https://iclfi.org/pubs/wv/1184/daggett
We reprint below a February 11 WV supplement consisting of a rebuttal by the International Longshoremen’s Association Executive Vice President Dennis A. Daggett to our exposure of the union leadership’s strike strategy, as well as our reply to Daggett, titled “How to Win the Best Outcome for the ILA.”
On February 25, the ILA voted 99 percent in favor of the Master Contract with the USMX bosses. Despite the overwhelming vote, the contract was far from the best outcome for ILA members. The union secured a 62 percent wage increase, better healthcare and more container royalties. But these came with damaging long-term concessions to the shipping bosses, namely dangerous speedup and attacks on job security. The contract maintains a low tier whereby new hires make $27 an hour compared to $45 at top rate; this gives an incentive for the bosses to eliminate top-tier workers. The New York-New Jersey local contract threatens loss of seniority and dismissal for failure to reach productivity goals. Doctor’s notes to excuse absences are no longer accepted at several New Jersey piers.
The ILA leadership wants to keep longshore workers competing against one another, hitched to the anti-labor Trump administration and handcuffed by the contract’s six-year “no strike” clause. With a tariff war looming, the bosses will try to make all workers, including ILA members, pay the price for inflation and economic chaos. Today, Trump’s regime is aiming its fire against immigrants and government workers, especially black workers. But it can just as easily bring its iron heel down on the rest of labor. The ILA must prepare now to defend itself against Trump and the capitalist bosses. Looking to the courts or Democrats to fight Trump’s attacks is a recipe for defeat.
ILA workers got a taste of their power on the picket lines last October. To maximize their collective strength and be able to stop production when needed, union militants should pursue the class-struggle strategy outlined below.
How to Win the Best Outcome for the ILA
Last month, Dennis A. Daggett, the ILA International vice president, issued a “Rebuttal to Workers Vanguard’s Misleading Claims”. We encourage longshore workers and anyone else interested in the question of the way forward for the union to read both our October 12 article “ILA Tops Scrapped Powerful Strike—Longshore Workers: Prepare for Next Battle” (reprinted in WV No. 1183) and Daggett’s reply. What the reader will find is two very different answers to this crucial question, only one of which is in the best interests of ILA members and their families.
With many in the ranks disapproving of the abrupt end to last October’s strike, Daggett goes to some lengths to defend the ILA leadership. He asks for it to be judged by its actions, and we could not agree more. Even a brief review of events shows that, instead of better enabling the union to fight, the ILA tops took a series of measures that weakened the strike.
A 62 Percent Payoff for ILA Submission
Daggett claims that the ILA “made history” during the strike, citing the promised 62 percent wage increase spread over six years—his excuse for sending everyone back to work without a contract. This still unseen wage increase is not a historic victory, but rather a sizable payoff, which will only be granted if the ILA swallows every unknown giveback demanded by the shipping companies. It is a sort of consolation prize for forfeiting a championship match.
The union could have won real gains on every disputed issue—crucially including union control of automation—and put itself in a strong position to defend those gains from future attack. But the ILA leadership had other ideas and is now praising the announced settlement as a “landmark agreement” when, in fact, it is far from the best outcome for the ILA. The YouTube video released a few days ago by ILA president Harold Daggett and Dennis A. Daggett spotlights the economic improvements and claims the line was held against job loss to technology. While the full content of the TA remains a mystery, the Daggetts said enough to make clear that the supposed defense of jobs is really a crackdown on workers who take sick days and an effort to outperform the robots. This is a losing battle. ILA members should be working less for more, not faster, longer and harder, tossing safety to the wind. They should not drive themselves into the ground to one-up automation for the bosses’ benefit, but rather gain the upper hand over the bosses to utilize automation for the ILA membership’s benefit.
Things could have been very different—and still can be. A lot was working in favor of the ILA last October, which could have made the strike historic not only for longshore workers, but the entire working class. Up and down the East and Gulf Coasts, longshoremen stood determined for battle. Both the USMX shipping bosses (scrambling to make deliveries) and the Biden/Harris administration (limping toward the elections) were off balance. Boeing Machinists had already gone on strike. Discontent with the Democrats and fear of the future had workers willing to fight back.
The solidarity on the ILA picket lines was evident, making it all the more infuriating that the ILA leadership pulled them down early. The strike could have galvanized other workers at the ports and beyond into action. This would have substantially strengthened the picket lines and put longshore workers in a position to beat back any government strikebreaking. To make this possible, though, the strike was going to have to be organized in a way that would unite longshore workers and their working-class allies in the face of the many divisions stoked by the bosses—especially racial divisions.
ILA Leaders Keep Union Divided
But this avenue—the one capable of delivering an unqualified union victory and cementing the collective unity needed to defend the membership’s long-term security and prosperity—was outright rejected by the ILA tops. Instead, they find every way to divide the membership: they keep the locals segregated by race and craft and allow the tiers whereby longshoremen earn unequal wages and container royalty checks despite doing the same work. Their actions pit longshore workers against one another, rather than bring them together as a united force.
The ILA leadership does so because it works for two teams: labor and the capitalist class enemy. The capitalists win by dividing the opposing team, especially along racial lines. They tell white workers that black equality would mean fewer jobs for whites. ILA leaders play right along and tell black workers that the only path to job security is to have a separate local. Compounding the problem, they push speedup instead of fighting for more jobs for both black and white workers through a shorter workday with no loss in weekly pay.
In contrast, WV provided a plan to overcome the existing divisions and cement lasting labor solidarity: a single integrated local in each port, top-rate pay for all new hires and an interracial struggle for black equality that would also benefit white workers. This is what Daggett believes is “seeking to create division and chaos.” In particular, we emphasized the need for the ILA to defend black workers in order to address their legitimate fear that an end to segregated locals would leave them at the bottom. Tellingly, the problem of the segregated setup in the union does not even factor in Daggett’s rebuttal.
ILA Leaders Cozied Up to Biden, Now Trump
Daggett says that WV is wrong to suggest “that the ILA cozies up to politicians.” But it is plain as day that the ILA leadership rubs elbows with politicians at the expense of the ranks. Just click on ilaunion.org to read Harold Daggett enthusing: “President Trump gets full credit for our successful tentative Master Contract agreement.” Or read his October 7 letter to Biden: “I am happy that our ILA longshore workers are back at work and for your Administration for helping to make that happen.”
In every way, the ILA leadership has confined the union entirely to those avenues considered acceptable by the bosses’ politicians, viewing them as “stakeholders” in a stronger ILA, even though their aim is the opposite. Biden was willing to tolerate a brief strike and the dangling of a wage increase in order to give Harris a much-needed bump among working-class voters and head off the kind of struggle that could get longshore workers what they need. The ILA tops lent Biden/Harris a hand and orchestrated an abrupt end to the strike with the Democrats and shipping bosses.
Trump picked up the ball from his predecessor and ran with it to further his protectionist “America first” agenda, which promises to throttle trade and result in fewer jobs for longshore workers and higher prices for everyone. The ILA leadership is boosting Trump’s false pro-worker credentials as he steps into office swinging the ax at union government jobs and ordering the deportation of foreign-born workers. The Daggetts’ alliance with Trump will only drag the ILA down.
Many ILA members rightly fear attack by the new administration and deeply resent the ILA leadership’s embrace of Trump. By the same token, many longshoremen were repulsed by the moral shaming and economic misery under the liberal Democrats, who were previously praised by the Daggetts. This cozying up to the bosses’ politicians only inflames the polarization between black and white, immigrant and native-born, Democrat and Republican, making it all the more difficult to wage the kind of solid struggle against this country’s elite necessary to achieve the best outcome for the ILA.
Handling Military Cargo Undermined ILA Strike
Of course, the ILA leadership never wanted to rock the boat for the bosses, just make a little splash. Stop moving military cargo to ensure the strike packs the strongest possible punch? Never! Daggett judges such a proposal to be “irresponsible and deeply offensive.” In fact, the ILA leadership’s pledge to keep military goods flowing was irresponsible sabotage of the strike. Bringing all operations at the ports to a grinding halt would have given the union maximum leverage to force the bosses to their knees.
Lacking a leg to stand on from the standpoint of winning the strike, Daggett resorts to invoking the safety of U.S. troops. In all cases, blame for the harm befalling and committed by the troops lies entirely with the billionaires running this country. For whom is it really “irresponsible” to stop military cargo? Only these same billionaires, who set off forever wars and military conflicts around the globe—from Iraq to Ukraine—to advantage themselves. In the process, U.S. workers lose out. Young people are sent to kill and be killed for no good reason, trillions of dollars are wasted, inflation soars, terrorists retaliate against U.S. citizens and masses of refugees flee here from their devastated homelands.
How is sending to Israel tanks and bombs—which are used to incinerate Palestinian women and children in Gaza—any good for ILA workers? It isn’t. The ILA should refuse to handle arms for the genocide of Palestinians and oppose all U.S. military operations. The misery they create abroad always comes back here, and it is ILA members and other workers who pay the price.
Daggett makes a point that the ILA leadership will sacrifice the interests of the membership over and over again, declaring: “The safety and security of the nation remain our top priorities.” This is a blank check to Trump to stick it to the union whenever he wants. All Trump has to do is howl about national security before taking away democratic rights, attacking work conditions or otherwise weakening the union. ILA members would do well to reject these “top priorities,” which amount to upholding the safety and security of the billionaires and nothing more.
The fervor of Daggett’s response shows his ideological bias—loyalty to a ruling class that is sending the country to hell while careening from one military operation to another. In contrast, WV is biased on the side of the working class. We are clear on what it is going to take for the ILA to advance its struggles—because we recognize that the workers would do a far better job running the ports and everything else.
Reject the Deal—the ILA Needs a Different Leadership
The terms of the TA are beginning to emerge, but the full text is still under wraps. Even so, every sign indicates that the deal should be rejected. It is an enticement that comes at too great of a long-term cost, leaving the union divided, isolated and open to attack. It does not protect jobs and safety but does put the ILA leadership in Trump’s debt. The president will surely cash in this chip as the country continues its downward spiral—a spiral that threatens Social Security and healthcare, increased attacks on minorities and soaring inflation that would eat up the ILA’s wage increase.
A lot needs to be turned around. Longshore workers dissatisfied with the direction of the ILA leadership should insist on the TA’s immediate release in order to better prepare to reject it and strike for major lasting improvements that would put the ILA on solid ground. To that end, we urge ILA members to begin to organize right now, including by taking measures to bridge the divisions enforced by their existing leadership:
- Fuse the segregated ILA locals to strengthen the union—one port, one local!
- Dump Trump and ditch the liberals! Fight for a workers party!
- Rely on your own power as longshoremen and build fighting alliances with other unions, the port truckers and all labor.
- A strike must shut it all down, including halting all shipments of military cargo.
- Demand no layoffs and no job cuts through automation. For a shorter workweek at no loss in weekly pay—make technology benefit the union!
“Rebuttal to Workers Vanguard’s Misleading Claims”
It’s baffling how a publication like Workers Vanguard, a self-proclaimed Marxist newspaper affiliated with the Spartacist League and the International Communist League, presumes to understand or speak on behalf of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA). Their recent article about the October 1st strike is not only riddled with falsehoods but also reflects their ideological bias and complete detachment from the realities of ILA members and leadership.
COLLECTIVE VOICE LOUD AND CLEAR
Let me set the record straight. The ILA and, most importantly, its members made history during a three-day strike starting October 1st. Our collective voice was loud, clear, and unrelenting. The result? A historic 62% wage increase—the largest percentage increase in organized labor history, as confirmed by the Department of Labor. This wasn’t achieved by accident or incompetence; it was a testament to the power of unity and the tireless effort of ILA workers.
No one in the ILA is “patting themselves on the back,” as the article falsely claims. The reason is simple: we’re too busy doing the work—fighting to secure a new Master Contract that covers members from Maine to Texas. This is the real work of the ILA: representing over 85,000 members and their families with integrity, diligence, and an unwavering focus on their best interests.
DUE DILIGENCE
The article also suggests that the ILA cozies up to politicians, implying ulterior motives or weakness. Let me be clear: the ILA does not cozy up to anyone. What we do is our due diligence. We explore every avenue, engage with every stakeholder, and exhaust every possibility to secure the best outcomes for our members. Our focus is on action, not ideology, and our priority is ensuring the long-term security and prosperity of the hardworking men and women we represent.
Furthermore, the accusation that we undermined our strike by refusing to target military cargo is both irresponsible and deeply offensive. We are patriots first. The ILA will never take actions that harm our troops or our country. The safety and security of the nation remain our top priorities, and no amount of ideological posturing from groups like Workers Vanguard will change that.
Adding insult to injury, individuals representing Workers Vanguard were seen attempting to hand out these newsletters, clearly trying to cause turmoil and confusion among our members. Let me assure you: this newsletter couldn’t be farther from the truth. Its intent is not to inform but to mislead and sow division within our ranks.
ILA SENT A STRONG MESSAGE
Critics say we should’ve stayed out longer. That’s easier to say when you’re not the one responsible for people’s livelihoods and their welfare. The ILA sent a strong message—not just to our employers but to the world. Our voices will be heard, or you will find out exactly what we are capable of.
And to top it off, the author of this article doesn’t even have the integrity (they lack the moral fortitude and accountability) to even put their name on it. If they believe so strongly in these false claims, why hide in the shadows? This lack of accountability is typical of publications that aim to spread misinformation rather than engage in honest reporting.
The purpose of this article is clear—it seeks to create division and chaos within our ranks. But let me tell you what happened on October 1st: it was the largest display of solidarity this country has seen in a long time. ILA members stood shoulder to shoulder, united in purpose and vision. That’s something no propaganda piece can take away.
ILA IS A DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION
Unlike the authors of this article, the ILA understands the gravity of its decisions. Every move we make is calculated, responsible, and always aimed at achieving the best for our members and their families. And let me remind everyone of an important truth: the ILA is a democratic organization. At the end of the day, our members hold the final say when they vote to ratify a contract. That’s the true power of the ILA—our members, our solidarity, and our commitment to one another.
So, to Workers Vanguard and groups like it: you don’t deserve a second of our time. But we will always stand ready to rebut your lies with truth and to defend the integrity of our union and its members.
