This morning at West Coast ports where everyday products arrive and
are then shipped across the country, there's growing concern dock workers
may not show up to work again, creating a potential supply chain slowdown.
Over the last four days, some of the nation's busiest ports have sat idle as
the International Longshore and
Warehouse Union battles the Pacific Maritime Association over a new contract.
>> Now that was about two weeks ago, and the ongoing labor dispute among
port workers and the Pacific Maritime Association continues today.
Now that labor dispute is something that caught the attention of Republican
lawmakers in the Senate, who are now proposing legislation to further dismantle
and weaken labor unions that have to do with work at the ports, especially on
the West Coast, where intentional labor slowdowns have hurt the bottom line for
some of the major corporations that operate out of the United States.
So the idea of this legislation is to essentially deter labor slowdowns
at these ports, which again had occurred in the West Coast last year and
to some extent continue today.
Now the legislation sponsored by Idaho Republican senator Jim Risch,
would amend the National Labor Relations Act and
the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 to deter labor slowdowns and prohibit
labor organizations from blocking the modernization of ports through automation.
So that is one of the sticking points in these labor negotiations.
The port workers and the unions representing them are trying to ensure
that there are certain safeguards in place to prevent the automation of various jobs.
And that is a reasonable thing to wanna fight back against because that means that
people would lose their jobs to automation.
Now the bill, getting back to the legislation,
co-sponsored by Republican Senator Ted Budd and Republican senator Mike,
fine, I'll say Crapo, would update the National Labor Relations Act to
define a labor slowdown by maritime workers as an unfair labor practice.
Under the proposed legislation,
unions found in violation of the law would be subject to paying damages in an amount
equal to two times the amount of damage sustained by their labor actions.
And if you wanna get an idea of just how much money is on the line,
there was an analysis done recently by the US Chamber of Commerce.
Considering it's from the US Chamber of Commerce,
I would say that these numbers might be a little inflated.
But no question, there is a lot of money on the line.
So if this legislation goes through,
I wanna give you an idea of how much the workers would be liable for
if they were found guilty of unfair labor practices.
During recent West Coast port issues, the US Chamber of Commerce
estimated that a serious work stoppage at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
would likely cost the US economy nearly half a billion dollars a day.
It estimated a more widespread strike along the West Coast could cost
approximately $1 billion per day.
And should the workers be found liable for that, or
the union representing the workers be found liable for that,
they would essentially have to pay damages twice the amount that was
caused by the either labor slowdown or work stoppage, Cenk.
>> Yeah, so, look, this is actually a really significant story because
this goes along with the trend that Republicans have been pushing and
Democrats have not been fighting back against.
As always, the notable exception being Bernie Sanders, where conservatives
are now saying, no, corporations have to be guaranteed profits,
and if labor costs them any money through a work slowdown or a strike,
they have to give them the profits that the company would have made otherwise.
That's insane.
No one's ever heard of that before.
That is not a standard that would end all labor rights instantly.
How the hell are normal, longshoremen, or anyone else going to pay for
the billions of dollars in profits?
And why are companies guaranteed profits?
That's not a thing.
That's not free market.
That's not capitalism.
That's the opposite of capitalism.
You know what capitalism is?
Supply, demand, etc.
And when you have leverage, using that leverage.
The bankers never hesitate to use their leverage.
Lobbyists never hesitate to use their leverage.
So in this case, when you tell me, hey, it could be half a billion to a billion
dollars a day, yeah, that's called leverage.
And so those workers are saying, hey, if I'm that valuable that apparently
my work frees up a billion dollars a day, then why don't you pay me?
>> Exactly.
>> Wait, no, we can't do that.
Wait, what do you mean you can't do that?
You never say that when it's the bankers.
Apparently you make plenty of money from this.
Look, guys, this is against my interest because yes, I get it.
If they do a labor slowdown,
it could create more inflation because of supply chain issues.
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> It could cost all of us money, I get it.
But they're just doing what any other profession,
especially white collar professions would do.
And now they're gonna be barred by law from using their leverage as workers,
as average American citizens because of these incredibly corrupt politicians.
>> So I wanna provide one caveat before we continue,
because I am in complete solidarity with the workers here.
And what these Republican lawmakers in the Senate are attempting to do is
essentially do away with the one area of leverage that organized labor has, right?
And that area of leverage is a potential strike.
Those strikes tend to pressure the employers to engage in good
faith negotiations and actually compromise with the workers,
as opposed to exerting their authoritarian nature on the workers and
forcing the workers to just take whatever deal they demand.
There's one area of concern I have, and it has to do with medication, right?
So unfortunately, because of how disgusting and corrupt the politicians in
this country are, they have paved the way for outsourcing of the manufacturing of
pharmaceutical drugs and medication that people need to stay alive.
I am worried about the ongoing shortages that we're experiencing when it comes to
drugs that people need.
I'm worried that it'll be further exacerbated by a potential strike.
I don't know how we would maybe have a carve out or
some solution to ensure that people are getting the medication they need.
But aside from that, right, I don't really care about other products.
I don't care about having to wait.
I don't care about products costing more.
Because at the end of the day, these are organized workers who want to have good
faith negotiations with the employers here.
And it is very clear that these negotiations have not been engaged in good
faith.
And what they're asking for is what you would expect in any labor negotiation.
Better working conditions, better pay, and some safeguards when it
comes to their jobs being taken away or destroyed as a result of automation,
which I love every article referring to it as modernization of their jobs.
>> Good sarcasm on that one.
And I actually think that's the one thing they're not gonna win on.
We can get back to that.
But, guys, I got a solution for the medicine or
whatever else that people really need to bring in.
Hey, you guys with the suits on, go ahead, take the jackets off, take the ties off.
There's the goddamn crates.
You move them, okay?
So there's a thousand solutions.
And guys, two things that are super important here, in all the articles,
and I don't wanna make that mistake on air here.
In all the articles, they say if the workers do this,
it is then it will cause this to the economy.
No, the workers are saying that the company that is incredibly profitable is
not taking the action they need to support their workers.
So the correct framing on is if the company continues to be greedy,
it will cost America a billion dollars a day.
So the problem is with a goddamn greedy company that makes
profit on top of profit on top of profit, but won't pay their workers.
Why does no one, almost no one in the media ever frame it that way?
And second of all, there's a ton of things that hurt us, right, economically.
For example, when the bankers raise interest rates,
that hurts us economically.
It costs us well over a billion dollars a day.
In aggregate for the whole country, how come there's
never any articles written about the bankers raise the interest rates again?
And that cost us $8 billion a day, and it came out of my pocket,
in your pocket, etc.
Cuz the bankers are holy and they can't ever be touched.
The powerful and the rich are awesome.
And now look about the laborers.
And by the way, if you're a right-winger, these are all Republican senators.
Are you guys all CEOs, or do any of you work for a living?
Because if you work for a living, you get that they're coming to crush you.
>> So, I actually wanna go to the next video because the next video is telling.
It provides some details about the individuals behind essentially pressuring
the federal government to weaken these labor unions and
do away with the one area of leverage they tend to have.
Let's watch.
>> As negotiations overpay, benefit, safety, and
automation have dragged on for a year.
The ILWU says some of its 22,000 rank and file members have begun
to voice their displeasure by not showing up for work at critical ports.
The PMA counters the disruptive work actions effectively
shut down operations at some marine terminals.
The problems brewing here could eventually impact you at home.
>> This is sort of a slow burn that could get to a boil pretty quickly.
>> The National Retail Federation urging the president to intervene because roughly
40% of our nation's imported goods arrive here at the ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach.
Our partners at CNBC report it could take weeks to clear the short backlog already
created, saying many of the containers delayed now are back to school and
holiday products.
>> So the National Retail Federation has reached out to the Biden administration to
try to get the Biden administration to intervene, considering Biden's track
record with intervening on potential strikes and work stoppages.
And I'm, of course, primarily thinking about the rail workers here.
I am concerned that he will step in when he feels it's necessary, right?
>> Yeah, and don't get it twisted.
He's not gonna step in on behalf of the workers.
>> No, no.
I like Republicans are like, he's rather gonna help labor, [SOUND] dude,
your labor, your labor.
Anyway, no, don't worry, he never does.
He always backs the giant companies who are his donors.
>> But before I forget this point, I just really wanna make it, because in
the beginning of that video, they mentioned people not showing up to work,
right, intentionally to make a point.
And so if the current workers are unhappy with their pay and
their working conditions, there's nothing that legally marries them to that job.
They could move on.
They could find another job.
They can stop working in the ports, right?
And if the working conditions and the pay are not competitive, are not desirable,
how are they gonna hire other people to fill those roles in these jobs?
You get what I'm saying?
So it's not just about this current moment.
It's also about the future.
And if this job is not desirable for other workers or other employees,
how exactly do they plan on attracting labor to fill these roles?
>> It's incumbent upon the company to make a deal, but
regular rules of capitalism don't apply anymore.
Republican politicians believe in corporatism, and
that they don't want competition.
They don't want labor having any leverage.
Look, I gotta make it the last couple of points.
Look, I think on the automation part that's gonna be the toughest cuz that
saves the company so
much money they're gonna in the long run probably steamroll you.
But keep fighting, brothers and sisters.
And if that's gonna happen in the future,
you better get as much as you can today, okay?
So now that leaves me with last two points.
One is from a member, Trump's lady wrote in, so a dude from Idaho,
a landlocked state that has zero ports, is writing legislation on ports.
So that's a great point.
I love how smart our members are tyt.com/join to become one of them.
And we obviously read some of your comments on air in the middle of stories
as you see here.
And the reason it's a great point is and why does that happen?
Because that guy takes tons of money from corporate donors.
That's why even though he doesn't have any ports, he's animated about ports.
A senator from Idaho should never even talk about ports,
let alone go on a war path on them.
You only do that when you are bribed, when you're legally bribed by these companies.
And again, no articles talk about how every single Republican senator that is
pushing for this takes bribes from corporate interests.
I'm sorry, campaign contributions, but they're so honorable,
they don't listen to those campaign contributions, wink.
And by the way, now this Risch has taken it to the next level cuz he's saying
not only do the workers owe the company their guaranteed profits,
they owe twice the guaranteed price, right?
>> [CROSSTALK] >> Cenk, it's all meant to
intimidate the workers and prevent them from even considering a strike,
because if this type of legislation passes the Senate and
the House, if it becomes law, that means they are now on the line.
They are now liable to pay double the damages that were incurred
as a result of that strike or that work stoppage.
>> No one can afford that.
>> No, of course not.
>> That's just saying you can't strike anymore.
You can't do these work stoppages.
You can't do anything to fight back against companies.
You must accept that corporations and big business rule you all.
And guys, again, if you're a Republican voter and you think these politicians
are on your side, you got a big surprise coming to you.
After they're done talking about trans issues and M&M's, they screw you so
hard and try to take every dollar out of your pocket and
give it to the CEOs that are funding their campaign.
>> Now, Risch has actually tried to pass similar legislation two times before.
Luckily, both times they failed.
He did this in 2017 and also in 2022 last year.
And so he's optimistic this time around because he claims
that with the Republicans taking over the House, there's more appetite for
this type of legislation.
And do I think that the Senate would have the 60 votes necessary to pass this
type of anti-labor legislation?
I do think they have that.
So we'll see. >> So we don't know that.
But the only reason I'm not at all sure that is because the union bribes
the Democrats.
So the unions bribe the Democrats and the corporations bribe the Democrats and
the corporations bribe the Republicans.
So that's why corporations have a two to one advantage, and they almost always win.
But when it's a core issue like this, the unions go, hey,
this was the whole point of our campaign contributions.
So you might have enough Democrats hold the line, but not for the right reasons,
just because they're getting bright from the other side.