Possible Strike at the Port?
I'm out of town right now, but I just caught this item in the Daily Breeze. Anybody have the on the ground scoop on the state of negotiations? I hadn't heard mention of the clerks contract before I left town, and none of my ILWU buddies mentioned it, so it comes to me as a bit of a surprise.
Labels: Marine Clerks, Por t of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach
70 Comments:
In the labor world, things like this don't tend to get discussed much around the figurative water cooler until an actual crisis is imminent, as it seems to be now. Bet you it'll be a hot topic on the waterfront tomorrow.
If OCU goes on strike and there's a grocery strike/lockout, it's gonna be a long hot summer here in the harbor, is all I can say for sure.
It comes as no surprise to me that none of your Longie friends mentioned it to you. Besides being old news to us, we consider it bad form at best to talk at length or in detail about matters concerning these types of issues.
This not '02. We had virtually no political cover then. We do now.
So does all organized labor.
we consider it bad form at best to talk at length or in detail about matters concerning these types of issues.
I can't recall an actual strike where I wasn't hearing my buddies, especially casuals, bitching about it for a month or two in advance.
Read the comments section after the article. Here are some highlights:
"What's Un-American?"
Nothing could be more un-American than a small minority of low-skilled laborers holding the national economy hostage for their own benefit. What's truly "American"? Individualism, economic competition, equality and hard work -- essentially, nothing the ILWU stands for.
"solutions, solutions..."
the ports of Long Beach should be closed down to eliminate all the air pollution generated by their cranes; the boats parked near our shores generating tons of pollution. All loading and unloadding should be moved to ports that do not take as much space of a populated area as the LA and Long Beach ports. All cargo movement should be made through Mexico which would be beneficial for all the carriers as well as economically advantageous for the wall-marts, targets, sears of the world. The people who are currently clerking the ports don't require any special training; any high school student can apply; any high school educated person qualifies for the clerk positions which the unions are defending...
- henry danielson
"ILWU..SO EASY A CAVEMAN CAN DO IT."
THE MEMBERS OF THE ILWU ARE LAZY, OVER-PAID AND JUST PLAIN GREEDY. THEY ARE BUNCH OF DRUNKS WHO PRACTICE NEPOTISM. MANY ARE CONVICTED FELONS WHO, ACCORDING TO THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPT. SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO THE PORTS. ANYONE WITH A 2ND GRADE EDUCATION CAN UNLOAD BANANNA BOATS, SUCH MUNDANE WORK IS SO EASY A CAVEMAN COULD DO IT. I SAY FIRE ALL THE GREEDY MEMBERS OF THE CORRUPT ILWU AND HIRE DAY LABORERS, AT LEAST YOU CAN GET AN HONEST DAYS WORK FROM THEM.
- UNION-BUSTER
Eat cake mofos...aint a damn thing you can do about us. Many have tried to take us out, from Nixon to Bush... ALL HAVE FAILED and always will. We run the Coast. PERIOD.
Eat cake mofos...aint a damn thing you can do about us. Many have tried to take us out, from Nixon to Bush... ALL HAVE FAILED and always will. We run the Coast. PERIOD.
I'm presuming this is coming from a Longie - that pseudo-mafia, bad boy stereotype has a lot to do with why the union doesn't have the level of respect that it could have with both the general public or other unions. You can either act like the serious, well paid professional laborers that so many union workers are, or you can act like an entitled thug - you can't be both.
Amen Calamari. It is extremely hard to defend a noble concept like organized labor when the laborers being heard in public are saying...
Eat cake mofos...aint a damn thing you can do about us. Many have tried to take us out, from Nixon to Bush... ALL HAVE FAILED and always will. We run the Coast. PERIOD.
If only the party line could be something closer to: "we are a skilled workforce working in a very dangerous environment and have needed to organize in order to ensure fair treatment from our employers and guarantee access to adequate health care and a middle class lifestyle."
Yawn. You know what? We're a skilled workforce in a dangerous environment needing fair treatment from our employers, AND we run the coast. Eat cake. In moderation.
Yes, I know that the outcome of this complicated round of labor negotiations hinges upon what some anonymous guy said in the Comments section of a Daily Breeze story...but I think things will somehow work out for the best.
"I can't recall an actual strike where I wasn't hearing my buddies, especially casuals, bitching about it for a month or two in advance."
That's as may be, but you gotta remember that casuals 1. are not a very good source of accurate info, and 2. are always bitching about something or other.
"...we run the coast"
Yeah sure. Go ahead and keep telling yourselves that.
In the meantime, the rest of us folks - you know, those of us who make it on our own - who don't need to be in a gang, oops I mean a "union" to have power or even a decent life can sit back and be impressed with you.
I always take rumors from casuals with a grain of salt, but they are mine canaries. I don't have a lot of sympathy for their complaints - while I think the casual system is far, far from ideal, those guys knew what they were getting into. No one made them do it, and there's always another guy who'd murder to take their place.
It does seem a little quiet on all fronts regarding the clerk contract, though. Here's some LA Times coverage on it - nothing of real substance, but an update.
I love it..."Bush tried to take ILWU out". What a joke. If ILWU would have taken the strike much longer and damaged the economy any further, he would have done the right thing and had the guard get things moving. And the majority of the public would have been supportive. ILWU will destroy themselves, eventually, through their own ignorance.
The longshoreman I know are some very good people. Yes, they may drink some, but they are good people. Much of the middle class is disappearing these days. We should stick by the longshoreman...as well as the supermarket employees.
Annie wrote:
If ILWU would have taken the strike much longer
It wasn't a strike, it was a lockout. A lockout is the exact opposite of a strike.
ILWU will destroy themselves, eventually, through their own ignorance
That's an 8.5 on the Iron-O-Meter, at least. Thanks for playing.
I know from personal experience that the ILWU and their casuals only care about their own contracts. They only get involved in other groups' strike situations as a matter of earning "points" when called to walk a picket line, and that's all they care about the situation. they mostly don't know and don't care about the workers involved. You most often find casuals on the line to earn points, and they are usually the most ignorant. IF longies are talking about this at all, (bitching) its' because they've been contacted and told to be ready to walk a picket line and it's interrupted their weekend plans...
IMBS-
Oooh boy....lockout....let me wipe the tears out of your eyes first... So ILWU didn't instigate the so called "lockout"? They didn't play a little game by not signing a contract extension during the negotiation? So you expect the shipping companies to allow you idiots to work without a contract, which would allow you to play further games by conducting work slow-downs? ILWU forced their employer to protect THEIR business and lock you saps out. ILWU forced the situation, so I therefore see it as an effective strike by ILWU. Man, the union brainwashing/games/lies really work.
And by the way, it is those sort of actions, by ILWU, that make me believe they will eventually create their own demise. ILWU needs to wise up.
You were wrong, Annie. It happens.
As to the lockout, PMA's then-president Joseph Miniace had been planning it ever since he was hired in 1996. Not all of the shipping and stevedoring companies represented by PMA wanted to do anything so drastic; one of Miniace's achievements was to lobby a sufficient number of them to fall in line with him. He even publicized his plans to reporters in early 2002, months before the 1999-2002 contract was to expire.
His strategy in locking out the ILWU was to encourage the Bush administration either to militarize the docks and break the union (best case, from his POV) or to use the provisions of the Taft-Hartley act to cut short the negotiating process and force the union to accept a "last, best and final" contract offer from PMA that would essentially be the same as its "first and worst."
What he wasn't counting on was the impatience of the retailers and other corporations that depended on the fast flow of goods through the west coast ports--Wal-Mart, Target, the automakers, et al. While none of them were big fans of the ILWU, they were even less enthusiastic about their businesses being in total disarray because of Miniace's gamble. At least the ILWU always moved the cargo. And these companies had at least as much pull with the Administration as the PMA companies did.
Ultimately, after PMA's lockout had damaged the US economy to the tune of ten billion dollars, the Bush administration did use Taft-Hartley to intervene. But the contract that resulted, after some deft go-betweening by federal mediator Peter Hurtgen, was hardly the resounding victory for PMA that Miniace had promised the member companies. PMA got some clarification of technology issues that had been introduced in previous contracts; ILWU got a small raise, a better pension, jurisdiction over yard planning, and total maintenance of benefits.
By 2004, Miniace had been fired, partly because certain PMA member companies were very disappointed with the results of the lockout.
So there you have it. Do your research next time. Admittedly, not all of this is Google-able, but a lot of it is.
imbg......
I'd like to thank you for providing an excruciatingly exact account of 2002 and I can say so from personal experience because I am a full member of Local 13, ILWU who lived through the times you described. There remains many small details, possibly not significant to some, but to me remain large....and one in particular is the fact that at the last minute before the lockout none other than Elliot Scalia, the Solicitor General of the NLRB, the head Lawyer of the entire NLRB offered a deal to both parties to further extend the existing contract yet again in order to not shut down the docks during continued negotiations. We said yes, of course, with no conditions. The PMA said no.
That is indisputable, unimpeachable fact and history, not opinion. The PMA had every desire to damage financially ever customer it had across the country, with the intention of placing blame on us. The PMA, in the months preceding their lockout of us, had urged all the customers to buy container space before the July dealine for the contract, falsely claiming that we would go on strike at that time. We had no ability to go on strike, we never even held a vote to consider such an action. This scare tatic by the PMA created a flood of goods in the harbor that overwhelmed the capacity that existed to handle it, thereby prompting the PMA to claim that we 'slowed down' our work. We NEVER slowed down...we were slowed down by the PMA by the flood of work that THEY created.
Nobody on this good earth could have moved that much cargo in a timely normal manner. And nowhere in my memory resides such a calculated, phony crock of shit foisted on the American public in order to smear a particular group of people whose sole focus was to do the job they were hired to do. And thats what we do. We are not perfect by any means. But on the whole, we are nothing close to what I have read from some people as describing us as greedy corrupt and lazy.
For those of you who say that. go fuck yourself. But I doubt you have the brains to figure out what that means.
Once again, thank you imbg, you got it so right it makes me wonder who you are
smiles and peace.........
:)
Dutch13
Okay, so you all are saying that ILWU was NEVER presented the opportunity to extend their contract prior to the "lockout"? And PMA just locked ILWU out because Miniace publicly planned the lockout all along?
Okay. I've learned long ago to never try to argue with the perfection of organized labor known as ILWU. It gets stupid real quick...
Annie
Annie...
If you read what I wrote, you will see where I said "....at the last minute before the lockout none other than Elliot Scalia, the Solicitor General of the NLRB, the head Lawyer of the entire NLRB offered a deal to both parties to further extend the existing contract yet again..."
The words 'yet again' are the operative words here. We were at the time of the lockout working under an extension of the CBA, or contract if you will.
You may also note in what I wrote where I said plainly that we ( the ILWU) are not perfect by any means.
I've never met a perfect human, never will either.
Dutch13
Dutch:
You're welcome. I'm a full member as well, but I was a casual at the time.
Annie wrote:
Okay, so you all are saying that ILWU was NEVER presented the opportunity to extend their contract prior to the "lockout"?
No.
And PMA just locked ILWU out because Miniace publicly planned the lockout all along?
Yes.
Actually, if we're going to be nitpickingly correct, we should say: Miniace planned the lockout all along, and he began publicly signaling his plans some months before the contract expired in 2002.
But yes, the lockout--and I hope that after some frantic Googling you at least understand that it was a lockout, and that a lockout is the opposite of a strike--was entirely premeditated by the PMA.
Okay. I've learned long ago to never try to argue with the perfection of organized labor known as ILWU.
And yet here you are, attempting to dispute issues of fact without having the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Your problem is not that you're trying to argue with organized labor or with the ILWU; your problem is that you're trying to argue.
...why are so many longshoremen such fucking arrogant meatheads? Yes, it's dangerous work like, say, logging and fishing, electrical power line installation/repair and roofing. And being a bush pilot. But you never see those other guys swanning around demanding respect from everyone for what they do. Go anywhere in Pedro town and you'll find a longshoreman acting like a drunken, obnoxious frat boy. Without the college education.
Sorry. It's like what l.a.l. said above. Individually, longies have no real power. So why am I supposed to think they're so great again?
The ones that don't act like entitled thuggish twats oughtta be policing the ones that do, but instead the non-twats just accept idiotic behavior as though it's a natural consequence of 'such a dangerous line of work'. And that way, you get fairly intelligent guys like IMBG running block for assholes like Mr. "Eat-Cake-Mofos" above as opposed to getting him in line.
I just think longies - if they absolutely must seem 'tough' like Mr. Mofo up there - would be better off adopting the strong, silent & reserved type of toughness (think Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen or Chow Yun Fat in any John Woo film). At least they'd be more pleasant to be around. THESE longie clowns, on the other hand, come off like Biff in 'Back to the Future', essentially annoying and bullying their way through their days like that's gonna foist their imagined superiority onto everybody else.
Sure, I get that the work longshoremen do is hard, and they overcame a lot of bullshit in the past, and they definitely have the right to organize, but their "skills" aren't THAT extensive. I still don't get why we're supposed to be in awe of them. They'd have a lot more respect from the public if they didn't act like they need it so badly.
I still want to know where all these longshoremen are who are running around demanding to be worshiped. Seriously. I think 99% of this longshore "arrogance" is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, I am not an unbiased observer, so I'll give you that. But honestly--my right hand to Cthulhu--I don't see longshoremen acting like anybody should worship them. They're just proud. And loud (even now it's a mostly male industry, and still mostly working-class backgrounds).
Let me put it this way. If I were to spend a lot of time in Oceanside, CA, especially in bars, I would probably come across a whole bunch of guys with USMC tattoos and USMC sweatshirts, hollering "Semper Fi!" and, as the nights wore on and the drinks flowed, telling stories and singing dirty songs about what tough guys Marines are and how many battles Marines have won and what a bunch of hardasses Marine drill sergeants are. Now, as a non-Marine and a left wing anti-war activist type, I could certainly choose to get all butt-hurt and grumble about these damned arrogant jarheads...who do they think they are, anyway...any lunkhead can do pushups and follow orders for a living...
But for one thing, I've never humped a fifty-pound backpack for thirty miles with motherfuckers shooting live rounds over my head; and for another thing, I'm in Oceanside, for Chrissake. So regardless of what I think of the Marine Corps, or militarism, or Oceanside, or the way people behave when they have a few drinks in them...to get angry at these guys for being vocally proud of belonging to an organization that's kind of hard to get into, or for loudly talking shop in a place where a lot of them gather, would be just a little bit unfair of me, no? And what concern is it of mine, anyway?
I'm not saying that I wouldn't have negative feelings in a situation like that; I'm saying that those feelings would definitely bear some examination.
If you want to think that I'm running interference for some anonymous guy on a message board who was directing his bravado at some anonymous union bashers (and not at you, or your mom, or your deity of choice), then I guess I can't do anything to change your mind. But I can ask you to ask yourself why you take it so personally. I'm sure you're an awesome guy who does a good job at something challenging, too. Nobody's trying to make you feel left out. It's not about you at all. OK?
By the way, individually nobody's worth a fuck, present company included. And strong, silent types are often seen as insolent and standoffish. So there.
"That dang union must not be so great if all those guys do is stand around being quiet all the time!"
Agree with imbg about the Longshore "arrogance," I don't see it either. Pride, yes, arrogance no. Maybe some people just have personal issues.
Aack. Pride shmide. I still don’t see what there is to be so proud about – no more so than your average person who takes on challenges and gets shit done. Anyway, there’s internal pride and then there’s swagger. I can tell the difference and see plenty of the latter.
From people’s responses, here’s what I’m hearing:
a) a longie on your average day is like a dumb jarhead on a piss-drunk day
(Check. But only for some.)
b) it’s “unfair” to grumble about other people’s crap, despite its crappiness, if they were there first and there are a lot more of them than there are you
(In which case, positive change would be a whole lot harder to come by, and justice would rely more heavily on census results and the dates of people’s land deeds)
c) it’s pointless to grumble about other people’s crap, despite its crappiness, if they were there first and there are a lot more of them than there are you
(Well, I feel at least a little better for getting this off my chest. That’s gotta be worth something, no?)
d) that longie arrogance doesn’t exist
(or maybe some are just exposed to it so much they think it’s the norm – kinda like the guy who works in a sewer and gets used to the smell after awhile)
e) those guys aren’t obnoxious; they’re just loud and proud
(which, in my mind, is the same thing as saying ‘her face isn’t ugly; it’s just pimply and oozing puss’.)
f) they can’t control and/or curb the aforementioned loudness and/or proudness. they’re just male and mostly from working-class backgrounds
(which, in my mind, is the same thing as saying ‘she can’t help her immutable ugliness; she just has bad genes’. The debatability of the immutability of the traits in question aside - and now that the class card has been played - do you think any longshoreman would actually be flattered by this defense?)
g) strong aversion or dislike of a particular irritant necessarily indicates personal issues and points up the need for me to do some serious self-examination.
(Done. I did a deep dive into my soul and came to the startling revelation that I really hate it when longshoremen act arrogant and think they’re any better than people who aren’t longshoremen.)
h) the more time or words one invests into the act of raising an objection, the more it implies a lack of organized thought, thus weakening one’s position or credibility.
(One of imbg’s famous logical fallacies, with all due respect to the Giant. Let’s call it the ‘imbg gambit’ in his honor. And humor me for a sec while I do a tangential blog saxophone solo to break it down for you:
A-one and a-two and a…
What happens in the ‘imbg gambit’ is you’re supposed to get ruffled by his suggestion that you’re ruffled. Perhaps taking things a little too seriously. ‘Lighten up. There must be something else, something more personal, more insidious in there that’s motivating you’, he’ll say. ‘Why are you taking the time to look at me so closely?’ he may ask. ‘Why is this important to you?’ See, the accusation alone that you might be emotionally-driven, too unstable to be reasonable is, in and of itself, intended to have a destabilizing effect. If the gambit works, you back down to save face, or maybe you blow up and start launching personal attacks instead of calmly making your point. In reality, you don’t have to take the bait. The force of one’s objection isn’t supposed to invalidate one’s reasons for objecting.
…The beatnik in the back corner of the smoky jazz club snaps his fingers in approval.
And look, I’m a chick, alright? I cried at my wedding, I cry during Kleenex commercials. That I’m emotional is yesterday’s news to me. I feel strongly about something and I employ perhaps a few extra thousand words or so to try especially hard to make my point. I’m not the one trying to come off as the tough guy here. And the reason this is “so” important to me is because it’s in my face day in and day out. I can’t drive up the 110 without some shaven-headed jerk-off trying to drag race with me.
Anyway, if it’ll make you feel better if I assign a magnitude to just how much arrogant longies bug me, I’d say it’s somewhere on the spectrum between paper cuts and my Jesus freak neighbor, so it’s not that bad. Expect another 10,000 word essay on wood fiber product induced injury tomorrow)
- and finally -
i) there aren’t a lot of Spaghetti Western, Bullitt or John Woo back in his Hong Kong days fans out there in LOTE land.
(Pity.)
Oh, and btw, you’re right that none of us are worth a fuck. Spatially and effectually we are insignificant on the scale of the cosmos. But some are worth even less of a fuck than others. Isn’t that why so many people on this blog bitch and moan about inequality and what others need to do for them to make things right? Plus a) the ability to independently determine the quality of one’s own working life for oneself rather than thru a cumbersome quasi-democratic process, b) the freedom to port one’s skills from job-to-job anywhere around the country or even the world… those are all personal powers that some may exercise more readily than others. That’s all I meant.
Love,
so what…
P.S. imbg, you’re too smart to be a longie. are you sure this is what you want to do with your life?
Dear So What:
Your official nickname here until you pick a better one is "So What."
Please pick a better one.
Don't worry; you can't possibly do any worse than I did.
Now, then, to address your points, some of which verge on salience:
Pride shmide. I still don’t see what there is to be so proud about – no more so than your average person who takes on challenges and gets shit done.
I still don't see why it concerns you. Justified or not, as long as it's not at your expense, it's not really legitimate grounds for grievance.
Anyway, there’s internal pride and then there’s swagger. I can tell the difference and see plenty of the latter.
So your problem is with people outwardly expressing themselves? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but this isn't the movies and you don't get to cast the extras. It was your fate to live in early 21st century America, not stiff-upper-lip 1940s Britain, or taciturn high-lonesome 1850s New Mexico, or the timeless mountains of Tibet, or some other place where people keep their feelings to themselves and spend all their time walking slowly down deserted lanes accompanied only by their own thoughts and a sparsely arranged soundtrack.
Oh, sure, some folks wear their Id less conspicuously on their sleeves than others. But I can't help suspecting that if you lived in Silver Lake or Santa Monica instead of San Pedro, you would find a way to feel oppressed by those yuppies who won't stop flaunting their perfectly dressed toddlers in their SUV-sized strollers RIGHT IN YOUR FACE, or those ubiquitous coked-up hipsters who insist on making YOU PERSONALLY overhear their stories about meeting Banksy or their trip to Prague or whatever the fuck. Call it a hunch. Tell me if I'm wrong, here.
From people’s responses, here’s what I’m hearing:
a) a longie on your average day is like a dumb jarhead on a piss-drunk day
(Check. But only for some.)
Now, now. Don't play dumb. You know perfectly well that I chose an extreme example to make the point. Which leads to...
b) it’s “unfair” to grumble about other people’s crap, despite its crappiness, if they were there first and there are a lot more of them than there are you
(In which case, positive change would be a whole lot harder to come by, and justice would rely more heavily on census results and the dates of people’s land deeds)
Wrong. The point was that it's unfair knowingly to put yourself in a place where an overwhelming number of people of a certain type are to be found, and then to complain about those aspects of their behavior (group bonding, talking shop) that stem from their being present in a "critical mass."
c) it’s pointless to grumble about other people’s crap, despite its crappiness, if they were there first and there are a lot more of them than there are you
Don't know where you got that from. It must have been something that one of those other people said. As you know, I only come here to read my own writing.
(Well, I feel at least a little better for getting this off my chest. That’s gotta be worth something, no?)
I suppose so. But must you subject the rest of us to your emotional outpourings like some blue-collar yob? Can't you be one of those strong silent types, like in that one movie starring that actor guy?
d) that longie arrogance doesn’t exist
(or maybe some are just exposed to it so much they think it’s the norm – kinda like the guy who works in a sewer and gets used to the smell after awhile)
All sets of people contain subsets of arrogant people. There are indeed arrogant longshoremen. What I'm saying, and I really mean this, is that longshoremen are not especially arrogant. There is no longshore "brand" of arrogance.
e) those guys aren’t obnoxious; they’re just loud and proud
(which, in my mind, is the same thing as saying ‘her face isn’t ugly; it’s just pimply and oozing puss’.)
Behavior is only intrinsically obnoxious when it incommodes others, either deliberately or with reckless disregard. What exactly are these dockworkers doing that is any skin off of your figurative ass? I would really like to know.
f) they can’t control and/or curb the aforementioned loudness and/or proudness. they’re just male and mostly from working-class backgrounds
(which, in my mind, is the same thing as saying ‘she can’t help her immutable ugliness; she just has bad genes’. The debatability of the immutability of the traits in question aside - and now that the class card has been played - do you think any longshoreman would actually be flattered by this defense?)
Not so fast, cowgirl. You assert, but utterly fail (so far) to prove, that the behavior in question should be curbed or controlled. All you've been able to establish is that you don't like it. Point taken, but the question of whether this says more about the behavior, or about you, is not yet closed.
Incidentally, the male working-class people of my acquaintance who are loud and proud would in fact be the first people to ascribe it to their sex and background. No kidding.
g) strong aversion or dislike of a particular irritant necessarily indicates personal issues and points up the need for me to do some serious self-examination.
Substitute "necessarily" with "sometimes, and I think definitely in this case," and you're on the money.
h) the more time or words one invests into the act of raising an objection, the more it implies a lack of organized thought, thus weakening one’s position or credibility.
Really? I said that? How would this benefit me, given that I have been known now and again to put a whole lot of time and words into the raising of objections?
(One of imbg’s famous logical fallacies, with all due respect to the Giant. Let’s call it the ‘imbg gambit’ in his honor. And humor me for a sec while I do a tangential blog saxophone solo to break it down for you:
A-one and a-two and a…
What happens in the ‘imbg gambit’ is you’re supposed to get ruffled by his suggestion that you’re ruffled. Perhaps taking things a little too seriously. ‘Lighten up. There must be something else, [etc., etc. - are we being paid by the word here?]
I won't say I've never played that game while flaming people on the Internet. But, honestly, there's no need for it in this case. You are doing a fine job of getting ruffled on your own. Not at me, but at these longshoremen guys whose behavior--whatever the hell it is--has got you so worked up.
And look, I’m a chick, alright? I cried at my wedding, I cry during Kleenex commercials. That I’m emotional is yesterday’s news to me. I feel strongly about something and I employ perhaps a few extra thousand words or so to try especially hard to make my point. I’m not the one trying to come off as the tough guy here. And the reason this is “so” important to me is because it’s in my face day in and day out. I can’t drive up the 110 without some shaven-headed jerk-off trying to drag race with me.
And here we come full circle. You see, I drive up and down the 110 from time to time myself. And I can honestly say that no shaved-headed jerkoff has ever attempted to race me. There's no polite way to put this: I suspect that you read a little too much into things.
Anyway, if it’ll make you feel better if I assign a magnitude to just how much arrogant longies bug me, I’d say it’s somewhere on the spectrum between paper cuts and my Jesus freak neighbor, so it’s not that bad. Expect another 10,000 word essay on wood fiber product induced injury tomorrow)
And these are pieces of paper that are going out of their way to annoy you, right? ;)
i) there aren’t a lot of Spaghetti Western, Bullitt or John Woo back in his Hong Kong days fans out there in LOTE land.
(Pity.)
Please, dear. I got the references; I just happen to reject them as models for social behavior.
Oh, and btw, you’re right that none of us are worth a fuck. Spatially and effectually we are insignificant on the scale of the cosmos. But some are worth even less of a fuck than others. Isn’t that why so many people on this blog bitch and moan about inequality and what others need to do for them to make things right?
No.
Plus a) the ability to independently determine the quality of one’s own working life for oneself rather than thru a cumbersome quasi-democratic process, b) the freedom to port one’s skills from job-to-job anywhere around the country or even the world… those are all personal powers that some may exercise more readily than others. That’s all I meant.
You sure chose a roundabout way of saying it.
P.S. imbg, you’re too smart to be a longie. are you sure this is what you want to do with your life?
Are you sure this is what you want to do with yours?
Well, my weekend was just grand. I reconfigured the veggie garden, worked on some art, did my usual run on the Paseo in time to see a bunch of dudes dressed like Roman centurions trying to blend in at Old Ft. MacArthur Days (Biggus Dickus wanks higher than anyone in Wome). Then I went to the beach with my husband, accidentally drifted into a surf competition and got yelled at by the judges over the loudspeaker: “You, on the longboard. You are in the competition area. Please paddle the hell south already.” Then a friend of ours took us out on his little 21’ sailboat on a breezy, balmy Sunday afternoon.
So you can probably guess - from the rested, honey graham-cracker state of mind I’m in - that I’m really not feeling the incentive to get back into the discussion. But to be a good sport, I’ll address just a few of imbg’s points, make a few clarifications and then be on my way.
For starters, there was the suggestion that it’s only permissible to protest when the harm or foul done is intentional or the result of recklessness. (This line of defense, by the way, betrays that the defender subconsciously acknowledges some harm or foul done.) Anyway, I disagree. For example religious zealots preaching in public spaces have nothing but the best of intentions, but you bet your hiney I’ll complain about them when they get within my earshot. The word “unfair” kept creeping up into the discussion and I don’t think justice or fairness has any relevance. It’s not the RIGHT to complain that we’re debating here. This is the good ol’ US of A. Everyone has the right to object to anything they find objectionable.
I also think there was confusion over the exact nature of my gripe. See, I said “swagger”, and imbg, you said “what’s so wrong with expressing yourself”? I’m pretty sure if you look it up in the dictionary, you’ll find that swagger doesn’t equal self-expression. You also assume the disputed behavior is “group bonding” and “talking shop”. Believe me, if it were just that, you’d hear nary a peep from me. Granted, my first attempt at a specific example of the shaven headed jerk-off trying to drag race (i.e. endanger) me wasn’t the most illustrative, but that was actually just my complaint FOR THAT DAY. What I’m really talking about here is the Mr. Mofos of the world who make regular appearances in my line of sight. There are plenty of guys out there with this “I rule the coast” mentality. (If there weren’t, the pseudo-mafia stereotype that Calamari referred to wouldn’t exist.) Those under the spell of their own perceived coastal domination feel it entitles them to be generally inconsiderate and rude; you may think there’s no damage done by their behavior, but I think - at least in subtle ways - they’re stealing/sucking away the quality of life from those around them. Sure, their actions are primarily cheap, little buttskate annoyances, like hording three parking spaces with some big stoopidass vehicle or other, revving the engine at 5 am when the whole neighborhood is trying to sleep, burning out tires to leave ugly marks up and down the street that we all have to look at from then on, or cutting in the line of cars queued up at an offramp. The way I hear some of these guys order their wives around as though she’s the family beagle makes me want to kick them in the teeth. Then there’s the more sinister type of thuggishness, like the two longies who roughed up my friend because he was gay and in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Maybe arrogance isn’t the best word to characterize these faults, but in a way, over-inflated egotism is the culprit behind all of them, so the word’s not entirely off. Naturally, longies don’t hold the monopoly on being ruffians, and that was never my point, but they are the only ones I see bearing t-shirts and stickers promoting their ILWU affiliation.
I’ve tried to be clear that l’m not anti-longie or anti-worker (my husband is a blue-collar type of guy who starts many sentences with “I says…”). Still, I didn’t just decide to kvetch about longshoremen out of the blue. It was a good time to raise the issue in this very thread because Mr. Mofo’s totally retarded remarks did a pretty good job at personifying the ‘type’, and the fact that no longie posters even blinked (you, imbg, were totally dismissive of his critics) conveniently embodied the problem that his type of crap is acceptable or even encouraged by his peers. I’ve always found it’s a good opportunity to raise an issue when there’s an example of it readily on hand.
Beyond that, I don’t know about you, but I actually do make a habit of making people aware when they’re disturbing others in the general vicinity when the situation is that a larger group of people’s good time is being ruined by one or two bozos. I’ve been known to ask diners to leave the restaurant if they’re speaking too loudly on their cell phones and I shush talkers in movie theaters. Last week, I told off a guy at the gym who was trying to pick a fight with another guy, simply because his agro yelling was starting to get on my nerves. The cool people always apologize and say they didn’t realize they were being so disruptive. The idiots get defensive and start looking for ways to fight back. Who knows. Perhaps by broaching the subject, if their behavior is as innocuous and unintentional as you say, some of the guys that this little discussion applies to will take a look at themselves and realize, “Oh, my god, all this time I thought I was coming off as this impressive studmuffin, when really I’m coming off as a certifiable A-hole who tries too hard and is showcasing his own naked male insecurity. I’d better cut the crap.” (One can dream, right?)
Finally, it did kinda suck the way my motives were questioned even before the validity of my complaint. Imagine if every time you raised an objection, the push-back you received wasn’t a direct rebuttal, but a veiled personal attack. I think I didn’t have to be half as tolerant with this tactic, but what the heck. By ignoring it, it kept the dialog going.
A’right. That’s it for me. I don’t have the stamina to argue point-for-point whether some longshoremen should be spanked for being jerks. (IMBG, you have debate staying power, I’ll give you that.) For me, the most memorable outcome of this exchange is that the question was posed: “What’s so great about longshoremen to justify their pride/self-importance?” and the question was essentially evaded rather than answered. Even half a dozen comments later, no one has yet rushed forward to delineate this list of virtues. Kinda telling, eh?
Signing off,
so what…
P.S. imbg, I don’t mind the blog moniker “so what…” as long as you don’t forget the ellipses at the end. Details, baby. It’s all in the details.
My longie neighbor encourages his kids to leave their trash on the street in front of my house.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that IMBG's arguments were all a big song and dance to avoid admitting that there really aren't that many skills required to be a longshoreman.
I don't get why they're so proud of themselves either.
Thanks for the report on your weekend. It needed a little more detail, though. I mean, was the boat made of wood or fiberglass? What color? How much does she draw? We're on the edges of our seats out here.
Anyway.
Debate staying power, eh? I'm not even warmed up yet. But apparently you're done? You haven't made it clear. Let me know.
For now, I'll just say that although I can see that you take offense to having the emotional part of your reaction dissected, your latest post isn't giving me any reason to change my assessment of that reaction as irrational and, frankly, a little weird. In fact, the second half of the fourth paragraph pretty well bolsters it. I don't see how it's possible to debate the issue with you and not talk about that aspect of it.
P.S. "Swagger" most certainly does equal self-expression. What gave you the idea that it doesn't? The most literal definition is a sort of exaggeratedly masculine, proud walk, and all other definitions derive from that one. That you disapprove of the expression or of the self behind it does not make it anything other than self-expression.
P.P.S. Your original question was not "What’s so great about longshoremen to justify their pride/self-importance?" but "why am I supposed to think [longshoremen are] so great again?" (Kinda telling--eh?--that you don't recognize that there's a difference.) I answered the latter question implicitly for you some time ago. Surely I don't need to spell it out.
Annie 8:29 wrote:
My longie neighbor encourages his kids to leave their trash on the street in front of my house.
My retired muffler repairman neighbor drops his cigarette butts over the railing right in front of my doorstep. I hate muffler repairmen so much! I am so angry! Grrr!
Let's not lose sight of the fact that IMBG's arguments were all a big song and dance to avoid admitting that there really aren't that many skills required to be a longshoreman.
Your accusation might make sense, had anybody actually asked me to admit that or deny it, or to list those skills. I'll save a detailed list for another post, but for now I'll point out that the PMA is driven absolutely nuts every few years by the number of people they train and process (at great expense) as new casuals, who come down for a couple of weeks, discover that the work is dangerous, dirty, noisy, and, yes, hard, and never show up again. It's not brain surgery, but you can kill somebody just as easily--and yourself a whole lot more easily--if you fuck up.
I don't get why they're so proud of themselves either.
They have jobs that they enjoy, that pay them a decent living and give them a measure of freedom to make their own work schedules. With due regard to the needs of the industry, they can work when they want, where they want, and take time off as they see fit. They get to work outdoors, by the water, and they've got one of the most fair and efficient on-the-job grievance procedures in any industry in the world. They've paid their dues for years at the casual hall to get those jobs, and now they've got 'em. They're happy about this. It's not really that difficult to understand.
"So what..." Your chapter long comments are a cry for help. Get out of the apartment. (Or mansion, I'll correct myself before you take the liberty.) Get some fresh air & relax. You don't need anyone else's attention or approval. If you want to blast someone on the internet, just do it! That's what it's here for. There's no need for all this justification & beating around the bush. You don't like longshoreman, that's great. You've probably got your reasons, but you don't need them here.
Maybe it's the "Eat cake mofo!" type individuals who really do have it all figured out. OK, maybe not, but short & sweet is the key. My eyes hurt from reading your post & I wanted a refund by the time I got to the end. Thanks.
I would have to agree that some local ILWU members are a bunch of over-paid guys with issues. They should run criminal checks and also drug test ALL longies. I have family on the docks and they all agree this would weed out the scum bags. Also, I'm sure it would help with work safety.
I would recommend that longies STOP bragging about working conditions to people with normal work schedules. Its irritating to listen to a bunch of longies huddled together talking about working 4 hours and being paid for 8. Then when they are ready to negotiate their contracts we are ALL supposed to ban together with our longies neighbors and friends.
Old time ILWU members knew to keep their mouths shut and not raise attention to what they had going. The new breed seems to find pleasure in bragging about pay, benefits and time off.
Remember that when your contracts come up for renewal you cannot take back the fact that you were bragging 6 months ago about the way your wife goes and gets a message once a month on ILWU benefits. Also, you are basically a LABOR union. You could easily be replaced with anyone who is willing to put in LABOR.
All said, I come from a blue collar family and would hate to see anything happen to the ILWU 13. I just hope the members wise up and try to go back to the old school style.
Thank you for that classic non-response imbg. And the little taunts you threw in there? They were...well... pretty lame. I mean, what color was the sailboat? I've come to expect so much more from you.
Anyhoooooo - no, silly, swagger definitely does not equal self-expression. If I wanted to communicate that, "Dance is a form of self-expression", I wouldn't say "Dance is a form of swagger" and think it meant the same thing. Conversely, you'd never hear anyone say "He self-expresses like a rooster in a hen house." Duh.
And when you say I'm offended by having my feelings dissected, that's not quite right. I mean, how can that be possible when no one has "dissected" anything? All this time all you've done is allude to murky, ignoble feelings I might have in the hopes of shaming me into backing down. Another one of your gambits. You haven't actually named a single emotion, and worse still, my mythological feelings are the primary basis of your rebuttal. That's so sad.
So sure. Why not go ahead, and be my little mindreader. And feel free to cry "ouch" as soon as you feel the hypocrisy kick in, Carnac. We're all dying to know what you've divined about my motives. And once you're done playing with your crystal ball, we'll all take turns analyzing what it says about your psyche that you can't take a person's complaints (about generally unacceptable behavior) at face value.
That's when the fun will really begin, I suspect. But seriously, though, you only have 'til Friday to enlighten me on me, 'cuz I'm taking my tortured soul south of the equator for a couple weeks where even your bullshit would flush down the toilet in a different direction.
anonymous 2:57 PM, I've created this separate comment to dedicate this little squirt of brevity to you alone. Either you are Mr. Mofo, or you're closely related to him in the animal kingdom. Your retorts were weak. A mansion? Puh-lease. Try to find something better to critique than the word count next time.
Just beautiful. The more defensive imbg gets, the more incoherent he becomes.
So what..., I thought your 6:14 post was a level-headed, fair assessment of the problem. Agree on all points. Maybe imbg just didn't understand it or couldn't follow it or something.
My longie neighbor, incidentally, is in jail now on his third strike, after he and his son beat up a man and his wife(!) up the street. Another proud moment brought to you by another proud member of the ILWU.
No, I don't hate longies. But I also don't think decent pay, flexible hours, and a wide-open grievance channel are all that much to brag about.
Apparently, IMBG is pro-longie gay bashers.
but I think - at least in subtle ways - they’re stealing/sucking away the quality of life from those around them. Sure, their actions are primarily cheap, little buttskate annoyances, like hording three parking spaces with some big stoopidass vehicle or other, revving the engine at 5 am when the whole neighborhood is trying to sleep, burning out tires to leave ugly marks up and down the street that we all have to look at from then on, or cutting in the line of cars queued up at an offramp
Wow! Paranoid much?
It's hard to tell at this point whether you're talking about longshoremen, communists, or space aliens. Maybe all three?
What I see here is a whole grip of jealousy, self serving generalizations, some anti union knownothings and a ton of hot air. Mainly jealousy though. I said it before and it remains the same
Eat cake mofos we aint going anywhere. Grind on that
"So What..." wrote
So sure. Why not go ahead, and be my little mindreader. And feel free to cry "ouch" as soon as you feel the hypocrisy kick in, Carnac. We're all dying to know what you've divined about my motives. And once you're done playing with your crystal ball, we'll all take turns analyzing what it says about your psyche that you can't take a person's complaints (about generally unacceptable behavior) at face value. That's when the fun will really begin, I suspect. But seriously, though, you only have 'til Friday to enlighten me on me, 'cuz I'm taking my tortured soul south of the equator for a couple weeks where even your bullshit would flush down the toilet in a different direction.
Honey, if you're going to complain about people analyzing your emotions, you probably shouldn't do it while throwing a verbal tantrum. Kinda proves everybody's point...
This discussion string is a treasure trove, if you treasure irony.
Mob behavior from people accusing others of mob behavior.
Displays of base emotions (like envy and prejudice) from people accusing others of baseness.
Illiteracy and illogic from people accusing others of being uneducated.
What can I say? Keep it coming. Only in Pedro.
More San Pedro, huh? Was this actually someone at the paper anonymously editorializing and invoking the name of the whole publication? On a weekday, even? Should we send a fruit basket to William Singleton to thank him for the mid-week freebie? Surely he’d be impressed with the journalistic professionalism of the contributor. If you come back, More, give us an update on that spacious $1.6 million split-level in Rolling Hills while you’re at it.
So anyway, like I said previously, I can’t be complaining about anyone analyzing my emotions when THERE HAS BEEN NO ANALYSIS. How hard is that to comprehend?. Even in recent posts where “jealousy” and “prejudice” have started to creep into people’s vocabularies, just carelessly tossing out a few nouns doesn’t constitute an in-depth examination of anything, and it definitely doesn’t establish that the emotions are even there.
Regarding anti-union prejudice, if you can’t understand how one can be opposed to aspects of a whole without being against the whole, then well, there’s nothing I can do to help you with that.
When it comes to the accusation of jealousy, we come full circle to the original topic. What exactly are we supposed to be jealous of again?
No, dear, YOU keep it comin’. :)
Any updates on the possible clerk strike situation?
I'm not a longshoreman. I've lived in this town approximately forever, though, so I've come into contact with a lot of them, both socially and through my work. Closer to home, a good friend of mine has been an "A" book for about fifteen years, and I have a first cousin who is an "ID."
I don't begrudge them the living they make or the health benefits they have, even though in my line of work I have to pay for my own health insurance. Hey, that's the choice I made. I don't begrudge them the fact that they like their jobs, either. I like mine too. I like to make cars go fast, and I manage to make a decent living at it. If it weren't for that, I'd probably be lining up for a casual card application with everybody else.
So why am I telling you this? I guess just to let you know that my experience with longshoremen, and longshorewomen (remember them?) has shown me that they are truly a cross section of society. More accurate, they're a cross section of local society. Some are "loud and proud," in true Pedro style, but a lot more of them just go about their business and you would never know what they did for a living unless you saw the little stickers on their windshields. A few of them are assholes. Some would give you the shirts off their backs. Both my good friend and my cousin have college degrees, and judging by the number of university stickers I see on their cars next to the ILWU stickers, they're not a rarity.
And I guess that's really why I'm telling you all this. Because the stereotyping that I'm seeing here on the board is unbelievable, and it's stupid and sickening. And while it's not surprising coming from people like "in pedro" and the anonymouses, who all seem like solid D+ students, it is kind of a shock to see that kind of ignorant stereotyping come from somebody like So What, who obviously has a functioning brain lurking behind that persecution complex. So What, you made a point of mentioning that the longshoremen you dislike don't have college educations. Well, I'd like to know which one you went to, so that I don't accidentally send my kids there. They sure didn't teach you how to think logically, or how to avoid dumb...dare I say "uneducated"...blanket generalizations from individual cases.
I'll leave you on this note - More San Pedro, you're absolutely right about the irony. But you're wrong when you say "only in Pedro." Ignorance and stereotyping are universal human traits, sad to say.
Showell, who says anyone should be persecuted? I’m not advocating that a mob show up at the meeting hall with pitchforks. The statements I made in this thread describe how some longies have been observed partaking in thuggish activities that make things worse for me and other people, and apparently I’m not the only one who has made these observations. I still maintain that gay bashing, wife-belittling, reckless endangerment, and other generally disruptive behavior are bad things no matter who is doing them. What I’ve been saying since the beginning - and what I’m still finding in everyone’s responses - is that there’s a certain level of protection afforded to the jerk-offs by their brethren, whose exaggerated sense of pride prevents them from being able to criticize even the flagrant examples of offense given. They'd rather attack the person reporting the offense than concede to the wrongdoing of the offenders. That's defensive behavior at its finest.
I’ll fess up to taking my razzing a bit far with the “frat boys without college educations” dig, but it was a) in reference to the jerk-off subset; and b) just me being irreverent. Yes, yes. I am aware that the lack of a college education doesn’t mean one is deficient in brain, skill or heart. Still, as numerous characters on the Simpsons are known to say, a joke is “funny because it’s true.”
Thank you Showell. You really nailed it on this thread.
"Ignorant stereotyping"
so what:
this "level of protection" you speak of exists in many occupations, especially ones that involves threat of life and teamwork. That given, your point is stereotypical.
Not all facts are stereotypes. Fact: there's a high incidence of Latino gangs in San Pedro. Does stating it create a stereotype of Latinos?
Likewise, there's a high incidence of protectionism and denial within the ILWU.
Even if the worst were true and "so what..." is knowingly, deliberately stereotyping, what's worse: pointing out a pattern of thuggy behavior, or defending the thuggy behavior?
Are you guys honestly pissed off because someone pointed out that a subset of you are causing trouble? How 'bout just acknowledging it and working together to make it better?
Admitting there's a problem is the only mature starting point.
===
UPDATE: I'm even more convinced than before that there won't be a strike. Famous last words, and all that, but barring some kind of last-minute monkeywrenching from either side, it seems like 63 OCU and the employers will reach a deal.
===
So What...wrote:
Thank you for that classic non-response imbg.
Now, now. You'd have gotten a much more comprehensive response if you hadn't been playing that "I'm leaving, no I'm not, yes I am" game. I like to debate things to death, remember?
no, silly, swagger definitely does not equal self-expression. If I wanted to communicate that, "Dance is a form of self-expression", I wouldn't say "Dance is a form of swagger" and think it meant the same thing. Conversely, you'd never hear anyone say "He self-expresses like a rooster in a hen house." Duh.
You're actually serious about this? You seem to think that "equals" only means "is directly synonymous with." Wrong.
And just to get you on the record, all nitpicking aside, are you seriously attempting to argue that to swagger is not to self-express?
And when you say I'm offended by having my feelings dissected,
I said "the emotional part of your reaction." Meaning, your reaction to the behavior that you have observed and that has you so worked up.
Believe it or not, I am not required to take your assertions about the character traits of longshoremen at face value. If I think that your interpretation of the things you see is irrational, I am free to say so, and to explain why. And you in your turn are free to say that I'm wrong, and to explain why.
that's not quite right. I mean, how can that be possible when no one has "dissected" anything? All this time all you've done is allude to murky, ignoble feelings I might have in the hopes of shaming me into backing down. Another one of your gambits. You haven't actually named a single emotion, and worse still, my mythological feelings are the primary basis of your rebuttal.
I reject your premise ("so many longshoremen are fucking arrogant meatheads") on the grounds that you are hysterically overreacting ("they’re stealing/sucking away the quality of life from those around them" etc.) to what you perceive as antisocial behavior on the part of some longshore workers. Of course your feelings are going to be a major (though not primary) basis of my rebuttal. Duh.
By the way, you would probably get more sympathy when you complain about people ascribing certain feelings to you if you didn't do the exact same thing to the people you don't like. Remember when you accused longies of "annoying and bullying their way through their days like that's gonna foist their imagined superiority onto everybody else"? Or when you told us how much you hate it "when longshoremen act arrogant and think they’re any better than people who aren’t longshoremen"? For somebody who objects to having her feelings be the object of speculation by strangers, you sure do have some strong opinions about what other folks are feeling.
Now, then. Since you're sort of back in this debate, at least until you decide you're not in it anymore, let me go back and address a few things from your not-quite-a-farewell post.
For starters, there was the suggestion that it’s only permissible to protest when the harm or foul done is intentional or the result of recklessness.
I suggested no such thing. You had implied that I was defending "obnoxious" behavior as merely "loud and proud." I pointed out that unless behavior is deliberately or recklessly foul/harmful, it is not intrinsically obnoxious--in other words, whether it is obnoxious or not is a matter of opinion. I said or suggested absolutely nothing about whether it is "permissible" to protest.
(This line of defense, by the way, betrays that the defender subconsciously acknowledges some harm or foul done.)
Why, if I didn't know better, I would think that you were alluding to some murky, ignoble feelings I might be having, and using them as a basis for your rebuttal. Good thing I know better, huh?
The word “unfair” kept creeping up into the discussion and I don’t think justice or fairness has any relevance. It’s not the RIGHT to complain that we’re debating here.
Non sequitur. To accuse a person of saying or thinking something unfair is not to deny or disparage her right to say or think it.
This is the good ol’ US of A. Everyone has the right to object to anything they find objectionable.
Agreed. Nobody said that they didn't. May I ask why on earth you are bringing it up?
Granted, my first attempt at a specific example of the shaven headed jerk-off trying to drag race (i.e. endanger) me wasn’t the most illustrative, but that was actually just my complaint FOR THAT DAY. What I’m really talking about here is the Mr. Mofos of the world who make regular appearances in my line of sight. There are plenty of guys out there with this “I rule the coast” mentality. (If there weren’t, the pseudo-mafia stereotype that Calamari referred to wouldn’t exist.) Those under the spell of their own perceived coastal domination feel it entitles them to be generally inconsiderate and rude; you may think there’s no damage done by their behavior, but I think - at least in subtle ways - they’re stealing/sucking away the quality of life from those around them. Sure, their actions are primarily cheap, little buttskate annoyances, like hording three parking spaces with some big stoopidass vehicle or other, revving the engine at 5 am when the whole neighborhood is trying to sleep, burning out tires to leave ugly marks up and down the street that we all have to look at from then on, or cutting in the line of cars queued up at an offramp.
And they breed like flies!
In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is the kind of stuff that makes me think that your reactions are emotional and weird.
The way I hear some of these guys order their wives around as though she’s the family beagle makes me want to kick them in the teeth.
Now, that's uncool. The ordering-wives-around part, I mean, not the wanting to kick them. But to associate that with what the men do for a living is beyond ridiculous. Surely somebody as edumacated as you must understand a thing or two about sexism and patriarchy and how central they are to contemporary Western society (and, to be sure, plenty of old and non-Western societies as well). Men bossing their wives around is a problem in all corners of society, in all occupations and in all income levels. Just because the men in your social class (or the one to which you aspire) are more subtle about dominating the women in their lives doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Your problem, kiddo, is that for an educated person you are doing some very uneducated thinking. You are attributing the behavior of individuals to their membership in a group, and you are ascribing those individuals' character traits to the group at large. This is something that fucking ignorant rubes do, like those idiots who swear that Pakistanis can't be trusted because some guy at a gas station overcharged them ten years ago, or whatever the hell. You should know better than this. Why do you not know better than this? If you could see me through my monitor, you would see me scratching my head right now.
Then there’s the more sinister type of thuggishness, like the two longies who roughed up my friend because he was gay and in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Reprehensible and sickening.
But how heartwarming to see you honoring your friend, who was beaten for being a member of a group that his attackers didn't like, by launching a broadsided verbal attack at tens of thousands of people who are members of the same labor union as the guys who beat him up. Way to strike a blow against prejudice!
Maybe arrogance isn’t the best word to characterize these faults, but in a way, over-inflated egotism is the culprit behind all of them, so the word’s not entirely off.
Speculating about people's murky, ignoble feelings again, eh, you big meanie?
Naturally, longies don’t hold the monopoly on being ruffians, and that was never my point, but they are the only ones I see bearing t-shirts and stickers promoting their ILWU affiliation.
Naturally, longies don't hold the monopoly on being six-foot-tall, sandy-haired birdwatchers, but they are the only ones I see bearing t-shirts and stickers promoting their ILWU affiliation.
*shakes head*
I don't know about you, sometimes.
Perhaps by broaching the subject, if their behavior is as innocuous and unintentional as you say, some of the guys that this little discussion applies to will take a look at themselves and realize, “Oh, my god, all this time I thought I was coming off as this impressive studmuffin, when really I’m coming off as a certifiable A-hole who tries too hard and is showcasing his own naked male insecurity. I’d better cut the crap.” (One can dream, right?)
Indeed. Right now I'm dreaming about somebody taking a look at herself and thinking: "Oh my gosh, all this time I thought I was this well-spoken, persuasive advocate for civility and social etiquette, and it turns out I'm coming off as a paranoid, hyper-judgmental snob. Maybe I should take a deep breath and think about how some of my own behavior could be seen by others as anti-social."
Ehh, but dreams don't really come true in the really real world of reality. That's crazy talk.
Finally, it did kinda suck the way my motives were questioned even before the validity of my complaint.
Awwww. It does suck, doesn't it? Maybe you'll keep that in mind before deciding that people whom you personally dislike must be acting the way they do because of "arrogance" or "imagined superiority" or whatever.
Imagine if every time you raised an objection, the push-back you received wasn’t a direct rebuttal, but a veiled personal attack.
Attacks! Personal ones, even! And how awful that this should happen to you, who would never wantonly level insults at strangers.
When you make statements in public fora, you will receive, as you call it, push-back. When you introduce those statements by calling people "fucking arrogant meatheads" or the like, you can expect that push-back to be fairly salty.
Look, SW, just because you can write articulately, spell and punctuate correctly, and pepper your writing with amusing film references, you are not exempt from being called out when you say something dumb. You have said a few pretty dumb things in this thread. I don't apologize for pointing them out.
Have fun in Antarctica. Kick a penguin for me (those guys are so full of themselves). The Internet will still be here when you get back.
DIARIE wrote:
Are you guys honestly pissed off because someone pointed out that a subset of you are causing trouble?
No. What's objectionable, and illogical, and just plain dumb, is when somebody points out that a small subset of set X causes trouble, and then uses that fact as an excuse to cast aspersions on the set as a whole.
But thank you for at least trying to figure out what's going on here.
imbg, how brave of you to wait until "so what..." leaves town before coming back to allude to more emotions you fail to identify. Were you working on that response this whole time?
Look, if anyone is reacting illogically, defensively, hysterically and just plain dumb, it's you. Read more carefully. SW was clearly limiting aspersions cast to the subset and not all longies. Or did you miss the part about opposing aspects of the whole, but not the whole?
You're acting like a paranoid chick who doesn't believe her boyfriend when he says she doesn't look fat. You're like a kid who fights back by saying "your breath stinks too" when told his breath is bad.
Besides, no one has to make up stereotypes, you and Mofo are doing a fine job of perpetuating them yourselves. Mr. Mofo said "We rule the coast." Later, you repeated it: "AND we rule the coast." Of course people are gonna take you to the mat for that.
Please tell us all exactly how you rule again.
Speaking of another individual not helping your cause, see this fascinating piece of Pedriana: 3rteen.com. It's a "lifestyle" brand name for longie fashions. The "13" is presumably in reference to the local 13. The "1" in the "13" logo is a picture of an Uzi. The kid who started the company is your typical thug with a Napoleon complex. About 5 foot tall and drives a huge white jacked-up truck that he parks in the middle of the street. Has a pair of truck nutz (anatomically correct rubber testicles) hanging off his tow hitch. You can hear his music blasting out of his truck at all hours of the night. He's doing a fine job of promoting the ILWU 13. An absolutely splendid job.
People aren't making this stuff up. And you wonder why you guys suffer from an image problem.
No. I’m still here, but we’re going in a few minutes. I just want to emphasize what I said before: My fight is with the subset and not the superset, and maybe also with a second subset that defends the first subset. I’ll leave with one last quote by Larry Niven from Ringworld: “The Gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools.”
You’re right, imbg, the internet will still be here when I get back. We can keep talking through this for as long as it’s important to you.
shomita munni you ignorant slut...
Those 13 rags have zero to do with us. As you show yourself to be blank on cultural icons and long on gas, heres what 13 means.
It happens to be one of the oldest numerical icons in the world, existing long before us. Which leads to the fact that you dont even know why Local 13 is named 13 in the first place and it has nothing to do with being unlucky or badass.
There is not one use of our logo on their so called gear and for good reason. They would get sued in a heartbeat. Ive never seen those logos on the job and for good reason. Before the boss could fire them, they would have US Customs and Homeland security on their ass in the parking lot outside the entrance gate.
shomita munni you should learn to eat with those fingers first before you go typing on the Net with them and making an ass out of yourself.
Now go flip them burgers.
SW wrote:
We can keep talking through this for as long as it’s important to you.
Tee hee. It's a little late for that kind of posturing, cute though it is. If "this" weren't important to you too, you wouldn't still be here slugging it out.
Like I said, have fun on your trip.
anonymous 10:53-
Are you saying you've never seen logos for that clothing company on a job? I think maybe you just didn't notice. I agree, it's thuggish & lame, but so are a lot of clothing choices. They're trading off the caché of the number 13 which as you pointed out predates our local but nevertheless includes it in its connotations (at least, if you live around here. Nobody in, say, Anaheim makes the ILWU connection.)
If anyone is interested (no one is, I know), I will be taking pictures of as many examples of that clothing line as I see over the next week or so and posting them on my flickr account here. Check them out, if you care.
BTW, imbg, I have to applaud you on your performance in this thread. You had me stifling giggles quite a few times.
I see that 13 truck around town all the time. I'm really surprised that someone in the ILWU hasn't slapped him down for perpetuating the thug image.
I've seen a fair number of vehicles around town with both the "Uzi 13" logo and ILWU logos driving around. I've always presumed it was an ILWU thing (obviously not an "official" one).
phillip I have not seen that logo on the job, I work out of the hall and I have not seen them there either. I have seen that truck described lots of times in town but I have not noticed our logo on it, I didnt look that hard honestly because I didnt want my eyes to start bleeding.Perpetuating looks like a fine line here and I say the 1st Amendment must prevail even though I dont like it. But if there is a work number to be had I will get it and I will pass it on. I dont like this at all because its taking too much for one self who is like me and is the beneficiary of others work and sacrifice for all of us working. That will sound high and mighty to some here, others know and live every day knowing what I mean. It's ok.
anonymous 10:26-
"Our logo" is not on the truck. They do not use our logo at all, they use the number 13 which is of course not ours. The truck in question, IIRC, does not actually have a "13" on it, rather a "3rteen". It's something you can grumble about, but there's really nothing you can do to about it. They have the right to sell clothes as tacky and lame as they want.
I love how every bigot tacks on that disclaimer that they're not talking about the whole group - "just the bad ones." Then why drag the group into it, genius? Oh, I know, I know...we must bring it to the attention of "the good ones" so that they can control "the bad ones." Hilarious.
If all the bigots here are just talking about a select few, I guess the argument comes down to this:
Are ILWU members more thuggish than the general population?
From my experience, NO. Do I know a ton of longies? No. The ones I do know don't fit this stereotype at all. Maybe your experience is different. But how could anyone really know for sure without knowing everyone in Pedro.
I am a member of the Local 63 OCU and worked in the Harbor since 1979. I have never see the "thuggish" type that has been described on here. I work out of the Union Hall as a temp, filling in for people who are on vacatin/sick leave. I drive 75 mi one way to work in hopes of getting a permanent job. I am proud.. but haven't had anyone cam me to tell if I walk with a swagger LOL!!!! but it could be a good possibility, but not because I am part of the Union.. but because I am one hell of a good looking woman. Thank you all for all your comments. Although you kept me from going out at my prearranged time, as the reading was so fascinating... ROFLMAO. I hope to getloud, brag, and most importantly swagger around the bar. BTW I don't drink and haven't for almost 18 yrs, and I still manage to have fun. Keep the comments flowing. I'll be back tomorrow. Keep those fingers limber as I'm sure everyone will have lots to say. *snicker*
imbs,
Don't need to google the ILWU strike to know the truth. ILWU pulled the trigger by not signing the contract extension...period. Google it if YOU want. It was a move by ILWU that got them locked out. They deserved it.
Okey doke, Annie. Don't let the facts interfere with your personal mini-reality, or anything.
Hey anonymous 301
Wrong, flat out wrong. Union said yes to the NLRB brokered deal, PMA said no, which is what Mininazi wanted all along. Pile up the cargo on the docks, take the union to court to get it found financially liable. It failed, and the State of California found the lockout was on the PMA which is why I got an unemployment check from the State. You werent there I was. So so jealous here arent we.
You were there? What does that mean? You were actually there at the negotiation table?
Look 7:52, it's a negotiation. I won't dispute PMA saying no to the "deal". They have every right to say no during negotiations, just as ILWU can say no. The issue here was that during the negotiation period, the existing contract had to be extended in order to allow ILWU continue to work under a legal contract (which they did several times). If they didn't continue to extend the contract, ILWU would then not be legally held to any provisions of the expired contract. They could then slow their little asses down, and get paid their huge wages, and make life miserable for their employers, and PMA would not have any legal recourse. ILWU refused to sign the contract extension as a strategy to ratchet up the stakes. They got locked out as a result and then claimed to be some sort of victim. PMA was protecting themselves.
What a joke. ILWU victimizes their employers every day through 4 on 4s, partners "covering" partners....shit like that which would NEVER be tolerated in any other industry. Even imbs knows I'm right. It's all fact, no jealousy. Google it!
Maybe if you repeat that one more time, Annie, it will stop being wrong. No? OK, maybe if you repeat it one more time after that. Or maybe...
Google is not a reliable source. You can google proof of Bigfoot & you'll find articles to back it up.
It wasn't a strike, it was a lockout. Big difference.
The media gets fed bulls#!t information from both sides. It's always a toss-up on what the headlines will be after something happens between ILWU & PMA.
No one was ordered to slow down, the numbers of containers moved, at that time of year, was less than the previous year because there were more containers coming through, (PMA's doing) not because longies were slowing down. - As told to me by a longshoreman.
On the waterfront there is all kinds of political bulls#!t going on all the time, that most dockworkers don't have any control over.
My sources are biased, but when you talk to someone who was actually there, through the time period before the lockout, you get a different perspective then what the media spoonfeeds you. I have not talked to a PMA employee on the subject. I'm sure they'd have a different story.
ILWU & PMA = Hattfield's & McCoys
Weren't we talking about the possibility of the clerks strike crippling the LA/Long Beach Ports anyways?
imbs -
Well I guess next I'll have to break out the crayons and draw pictures....
You are just another ILWU brainwashed moron. Always the victims....what a bunch of BS. Everybody knows it too.
As for 3:44, you are right for the most part, but I don't need the media to know what goes on down there.
ILWU refused to sign the contract extension as a strategy to ratchet up the stakes. They got locked out as a result and then claimed to be some sort of victim. PMA was protecting themselves....from anonymous@848
Absolute garbage. But take heart.. the world really is flat, Elvis lives in Baldwin Park, and you know what you're talking about.
From anonymous 10:15 PM:
"the world really is flat, Elvis lives in Baldwin Park"
Yep if ILWU told you it was true, all the longies would swear by it!
"No one was ordered to slow down, the numbers of containers moved, at that time of year, was less than the previous year because there were more containers coming through, (PMA's doing) not because longies were slowing down. - As told to me by a longshoreman."
Also as experienced personally be me, a longshoreman.
And by me. A few days before the lockout, I experienced something I had never seen before and have never seen since: literal gridlock on the highline at Maersk. There were so many ships working and so many UTRs under the hook that I literally couldn't get my machine and my load away from the ship. The employers in the summer of '02 were trying to squeeze twenty pounds of shit into a five pound bag instead of the traditional ten, and it really showed.
Post a Comment
<< Home