http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php/site/index/ en dave@creativeacceleration.com Copyright 2013 2013-05-14T15:58:20+00:00 http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/throwing_open_the_doors_to_unions_read_more/ http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/throwing_open_the_doors_to_unions_read_more/#When:15:58:20Z New interpretation of OSHA regulation could allow unions easier access to non-union shops By Bill McMorris May 10, 2013 The Department of Labor’s workplace safety watchdog has quietly crafted a legal interpretation of a longstanding rule that will allow labors representatives into non-union shops. The department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a February guidance letter made public in April saying that labor union officials could participate in safety inspections at the request of an employee even if the employer is non-union. “A person affiliated with a union without a collective bargaining agreement or with a community representative can act on behalf of employees as a walkaround representative so long as the individual has been authorized by the employees to serve as their representative,” wrote OSHA Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard E. Fairfax. OSHA conducts thousands of inspections on workplaces across the country every year, focusing particularly on the manufacturing sector. Employees are entitled to select an observer to accompany OSHA investigators on the inspections. While union shops often select stewards to represent them, non-union workers select an employee to join the “walkaround.” The new OSHA interpretation would allow outside parties, such as union representatives, to enter the workplace for the first time. Bill Principe, an attorney and workplace safety expert at Constangy, Brooks, & Smith, called the move a “very significant departure from 40 years of [OSHA] practices,” pointing to the fact that the regulation “specifically says that the representative shall be an employee.” “I’ve been doing this a while and I’ve never seen a situation where an OSHA officer or employee thought about bringing in someone from outside [the company],” he said. “This interpretation came out of left field.” Some labor watchdogs say that the interpretation is a Trojan horse, intended to help union officials gain entry into a workplace they would normally be excluded from without majority support from workers. “They’re carrying the water of the big union bosses,” said Glenn Taubman, an attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. “They know that union organizing is in decline and are trying to help the unions get in any way they can. It’s part of the same regulatory scheme of the Obama administration to strangle employers and reward unions by making it easier to organize.” Fairfax issued the interpretation in response to a clarification request from a representative with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union. The regulation allows for third party experts, such as industrial hygienist or safety engineers to visit the site, but no mention is made of labor groups. Fairfax couched his interpretation in vague terms and extended the third-party language to unions. Principe, the labor attorney, said such queries are common, but not solicited “without [the questioner] already knowing the answer.” “We’re not really talking about hygienists; that’s not the intent from a practical perspective. It’s a union rep asking,” he said. “The letter is pretty straightforward.” Fairfax has since retired, according to an OSHA official. He could not be reached for comment. OSHA spokesman Jesse Lawder denied that the interpretation departed from previous understanding of labor regulations because the field operations manual allows for third party inspections. “OSHA expects that this clarification will have little impact,” he said. “Having a walkaround representative is an important, longstanding right for workers to get an effective and thorough inspection.” Principe and other labor attorneys disagreed, pointing out that such language has referred to union shops, rather than non-union workplaces. Principe said that the new interpretation’s vagueness could “cause lengthy delays” on inspections, especially the hundreds of surprise visits OSHA makes every year. The letter does not make clear how many employees are required to request a union representative before one must be called. The OSHA investigator would then have to make a spot decision about how to proceed or call regional or national attorneys to decipher the rule. “Presumably under this interpretation, any employee could say ‘well I want a union rep to accompany OSHA,’ even if it’s just on behalf of himself,” he said. Employers who want to avoid union proselytizing through safety inspections would be left with little recourse other than rejecting a safety inspection and asking OSHA investigators to obtain a warrant before entering the premises with union officials, according to Principe. OSHA does not have to post its response to letters on the website, according to Principe, and when it does, “it’s making a point.” The department hammered that point home when it edited a 2003 OSHA advisory that presented a contradictory, but traditional, interpretation of walkarounds. “This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only,” the site now says. Principe’s Constangy, Brooks, & Smith colleague, labor relations expert David Phippen, said the issue extends beyond the practical implications on an inspection site. The interpretation could allow union officials onto a site without having the approval of a company’s workers. “OSHA avoids the main point that that representative has never been elected by majority of employees in a proper NLRB election,” he said. “It’s sticking their nose into something they don’t have representative status in.”   2013-05-14T15:58:20+00:00 http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/court_blocks_nlrbs_union_poster_rule_with_emergency_injunction_read_more/ http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/court_blocks_nlrbs_union_poster_rule_with_emergency_injunction_read_more/#When:22:34:56Z By Kevin Bogardus - 04/17/12 A federal court on Tuesday blocked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from issuing a rule that would require employers to post notices explaining workers’ collective bargaining rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered that an emergency injunction on the rule be granted, pending appeal. The poster rule was set to go into effect on April 30, but will now be delayed until the appeal is decided. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace asked for the injunction after U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed their legal challenge last month. “The facts in this case and the law have always been on the side of manufacturers, and we believe that granting an injunction is the appropriate course of action for the court. The ‘posting requirement’ is an unprecedented attempt by the board to assert power and authority it does not possess,” said Jay Timmons, NAM’s president and CEO, in a statement. Timmons said the manufacturers’ group will “aggressively pursue” the appeal to overturn the rule. Other business groups celebrated the injunction. “For the last several months, [Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC)] has vigorously fought NLRB’s politically motivated policies that threaten to paralyze the construction industry in order to benefit the special interests of politically powerful unions,” said Geoff Burr, ABC’s vice president of federal affairs, in a statement. “The NLRB’s notice posting rule is a perfect example of how the pro-union board has abandoned its role as a neutral enforcer and arbiter of labor law.” ABC is a member of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. The injunction comes after U.S. District Judge David Norton ruled Friday that the labor board went beyond its legal authority when issuing the rule. That lawsuit was brought last year by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce. The NLRB said its regional offices will not implement the rule until the appeal is decided. Further, the labor board will appeal a part of Berman Jackson’s ruling that raised questions about the rule’s enforcement mechanisms, as well as Norton’s ruling that said the agency did not have the legal authority to issue the rule. “We continue to believe that requiring employers to post this notice is well within the Board’s authority, and that it provides a genuine service to employees who may not otherwise know their rights under our law,” said NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce in a statement   2013-05-07T22:34:56+00:00 http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/caterpillar_workers_reach_tentative_deal_on_contract_read_more/ http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/caterpillar_workers_reach_tentative_deal_on_contract_read_more/#When:14:42:49Z By Bob Tita April 30, 2013 Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) and the United Steelworkers Union have reached a tentative agreement on a six-year contract for about 800 workers who assemble mining machinery in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports. Members of Steelworkers Local 1343 in Milwaukee will be voting Tuesday on a proposed contract that would freeze wages and the pension for veteran workers and lower pay rates for new hires. Workers also would contribute more for health insurance coverage for family members, the newspaper reports. In return, the Peoria, Ill., machinery maker would provide workers with a $2,500 bonus for ratifying the contract and additional cash bonuses tied to the company’s performance that could total $25,000 per worker over the life of the contract. Workers are paid between $18 and $34 per hour, the newspaper says. The current contract is scheduled to expire on Tuesday. Caterpillar this summer is expected to lay off about 300 workers, or 40% of the unionized work force, at a pair of plants in Milwaukee and South Milwaukee in response to slowing demand for mining machinery. Caterpillar also plans to dismiss 460 workers at its plant in Decatur, Ill., where large mining trucks are assembled. Caterpillar acquired the Milwaukee assembly plants as part of its $8.8 billion purchase of Bucyrus International Inc. in 2011. The current contract fashioned by Bucyrus and the USW in 2008 extended an earlier agreement and eliminated a two-tier wage scale that paid new employees less than veteran workers. Members of Local 1343 have so far have given no indication they intend to strike. Workers at a Caterpillar plant in Joliet, Ill., waged an unsuccessful three-month strike last year. Workers at the plant ended up accepting the company’s demands for cuts in health-care and pension benefits and a freeze in wages for veteran workers—conditions that union had opposed for months. Workers at the Joliet plant, which makes hydraulic components for construction machinery, are represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Caterpillar last year closed a rail-locomotive assembly plant in London, Ont., after workers there refused to accept pay cuts of around 50%. Caterpillar had said the pay levels and union work rules made that plant uncompetitive. The company then expanded production of locomotives at a non-union plant in Muncie, Ind   2013-04-30T14:42:49+00:00 http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/more_caterpillar_workers_battle_union_fines_over_strike_read_more/ http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/more_caterpillar_workers_battle_union_fines_over_strike_read_more/#When:16:03:44Z By Meribah Knight April 17, 2013 Fifteen more Caterpillar workers have filed federal charges against the machinists union in Joliet, alleging that the union unlawfully fined them for crossing the picket line during last summer’s three-month strike at Peoria-based Caterpillar Inc. Last May, after contract negotiations stalled, nearly 800 employees represented by the International Association of Machinists walked off the job at Caterpillar’s hydraulic-parts factory. After a few weeks, more than 100 returned to work, fed up over the lack of progress in the talks. The charges, filed with the National Labor Relations Board, are the latest in a string of lawsuits following the strike that were brought against IAM Local 851. To date, 41 workers have filed charges. The most recent come exactly three months after the union settled a case with two workers, Daniel Eggleston and Steven Olsen, who were fined by the union after crossing the picket line despite the fact that they were not officially members of the union for years.   According to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, other Caterpillar workers who contacted the foundation for free legal aid were fined more than $30,000 by the union after crossing the picket line this past summer. The union did not return calls seeking comment. The workers are being represented pro bono by the legal defense foundation, an organization associated with the National Right to Work Committee, backed by businesspeople and individuals who oppose labor contracts mandating membership. It lobbies for right-to-work legislation making union membership voluntary. Such legislation now exists in 24 states around the country including Michigan and Indiana.   2013-04-18T16:03:44+00:00 http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/nlrb_to_seek_supreme_court_review_in_noel_canning_v._nlrb/ http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/nlrb_to_seek_supreme_court_review_in_noel_canning_v._nlrb/#When:15:46:04Z March 12, 2013 http://www.nlrb.gov The National Labor Relations Board has determined not to seek en banc rehearing in Noel Canning v. NLRB, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held that the January 4, 2012 recess appointments of three members to the Board were invalid.  The Board, in consultation with the Department of Justice, intends to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court for review of that decision.  The petition for certiorari is due on April 25, 2013.   2013-03-14T15:46:04+00:00 http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/connecticut_case_could_draw_justices_into_recess_appointment_fight_read_mor/ http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/connecticut_case_could_draw_justices_into_recess_appointment_fight_read_mor/#When:00:43:22Z By JOSH GERSTEIN Feb. 4, 2013 A labor dispute in Connecticut could become a vehicle for the Supreme Court to be dragged into the controversy over whether President Barack Obama violated the Constitution by naming three members to the National Labor Relations Board last January when the Senate claimed not to be in recess. HealthBridge Management, an operator of nursing homes and rehabilitation hospitals, filed an application Monday asking Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to stay an order the NLRB obtained from a district court judge in December requiring the firm to rehire 700 employees involved in a labor dispute at several of the company’s nursing homes in Connecticut. The application cites the D.C. Circuit’s ruling last month rejecting the recess appointments and argues that the rehiring order should be halted until the validity of the NLRB’s authority to act is definitively resolved. Ginsburg denied the application Monday afternoon, a court spokesman said. She offered no explanation for her decision. HealthBridge, which has retained leading Supreme Court litigator Paul Clement, said through a spokesman late Monday that the firm plans to resubmit its stay application to Justice Antonin Scalia. He may be more receptive to some of the arguments Clement has marshaled. “There is a substantial likelihood not only that this Court will be called upon to resolve this pressing question in the months ahead, but that upon doing so, the Court will resolve it by adopting HealthBridge’s position,” the firm said in its first stay application filed Monday morning. The HealthBridge employees involved in the labor fight are represented by the Service Employees International Union. “We expected HealthBridge to resist justice for its employees,” the SEIU’s David Pickus said in a statement. “But the company’s decision to petition the Supreme Court made it clear just how far they are willing to go—and how many public resources they are willing to waste—just to keep these dedicated caregivers from returning to the jobs they love. We are pleased that Justice Ginsburg wasted no time in denying the company’s request so that these workers can get back on the job, where they belong.” A Second Circuit panel halted U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chatigny’s order for a few weeks, but dissolved the stay last week. HealthBridge raised the issue of the disputed recess appointments in both courts below. However, it is not clear whether either court considered it. It may not be much of an argument in the Second Circuit, since back in 1962, a panel of that appeals court upheld broad recess appointment powers. That decision still controls in federal courts in Connecticut, New York and Vermont. Also on HealthBridge’s application: Rosemary Alito, sister of Justice Samuel Alito. That means it’s likely the court will have to resolve the issue without Alito’s input. The firm’s application puts some SCOTUS-watcher language into an official filing, dropping the term “cert-worthy” while asserting that the case “presents three related but independently cert-worthy questions.” The application was filed first with Ginsburg because she is assigned by the court to handle stay requests and other emergency matters arising from the Second Circuit   2013-02-05T00:43:22+00:00 http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/court_rules_obama_nlrb_appointments_unconstitutional_read_more/ http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/court_rules_obama_nlrb_appointments_unconstitutional_read_more/#When:15:43:28Z Jan 25, 2013 By Sarah Parnass President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board violated the Constitution, a federal court of appeals ruled today, also raising questions about Obama’s pick for head of the Consumer Financial Protection Board. The court called the appointment of three members to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012 “an unconstitutional act,” because it took place when the Senate was in an “intrasession” recess, rather than an “intersession” recess. President Obama appointed Richard Cordray to be head of the CFPB at the same time. The recess was considered intrasession because of pro-forma sessions that Republican senators held during the Senate’s recess that month. Washington College of Law Professor Stephen Vladeck characterized those sessions as “congressional dysfunction and congressional obstructionism,” as they prevented the president from making his pick for those positions. “I think the point is that Congress should not be actively trying to thwart the president’s appointment power,” Vladeck told ABC News. In defense of his appointments that day, White House spokesperson Dan Pfeiffer wrote in the White House blog, “The Constitution gives the President the authority to make temporary recess appointments to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess, a power all recent Presidents have exercised. The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks. In an overt attempt to prevent the President from exercising his authority during this period, Republican Senators insisted on using a gimmick called “pro forma” sessions, which are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead one or two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds. But gimmicks do not override the President’s constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government running.” The court took issue with that, citing a 1976 case on campaign finance law: “Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers. The checks and balances that the Constitution places on each branch of government serve as ‘self-executing safeguard[s] against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other.’” The White House strongly disagreed with the court’s decision, calling it “novel and unprecedented.” “It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters at the daily press briefing. “So we respectfully but strongly disagree with the rulings.” Carney was adamant that the decision would have limited implications. “If you look at the case, the court decided a case brought by a specific company, and the decision applies to that case. It does not apply more broadly than that,” he said. “The decision that was put forward today had to do with one case, one company, one court. It does not have any impact… on [the NLRB’s] operations or functions or on the board itself. It has no bearing on Richard Cordray, and we, as I said, strongly disagree with it,” he added. The Justice Department pushed back on the ruling. “We disagree with the court’s ruling and believe that the president’s recess appointments are constitutionally sound,” a DOJ spokesperson said. Republicans praised the ruling today. House Speaker John Boehner called it “a victory for accountability in government.” “The Obama administration has consistently used the NLRB to impose regulations that hurt our economy by fostering uncertainty in the workplace and telling businesses where they can and cannot create jobs,” Boehner wrote. “Instead of operating under a shroud of controversy, the NLRB should meet the highest standards of transparency, starting with having its members approved by the people’s representatives.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the decision “reaffirmed that the Constitution is not an inconvenience but the law of the land, agreeing with the owners of a family-owned business who brought the case to the court.” Sen. Orrin Hatch said the court’s ruling “will go a long way toward restoring the constitutional separation of powers.” “Today’s ruling reaffirms that the Constitution is above political party or agenda, despite what the Obama Administration seems to think,” Hatch, R-Utah, wrote in a statement. “This wasn’t an activist decision or legislating from the bench. This was a court holding what the Constitution says – that a President may make a recess appointment only if the vacancy he would fill and the appointment occur during the same intersession recess.” Boehner, Hatch and McConnell were part of a group of lawmakers who submitted an amicus brief to the case. Executive Director of the NFIB Small Business Legal Center Karen Harned said her group was “thrilled” by the Court’s ruling. “Small-business owners throughout the country have suffered under the unabashedly pro-union decisions handed down by the NLRB,” Harned wrote in a statement. “They deserve to be protected from unconstitutional acts that exacerbate the NLRB’s devolution from a neutral arbiter between labor and employers to a pro-union government agency.” Georgetown Law Professor Susan Low Bloch said this ruling is important and that the case is likely to go to the Supreme Court. “I see this as part of the larger battle between the president and the Senate on the whole confirmation process,” Bloch told ABC News Friday, “which that’s not just administrative agencies but judicial appointments, and it’s a very important issue.” Vladeck agreed the case would be important for President Obama. “If left undisturbed it will only encourage more of the shenanigans by Congress and the pro-forma sessions that precipitated this crisis in the first place,” Vladeck said. “I suspect that if the [Obama] administration does appeal this decision that will be one of their central points.” Both professors agreed a final ruling against the constitutionality of the NRLB appointments could have implications for Cordray’s time as head of the CFPB and regulations placed on the financial sector during his tenure. President Obama nominated Cordray to serve a second term as CFPB director yesterday, renewing the Congressional battle over Cordray’s confirmation. A separate case against the government challenging Cordray’s appointment was filed this summer. The court has not yet reached a decision in that case. 2013-01-26T15:43:28+00:00 http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/unions_suffer_sharp_decline_in_membership_read_more/ http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/unions_suffer_sharp_decline_in_membership_read_more/#When:18:30:22Z BY SAM HANANEL JANUARY 23, 2013 WASHINGTON (AP)—The nation’s labor unions suffered sharp declines in membership last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Wednesday, led by losses in the public sector as cash-strapped state and local governments laid off workers and - in some cases - limited collective bargaining rights. The union membership rate fell from 11.8 percent to 11.3 percent of all workers, the lowest level since the 1930s. Total membership fell by about 400,000 workers to 14.4 million. More than half the loss - about 234,000 - came from government workers including teachers, firefighters and public administrators. The losses add another blow to a labor movement already stretched thin by fighting efforts in states like Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan to curb bargaining rights and weaken union clout. But unions also saw losses in the private sector, even as the economy expanded modestly. That rate fell of membership fell from 6.9 percent to 6.6 percent, a troubling sign for the future of organized labor, as job growth has generally taken place at nonunion firms. “To employers, it’s going to look like the labor movement is ready for a knockout punch,” said Gary Chaison, professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. “You can’t be a movement and get smaller.” Unions have steadily lost members since their peak in the 1950s, when about one of every three workers was in a union. By 1983, roughly 20 percent of American workers were union members. Losses in the public sector are hitting unions particularly hard since that has been one of the few areas where membership was growing over the past two decades. About 51 percent of union members work in government, where until recently, there had been little resistance to union organizing. That began to change when Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a law in 2011 eliminating most union rights for government workers. The state lost about 46,000 union members last year, mostly in the public sector. Union officials blame losses on the lingering effects of the recession, as well as GOP governors and state lawmakers who have sought to weaken union rights. “Our still-struggling economy, weak laws and political as well as ideological assaults have taken a toll on union membership, and in the process have also imperiled economic security and good, middle class jobs,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. In Indiana, where a new right-to-work law took effect last March, the state lost about 56,000 union members. The law prohibits unions from requiring workers to pay union fees, even if they benefit from a collective bargaining agreement. Michigan lawmakers approved a similar measure in December. Another problem for unions is an aging membership that is not being replaced by younger members. By age, the union membership rate was highest among workers ages 55 to 64 (14.9 percent) and lowest among those ages 16 to 24 (4.2 percent). In New York, the state with the highest union density, nearly one-quarter of the workforce belonged to a union. North Carolina had the lowest at 2.9 percent. Among full-time wage and salary workers, union members in 2012 had median weekly earnings of $943, while those who were not union members earned $742. 2013-01-23T18:30:22+00:00 http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/health_union_alliance_could_threaten_larger_rival_read_more/ http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/health_union_alliance_could_threaten_larger_rival_read_more/#When:16:38:40Z By SAM HANANEL AP January 3, 2013 Two health care unions are joining forces in a move that could threaten the dominance of a powerful rival and lead to a new round of labor tensions. The 185,000-member California Nurses Association is merging with the 10,000-member National Union of Healthcare Workers. They’re forming a new union of health sector workers. The merger renews a bitter rivalry between the nurses and the 2 million-member Service Employees International Union. The SEIU is the nation’s dominant health care union and a major force in Democratic politics. The merger also points to a trend that could see unions increasingly competing against each other for a dwindling pool of members. A priority for the new alliance is to lure 43,000 unionized workers at Kaiser Permanente away from the SEIU.     2013-01-07T16:38:40+00:00 http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/strike_likely_averted_at_east_coast_ports_read_more/ http://www.cruzandassociates.com/index.php?/site/strike_likely_averted_at_east_coast_ports_read_more/#When:20:31:42Z By DAVID B. CARUSO and SCOTT MAYEROWITZ, AP Fri Dec 28, 2012 The union for longshoremen along the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico has agreed to extend its contract for 30 days, averting a possible strike that could have crippled operations at ports that handle about 40 percent of all U.S. container cargo, a federal mediator announced Friday. The extension came after the union and an alliance of port operators and shipping lines resolved one of the stickier points in their months-long contract negotiations, involving royalty payments to the longshoremen for each container they unload. Negotiations will continue until at least midnight Jan. 28. Some important contract issues remain to be resolved, but the head of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, George Cohen, said the agreement on royalties was “a major positive step forward.” “While some significant issues remain in contention, I am cautiously optimistic that they can be resolved in the upcoming 30-day extension period,” he said. The terms of the royalty agreement were not announced. The master contract between the International Longshoremen’s Association and the U.S. Maritime Alliance originally expired in September. The two sides agreed to extend it once before, for 90 days, but it had been set to expire again at 12:01 a.m. Sunday. As recently as Dec. 19, the president of the longshoremen, Harold Daggett, had said a strike was expected. A work stoppage would have idled shipments of a vast number of consumer products, from electronics to clothing, and kept U.S. manufacturers from getting parts and raw materials delivered easily. Business groups expressed relief that the two sides had agreed to keep the ports open. “A coast-wide port shutdown is not an option. It would have severe economic ramifications for the local, national and even global economies and wreak havoc on the supply chain,” said National Retail Federation President Matthew Shay. Major ports that would have been frozen included the massive terminals serving New York City overseen by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and critical seaports in Savannah, Ga., Houston, and Hampton Roads, Va. New York Shipping Association President Joseph Curto said avoiding a strike is critical “to thousands of workers who depend on port activities for their livelihood.” Other ports that would have been affected by a strike are in Boston; the Philadelphia area; Baltimore; Wilmington, N.C.; Charleston, S.C.; Jacksonville, Fla.; Port Everglades, Fla.; Miami; Tampa, Fla.; Mobile, Ala.; and New Orleans. Longshoremen on the West Coast have a separate collective bargaining agreement. 2012-12-28T20:31:42+00:00