Waterfront Standoff: An In-Depth Analysis of the Causes, Consequences, and Future of Port Labor Strikes

Executive Summary

Port strikes are not random, unpredictable events but rather the culmination of deep-seated and often cyclical conflicts within the global supply chain’s most critical nodes. These work stoppages, which can paralyze national economies and disrupt international trade, arise from a complex interplay of economic pressures, historical grievances, and an existential struggle over the role of technology and automation on the waterfront. The immense leverage held by a relatively small, highly organized workforce over these vital economic chokepoints transforms routine labor negotiations into high-stakes confrontations with far-reaching consequences.

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the dynamics that precipitate port strikes, using the 2024 labor dispute between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) as a central, illustrative case study. The analysis deconstructs the core drivers of conflict, including perennial disputes over wages and benefits, which are often intensified by perceptions of inequity when compared to massive shipping industry profits. More fundamentally, the report examines the escalating conflict over automation, framing it not merely as a dispute over jobs but as a strategic battle for control over the future of port operations.

The report profiles the key actors—the historically militant longshoremen’s unions, the powerful employer alliances representing global shipping interests, and the quasi-governmental port authorities caught in the middle—to explain their motivations and strategic calculus. It dissects the collective bargaining process, showing how negotiations can devolve into stalemates and strategic brinkmanship, ultimately leading to a strike.

Furthermore, the report quantifies the cascading economic and supply chain impacts of a port shutdown, from immediate port congestion to broader inflationary pressures and sector-specific vulnerabilities in retail, agriculture, and healthcare. Through historical case studies, including the foundational 1934 West Coast Waterfront Strike and the modern precedent of the 2002 West Coast Port Lockout, it demonstrates how the past continues to shape the present, creating a path dependency that informs the strategies of all parties.

Finally, the report offers a strategic outlook, concluding that labor instability is now a permanent feature of the logistics landscape. This reality necessitates a fundamental shift in business strategy from reactive crisis management to proactive supply chain resilience. For stakeholders, this involves diversifying trade routes, rethinking inventory models, and understanding that the threat of disruption itself imposes a significant “resilience tax” on the economy. The central conflict over automation will define port labor relations for the foreseeable future, demanding innovative solutions that move beyond a zero-sum framework to allow both labor and capital to share in the gains of technological progress.

I. Anatomy of a Port Strike: The Core Drivers of Waterfront Conflict

Port strikes are the result of a breakdown in the complex relationship between labor and management, triggered by a confluence of economic, contractual, and technological pressures. While each dispute has unique characteristics, the underlying causes are remarkably consistent over time. These core drivers—economic grievances, contractual deadlines, and the existential threat of automation—form the combustible elements that, when ignited by a negotiation impasse, can bring the arteries of global commerce to a standstill.

Economic Grievances: The Fight for a Fair Share

The most frequent and visible catalyst for port strikes is the fundamental disagreement over compensation. These disputes, however, are rarely just about absolute dollar figures; they are deeply rooted in principles of fairness, equity, and the distribution of wealth generated by the immense productivity of modern ports.

Wage and Benefit Disputes

At the heart of nearly every port labor negotiation is the demand for higher wages and improved benefits.¹ Unions frame these demands as necessary to counteract the erosive effects of inflation and to secure for their members a rightful portion of the value they create. The 2024 ILA strike provides a stark example. The union’s opening demand was for a 77% pay raise over the six-year life of the new contract.² This ambitious figure was not arbitrary; it was a calculated response to several factors. Union leadership cited years of smaller raises that had not kept pace with the cost of living and, more pointedly, the “hundreds of billions of dollars” in profits earned by foreign-owned shipping carriers during the COVID-19 pandemic—a period when longshoremen were deemed essential workers and continued to move cargo under difficult and sometimes hazardous conditions.³ As one Alabama longshoreman articulated, during the pandemic, “we had people who died. and guess what those foreign carriers made hundreds of billions of dollars. they took that money back to their country”.⁴ This sentiment, echoed by a worker on the picket line who stated, “we’ve taken less than we’ve deserved in the past. So now it’s time,” transforms a wage negotiation from a simple economic transaction into a moral imperative to correct a perceived injustice.⁵

This sense of inequity is often sharpened by comparisons to other labor agreements. A significant factor in the ILA’s 2024 calculus was the “historic, record contract” secured by their West Coast counterparts, the ILWU, in 2023.⁶ Such agreements create a benchmark, establishing a psychological and political floor for what is considered an acceptable outcome and fueling a bicoastal dynamic where neither union can afford to be seen as accepting less than the other.

Revenue Sharing and Royalties

Beyond base salaries, disputes can also center on more complex revenue-sharing mechanisms that were established decades ago. A key example is the “container royalty fee,” a system negotiated by the ILA in which members earn a royalty for each container moved through a terminal.⁶ This was originally conceived as a way for labor to share in the massive productivity gains brought by containerization. In the 2024 negotiations, a central ILA demand was that all container royalties be directed to the workers, representing a direct claim on the revenue streams of port operations and a continuation of the fight over how the benefits of technology and efficiency are distributed.⁸

Contractual Impasses and Working Conditions

Port strikes are not spontaneous uprisings but are almost always timed to coincide with the expiration of a multi-year “Master Contract” that governs labor relations across numerous ports.¹ This deadline becomes the focal point of the entire negotiation cycle, a moment of maximum leverage for the union.

The threat of a strike as a contract expires is the primary tool unions use to compel employers to offer more favorable terms.¹ The October 1, 2024, ILA strike was explicitly tied to the September 30 expiration of its six-year Master Contract with the USMX.¹ This predictable cycle creates a high-stakes environment where brinkmanship is common, as both sides use the deadline to test the other’s resolve.

While wages dominate headlines, disputes also encompass a range of non-monetary issues related to working conditions. These can include the number of workers assigned to a specific task (gang sizes), health and safety protocols, and, critically, the outsourcing of work to non-union labor. The latter was a primary cause of the prolonged Liverpool Dockers’ Strike from 1995 to 1998, where workers protested the hiring of non-union employees by a subcontractor, fearing it would lead to further job losses and an erosion of union power.⁹

The Automation Imperative: Man vs. The Machine

While economic and contractual issues are perennial, the most profound and intractable driver of modern port labor conflict is the advance of automation. For longshoremen’s unions, automation is not just another contractual clause to be negotiated; it is an existential threat that challenges their very existence and control over the waterfront.¹

Job Security as an Existential Threat

The core fear is straightforward: new technologies will replace human workers, leading to widespread job losses and diminishing the union’s membership and bargaining power.¹ This concern has been a feature of port labor relations since the advent of the shipping container in the 1950s, but it has reached a fever pitch with the rise of robotics and artificial intelligence. The ILA’s stance in the 2024 dispute was unequivocal: a demand for a “total ban on the automation of cranes, gates and container-moving trucks”.² This position was visually reinforced on picket lines with signs reading, “Automation Hurts Families: ILA Stands For Job Protection”.³

The conflict over automation is fundamentally a battle for control. For over a century, longshore unions have fought to wrest control over labor allocation from employers, replacing the arbitrary and exploitative “shape-up” system with union-run hiring halls that ensure fair work distribution.¹¹ This control over the labor supply is the bedrock of their power. Automation, especially AI-driven systems that can optimize scheduling, truck movements, and crane operations, threatens to transfer this control from the union back to management and proprietary algorithms. This is why the issue is often a “red line” for unions. Resisting automation is a strategic imperative to preserve their fundamental source of power, making it a far more difficult issue to compromise on than wages.

Case in Point: The “Auto Gate” System

The 2024 ILA-USMX negotiations provide a perfect illustration of how a specific piece of technology can become the flashpoint for a coast-wide crisis. Talks broke down after the union accused Maersk and its subsidiary, APM Terminals, of violating the existing contract by installing an automated gate system at the Port of Mobile, Alabama.¹ This “Auto Gate” system processes trucks entering and leaving the terminal without the need for ILA labor, directly striking at the union’s jurisdiction and workforce.¹ The ILA’s demand to halt the use of this system became a precondition for further talks, demonstrating that the abstract fear of automation had crystallized into a concrete and non-negotiable conflict over a single innovation.

II. The Key Antagonists: A Deep Dive into Unions, Alliances, and Authorities

Understanding why port strikes happen requires a deep appreciation of the institutions involved. These are not simply collections of individuals but organizations with rich histories, distinct cultures, and deeply ingrained strategic objectives. The recurring conflicts on the waterfront are shaped by the institutional DNA of the longshoremen’s unions, the economic imperatives of the employer alliances, and the unique, often conflicted, position of the port authorities.

The Longshoremen’s Unions: A Legacy of Militancy and Solidarity

The landscape of American port labor is dominated by two powerful unions, geographically divided but ideologically linked by a shared history of struggle.

On the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), founded in 1892, represents upwards of 85,000 maritime workers.¹³ On the Pacific Coast, the

International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) holds sway over 29 ports.⁸ The ILWU was born out of the ILA in 1937, following the seismic 1934 West Coast strike, and the two maintain separate jurisdictions.¹⁵

The modern identity of both unions was forged in the crucible of the early 20th century waterfront. Before unionization, longshore work was brutal, dangerous, and precarious.¹² Labor was hired through the “shape-up,” a daily ritual where a foreman would arbitrarily select workers from a crowd, a system rife with corruption, kickbacks, and blacklisting.¹² This exploitation gave rise to a militant unionism that culminated in the 1934 West Coast Waterfront Strike. That 83-day conflict, marked by violent clashes and the deaths of strikers, was a foundational event that established the ILWU’s power and cemented a culture of intense solidarity, rank-and-file democracy, and a willingness to use the strike weapon to defend its gains.¹⁵ This history is not merely academic; it is a living tradition that informs the unions’ resolve and their members’ commitment to the principle that “An injury to one is an injury to all”.¹²

This historical context creates a dynamic where the contract secured by one union often becomes the political and economic floor for the other’s negotiations. The ILWU’s 2023 contract, which included a reported 32% pay increase, was immediately seen as the benchmark that the ILA had to meet or exceed in its 2024 talks.⁷ This creates a “leapfrogging” effect, where each union is under pressure from its membership not to be outdone by its coastal counterpart. This can escalate demands and harden negotiating positions, making compromise more difficult as the unions compete not just with employers, but with each other’s recent successes.

The Employer Alliances: The Voice of Capital

On the other side of the bargaining table are the employer alliances, which consolidate the negotiating power of the dozens of companies operating at the ports. The U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) represents ocean carriers, terminal operators, and port employers on the East and Gulf Coasts in negotiations with the ILA.¹ Its West Coast counterpart is the

Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), which negotiates with the ILWU.⁸

The primary objective of these alliances is to ensure the efficient, reliable, and profitable movement of cargo. Their members, which include global shipping giants like Maersk and major terminal operators, view technological advancement and automation as critical imperatives for maintaining global competitiveness.⁷ They argue that U.S. ports lag significantly behind their highly automated counterparts in Asia and Europe and that modernization is essential to handle larger vessels, reduce congestion, and control costs.²⁴ In negotiations, their goal is to secure a long-term contract that provides labor stability while preserving their flexibility to introduce new technologies that enhance productivity.

However, these alliances are not monolithic. They are coalitions of diverse entities whose interests may not always align perfectly. For instance, a global ocean carrier like Maersk, driven by the need for efficiency across its worldwide network, may be more aggressive in pushing for standardized, automated systems. A smaller, regional terminal operator may have different capital investment priorities or a greater concern for maintaining stable local labor relations. A port authority, whose primary mandate is regional economic development, might be more risk-averse to a strike than a global carrier that can more easily reroute ships to other countries. A savvy union can perceive and exploit these subtle fractures within the employer’s negotiating bloc.

Port Authorities: The Quasi-Governmental Landlords

Port authorities occupy a unique and often ambiguous position in this ecosystem. They are governmental or quasi-governmental public entities created by legislative bodies to manage and develop port infrastructure.²⁶ They act as the landlord of the port, owning the land and waterways, setting fees, and investing in major capital projects like dredging channels and building new terminals.²⁷ Prominent examples include the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Georgia Ports Authority, and the Port of Los Angeles.²⁶

Crucially, port authorities typically do not directly employ the longshoremen who load and unload ships. Instead, they lease their terminal facilities to private operating companies, who are the members of USMX and PMA and the direct employers of ILA and ILWU labor.²⁷ Consequently, port authorities are not usually a direct party at the master contract negotiating table.

Despite this, they are profoundly affected by strikes. A work stoppage devastates their revenue streams and inflicts significant damage on the regional economy they are mandated to support. Therefore, they have a powerful vested interest in a swift and peaceful resolution. While they cannot dictate the terms of the labor contract, they often work behind the scenes, engaging in public and private advocacy to encourage both sides to reach an agreement and to prepare contingency plans to mitigate the impact of a potential shutdown.³⁰

III. The Path to Paralysis: Deconstructing the Collective Bargaining Process

A port strike is the final, visible outcome of a long and complex process of negotiation that has failed. The journey from a functioning labor agreement to a silent port with picket lines is marked by strategic maneuvering, escalating demands, and ultimately, a breakdown in the ability of labor and management to find common ground. The 2024 dispute between the ILA and USMX serves as a textbook example of this path to paralysis.

The Bargaining Table: A High-Stakes Negotiation

The foundation of labor relations in the maritime industry is collective bargaining, a legally structured process where the union, as the exclusive representative of the workers, negotiates with the employer alliance to establish the terms of employment for a set period.³¹ This process is governed by federal labor law, which imposes a “duty to bargain in good faith” on both parties, meaning they must be willing to meet and engage in meaningful discussions to reach an agreement.³¹

The process begins long before the existing contract expires. Each side engages in extensive preparation, analyzing economic data, surveying members or stakeholders, establishing priorities, and appointing a negotiating team.³¹ The union typically opens with an ambitious set of demands. This is a classic negotiation tactic known as “anchoring,” designed to set a high starting point from which any subsequent concessions will still result in a favorable outcome. The ILA’s initial demand for a 77% pay raise in the 2024 talks is a clear example of this strategy.²

Sticking Points and Stalemates: The 2024 Case Study

The 2024 negotiations illustrate how quickly this process can devolve into a stalemate over a few core issues. The vast gulf between the two parties’ positions became apparent early on and proved insurmountable before the deadline.

Issue	International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) Position	U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) Position
Wages	Initial demand for a 77% pay raise over 6 years, framed as a $5/hour raise each year. Rationale was to compensate for inflation, share in massive pandemic-era shipping profits, and match gains made by the West Coast ILWU. 2	Initial offer of a $2.50/hour raise each year. Later increased the offer to a nearly 50% and then a 62% raise over six years. 2
Automation	Demand for a complete and total ban on automated port technology, specifically citing the “Auto Gate” system as a contract violation. Framed as an existential issue of job protection. 1	Refused a total ban, committing only to limited incorporation of automation. Argued that automation is essential for port efficiency and global competitiveness. 8
Benefits	Demanded that all container royalty payments go directly to workers. 8	Claimed to have already tripled employer contributions to worker healthcare and retirement benefits in their offer. 8

The negotiations reached a critical impasse over these points. The ILA publicly rejected the USMX’s wage offer as “unacceptable” and “stingy,” given the industry’s profitability.¹⁰ The USMX, in turn, filed a formal complaint with labor regulators, accusing the ILA of refusing to negotiate in good faith.⁸ A clear sign of the complete breakdown in communication was the fact that the two sides had not held formal, face-to-face negotiations in the three months leading up to the strike deadline.¹⁰

From Impasse to Picket Line: The Strategic Calculus of a Strike

When dialogue fails and the contract deadline approaches, the decision to strike becomes a matter of strategic calculation. A strike is the union’s ultimate weapon, a deliberate act of inflicting economic pain on employers to force them to make concessions they would not otherwise offer.¹ The timing is crucial; launching a strike at the beginning of the peak shipping season for the holidays, as was the case in 2024, is designed to maximize economic pressure and public urgency.³⁴

This final stage of negotiation can be understood through the lens of game theory, specifically as a version of the “Game of Chicken”.³⁵ In this model, two parties are on a collision course (the contract expiration). The optimal outcome for each is to have the other party “swerve” (make major concessions). The worst outcome for both is a “crash” (a prolonged and mutually destructive strike). The strategy leading up to the deadline involves each side signaling its unwavering resolve, trying to convince the other that it is fully prepared to crash rather than swerve. A strike occurs when these signals are misread, or when both parties become so committed to their positions that neither is willing to concede, resulting in the inevitable collision.

Strikes can also arise from “informational asymmetry,” where one party is uncertain about the other’s true constraints.³⁶ For example, the union may not know the true profitability of the shipping companies. It may make a high wage demand, believing the firms can easily afford it. The firms, if their margins are tighter than the union believes, will reject the offer. The strike then becomes a costly but effective way for the firms to signal the credibility of their financial position. By demonstrating a willingness to endure the pain of a shutdown, they “prove” to the union that they cannot meet the initial demands, forcing the union to reassess and lower its expectations. In this view, a strike, while inefficient, can be a rational process of revealing information to bridge the gap between perceptions and reality.

IV. The Ripple Effect: Quantifying the Economic and Supply Chain Carnage

A port strike is not a localized event; it is a systemic shock that radiates outward from the docks, disrupting supply chains and inflicting significant economic damage on a national and even global scale. The concentration of trade in these key nodes means that a work stoppage acts as a clog in the main artery of commerce, with consequences that are felt for weeks and months after the picket lines are gone.

Systemic Disruption at the Chokepoint

The immediate impact of a strike is the complete cessation of cargo handling. Ships arriving at the port cannot be unloaded, and containers destined for export cannot be loaded. This triggers a cascade of logistical failures.

• Immediate Impacts: The most visible effect is port congestion, as ships begin to pile up at anchor, waiting for operations to resume.¹ This creates a massive backlog of cargo. Analysts estimate that for every single day of a work stoppage, it takes approximately five days for the port and the surrounding logistics network to recover and clear the resulting backlog.³⁴ This non-linear recovery time means that even a short strike can have a long tail of disruption.
• Cascading Delays: The paralysis at the port quickly spreads inland, creating a “ripple effect” throughout the supply chain.¹ With cargo trapped in terminals,
  inland transit times for trucks and trains skyrocket.¹ This creates bottlenecks in the national trucking and rail networks, which are tightly synchronized with port schedules.³⁴ For the thousands of manufacturers and retailers who rely on just-in-time delivery systems, this disruption throws production schedules into chaos and can lead to factory shutdowns and empty store shelves.³⁴
• Global Reverberations: The impact is not confined to the United States. A container ship stuck in a floating queue off the Port of Savannah or Houston is a vessel that cannot proceed to its next port of call in Europe or Asia.³⁸ This disrupts global shipping schedules, creates a scarcity of vessel capacity elsewhere in the world, and dislocates shipping containers, leading to equipment shortages in other regions.³⁴

The Economic Fallout: A Nation’s Bottom Line

The financial cost of a major port strike is immense, measured in billions of dollars per day. While the exact figures are often debated, they consistently point to a severe economic shock.

• Direct and Indirect Costs: For the 2024 ILA strike, which affected 36 ports on the East and Gulf Coasts handling roughly half of the nation’s cargo, analysts’ estimates of the daily economic cost ranged from $1.3 billion in affected exports and $3 billion in affected imports to as high as $4.5 billion per day in total economic impact.³⁹ These figures attempt to capture not only the lost revenue for shipping lines, port operators, and transportation companies, but also the lost sales for exporters and the costs incurred by importers whose supply chains are broken.
• Inflationary Pressures: A prolonged strike can exert significant upward pressure on inflation. The combination of goods shortages and sharply increased transportation costs—as companies scramble to reroute cargo or resort to expensive air freight—is ultimately passed on to consumers through higher prices.³⁷ The 1977 ILA strike, for example, which lasted 44 days, was followed by a noticeable jump in the U.S. month-over-month inflation rate.³⁹
• Hidden Costs: Beyond the headline numbers, shippers face a host of other costs. When containers are stuck at a terminal for longer than the allotted “free time” due to a strike, they begin to accrue costly demurrage and detention charges, which can run into thousands of dollars per container per day.¹

It is important to note that the widely cited “billion-dollar-a-day” figures are often part of a strategic public relations battle. These studies are frequently commissioned by employer groups and business associations, such as the Pacific Maritime Association and the National Retail Federation, and then publicized to create a sense of national crisis.⁴¹ The goal is often to build public and political pressure for government intervention to end the strike, most notably through the use of the Taft-Hartley Act. Independent analyses, which account for mitigating factors like rerouting cargo or consumers simply delaying purchases, often produce lower, though still substantial, cost estimates.⁴² Thus, the economic data itself becomes a weapon in the broader conflict.

Sector-Specific Vulnerabilities

While the economic impact is broad, certain sectors are disproportionately vulnerable to port shutdowns due to their reliance on timely, international supply chains.

• Retail: The retail industry is highly exposed, especially when a strike coincides with the peak shipping season for major holidays like Christmas.³⁴ While many large retailers learned lessons from the pandemic and now build up inventory months in advance, a prolonged strike can still lead to shortages of popular items and prevent replenishment of stock.² This creates a scarcity of goods at the most critical sales period of the year, while also forcing retailers to incur extra costs for warehousing the inventory they did manage to import early.⁴⁴
• Agriculture: Agricultural exporters are uniquely vulnerable because many of their products—such as fruits, vegetables, and meat—are perishable and require timely shipment in refrigerated containers.³⁴ A strike can mean entire shipments are lost to spoilage. For bulk commodities like soybeans, a strike during harvest season creates a logistical nightmare, leading to a domestic oversupply that can cause local prices to crash, devastating farmers’ incomes.⁴⁵ The 2024 strike threatened nearly 80% of waterborne poultry exports and over 75% of the nation’s banana supply.⁴⁵
• Healthcare: The healthcare supply chain is surprisingly fragile and heavily dependent on imports. A port strike can disrupt the flow of essential goods, including critical medical supplies, advanced diagnostic equipment, and key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, potentially impacting patient care, delaying surgeries, and straining an already stressed system.³⁷
• Automotive: The automotive industry relies on a complex global network of parts suppliers. A strike can halt the import of critical components, leading to slowdowns or even shutdowns at U.S. assembly plants.⁴⁹ The ports of Baltimore and Brunswick, Georgia, for example, are the two busiest auto ports in the nation and were directly affected by the 2024 ILA strike.²

These repeated disruptions are also a powerful catalyst for long-term changes in supply chain strategy. The traditional, hyper-efficient “just-in-time” inventory model is rendered untenable by the risk of port shutdowns. In its place, companies are forced to adopt more resilient but more expensive “just-in-case” strategies, which involve holding larger buffer inventories and diversifying their supplier base.⁵¹ On a macro level, the perceived unreliability of U.S. ports can accelerate strategic shifts toward near-shoring (moving production to Mexico or Canada) and reshoring, reducing dependence on long-distance ocean freight altogether.⁵² In this way, a short-term labor victory could inadvertently contribute to a long-term decline in cargo volume for the very ports where the unions hold power, as businesses permanently re-engineer their global operations to mitigate future labor risk.

Strike Event	Estimated Daily Economic Cost	Key Supply Chain Impacts	Most Vulnerable Sectors & Goods
2002 West Coast Lockout	Ranged from $1.67B over 12 days (conservative) to widely cited but disputed figures of $1B-$2B per day. 41	11-day shutdown created a backlog of ships that took over 100 days to fully clear. Disrupted peak holiday shipping season. 9	Retail: High-value electronics, toys. Manufacturing: Disrupted just-in-time schedules. Agriculture: Perishables. 9
2024 ILA Strike	Ranged from $4.3B per day (RSM) to $3.8B-$4.5B per day (J.P. Morgan). A 3-day strike was estimated to have no visible impact on GDP. 39	Each day of stoppage estimated to require 5 days of recovery. Threatened peak holiday shipping and coincided with Red Sea/Panama Canal disruptions. 1	Agriculture: Bananas, soybeans, poultry, coffee. Automotive: Imported vehicles and parts. Healthcare: Medical supplies, pharmaceuticals. Retail: Apparel, furniture, consumer goods. 2

V. Echoes from the Docks: Historical Case Studies and Their Modern Relevance

Today’s waterfront conflicts are not new phenomena. They are the latest chapters in a long and often violent history of labor-management struggle that has shaped the ports, the unions, and the very nature of global trade. Understanding these historical precedents is essential, as their outcomes have created a “path dependency”—a set of established institutions, strategies, and cultural norms—that continues to govern the behavior of all parties in modern disputes.

The 1934 West Coast Waterfront Strike: The Foundational Conflict

Arguably the most significant labor dispute in American maritime history, the 1934 West Coast Waterfront Strike was a transformative event that fundamentally and permanently altered the balance of power on the docks.⁵⁵

• Causes and Events: The 83-day coast-wide strike was a mass rebellion against decades of exploitation under the employer-controlled “shape-up” hiring system.¹¹ Led by militant rank-and-file activists within the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), the workers’ demands were radical for the time: union recognition, a coast-wide contract, higher wages, and, most critically, a
  union-controlled hiring hall to dispatch workers.¹¹ The employers refused to negotiate, recruiting thousands of strikebreakers and enlisting the police to protect them. The conflict escalated into open warfare on the streets of San Francisco on July 5, 1934, a day that became known as
  “Bloody Thursday,” when police fired into a crowd of strikers, killing two men.²⁰ The killings galvanized the city’s labor movement, which responded by launching a four-day general strike that shut down San Francisco and ultimately forced the employers to the negotiating table.¹⁹
• Resolution and Legacy: The strike ended after President Franklin D. Roosevelt intervened and appointed a federal arbitration board. The board’s ruling was a stunning victory for the workers, granting them most of their key demands, including the union-run hiring hall.¹⁹ This outcome broke the absolute power of the shipping companies on the waterfront. It led to the formation of the ILWU as a separate, more militant union and established the hiring hall as a sacred, non-negotiable institution that remains the bedrock of the union’s power to this day.¹⁸

For longshoremen, the 1934 strike is more than a historical event; it is a foundational myth. The stories of struggle, sacrifice, and ultimate victory are passed down through generations, forging a powerful collective identity and a deep-seated cultural resolve.²⁰ This shared history helps explain the union’s willingness to endure long and costly strikes over issues of principle, a level of commitment that can be underestimated by outside observers who view the conflict through a purely economic lens.

The 2002 West Coast Port Lockout: The Modern Precedent

If the 1934 strike set the stage for union power, the 2002 West Coast Port Lockout established the playbook for modern waterfront conflicts, particularly those centered on technology.

• Causes and Events: The dispute, which resulted in an 11-day shutdown of 29 West Coast ports, was precipitated by an employer lockout of ILWU members. The central sticking point in the contract negotiations was the introduction of new technologies—such as scanners and data systems—that employers argued were necessary for efficiency but which the union feared would eliminate clerical jobs.⁹
• Resolution and Legacy: The lockout occurred during the critical peak shipping season, causing massive supply chain disruptions. Citing the growing damage to the national economy, and armed with widely publicized (though heavily disputed) estimates that the shutdown was costing $1 billion per day, President George W. Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act.⁹ This forced the ports to reopen and the workers to return to their jobs for an 80-day “cooling-off” period, during which a new six-year contract was eventually negotiated.⁹ The 2002 lockout created a modern precedent in several ways. It solidified the strategy for employer and business groups to frame a strike as a national economic crisis to build political support for federal intervention. It also had lasting commercial consequences, prompting some shippers to begin a long-term strategy of diversifying their cargo away from the West Coast to mitigate the risk of future labor disruptions, a trend that has benefited ports on the Gulf and East Coasts.⁴¹

Other Significant Disputes

The themes of automation and job security have been a constant thread through decades of port labor disputes, demonstrating the cyclical nature of these conflicts.

• The 1971 West Coast strike, which lasted 130 days, was one of the longest in U.S. history and was also driven by disputes over the mechanization of cargo handling and the size of work gangs.⁹
• The 1977 ILA strike was the last major coast-wide action on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts before the 2024 dispute, a 44-day stoppage that highlights the relative labor peace the ILA had maintained for nearly half a century.²
• The 2015 Los Angeles and Long Beach strike was a shorter but still highly disruptive action focused on concerns about the outsourcing of maintenance work and other changes to working conditions.⁹

Year/Event	Duration	Primary Causes	Resolution/Key Outcomes
1934 West Coast Strike	83 days	Union Recognition, End of “Shape-Up,” Union-Controlled Hiring Hall, Wages 11	Federal Arbitration. Granted union recognition and hiring hall control. Led to the formation of the ILWU. 19
1971 West Coast Strike	130 days	Automation/Mechanization, Job Security, Wages 9	Negotiated Settlement. Revealed the deep economic impact of prolonged strikes. 9
1977 ILA Strike	44 days	Job Security, Container Handling Rules, Guaranteed Annual Income 7	Negotiated Settlement. Was the last major ILA coast-wide strike until 2024. 58
2002 West Coast Lockout	11 days	Introduction of New Technology/Automation, Job Security for Clerical Workers 9	President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley Act. Set the modern precedent for federal intervention and the “billion-dollar-a-day” debate. 9
2015 LA/Long Beach Strike	8 days	Outsourcing of Work, Working Conditions, Job Security 9	Negotiated Settlement. Caused significant local disruption and highlighted ongoing tensions over jurisdiction. 9

VI. The Specter of the Machine: Automation as the Central Conflict of the 21st Century Port

While wages and benefits remain critical bargaining points, the issue of automation has become the central, most contentious, and strategically significant conflict shaping the future of port labor relations. This is not simply a dispute over the implementation of new tools; it is a fundamental battle over the distribution of productivity gains, the security of well-paying blue-collar jobs, and the very definition of work on the 21st-century waterfront.

A Long History: From Containerization to Artificial Intelligence

The struggle between longshore labor and labor-saving technology is as old as the modern port itself. The first, and most disruptive, automation revolution was the introduction of the shipping container in the 1950s.⁷ Prior to this innovation, cargo was handled “break-bulk,” with individual crates, bags, and barrels being loaded and unloaded by large gangs of longshoremen in a slow, dangerous, and labor-intensive process.⁵⁹

Containerization, pioneered by Malcom McLean, transformed this system. By standardizing cargo into large metal boxes that could be mechanically lifted from a truck chassis directly onto a ship, the technology drastically increased efficiency. The cost of loading cargo plummeted from an estimated $6 per ton to just 16 cents per ton, primarily due to the massive reduction in required labor.²⁴ For the unions, the container was an existential threat. As one union leader warned in 1959, the container was projected to eliminate 30% of longshore jobs; in reality, between 1963 and 1976, longshore hours worked in New York City fell by 75%.²⁴

The two major U.S. longshore unions responded to this technological shock in strategically different ways. On the West Coast, the ILWU, under its legendary leader Harry Bridges, negotiated the landmark 1960 Mechanization and Modernization (M&M) Agreement. In this groundbreaking deal, the union agreed to accept the introduction of containers and other machinery in exchange for a share of the productivity gains in the form of generous retirement benefits and a guarantee against layoffs for the existing workforce.¹² It was a strategy of managing, rather than blocking, technological change. The ILA’s hardline “total ban” stance in the 2024 negotiations represents a significant departure from this historical model of compromise.

The Modern Automation Battlefield

Today’s conflict is focused on a new wave of technologies that promise to automate not just the handling of cargo, but the decision-making and operational processes of the entire terminal.

• Current Technologies: The specific systems at the heart of current disputes include automated stacking cranes that manage container yards, automated guided vehicles (AGVs) that transport containers between the ship and the yard, and automated gate systems that use optical character recognition to process trucks without human intervention.² By global standards, U.S. ports have been slow to adopt these technologies, a lag that is at least partly attributable to union resistance.²⁴
• The Dueling Arguments: The debate over these technologies is stark. Employers and port operators argue that automation is essential for improving safety, increasing efficiency, and remaining globally competitive, especially as they face pressure to service ever-larger container ships.²⁵ The unions counter that automation’s primary purpose is to eliminate union jobs, weaken their bargaining power, and transfer wealth from labor to the foreign-owned shipping companies. As one longshoreman put it, “machines don’t pay taxes,” capturing the sentiment that automation benefits corporate shareholders at the expense of American workers and communities.⁴

The uneven adoption of automation, driven by these differing labor dynamics, could create a new competitive landscape among U.S. ports. If West Coast ports, with the ILWU’s historical precedent of negotiating technology, become significantly more automated and efficient, they could permanently capture market share from the ILA-dominated East and Gulf Coast ports. This places the ILA in a strategic paradox: winning a “no automation” clause in their contract could secure jobs in the short term, but lead to a long-term decline in work as cargo volumes are diverted to more productive, automated competitors.

The Future of Port Labor: AI, Robotics, and the Next Frontier

The current conflict is likely a prelude to an even more profound technological shift driven by artificial intelligence and advanced robotics.

• The Coming Wave: The next frontier of port technology involves using AI to optimize the entire logistics chain. AI algorithms can analyze vessel traffic, weather patterns, and landside congestion to optimize ship arrivals, crane deployment, and truck appointments, further reducing the need for human intervention and decision-making.⁶² Drones are already being used for inspections, and fully autonomous vehicles are being tested.⁶²
• The Evolving Role of the Dockworker: This technological wave will inevitably transform the nature of port work. The demand for manual labor will continue to decline, while the need for workers with technical skills to operate, maintain, and troubleshoot complex automated systems will grow.⁶⁰ This presents both a threat to the existing workforce and an opportunity for a new model of labor relations focused on retraining, upskilling, and ensuring that the workforce of the future can command high wages for high-tech work.

This ongoing technological transformation also presents a deeper, systemic question about the balance between efficiency and resilience. The relentless drive for automation and just-in-time logistics aims to eliminate buffers and redundancy—like excess labor or inventory—to maximize efficiency. However, systems theory suggests that these very buffers are what provide a system with the resilience needed to absorb shocks.⁶⁵ A hyper-efficient, fully automated port might be more productive under normal conditions but could prove more brittle and vulnerable to a single point of failure, such as a sophisticated cyber-attack or a critical software failure, which could be more difficult to recover from than a labor dispute. The debate over automation, therefore, is not just a binary choice between jobs and profits, but a more complex negotiation over how to design a port system that is at once efficient, competitive, and resilient.

VII. Navigating the Impasse: Dispute Resolution and Government’s Role

When collective bargaining breaks down and a strike paralyzes the ports, the focus shifts from negotiation to resolution. A variety of mechanisms, ranging from voluntary mediation to forceful federal intervention, can be employed to end the work stoppage. The path chosen is often determined by the severity of the economic impact, the political climate, and the willingness of the parties to seek a compromise.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Before and during a labor dispute, parties can turn to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods to find a path to a settlement without resorting to prolonged conflict or litigation.

• Mediation and Arbitration: The two most common forms of ADR in labor disputes are mediation and arbitration.⁶⁷
  Mediation is a voluntary and non-binding process in which a neutral third-party mediator facilitates communication and helps the parties explore potential compromises.⁶⁷ The mediator has no authority to impose a solution; their role is to guide the parties toward a mutually acceptable agreement. Mediation is often favored for its flexibility, confidentiality, and ability to preserve the long-term relationship between the parties.⁶⁸
  Arbitration, by contrast, is a more formal process where a neutral arbitrator (or a panel of arbitrators) hears evidence and arguments from both sides and then renders a binding decision, much like a judge.⁶⁷ While less flexible than mediation, arbitration provides a definitive and enforceable resolution to the dispute. These methods are frequently used to resolve grievances during the life of a contract and can be instrumental in averting a strike or finding a “face-saving” way to end one.

Federal Intervention: The Taft-Hartley Act

When a port strike is deemed to have a crippling effect on the country, the federal government has a powerful and controversial tool at its disposal: the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act.

• The Legal Instrument: Section 206 of the Taft-Hartley Act authorizes the President of the United States to intervene in a labor dispute that, in their judgment, “imperils the national health or safety”.³⁴ If this standard is met, the President can appoint a board of inquiry to report on the dispute and then direct the Attorney General to seek a federal court injunction. If granted, this injunction can suspend the strike and force workers back on the job for an 80-day “cooling-off period”.⁷⁴
• Historical Application: This presidential power has been invoked 37 times in a variety of industries since 1947.⁷⁵ Its use in the maritime sector is well-established, most notably when President George W. Bush invoked the act to end the 11-day West Coast port lockout in 2002.⁹ The justification in that case was that the shutdown of ports handling over $300 billion in annual trade constituted a grave threat to the American economy.⁵⁴
• A Political Calculation: The decision to use Taft-Hartley is intensely political. Unions have long condemned it as a “slave-labor act,” arguing that it shatters their primary source of leverage—the right to withhold their labor—and unfairly sides with management.⁷⁶ Consequently, a president’s willingness to invoke the act is a delicate calculation, weighing the immediate economic damage of a strike against the potential political fallout from alienating organized labor, which is a key constituency, particularly for the Democratic Party. This political dilemma was on full display in 2024, when President Joe Biden, despite intense pressure from business groups like the National Retail Federation, stated that he would not intervene in the ILA strike, instead urging the port employers to offer a fair contract.⁸

While the Taft-Hartley Act is a powerful tool for temporarily halting a strike, its effectiveness as a long-term resolution mechanism is questionable. The act does not, and cannot, force the parties to reach an agreement.⁷⁵ It merely imposes a pause. Historical data shows that in a number of cases where the act was invoked, workers simply resumed their strike after the 80-day cooling-off period expired.⁷⁵ Furthermore, even under an injunction, a resentful workforce can engage in contractually permissible “work slowdowns”—such as meticulous safety inspections of every truck and container—that can be nearly as disruptive as an outright strike, blunting the impact of the government’s intervention.⁶ This suggests that Taft-Hartley is often more of a temporary pressure-release valve to mitigate immediate economic pain than a true tool for resolving the deep-seated conflicts that cause the strike in the first place.

VIII. Strategic Outlook and Recommendations for Supply Chain Resilience

The recurring cycle of brinkmanship and disruption at U.S. ports indicates that labor instability is not an occasional crisis but a structural feature of the modern global supply chain. The convergence of powerful, historically militant unions, profit-driven global shipping alliances, and the transformative pressure of automation ensures that the threat of strikes will remain a significant risk factor for the foreseeable future. This reality demands a fundamental shift in perspective for all stakeholders, away from reactive crisis management and toward the proactive cultivation of systemic resilience.

The “New Normal” of Disruption

The 2024 ILA strike, following years of pandemic-related disruptions and geopolitical instability in key shipping lanes like the Red Sea and the Panama Canal, has reinforced a crucial lesson for global businesses: supply chain volatility is the new normal.³⁴ Relying on a single port, a single coast, or a single mode of transport is no longer a viable strategy. The potential for a work stoppage at a vital economic chokepoint must be treated as a predictable, recurring risk to be managed, rather than an unforeseen disaster.

Strategies for Shippers, Retailers, and Manufacturers

For the businesses that depend on the flow of goods through the ports, mitigating the risk of strikes requires a multi-pronged approach focused on building redundancy and flexibility into their supply chains.

• Diversification and Redundancy: The most critical strategy is to reduce dependence on any single logistical chokepoint. This involves actively diversifying port usage, ensuring that cargo can be rerouted to unaffected ports in the event of a strike. During the 2024 ILA strike threat on the East and Gulf Coasts, many shippers proactively rerouted cargo to West Coast ports or, in some cases, to ports in Mexico and Canada to be trucked or railed across the border.³⁷
• From “Just-in-Time” to “Just-in-Case”: The era of hyper-lean, “just-in-time” inventories is being challenged by the need for greater resilience. Companies are increasingly moving toward a “just-in-case” model, which involves building up safety stock and holding larger inventories to act as a buffer against potential disruptions.⁵¹ This strategy, however, is not without cost. It ties up significant working capital and incurs substantial expenses for warehousing and storage, creating a “resilience tax” that is ultimately borne by the company and its customers.²
• Proactive Risk Management: Sophisticated shippers now engage in continuous risk analysis long before a contract deadline approaches. This includes creating supply chain “heat maps” to identify which suppliers and product lines are most vulnerable to a shutdown at specific ports, developing detailed contingency plans for rerouting and alternative transport, and maintaining open lines of communication with logistics partners to manage expectations.³⁷

The cumulative effect of these actions imposes significant costs on the economy even if a strike never materializes. The months of precautionary rerouting, inventory stockpiling, and expedited shipping in anticipation of a strike represent economically inefficient decisions forced by the threat of labor instability. This persistent “resilience tax” acts as a hidden but substantial drag on economic productivity.

The Path Forward for Labor and Management

The central conflict over automation is not going to disappear; it will only intensify as technology advances. Finding a sustainable, long-term resolution will require both labor and management to move beyond the zero-sum framework of “jobs versus machines.” The 1960 Mechanization and Modernization Agreement on the West Coast, while a product of a different era, offers a conceptual model. It demonstrated that it is possible to create a framework where labor accepts technological change in exchange for a direct share in the resulting productivity gains and security for its members.

Future negotiations will need to explore modern versions of this grand bargain, focusing on robust programs for retraining and upskilling the workforce for the high-tech jobs of the automated port, as well as new forms of revenue sharing that go beyond traditional wage increases. Establishing permanent structures for social dialogue between labor and management, rather than interacting only during contentious contract years, is key to building trust and reducing the risk of future conflicts.⁷⁹

In the broadest strategic context, chronic labor instability at U.S. ports could have profound implications for global trade patterns. Globalization was built on the promise of cheap, fast, and reliable ocean transport. As that promise is eroded by a combination of geopolitical risks, climate-related disruptions, and recurring labor disputes, the calculus for multinational corporations may begin to shift. If the risk and cost of managing transoceanic supply chains become too high, it could accelerate the existing trends of near-shoring and reshoring of manufacturing.⁵² In this scenario, the long-term consequence of waterfront standoffs could be a fundamental reordering of global trade, potentially diminishing the very cargo volumes over which the current battles are being fought.

Works cited

1. Port Strikes 2024 Impact and Mitigation Strategies for Shipping, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.container-xchange.com/blog/port-strike/
2. 7 things to know about the U.S. dockworkers strike and its effect on the economy – PBS, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/7-things-to-know-about-the-u-s-dockworkers-strike-and-its-effect-on-the-economy
3. Dockworkers at ports from Maine to Texas go on strike, a standoff risking new shortages, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/port-strike-ila-dockworkers-begins-e5468e760f46a64e4322d1702beb1f72
4. Alabama longshoreman explains why he believes the port strike happened – YouTube, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZjWvnuBSwE
5. US port worker speaks out on the picket line: ‘We’ve taken less than we’ve deserved in the past’ | Fox Business, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/us-port-worker-speaks-out-picket-line-weve-taken-less-than-weve-deserved-past
6. Understanding Organized Labor’s Impact on Our Supply Chain, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://haslam.utk.edu/gsci/news/organized-labor-port-strikes/
7. Why Did Tens of Thousands of Dockworkers Strike? | Rutgers University, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.rutgers.edu/news/why-did-tens-thousands-dockworkers-strike
8. 2024 United States port strike – Wikipedia, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_port_strike
9. What previous port strikes teach us about the current crisis – Overhaul, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://over-haul.com/port-strikes-what-they-teach-us/
10. Port strikes extend a new era of American labor activism – WHYY, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://whyy.org/articles/port-strikes-american-labor-activism-union-workers/
11. The Waterfront Strike – FoundSF, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.foundsf.org/The_Waterfront_Strike
12. The ILWU Story, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.ilwu.org/history/the-ilwu-story/
13. International Longshoremen’s Association Labor union, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Longshoremen’s_Association
14. ILA Union, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://ilaunion.org/
15. International Longshore and Warehouse Union – Wikipedia, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Longshore_and_Warehouse_Union
16. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union (ILWU), Local 13 Records Part I, 1933-1989 – OAC, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8x63q34/
17. History – ILA Union, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://ilaunion.org/ila-history/
18. (PDF) On (And Off) the Waterfront: The International Longshore and Warehouse Union and Its Place in Labor History – ResearchGate, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385667586_On_And_Off_the_Waterfront_The_International_Longshore_and_Warehouse_Union_and_Its_Place_in_Labor_History
19. 5 port strikes that made history – FreightWaves, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/5-port-strikes-that-made-history
20. 1934 West Coast waterfront strike – Wikipedia, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_West_Coast_waterfront_strike
21. 1948 ILWU strike – UW Departments Web Server, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://depts.washington.edu/dock/1948strike.shtml
22. Ports detail strike contingencies – FreightWaves, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/ports-detail-strike-contingencies
23. Dockworkers go on strike, snarling traffic at East and Gulf Coast ports – OPB, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.opb.org/article/2024/10/01/dockworkers-begin-strike-snarling-east-and-gulf-coast-ports/
24. Some Anti-Progress Lessons from the Port Workers Strike | American Enterprise Institute, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.aei.org/articles/some-anti-progress-lessons-from-the-port-workers-strike/
25. Interview on the dockworkers strike – YouTube, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5txEiQl38
26. Port authority – Wikipedia, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_authority
27. Chapter 8.2 – Port Authorities – Port Economics, Management and Policy, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/
28. SC Ports Authority: Home, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://scspa.com/
29. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: We Keep the Region Moving, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.panynj.gov/port-authority/en/index.html
30. Four Days to go – Potential U.S. port strike?!, Han Deng, Julia Norsetter – Reed Smith LLP, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://viewpoints.reedsmith.com/post/102jkbt/four-days-to-go-potential-u-s-port-strike
31. Navigating Collective Bargaining in Maritime Law – Number Analytics, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-collective-bargaining-maritime-labor-law
32. 1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions – National Labor Relations Board, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/who-we-are/our-history/1947-taft-hartley-substantive-provisions
33. Top five best practices for shipping contract negotiations – Audintel, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://audintel.com/best-practices-for-shipping-contract-negotiations/
34. The Looming Port Strike: What It Means for the U.S. Economy, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.rila.org/blog/2024/09/looming-port-strike-what-means-us-economy
35. Educational Labor Strikes and the Game of Chicken – The Decision Lab, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/society/educational-labor-strikes-and-the-game-of-chicken
36. strike activity and wage settlements – David K. Levine, accessed on August 5, 2025, http://www.dklevine.com/papers/strikes.pdf
37. The Port Strike: What It Means for Supply Chains and Healthcare – ECRI, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://home.ecri.org/blogs/ecri-blog/the-port-strike-what-it-means-for-supply-chains-and-healthcare
38. What’s behind the dockworkers strike and what it means for U.S. consumers | PBS News, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/whats-behind-the-dockworkers-strike-and-what-it-means-for-u-s-consumers
39. Dockworkers’ Strike Could Cost the Economy $4.5B Per Day—and Rekindle Inflation, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/us-dockworkers-strike-begins-what-it-means-for-the-economy-8721616
40. U.S. port strike will have a modest impact on GDP – The Real Economy Blog, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://realeconomy.rsmus.com/u-s-port-strike-will-have-a-modest-impact-on-gdp/
41. “We’d Have to Sink the Ships”: Impact Studies and the 2002 West …, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.sfu.ca/~pvhall/pdfs/pvhall_edq_2004.PDF
42. Journal of Commerce Article: Putting a Price on a Port Strike – ILWU Canada, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.ilwu.ca/journal-of-commerce-article-putting-a-price-on-a-port-strike/
43. Lost Earnings Due to West Coast Port Shutdown: Preliminary Estimate, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/lost-earnings-due-to-west-coast-port-shutdown-preliminary-estimate/
44. The US could see shortages and higher retail prices if a dockworkers strike drags on, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/longshoremen-strike-retailers-ports-holiday-d926e9cfb3f10efb50af89d3c96bdc3d
45. Port Strike Could Sink Access to Foreign Markets – American Farm Bureau Federation, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.fb.org/market-intel/port-strike-could-sink-access-to-foreign-markets
46. US dockworker strike: Three charts to understand the impact on agriculture, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/10/02/us-dockworker-strike-impact-on-agriculture/
47. How the Port Strike Affects Food Supply & Food Security – Move For Hunger, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://moveforhunger.org/blog/port-shutdown-link-between-food-supply-food-security
48. How Dockworkers’ Strike Will Impact Food, Other Products – Time Magazine, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://time.com/7027309/port-dockworkers-strike-food-shortages/
49. Economic impact of the ports strike | EY – US, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/strategy/macroeconomics/economic-impact-of-the-ports-strike
50. 2024 US Port Strike: Lessons for Supply Chain Resilience | GEP Blog, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.gep.com/blog/mind/2024-us-port-strike-lessons-for-supply-chain-resilience
51. Longshoreman on Strike: US Ports Get Shut Down || Peter Zeihan – YouTube, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rOWmyvc3sk
52. NEARSHORING IN MEXICO – Mayer Brown, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/perspectives-events/publications/2023/05/whitepaper_nearshoring_fnl.pdf?rev=0383024119224587a4a922b07f9632bd
53. The High Cost of Labor Strife at U.S. Ports | Cato Institute, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.cato.org/commentary/high-cost-labor-strife-us-ports
54. President Takes Action to Protect America’s Economy and Jobs (Text Only), accessed on August 5, 2025, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/text/20021007-5.html
55. Waterfront Workers History Project, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/library/2015/05/27/Aircraft_Longshoremen.PDF
56. 1934 longshore strike newspaper coverage – University of Washington, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://depts.washington.edu/dock/34strike_news_coverage.shtml
57. West coast waterfront strike of 1934 – The Oregon Encyclopedia, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/west_coast_waterfront_strike_of_1934/
58. The port strike – Fidelity Investments, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/port-strike
59. Magic Box: the efficiency of global container shipping transformed West Oakland — and the world – Monument to Extraction, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://monumenttoextraction.org/stories/container-shipping/
60. The History of Longshoremen and Their Role in the Global Economy – W&K Container, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.oceancontainer.com/in_the_news/the-history-of-longshoremen-and-their-role-in-the-global-economy
61. Impact of Containerization on Laws Concerning the Maritime Shipping Industry, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2823&context=lawreview
62. Smart Ports: Optimizing Operations with AI and Automation – Datahub Analytics, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://datahubanalytics.com/smart-ports-optimizing-operations-with-ai-and-automation/
63. The key role of AI, automation, and robotics in port efficiency – Kale Info Solutions, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://kalelogistics.com/usa/the-key-role-of-ai-automation-and-robotics-in-port-efficiency/
64. AI accelerates productivity and safety in the world of ports | News center | ABB, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://new.abb.com/news/detail/126045/ai-accelerates-productivity-and-safety-in-the-world-of-ports
65. An initial exploration of port capacity bottlenecks in the USA port system and the implications on resilience – ResearchGate, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291049415_An_initial_exploration_of_port_capacity_bottlenecks_in_the_USA_port_system_and_the_implications_on_resilience
66. initial exploration of port capacity bottlenecks in the USA port system and the implications on resilience – MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://ctl.mit.edu/sites/default/files/IJSTL060306%20RICE.pdf
67. Resolving Maritime Labor Disputes – Number Analytics, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-dispute-resolution-in-maritime-labor-law
68. Resolving Maritime Labor Conflicts – Number Analytics, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/resolving-maritime-labor-conflicts-arbitration-mediation
69. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) – NAVSEA, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/TRFB/TRFB-EEO/Alternative-Dispute-Resolution/
70. ADR in Maritime Disputes – nalsarpro.org, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://nalsarpro.org/Portals/23/Day%201%20session%201-ADR%20in%20Maritime%20Disputes-%20Ruchi%20Jain.pdf
71. The Power of Mediation in Labor Disputes In today’s dynamic work environments, conflicts and disputes are inevitable. Disagree, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://amca.am/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/The-Role-and-Power-of-Mediation-in-Labor-Disputes-1-1.pdf
72. Maritime – National Arbitration and Mediation, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.namadr.com/practice-areas/maritime/
73. alternative dispute resolution and the maritime industry – EXPERT OVERVIEW, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.rotterdammaritimeservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/RMSC_Expert_overview_Alternative_Dispute_Resolution_ADR_UNUM_Transport_Arbitration_and_Mediation.pdf
74. www.ggi.com, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.ggi.com/news/general-interest/legal-and-other-issues-being-resolved-by-port-strike#:~:text=%C2%A7%C2%A7%20141%2D197)%2C,off%20period%E2%80%9D%20in%20such%20cases.
75. The president could invoke a 1947 law to try to suspend the dockworkers’ strike. Here’s how, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/port-strike-longshoremen-dockworkers-union-law-27c7eaa7b199fba1903a637eb6c7db0c
76. Chapter 6: Unions and Rights in the Space Age By Jack Barbash …, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/chapter6
77. The Impact of the Port Strike: Insights from Industry Experts – Inbound Logistics, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.inboundlogistics.com/articles/the-impact-of-the-port-strike-insights-from-industry-experts/
78. Port strike insight: Planning and perspective help shippers avoid the panic button, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://www.alixpartners.com/insights/102jkv6/port-strike-insight-planning-and-perspective-help-shippers-avoid-the-panic-butto/
79. 1.7 Labour issues | United Nations – Resilient maritime logistics, accessed on August 5, 2025, https://resilientmaritimelogistics.unctad.org/guidebook/17-labour-issues