Retailers and manufacturers across the country are keeping a watchful eye on negotiations starting tomorrow to draft a new contract for dockworkers at East coast and Gulf coast ports, as the clock ticks down to a potential strike beginning at midnight on January 15.
Representatives from the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) last spoke in October, when they agreed to end a three-day strike by striking a tentative deal on a wage hike for workers, and delayed debate over the thornier issue of port operators’ desire to add increased automation to port operations.
Specifically, the two sides remain at odds over provisions related to the deployment of semi-automated technologies like rail-mounted gantry cranes, according to an analysis by the Kansas-based 3PL Noatum Logistics. The ILA has strongly opposed further automation, arguing it threatens dockworker protections, while the USMX contends that automation enhances productivity and can create long-term opportunities for labor.
But as the clock expires on that three-month pause, industry groups such as the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) are again growing nervous about the fallout of another strike, saying in December that it could pose a “major disruption” to the American economy.
In fact, U.S. importers are already taking action to prevent the impact of such a strike, “pulling forward” their container shipments by rushing imports to earlier dates on the calendar, according to analysis by supply chain visibility provider Project44. That strategy can help companies to build enough safety stock to dampen the damage of events like the strike and like the steep tariffs being threatened by the incoming Trump administration.
Likewise, some ocean carriers have already instituted January surcharges in pre-emption of possible labor action, which could support inbound ocean rates if a strike occurs, according to freight market analysts with TD Cowen. In the meantime, the outcome of the new negotiations are seen with “significant uncertainty,” due to the contentious history of the discussion and to the timing of the talks that overlap with a transition between two White House regimes, analysts said.
