Dredging Jaxport? 9 Points You Should Consider

[mtraininjax]

The bottom line is that Miami is funded and the dredging is already underway.  The other major East Coast ports are also better positioned and much farther ahead of Jax in the process, too.   

We might want to start giving serious consideration to Plan B. 

I've been saying this for years, even when Anderson was in charge of JaxPORT, it makes sense to play to our strengths, Aggregates, Coal, the new LNG, the fuel depot. We can have some containers, but with Savannah and Brunswick so close, we would be better off working on solutions that incorporate a Regional Partnership, instead of competing with every city to see who can kill our river and marine ecosystems, all in the name of jobs that may NEVER appear after its all said and done.

[simms3]

I have been against dredging and expanding JaxPort, but something else to consider for the side in favor of dredging is the fact that West Coast ports are now just recovering and moving massive backlog from an effective multi-month strike and showdown with the ILA union.  The 2nd time in a decade actually (makes me hate unions - these assholes get paid $200k to push a fucking button and they're all thugs; their actions have wreaked economic havoc and wrecked countless other people's lives, not the least of which are our nation's farmers already suffering from droughts this year).

It seems to have partially killed the ports out here.  And their (the union members') greed has also put a lot of people out of business, including (likely in the future) themselves as port activity is forecast to really dwindle out here.  For about a year now (everyone knew there were contract issues for a solid year now and CA is not right to work at all) businesses, importers/exporters, and farmers have been formulating ways to avoid the major ports on the West Coast.  And in fact, on both sides - from the strike in 2004 - there are still clients lost overseas who never forgave their grievances from the prior strike (and that put a lot of people such as farmers out of business then, never to recover) and there are shippers who never came back to the W Coast.

As an example of this, Hanjin (which also does business through JaxPort) has pulled out of Portland for good.  Portland and JaxPort are similar in scale.  LA/Long Beach, Oakland, and Seattle/Tacoma are too big to completely abandon, but many shippers are eager to make more use out of E Coast and Gulf Coast ports, and many companies are getting creative with ways to avoid the W Coast and use other means, even if it's not direct shipping.

What all of this has done is terrible for the consumer as prices have gone up dramatically, or will go up if they have not done so.  It's pathetic, but United Steelworkers had a strike in solidarity as well (which is having real effects on an already unionized, expensive, construction cycle which has already seen labor and material shortage).

I guess what I'm saying is that FL is a very pro-business, right to work state.  Even NY is pro-business compared to CA.  Which is pathetically sad.  So there may be something to capitalize on.

[simms3]

^^^Always on point.   

[simms3]

Well their direct actions are having direct effects on both W Coast (detrimental) and E Coast (beneficial) ports, which is what this thread is about.  This thread is not about mortgage brokers.

You're entitled to your opinions, but do realize that most people do not share your sympathy for the unions.

[simms3]

^^^Well I see you want to go down that road.  Their jobs are otherwise easily replaceable without a union contract.  Their job is not rocket science and pays better than 99% of jobs out there.  It doesn't require a brain surgeon.  Legal parameters in place in CA and some other states allow their job to be far more important as a direct tie to the individual within a collective unit that has that job, than it needs to be.

For instance, if I don't think I'm paid well enough or treated fairly, then there are avenues I can navigate that may, or may not result in an outcome favorable to me.  There are not that many people in the world who can replace me, so me as an individual on my own have some leverage based on the skillset and knowledge base I have gained for myself, however, I AM replaceable and I must keep my employer content with me on my own merit.  It is up to me to prove my worth and negotiate it.  It is up to me to look out for me.  And there are laws in place that do prevent the obvious - no slave labor, no sexual harassment, etc.

So it can be argued that these people should unionize because there are a TON of people who can replace them if they aren't up to par, and that way they get job security.  Well they also get way more pay than they otherwise would.  It's a legal system, in other words, that results in these things we call strikes, that have utterly crippling effects for a lot of other people, mostly middle class people actually.  It's not the individual importance of their job or their individual ability to do their job.  It's the fact that CA legal parameters have allowed this particular job to be fully unionized and so it's not one position that is important or unimportant, it's the fact that 1 body becomes the entire workforce through the union.

It's no different when transit workers strike and then nobody else can get to work or where they need to be because a few uneducated button pushers who make $90-125k a year before massive benefits can do that because the legal setup allows their position to be fully unionized, and therefore irreplaceable.  It's not that they are that important, individually, or that they couldn't otherwise just be replaced by literally millions of others who can do that job (and would LOVE that job), or that they are actually underpaid for what they do, it's a system that allows them to take advantage of others, in this case, taxpayers.

So while you might run in circles who are super pro-union, most people recognize that in this day and age they are job and efficiency killers.

At the end of the day, THIS union, the ILA, is directly related to the point at hand.  Yes I got political on it, because it IS political.  Unions and politics may result in a game changing variable for JaxPort.  The politics that breed a more business friendly environment (FL) combined with the politics that result in these business unfriendly calamities back west can turn the tides for Jaxport.  Mortgage bankers have nothing to do with it.

What's annoying is how static you are in your views towards everything.  Like your predictable interjection about mortgage bankers.  Completely irrelevant.  And completely political.  At least try to be more dynamic in your thoughts - it's almost like you quit growing ages ago and haven't been receptive or open to new ideas or different political views ever since.  Most people I know, on BOTH sides of the aisle, go back and forth on issues and are constantly growing and learning as they go along, and their views on things change as a result.  You must be stuck in a limbo because you have the most predictably repertoire of views and opinions about everything.

[simms3]

^^^But none of what you say is logical.  Well, it's not that it's not logical, it's that you abandon all of the important facts.

1) My point wasn't about evil unions, as a standalone post about evil unions.  It's that A LOT of people are pissed at the unions, enough so based on union actions that they are taking their business elsewhere, and potentially, Jax stands to benefit.  So the whole post was quite relevant, even the political aspect of it.

1a) You latched onto the most granular aspects of my almost entirely relevant post and turned this whole thing into a political debate about something bigger than Jaxport, which is something you're really good at doing.  And so thus this will be my last post on this issue and you can have the last word, which I know you love.

2) Everyone has a contract.  True.  Anything is meaningless without a contract, at the end of the day.  The difference between MOST people's contracts and a union contract is that MOST people have a contract with an employer between themself and the employer, and there are no outside parties that have influence over said contract, merely standard employment law and what was negotiated on an INDIVIDUAL basis based on the criteria of the job description and the skills and assets that said employee brings to the table to meet or even gasp, exceed, that criteria.

A union employee has a contract with the UNION, and so their employment contract is essentially collective.  The UNION does the negotiating for them.  This defeats their individual importance and the whole notion of performance, however, it does allow them to remain employed and even compensated in a way absolutely incommensurate with their performance or their skill set.

The UNION essentially REVERSES everything you said about individual worth or value.

3) "People being paid properly..."

I think that's where you and I/most people have a problem here.  A transit station worker in San Francisco makes a base salary about in line with mine.  Granted they don't get paid a bonus, however, they could easily be pulling in $100k/year to sit in a chair and essentially do nothing, and it's not like they have student debt.  They can take a boatload of sick days, or even just not show up.

Keep in mind, while also unionized, public school teachers are on average making FAR less.  You tell me who you would pay more, on average, keeping everything under consideration.  An inner city high school calculus teacher?  Or a bus driver?  If the bus driver, would it be 20, 30, or even 40% more than the math teacher?

You see, a union contract takes individual negotiating power away from an employer's hands.  And in both of the cases above, at the end of the day, the employer is the taxpayer.

I know your answer to this.  Which seems more "out of line"?

A crane operator with no college education earns $200k, Cadillac benefits, strict 40 hr work weeks, pension that equates to 85-100% of final year base pay for the rest of his life after say a whopping 10 or 15 years of "service", and guaranteed contractual job security for years to come because that's what his/her union negotiated on his/her behalf.

A Wharton grad with an impressive resume who is willing to work 100-110 hour weeks underwriting M&A transactions that put whole companies on the public markets and allow every day Joe Schmoes like the crane operator to invest (either directly or through pension), possibly making [everyday] people millions or billions of dollars, a starting base of $130k with bonus anywhere from 25-100% commensurate with performance.  Standard benefits, and maybe 401k match up to 3-6% after vesting for a certain period.

Either one may have a family to feed and a mortgage, so no need to get all wishy washy and emotional.  Only one worked hard to get into a top university and likely has immense student debt as a result - a risk taken to try to eek ahead some day.


You may think the crane operator is worth far more.  But at the end of the day, in only the latter case are you even sitting at the table with the prospective employee and negotiating compensation and benefits.

Pardon those of us who look at the above situation and see how backward it really is.

[mbwright]

I'm sure if the ports had non-union labor, the wages would cut in half, and we would all see cheaper retail pricing.  Just like when US made goods were moved off shore for child labor/sweat shops, your retail price on Levi's and many other goods (Coach Purses) went down to reflect the reduced labor.  (this of course did not happen)  Prices remained high, and stockholders and executives got bonuses for saving more beans.  Some unions age good, and some are not. 

[PeeJayEss]

You may want to act indignant at stephen's response and make like your original post was just about the Jaxport issue with just some background info on the west coast to support it, but go back and read it. It sure reads like a convenient excuse for you to go union bashing.

I think that's where you and I/most people have a problem here.  A transit station worker in San Francisco makes a base salary about in line with mine.  Granted they don't get paid a bonus, however, they could easily be pulling in $100k/year to sit in a chair and essentially do nothing, and it's not like they have student debt.  They can take a boatload of sick days, or even just not show up.

A crane operator with no college education earns $200k, Cadillac benefits, strict 40 hr work weeks, pension that equates to 85-100% of final year base pay for the rest of his life after say a whopping 10 or 15 years of "service", and guaranteed contractual job security for years to come because that's what his/her union negotiated on his/her behalf.

Sooo...you get all your "facts" from breitbart? That $200k number is bonkers. Non-union California dock workers make $20-30k, which is basically subsistence living. ILWU's base rate is about $35/hour for senior workers, then they have shift and skill adjustments (night, holiday, certifications) that put the average senior employee at about $50/hour. So that is about $100k if you are working full time. Add in overtime for some jobs (crane operators are in high demand - also, do you think your job actually requires more skill than operating a crane?) and you might get up into $140k/year territory. Maybe there is a single crane operator making $200k, and he's probably working 84 hours a week inside of a small box that is suspended in the air. And all those benefits are included in that $200k. That's two jobs as far as I am concerned, doesn't seem too overpaid to me, especially given the COL (divided all numbers by 2 for Jacksonville money, people). Also, his level of education is immaterial, unless you just want to make this issue about class. Did your four years of drinking really prepare you for your job as well as this guy's training and apprenticeship prepared him for his?

Over $200k would be clerks and other experienced, high level people. Basically managers. Does management not qualify as a level of employment that you see fit for earning a high income?

Strict 40 hour work weeks? Nope. Some work a lot more than that, most work less. Hours are a major part of this labor dispute. Average income for a full time worker (with overtime) is about $140k. Average income across all workers is about $83k, so a lot of people are working part time and making a lot less. Max pension is negotiated to $91k/year, so be careful you aren't basing that pension % on your inflated incomes. It is just based on base pay, without the working adjustments. Not exactly a golden parachute.

Are these guys paid more than they are worth? Probably. But where in the rules of free market capitalism does it say these guys aren't allowed to organize and collectively bargain. So they're overplaying their hand which may eventually lead to their demise. Are they not allowed to do that? Do you want the government to come in and tell them what to do?

And why is what you do, which you seem to think so very highly of, more important than what they do? Is labor less important to our economy than writing out paragraph's long diatribes against those evil laborers while simultaneously waxing philosophical about the importance of your job and how hard you work at it? I think those guys were probably lifting heavy things while you wrote your responses on this internet forum.

A Wharton grad with an impressive resume who is willing to work 100-110 hour weeks underwriting M&A transactions that put whole companies on the public markets and allow every day Joe Schmoes like the crane operator to invest (either directly or through pension), possibly making [everyday] people millions or billions of dollars, a starting base of $130k with bonus anywhere from 25-100% commensurate with performance.  Standard benefits, and maybe 401k match up to 3-6% after vesting for a certain period.

I did not realize mergers and acquisitions was God's work. Forget Mother Teresa, we should be canonizing all these suffering, altruistic investment bankers.

How do you think people should be paid? By amount of schooling? By an IQ test? Perhaps a more formal class system can be put in place so these laborers don't accumulate too much money while us thinkers and making a real difference?

Also, while organized labor may at times overstep what we find reasonable, don't forget where all those workplace protections you mentioned come from. Or what conditions were like for workers in those positions 100 years ago. Just because we have protective laws today doesn't mean the companies have become any less ruthless. Get rid of organized labor completely, which seems to be what you and many other union-bashers want, and you will certainly see companies reverting to the abusive practices they employed in the past. You think you are some kind of crusader for the free market, but that's not what you're advocating for. What you are advocating for, whether you realize it or not, are corporate profits. Nothing wrong with corporate profits, but you seem to think it is more important than the welfare of the people creating that profit.