USMX Animated PDFs

C. Peter Lambos 6bume/ 1999-2992 I J ames L Newsome, Jr. I South Atl,~Uc a.d 6ul[~orm'~:l 1988 1992 I I~neflt costs were spiralling out of control and the industry was losing market share to non-ILA -e ,l[~iL compegtion and the West Coast. Now, 10 short ),ears later, them is one Master Contract which covers every Atlantic and Gulf ~rg there is a single otganizalion, USMX, representing the carriers, stevedores and employer 'port associations, the 1996-200i Master Contract deli~.ered over $280 mglion of savings to the ILA ' emplo)~rs and there is a single coastwide health program, MILA, which will protect the indust~ from unchecked health insurance costs. How this happened is [argeiy ,as a tesng of the action and initiatives taken by the CCC, under the leadership of Chairman David J. Tolan and James A- copo, . ~ . the president of New York Shipping As.~ciatio n, It~c. In 1590, the Management and the ILA negotiated a contract that covered many of the ports on Ihe Atlantic and South Atlantic coasts. Howeveg the ports in the North Atlantic and gle Gulf were not parties to this agreementi The members of CCG were concerned about the fact that they had to operate under different conditions depending upon which port their sldps called. I Peter ¢. gambos ` this ` th° ports fted ad p ed the '4 ,8=:"_'1o=, contracl wilh the ILA to subscribe to the 1990 contract. They accomplished this by insisting that any pert (both 1 management and the local ILA) which continued to bargain wifl~ the careers on any partictgar issue, had to adopt the 1990 contract as part of any agreement with the carriers and the CCC. By 1994, using this approach, CCG was able to convince the South Atlantic Engrlopers Negotiating Committee, the New Orleans Steamship Association, the West Gulf Maritime ,Zssociation and the ILA in all three regions or ports to adopt tim 1990 contract as part of the negotiation and settlement of regional issues. In 1994, CCC, together with representatives from the major porL associations and the major stevedore~ such ~ Maber Terminals, Stevedoring Services of America, CoopetsT. Smith, Ceres, ITO and Universal started to discuss tile possibility of . . , negotiating the 1996 contract wgh the ILA wlfh a coalition of lain lfl. Spehna~ carriers, stevedores, and port associations that were parties to the C~C~w#et, I990 contract Finatig after nearly a year of discussions and meetings, the 199g~ 2~ '~[I]l~ stevedores and port m~sociations agreed to join with CCC to negotiate the V / 19~)6 contract with the ILA, a series of negotiations which ~'ould include every IlA port from Boston to Texas. The negotiation of the 1956 contract with the ILA resulted in a major breakthrough. Unlike prior negotiations which had ended ~dth various parties abandoning tile negotiations, the yearlong negotiations which starled in November of 1995 resulled in a frye-pear contract which for tile ftrst time bound every port on both the E~t and Gulf coasts of the United States. The Master Contract itself was an unprecedented success. It reduced die gang size, it reduced the container royally, it eslabltsfted the CAP program (which has retnrned ~ I00 million to the carriers), it created MILA, and overall, it delivered over $280 milgon in s,'tvings to the industry over the fg~pear tern] of the agreement. Furthermore, CCC developed a computer model for the negotiations which enabled Management to prepare up to the minute financial analysis for the evolving bargaining pmposalg and the ongoing administration of the Master Contract.

• Cover