‘OCCUPY THE PORTS’ TARGETS SSA MARINE FOR MONDAY MORNING PROTEST
By Manny Diaz
SSA Marine, the gigantic international shipping-industry company that is majority-owned by investment and banking firm Goldman Sachs, will be the target of Dec. 12 protests by Occupy the Ports, according to Occupy Long Beach’s Facebook page and flyers being handed out near the downtown Long Beach courthouse.
The flyer cites a variety of reasons for focusing protests on SSA Marine. These include two specific claims—that the company the company failed to alert workers about potentially hazardous cargo in Oakland, and that it was fined for building an illegal road to a project in Washington. They also point to wider policies that protest organizers say have depressed wages and benefits for truck drivers and de-industrialized the United States so that incoming shipping containers at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles outnumber outgoing shipping containers 7-1.
Michael Novick, a retired schoolteacher who is part of the Occupy the Port movement, responded to a call from GreaterLongBeach.com and expanded on the implications of the imbalance of import-export traffic through the local ports.
“If there were as many containers going out as there are coming in there would be 10 times as many jobs,” said Novick, who said he expects Occupy the Ports to protest in front of SSA Marine this Monday from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m.
But coordinating a protest at SSA Marine isn’t easy. The company is so big that it has five locations within the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles: Pacific Container Terminal, Terminal A, Terminal c60, and Pier F, Berth 206 in Long Beach, and Outer Harbor 54/55 in San Pedro.
To reduce confusion, the flyers direct protestors to gather at Harry Bridges Park, 1126 Queens Highway, at 5 a.m.
Monday’s protest is part of a larger movement that will culminate on May 1, 2012, when Occupy groups along the West Coast will protest at ports including Oakland, San Francisco, Portland, Long Beach and Vancouver.
“We want to draw attention to the greed that destroyed this country,” said Novick.
17 Comments
i cant wait to hear why greet thinks this is a bad idea…
Citizen Journalist Quote of the Day –- San Pedro… The Worst Place We Had Seen
”Leaving Santa Barbara, we coasted along down, the country appearing level or moderately uneven, and, for the most part, sandy and treeless; until, doubling a high, sandy point, we let go our anchor at a distance of three or three and a half miles from shore. The land was of a clayey consistency, and, as far as the eye could reach, entirely bare of trees and even shrubs; and there was no sign of a town, not even a house to be seen.
”As soon as everything was snug on board, the boat was lowered, and we pulled ashore, our new officer, who had been several times in the port before, taking the place of steersman. As we drew in, we found the tide low, and the rocks and stones, covered with kelp and seaweed, lying bare for the distance of nearly an eighth of a mile.
“Picking our way barefooted over these, we came to what is called the landing place, at high-water mark. The soil was as it appeared at first, loose and clayey, and except the stalks of the mustard plant, there was no vegetation. Just in front of the landing, and immediately over it, was a small hill, which, from its being not more than thirty or forty feet high, we had not perceived from our anchorage.
“Over this hill we saw three men coming down, dressed partly like sailors and partly like Californians; one of them having on a pair of untanned leather trousers and a red baize shirt. When they came down to us, we found that they were Englishmen, and they told us that they had belonged to a small Mexican brig which had been driven ashore here in a south-easter, and now lived in a small house just over the hill.
“Going up this hill with them, we saw, just behind it, a small, low building, with one room, containing a fire-place, cooking apparatus, etc., and the rest of it unfinished, and used as a place to store hides and goods. This, they told us, was built by some traders in the Pueblo, (a town about thirty miles in the interior, to which this was the port,) and used by them as a storehouse, and also as a lodging place when they came down to trade with the vessels.
“These three men were employed by them to keep the house in order, and to look out for the things stored in it. They said that they had been there nearly a year; had nothing to do most of the time, living upon beef, hard bread, and frijoles (a peculiar kind of bean very abundant in California).
“The nearest house, they told us, was a Rancho, or cattle-farm, about three miles off; and one of them went up, at the request of our officer, to order a horse to be sent down, with which the agent, who was on board, might go up to the Pueblo.
“I also learned, to my surprise, that the desolate-looking place we were in was the best place on the whole coast for hides. It was the only port for a distance of eighty miles, and about thirty miles in the interior was a fine plane country, filled with herds of cattle, in the centre of which was the Pueblo de los Angelos, the largest town in California, and several of the wealthiest missions; to all of which San Pedro was the seaport.
“Having made our arrangements for a horse to take the agent to the Pueblo the next day, we picked our way again over the green, slippery rocks, and pulled aboard. By the time we reached the vessel, which was so far off that we could hardly see her, in the increasing darkness, the boats were hoisted up, and the crew at supper. Going down into the forecastle, eating our supper, and lighting our cigars and pipes, we had, as usual, to tell all we had seen or heard ashore.
“We all agreed that it was the worst place we had seen yet, especially for getting off hides, and our lying off at so great a distance looked as though it was bad for south-easters…”
(Source: yachtpals.com — “Two Years Before the Mast” by Richard Henry Dana, Jr., Published in 1840)
Note: Written after a sea voyage from Boston, Massachusetts in 1834 ”Two Years Before the Mast” is a narrative of Dana’s two years as a sailor while trading on the coast of California. Dana detailed the sailor’s life in the early days of American shipping and life in California before the 1849 Gold rush. The above quote was edited for space and clarity.
It’s bad because the voters have elected people who decided to choose the global economic doctrine of “buy cheap, sell dear” in order to enhance the lifestyle of the few. And if people want something different then it is up to us to tend to our civic responsibilities and vote something different.
The protest is a part of a whole shut down of west coast ports on Monday, visit http://www.westcoastportshutdown.org for more info
this reporter did not do all of his homework… this action will be huge
Note to the Nimrods at LB Occupy:
Do not make the issue out to be a free speech issue.To make it out to be
is absurd on its face an reveals an appalling level of ignorance.What is truly
frightening is that specter that some of you might have driver’s license-and
be driving on our streets and freeways!!!!!!
It is first and foremost a public safety and public health issue.Any time
any element,be it T -ball;Senior Citizen’s wanting to cut up a rug;local
garden club;wants to use public property or an event–it needs
A. Permit.
B. Proof of insurance(Who is going to pay for any damage/injury/when
Mommy and Daddy/Gloria Alrad(et al)…come to City complaining
their nit wit Johnny/Susie was slashed in the face with a broken beer
bottle(or worse by some derange druggie that wandered into the
encampment.
C. Why should the public have to provide for special sanitation needs??
As one who has been involved in a number of special events let me
say it is the organizer’s responsibility to pay any or provide for such.
that exceeds normal day to day–none event fees?
The failure to recognize such speaks volumes as to the disconnect of
most in the Occupy movement—-and goes a long way to explain
why you have the time to occupy.
To be sure,time are tough–and will continue to be so until circa 2021
when the country is again running at full speed.(Turn around begins
circa 18-14 months after Obama out of office;then will take circa six
seven years to get full head of steam)..but in meantime—GET OFF
YOUR BUTTS; DOUBLE DOWN; START LOOKING FOR JOB-
(check out boom in N. Dakota)—-
Ken and John’s take on :LA Occupy movement—applies to that in
LB. While a few–have some good points–most do not and are now
=-have been,and always been on the fringes of society–and are
CLEARLY NOT THE 99%–rather–the 1%—that will always meandering
aimlessly through life. SAD BUT TRUE
.
IMPORTANT CRIME ALERT:
; Two weeks ago;an individual who for years has worked
with homeless and vets(has a husband who is vet) has stopped
working with such because both the Long Beach OCCUPY contingent
as well as Homeless contingent have been infiltrated by criminal
elements from their Los Angles counterparts.
REFLECTIONS UPON OCCUPY-LB AND OCCUPY LA:
There were a number of the Occupy contigent from LB at this
week’s LB Council meeting who clearly do not understand—
FREE SPEECH IS NOT AT ISSUE—NEVER HAS BEEN except
in those mind of those just realeased from Nurse Cratchet’s care–
far-far to early;
Their case is A PUBLIC SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE:
All undisturbed minds know–a permit is required for use of a public
facility by a group—be it:
l.The wanting to play T- Ball.
2,One’s grandmother and grandfather wating to cut up the rug.
3.The local garden club.
An adult must apply and sign the permit demonstrating said group
l.Has insurance.
2.An operational plan that will leave the City property whole and in tact
for the next group.
The need for # 1-is brought into sharp focus by the specter of Gloria
Allrad filing hired by t he mommy or daddy of the CLUESS NIT WIT
whose face was slashed by one of the druggies or some other lovely
from Long Beach0or from the criminal element from the LA OCCUPT
contingent that has infiltrated the Long Beach Occupy.
In terms of public health:demonstrating how disconnected LB OCCUPY is;
they fail to understand when a permit is pulled–those issued the permit
are responsible for provding for restroom facilitys—which tramsend the
capacity of the existing facilities.INDEED THE PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER
OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACHHOULD HAVE SHUT DOWN THE
ENCAMPMENT —48 HOURS AFTER IT STARTED;!!!
OCCUPY LB Should reazlize–they are not the 99%–they are but
the 1%. The 99% are out doubling down.either working spending
their time looking for work–if not in Long beach–perhaps in North
Dakota that is begginng to fill some 65,000 + jobs(Check out\
North Dakota Boom on Google–ie–starting pay for flipping Burgers
at the golden arches $18,00.00 oer hour!!! Truck driver $circa $65,000
per hour.Those with smarts would head up their now–while the less
than engetic might wait tuntil spring.(Incidenly–if you find one of the
newspapers up there is lookinng for a spell checker–LET ME KNOW!!!
I think it’s a great idea. I think watching the Occupiers have a go at organized labor (“evil” corporations in their own right) is quite entertaining. All the more so as liberal politicians try to figure out how to kiss up to both liberal causes (organized labor and disorganized social activism) without completely alienating one or the other.
“I think watching the Occupiers have a go at organized labor (“evil” corporations in their own right) is quite entertaining. All the more so as liberal politicians try to figure out how to kiss up to both liberal causes (organized labor and disorganized social activism) without completely alienating one or the other”.
Including the police officers union from which you have generously benefitted.
LBer: My family and I most certainly benefitted from my membership in a collective bargaining organization (not really a “union” in the classic sense because unions are allowed to engage in job actions and my organization was prevented, by law, from doing so.)
I have always agreed that all public and private sector workers should be allowed to benefit from union representation if they freely and voluntarily choose to do so and that all workers, whether public or private sector have a right to bargain for the best wages and working conditions they can negotiate from their employers.
One of the things I find to be exceedingly hypocritical of the Occupy movement (and I have personally observed several Occupy incarnations around the world now) is that they generally whine and moan about the so-called 1% and “evil” corporations on the one hand, while conveniently omitting from their condemnations, members of the 1% who they like (primarily pop culture entertainers and wealthy liberal politicians) or corporations with which they agree (such as the many private sector labor unions that are corporations in their own right.
In some cases they blatantly omit condemning corporations that offer them sponsorships (e.g. money, goods, and services.) In other words, in some cases the Occupy movement has demonstrated that they, too, can be bought off.
Occupy decries “evil” corporations, unless a corporation happens to pay them or to represent organized labor. Occupy condemns the so-called 1%, unless someone in that lofty financial stratum happens to be a musician or a liberal politician they happen to like.
It would be laughable were it not so sad.
The greet would be laughable if he were not so sad. Shaddup your face!
Sorry, wrong, you are no more the comment board police than I am. Nice stab at trying to stifle divergent points of view, though.
“Occupy decries “evil” corporations, unless a corporation happens to pay them or to represent organized labor.”
this is a lie.
“One of the things I find to be exceedingly hypocritical of the Occupy movement (and I have personally observed several Occupy incarnations around the world now) is that they generally whine and moan about the so-called 1% and “evil” corporations on the one hand, while conveniently omitting from their condemnations, members of the 1% who they like (primarily pop culture entertainers and wealthy liberal politicians) or corporations with which they agree (such as the many private sector labor unions that are corporations in their own right.”
this is another lie.
“In some cases they blatantly omit condemning corporations that offer them sponsorships (e.g. money, goods, and services.) In other words, in some cases the Occupy movement has demonstrated that they, too, can be bought off.”
this is a third lie.
notice all these assertions are completely unsupported by any links. one fanatic’s wrongheaded opinion is all these are. not truth not facts, just the ham handed smear attempts of a lifetime authoritarian who may be sensing finally that he’s backed the wrong horse all these years.
In response to this ill-advised Occupy port action, ILWU has already issued a polite but firm thanks but no thanks.
I think the the Occupy folks who show up in the port to disrupt operations there had better be very careful. If they think the police doing their jobs in enforcing our laws can be unpleasant, wait until the Occupy folks have to deal with a bunch of longshore workers who are being disrupted from doing their’s.
your knowledge of the occupy movement is rivalled only by your deep understanding of longshoremen.
a – free speech does not need a permit. the march organizers said they would do a legal picket on the sidewalk.
b – not related
c – they didn’t
many police were deployed to this protest, and the police presence shut down the port. there were not enough protesters to shut down anything because the area is so large.
to greet: unions are not corporations, and the number of private sector unions is declining. it’s rough times, and it’s estimated only 5% of private sector workers are in unions. in the public sector, it’s around 15%. that’s a bad trend, because it puts additional burdens on taxpayers, while relieving corporations from paying higher wages. the rich get richer.
the ilwu press release was a cya statement – their contract prohibits this kind of work action. the workers themselves are favorable to the action. the leadership is, as well, but, as i said before, it’s prohibited in their contract, so they issued the statement to clarify their positon on the issue.
“collective bargaining organization” is really a euphemistic front for “union”, which is why there is currently a grand push by conservatives to eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees, at all levels, around the nation.
LBer, I must respectfully disagree with you. Not all collective bargaining organizations can rightly (or at least fully accurately) be called labor “unions.”
True labor unions have certain rights of action that some other collective bargaining organizations do not have. For instance, public safety collective bargaining organzations such as the LBPOA do not have a right to engage in job actions such as sick-outs or strikes. Because of the critical nature of their duties, POA members cannot legally strike or engage in work slowages in an effort to pressure their employer to agree to their contact proposals.
Because of this, LBPOA and other public safety collective bargaining organizations cannot accurately be considered labor “unions”, in the commonly understood meaning of that term.
Can you cite a source for your assertion that there is currently a grand push by conservatives to eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees, at all levels, around the nation?
Thanks.