Union blasts proposed Oakland port staff cuts

Union blasts proposed Oakland port staff cuts The union representing hundreds of workers at the Port of Oakland has warned port officials a proposed 10 percent workforce cut could seriously damage the port authority's ability to effectively operate.
   Port officials, facing a budget deficit caused by a combination of slackening cargo volumes and poor business decisions in the recent past, plan to reduce the nearly 600-strong staff of the port by 60 to 70 workers with the next 30 days. In addition, port officials plan to eliminate 30 to 40 budgeted positions that sit vacant.
   The cuts are in response to a projected $18.6 million shortfall in the port authority's fiscal year 2009 budget being finalized by port officials.
   In a letter to port commissioners and executives last week, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers local, representing about one-third of the Oakland port staff, requested the port hold off any decisions regarding the possible layoffs until the budget shortfall and possible options can be more carefully analyzed.
   'Such a sudden and drastic reduction in staff will tax our organization to the point of implosion,' the letter warned, referring to the port. 'The port has never implemented such a disproportionately massive layoff in its 80-year history.'
   Signed by IFPTE Local 21 Chief Negotiator Bob Britton, the union letter points out that the port 'has never fully recovered from the downsizings that occurred in 2003.' In addition, the port is experiencing a 'retirement exodus' that began in 2004 and has further impacted current staffing levels.
   Despite the letter, the port's seven-member governing board voted 6-1 on May 27 to move forward with the layoff plan, approving a notification authorization required under California law when employers plan to layoff more than 50 workers in a 30-day period.
   'I'm not in favor of this layoff,' said Commissioner Margaret Gordon in casting the lone nay vote. 'I'm not in favor of making people's lives worse.'
   While not addressing the union letter specifically, port spokeswoman Marilyn Sandifur told the San Francisco Chronicle, 'Reduction in staff is unfortunate, but it is necessary so that we can maintain long-term economic viability.'
   Oakland is the third-busiest container port on the West Coast and the fourth-busiest in the nation. Compared to other West Coast port authorities, Oakland has a sizable workforce. The Port of Long Beach, the nation's second-busiest container port, has nearly 400 workers. Los Angeles, the nation's No. 1 container port, maintains a workforce of more than 900. However, the two Southern California port administrations function as landlord port authorities governing the two cities' property interests at the ports. Oakland;s port authority provides oversight and operations staff for the Port of Oakland, Oakland International Airport and various commercial real estate concerns.
   On May 20, port staff presented the Oakland port commissioners with four main reasons for the port authority's current situation.
   Commissioners were told that costly investments made some time ago in both the airport and the maritime port, 'failed to yield returns we expected.' At the same time, the port authority borrowed heavily for more development on the strength of revenue projections that did not materialize.
   At the same time, the port authority deferred the principal payments on these borrowed funds. The interest-only period on this arrangement runs out this year and the port authority will have to begin making payments on the principal in 2009.
   Lastly, commissioners were told the port authority did 'not adequately account for the funding necessary to renovate and maintain certain facilities,' which led to increased expenses.
   Commissioners were told the port's 'expenditure growth rate is outpacing the growth rate of revenues,' and the port's desired capital improvements programs for infrastructure and facilities 'far outpace the port's projected revenues and funding.'
   While port officials are considering many cost saving measures, which 'will be implemented if feasible,' according to internal port documents, 'a portion of the necessary reduction in expenses must be achieved through a reduction in the workforce of the port.' ' Keith Higginbotham