Connect with us

New York

Port Workers Could Strike Again if No Deal Is Reached on Automation

Published

on

Port Workers Could Strike Again if No Deal Is Reached on Automation

Ports on the East and Gulf Coasts could close next week if dockworkers and employers cannot overcome their big differences over the use of automated machines to move cargo.

The International Longshoremen’s Association, the union that represents dockworkers, and the United States Maritime Alliance, the employers’ negotiating group, on Tuesday resumed in-person talks aimed at forging a new labor contract.

After a short strike in October, the union and the alliance agreed on a 62 percent raise over six years for the longshoremen — and said they would try to work out other parts of the contract, including provisions governing automated technology, before Jan. 15.

If they don’t have a deal by that date, ports that account for three-fifths of U.S. container shipments could shut, harming businesses that rely on imports and exports and providing an early test for the new Trump administration.

“If there’s a strike, it will have a significant impact on the U.S. economy and the supply chain,” said Dennis Monts, chief operating officer of PayCargo, a freight payments company.

Advertisement

The union is resisting automation because it fears the loss of jobs at the ports. President-elect Donald J. Trump lent his support to the union’s position last month. “I’ve studied automation, and know just about everything there is to know about it,” he said on his website Truth Social. “The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt, and harm it causes for American Workers, in this case, our Longshoremen.”

But figures close to Mr. Trump, like Vivek Ramaswamy, who the president-elect says will co-head an agency that will advise his administration on slimming down the government, have been critical of the union. In October, Republicans in Congress called on President Biden to use the Taft-Hartley Act to force striking longshoremen back to work.

And while the maritime alliance has agreed to a hefty raise, it may not be as ready to compromise on technology. Employers say that the technology is needed to make the ports more efficient and that they want the new contract to give them more leeway to introduce the sort of machinery that the union opposes.

To prepare for the potential closing of East and Gulf Coast ports, businesses have accelerated some imports, delayed others and diverted some to West Coast ports, said Jess Dankert, vice president for supply chain at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents many businesses that import goods.

“Contingency plans are pretty well developed,” she said, but added that a strike of more than a week would have significant ripple effects that could take a while to disentangle.

Advertisement

The International Longshoremen’s Association declined to comment.

The cost of shipping a container has risen over 60 percent on average in the past year, in large part because attacks on shipping in the Red Sea have forced ocean carriers to travel a longer, more expensive route and use more vessels. And if the East and Gulf Coast ports close, some carriers recently said, they will add surcharges to shipping rates for containers destined for the ports.

In earlier negotiations, the union secured a deal that would increase wages to $63 an hour, from $39, by the end of a new six-year contract. With shift work and overtime, the pay of many longshoremen at some East Coast ports could rise to well over $200,000 a year. (At the Port of New York and New Jersey, nearly 60 percent of the longshoremen made $100,000 to $200,000 in the 12 months through June 2020, the latest figures available, according to data from an agency that helped oversee the port.)

But to get those raises, the union will have to reach a deal on the rest of the contract, including new provisions on automation.

The core of the technology dispute concerns “semi-automated” port machinery that does not always require the involvement of humans. At the Port of Virginia, humans operate cranes that load containers onto trucks, but the cranes can also arrange huge stacks of containers on their own.

Advertisement

The last labor contract allowed for the introduction of semi-automated technology when both parties agreed to work-force protections and staffing levels. But in recent months, leaders of the International Longshoremen’s Association criticized port operators’ use of semi-automated technology, contending that it will lead to job losses.

“Now, employers are coming for the last remaining jobs under the shiny banner of semi-automation,” Dennis A. Daggett, the union’s executive vice president, wrote in a message to members last month.

The employers want the new contract to let them introduce more technology. In a statement to The New York Times last month, the maritime alliance said it was committed to keeping the job protections in place, but added, “Our focus now is how to also strengthen the ability to implement equipment that will improve safety, and increase efficiency, productivity and capacity.”

Even with automation, hiring of longshoremen has gone up at the Port of Virginia, according to union records. An increase in the number of containers the port handles is largely behind the increase in hiring.

“The Port of Virginia is thriving with automation,” said Ram Ganeshan, professor of operations and supply chain at William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va. “They’re not mutually exclusive.”

Advertisement

Some labor experts said there was a model for compromise: The union could agree to more automation, and the employers would offer solid job guarantees.

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which represents dockworkers on the West Coast, agreed to a contract over a decade ago that “recognized that the introduction of new technologies, including fully mechanized and robotic-operated marine terminals, necessarily displaces traditional longshore work and workers.” The union got guarantees that its members would maintain and repair the machinery at the terminals.

Harry Katz, a professor at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, said a deal on the East and Gulf Coasts was possible in part because the employers were profitable enough to offer job guarantees. “I do expect a compromise,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

New York

How ‘Operation Mincemeat’ Revealed a Family’s World War II Secrets

Published

on

How ‘Operation Mincemeat’ Revealed a Family’s World War II Secrets

When William Leggatt was at work as a renewal energy developer a couple of summers ago, he received a bizarre email from a superfan of “Operation Mincemeat,” a British musical about a wacky World War II intelligence plot.

As the show outlines, the operation involved British spies dressing a corpse as a military officer, stuffing a briefcase with fake letters implying an imminent invasion of Sardinia, and then dumping the corpse and documents at sea to be discovered by the Nazis.

So the email contained a simple question: Was William a distant relative of Hester Leggatt, a prim secretary who appears in the musical and played a key role in the plot?

The show’s superfans, who meet in an online forum and are known as Mincefluencers, believed that Hester was involved in writing fake love letters that officials planted on the body to help make the plot believable — and that she deserved to be publicly honored. But William Leggatt had no idea what the email was talking about.

It was only when he started talking to family members who were closer to the great-aunt and, later, reading a document sent by the Mincefluencers, that he realized they were right. In the end, he recalled in a recent interview, the musical “opened a whole side to my family I’d never known.”

Advertisement

Since debuting in London in 2019, “Operation Mincemeat,” which opened on Broadway last week at the Golden Theater, has won plaudits for turning wartime espionage into a satirical musical. For William Leggatt and other descendants of the real life figures depicted onstage, it has also unearthed family secrets and brought newfound appreciation for their forebears.

In the musical, Hester Leggatt (Jak Malone, one of five cast members playing numerous parts) is depicted as an unemotional prude until she takes on the task of writing the love letters and sings a heart-wrenching showstopper called “Dear Bill.”

World War II aficionados had been aware that a secretary called Hester had written the romantic notes, potentially with help from others, since the journalist Ben Macintyre named her in an acclaimed 2010 history. But a slight discrepancy in the spelling of her surname meant that when the musical opened, the real Hester remained largely a mystery.

Once the Mincefluencers discovered the correct spelling, they set about finding Hester Leggatt’s descendants and eventually produced a 50-page document about her life, which even detailed a play that she performed in at school. The superfans also got MI5, Britain’s domestic security service, to confirm that a Hester Leggatt had worked for the service during the war.

William Leggatt said he never met his great-aunt, who died in 1995, and knew nothing of that background before receiving the email.

Advertisement

It was “pretty annoying,” he added, to find out decades after her death that she had played a role in a famous World War II plot because, he said, he would have loved to have quizzed her about it. Still, he said: “I don’t think she told even those close to her. She kept it pretty bloody secret her whole life.”

For other descendants of the Operational Mincemeat spies, the musical has led them to delve more into their family history or changed their perceptions of long-lost relatives.

Susie Pugh, a granddaughter of John Bevan, the official who approved the plot, said in an interview that attending the musical had rounded out her image of a man who died when she was 15. She had known him as an affectionate grandfather, she said, yet onstage he was “confident, strident” and ordering spies around.

Jessica Baldrian, a granddaughter of Charles Cholmondeley, another spy, said that her family had chatted regularly about him since seeing the show. She said it got some things wrong, including portraying him as a newt-obsessed nerd (the family could find no evidence of his amphibian fancying). But, she added, it was a musical: “You don’t expect it to be accurate.” Like many of the spy descendants, Baldrian traveled from Britain for the recent Broadway opening to see her grandfather portrayed on the New York stage.

One descendant has even become a Mincefluencer himself.

Advertisement

Saul Montagu said he had long known that his great-grandfather Ewen Montagu had masterminded the operation, not just because Montagu wrote a 1953 book about it, called “The Man Who Never Was.” The walls of the family’s home in Oxford also include numerous photographs, a painting and a caricature of Montagu, one of which was signed by Winston Churchill in gratitude for his service.

But Saul Montagu said that as a teenager he had thought little about his great-grandfather, who died in 1985.

That changed in January 2020 after a family outing to see the musical. He began delving into his great-grandfather’s life, first reading his book and then his unpublished autobiography and a handwritten diary from a year at Harvard in which he confessed to spending more time dancing and sourcing contraband liquor than studying.

As Saul Montagu’s fandom for the musical grew, he recalled, he joined the main online Mincefluencers group and answered questions about his great-grandfather.

The research, Montagu said, “humanized” his great-grandfather, making him far more than simply a cool tale to tell friends about. Now, he added, he has seen the musical 13 times, and even joked with Natasha Hodgson, the actor who plays his ancestor, about how they were “family.”

Advertisement

In interviews, six descendants of the characters said they loved the show, though not all were convinced that their ancestors would agree.

William Leggatt said of his great-aunt Hester, “for her contribution to finally be recognized, I’m sure she’d have been happy with that.” But if she discovered that a man was portraying her on Broadway, he said, “there’d have been some spluttering.”

Continue Reading

New York

Columbia Planned Tighter Protest Rules Even Before Trump Demanded Them

Published

on

Columbia Planned Tighter Protest Rules Even Before Trump Demanded Them

A lawyer for Columbia University said Tuesday that a demand from the Trump administration for dramatic changes in student discipline had merely sped up policies the university had already been planning to enforce.

In a March 13 letter, the Trump administration said the university had failed to stop “antisemitic violence and harassment,” adding that policy changes would have to be made before the government would discuss resuming $400 million in canceled grants and contracts. Last week, the school complied with most of the government’s requests, regulating masks on campus and empowering a team of security officers to make arrests.

The lawyer’s assertion that Columbia had been planning the changes all along came during a hearing in Federal District Court in Manhattan over a request by a group of anonymous Columbia and Barnard College students that a judge bar school officials from handing over confidential disciplinary records to a congressional committee that has asked for them.

Both Columbia and the committee have contended that the students have not shown a sufficient legal basis for such an order. The judge, Arun Subramanian, made no ruling Tuesday.

The arguments in court stemmed from a request by the House Committee on Education and Workforce for disciplinary records related to several incidents, including the occupation of a university hall last spring by pro-Palestinian demonstrators, a protest of a class taught by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and an art exhibition the committee said had “promoted terrorism.”

Advertisement

Seven anonymous students and Mahmoud Khalil, a former student and legal permanent resident who helped lead protests last year and whom the Trump administration is trying to deport, sued to keep the records private. The lawsuit said that to fully comply, Columbia would have to turn over private files of hundreds of students, faculty and staff members.

Their lawyers have argued that the House committee was trying to coerce the university into becoming the government’s proxy to chill speech critical of Israel and to suppress association, actions that the First Amendment would prohibit the government from taking.

Marshall Miller, a lawyer for Columbia, denied in court on Tuesday that the university was being coerced, saying that it was voluntarily responding to government requests.

At one point, Judge Subramanian asked Mr. Miller whether Columbia would have announced new rules last Friday without a suggestion from the executive branch that money was at stake.

“It’s a hypothetical,” Mr. Miller said.

Advertisement

“I don’t think it’s a hypothetical,” Judge Subramanian replied.

Mr. Miller then conferred briefly with colleagues before saying that although the new policies had been developed over many months, the Trump administration’s demand affected their “precise timing.”

Ester R. Fuchs, a Columbia professor who is the co-chair of the university’s antisemitism task force, said last week that “a lot of these are things we needed to get done and were getting done, but now we’ve gotten done more quickly.”

The provisions the school adopted were made public in an unsigned statement that many faculty members greeted with dismay, seeing an unprecedented level of deference to the Trump administration.

Among other things, Columbia banned face masks on campus for the purpose of concealing identity during disruptions and said it would adopt a formal definition of antisemitism.

Advertisement

The university also said it would appoint a senior vice provost to oversee the Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department, which the Trump administration had said should be placed into receivership.

Lawyers for the students said their clients could suffer harm if their disciplinary information was handed over to lawmakers allied with the Trump administration. The lawyers wrote in court papers that after Columbia provided such information to the government last year, “members of Congress or their staffers posted students’ private information on social media sites and identified students and faculty on the public record during congressional hearings,” resulting in harassment.

Mr. Miller said on Tuesday that Columbia had “anonymized” information provided to the committee.

A lawyer for the students, Amy Greer, said that students who had participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations were “some of the most surveilled people in our country right now,” adding that several private organizations had worked to target students for their speech.

Even if Columbia removed names from information it gave the committee, the inclusion of physical descriptions and details of activity at specific times and places meant “somebody is going to recognize them,” Ms. Greer added.

Advertisement

Earlier in the hearing Judge Subramanian had asked a lawyer for the House committee what lawmakers might do with the student disciplinary records.

The lawyer, Todd Tatelman, replied that the identities of students might in “certain circumstances” be relevant.

“There is no intent to publicize student names?” Judge Subramanian asked.

Mr. Tatelman replied that he knew of no such plans. The judge asked next whether the committee would turn over the names of students to any “administrative agency.”

Mr. Tatelman replied that it would not be “a typical action.”

Advertisement

“But you cannot rule it out?” the judge asked.

“At this point,” Mr. Tatelman replied, “I cannot rule anything out.”

Continue Reading

New York

Letter in Eric Adams Case Raises Questions About Justice Official’s Testimony

Published

on

Letter in Eric Adams Case Raises Questions About Justice Official’s Testimony

During his U.S. Senate confirmation hearing to become the No. 2 official at the Justice Department, Todd Blanche suggested that he had no direct knowledge of the decision to abandon a criminal corruption case against the mayor of New York City.

But in a draft letter unsealed on Tuesday, the interim U.S. attorney in Manhattan wrote that a top department official, Emil Bove III, had suggested otherwise before ordering her to seek the case’s dismissal.

The U.S. attorney, Danielle R. Sassoon, wrote that when she suggested that department officials await Mr. Blanche’s Senate confirmation so he could play a role in the decision, Mr. Bove informed her that Mr. Blanche was “on the same page,” and that “there was no need to wait.” The draft was written by Ms. Sassoon earlier this year, as she fought for the case’s survival.

The draft letter was among a cache of communications, including emails and texts, submitted under seal to a judge, Dale E. Ho, by Mr. Bove and Mr. Blanche, after his confirmation, to support their argument for dismissal of the corruption indictment against the mayor, Eric Adams. Judge Ho has yet to rule.

The draft sheds additional light on the circumstances surrounding the explosive decision by top officials in the Justice Department to halt the prosecution of Mr. Adams. The decision set off a political crisis in New York City, where the mayor immediately faced questions about his indebtedness to the Trump administration, which sought the dismissal in part so that Mr. Adams could aid its deportation agenda in New York City.

Advertisement

A Justice Department spokesman said in a statement that Mr. Blanche had no role in decisions at the agency before he was confirmed.

“Todd Blanche was not involved in the Department’s decision-making prior to his confirmation,” the statement said.

During the confirmation hearing, Mr. Blanche was questioned about the Justice Department’s decision making in seeking the dismissal of the Adams case.

When Senator Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, asked Mr. Blanche about whether the decisions in the case had been directed by officials in Washington, Mr. Blanche suggested that he had no direct knowledge.

“I have the same information you have,” he said. “It appears it was, yes, I don’t know.”

Advertisement

Reached for comment on Tuesday, Senator Welch said, “If this is true, it clearly indicates Blanche ‘misled’ — in plain English, lied — to the committee.”

It was not immediately clear when Ms. Sassoon drafted the letter. When it was originally filed, under seal, Mr. Bove wrote that Ms. Sassoon sent it to herself on Feb. 12. But the unsealed documents show that Ms. Sassoon sent herself an email that appeared to include the drafted letter as an attachment on Feb. 11 — the day before Mr. Blanche’s hearing.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Emma G. Fitzsimmons contributed reporting. Susan C. Beachy contributed research.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending