Official website

Pallis, A.A. et al. 2010 Secondary Port economics Peer reviewed journal

Petterson, T. 2014 Primary Northern Sea Route

News article

Skidelsky, R. 2012 Secondary Globalization and economic crash

Peer reviewed journal

Slack, B. 1993 Secondary Global transport Peer reviewed journal

Snyder, R.L. 2009 Secondary Globalization and manufacturing

Academic press paperback

(no author listed) “The President…”

2002 Primary Taft-Hartley Act News article

Turnbull, P.J. and Wass, V.J.

2007 Secondary Globalization and labor

Peer reviewed journal

Woodyard, C. 2015 Primary West Coast slow down

Popular media

Yeung, H.W. 1998 Secondary Globalization and national borders

Peer reviewed journal

Appendix 1: Summary of Documents by Category

67

Appendix 2: Case Studies Relatedness to Major Topics. Source: author’s elaboration created with Delineato Pro software, v. 1.2.6 (10.3).

68

Appendix 3: Theories of Labor and Globalization. Source: author’s elaboration created with Delineato Pro software, v. 1.2.6 (10.3).

69

Appendix 4: Ducruet and Notteboom’s Visualization of the global liner shipping network in 1996 and 2006. (Ducruet and Notteboom, 2006, p. 410).