Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Some dockworkers earn more than $400,000 a year

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

Some longshoreman regularly earn more than the president of the United States along with most other U.S. workers.

Under the existing contract with the East Coast union, a top-scale longshoreman could earn up to $39 an hour, which translates to about $81,000 a year. However, many workers take overtime and extra shifts that have higher rates.

Some 50,000 International Longshoremen’s Association members went on strike Tuesday against the East and Gulf Coast ports, hampering the flow of goods in what some predict could be the most disruptive strike in decades.

Dockworkers often earn more than $100,000 a year because of work rules and overtime requirements.

More than half of 3,726 dockworkers at the Port of New York and New Jersey earned more than $150,000 in the fiscal year that ended in 2020, according to the port’s regulator, the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. About one in five dockworkers at the port earned more than $250,000 that year.

Eighteen dockworkers brought in more than $450,000 that year – more than the annual salary as the U.S. President ($400,000) and more than most U.S. workers. The real median household income for all Americans was $74,580 in 2022, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Some dockworkers get paid even if they don’t work.

“Every terminal within the Port still has special compensation packages given to certain ILA longshore workers, the majority of whom are white males connected to organized crime figures or union leadership,” according to the Commission’s 2019-2020 annual report. “Based on the industry’s reported figures, the Commission has again identified over 590 individuals who collectively received over $147.6 million dollars last year in outsized salaries, or for hours they never worked.”

The report noted the special packages were not memorialized in the applicable collective bargaining agreements. Rather than eliminate or cap them, the NYSA and ILA negotiated a 2013 Memorandum of Settlement of Local Conditions in the Port of New York-New Jersey. That guarantees special packages to certain people. Those individuals are paid for hours not worked or hours worked by others, as long as they are at the Port for 40 hours each week, according to the Commission’s report.

Such conditions have endured for decades, according to the Commission’s report.

“The hearings revealed that the hiring, training and promotion practices of the industry led to low-show jobs, favoritism and nepotism, the abusive and illogical interpretation of collective bargaining agreements, and the impact of those practices both on the competitiveness of the Port and on the morale and career prospects of decent, hard-working Port employees,” according to the report. “Connected individuals are awarded high paying, low-show or no-work special compensation packages, in some cases earning salaries in excess of $500,000. Such positions were overwhelmingly given to white males connected to organized crime figures or union leadership.”

The ongoing strike, which extends from Maine to Texas, could affect everything from bananas to European beer and automobiles.

The International Longshoremen’s Association blamed the United States Maritime Alliance for refusing a contract offer.

It’s the first strike at these ports since 1977. The strike will affect 36 U.S. ports handling about half of U.S. ocean imports. Included are Boston, New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia.

Negotiations have been tense since June. The disagreement is between the International Longshore Association and Warehouse Union, which represents port workers across the country, and the U.S. Maritime Alliance, which represents terminal operators and ocean carriers.

Wages of East and Gulf coast workers are a base wage of $39 an hour after six years. The union is asking for a 77% pay increase over six years. It is also asking for more restrictions and bans on the automation of cranes, gates, and container movements used to load or unload cargo.

Investigative Reporter

Business

$15B and No Guarantees? Stellantis Deal explained by former Conservative Shadow Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Rick Perkins reveals what billions in subsidies didn’t buy: job protections, clawbacks, or Canadian hiring guarantees.

For weeks, Canadians were told, confidently, smugly, that the $15 billion handed to Stellantis and Volkswagen was protected by “job clauses” and “performance-based contracts.” That’s the line Industry Minister Mélanie Joly repeated in interviews, press releases, and on social media. It’s a lie.

Yesterday, we sat down with former Member of Parliament Rick Perkins one of the few people who actually read the unredacted contracts in question and he laid it out plainly: those job guarantees don’t exist. Not in the way you were told. Not even close.

“There is no cancellation clause,” Perkins said.
“The ‘job commitments’ are maximums, not minimums. And the contracts don’t require those jobs to be Canadian or even union.”

Let that sink in.

We were sold a vision of a green industrial renaissance, Canadian workers building Canadian batteries in Canadian factories, funded with Canadian taxpayer money. Instead, we’ve bankrolled foreign-owned companies to build batteries with no guarantee they’ll hire local workers, or that the batteries will even be sold in Canadian vehicles.

And here’s the kicker: the federal government is already writing monthly subsidy cheques, covering 100% of the cost per battery, based on production volume, not sales. That’s right. You and I are footing the bill whether those batteries go into a Dodge Ram, a Chinese-market minivan, or sit on a warehouse shelf until 2032.

No wonder the production subsidy contract is only 26 pages long. There wasn’t much in it.

Minister Joly claimed there are “performance conditions” and “job guarantees.” But as Perkins told us, those words are political wallpaper not legal obligations. There’s no enforcement mechanism. There’s no clawback clause. There’s no language saying, “You must hire X Canadians or repay the money.” It’s not there.

And that’s what this government doesn’t want you to understand. It’s not just that they wasted your money, it’s that they did it knowingly.

They gambled billions on the assumption that Joe Biden would remain in power, that EV mandates would keep growing, and that Trump wouldn’t come back. Now that he has, with tariffs, deregulation, and a clear “America First” energy agenda, these companies are doing what any rational business would do: they’re leaving.

And there’s nothing in the contract stopping them.

If you’re wondering why the mainstream media isn’t shouting this from the rooftops ask yourself who cashes the cheques. Ask yourself why no journalist has demanded to see the full, unredacted documents. Ask why Minister Champagne hasn’t been hauled before a committee and asked under oath whether he even read the damn contract before signing.

We did what they wouldn’t. We got the receipts. We sat down with someone who saw the deal with his own eyes. And here’s what he told us: it’s worse than you think.

The Stellantis deal isn’t a strategic investment, it’s a bailout with no brakes. And every month, billions continue to bleed out of the treasury while ministers issue press releases pretending we’re building an economy.

We’re not. We’re building someone else’s. And we’re paying full price.

This isn’t over.

Click here to see the entire conversation with Rick Perkins 

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Opposition with Dan Knight , share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

I’m an independent Canadian journalist exposing corruption, delivering unfiltered truths and untold stories.
Join me on Substack for fearless reporting that goes beyond headlines
Continue Reading

Health

Canada surrenders control of future health crises to WHO with ‘pandemic agreement’: report

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Canada’s top constitutional freedom group warned that government officials have “relinquished” control over “future health crises” by accepting the terms of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) revised International Health Regulations (IHR).

The warning came in a report released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). The group said that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s acceptance earlier this year of the WHO’s globalist-minded “pandemic agreement” has “placed Canadian sovereignty on loan to an unelected international body.”

“By accepting the WHO’s revised IHR, the report explains, Canada has relinquished its own control over future health crises and instead has agreed to let the WHO determine when a ‘pandemic emergency’ exists and what Canada must do to respond to it, after which Canada must report back to the WHO,” the JCCF noted.

The report, titled Canada’s Surrender of Sovereignty: New WHO health regulations undermine Canadian democracy and Charter freedoms, was authored by Nigel Hannaford, a veteran journalist and researcher.

The WHO’s IHR amendments, which took effect on September 19, are “binding,” according to the organization. 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canada’s government under Carney signed onto them in May.

Hannaford warned in his report that “(t)he WHO has no legal authority to impose orders on any country, nor does the WHO possess an army, police, or courts to enforce its orders or regulations.”

“Nevertheless, the WHO regards its own regulations as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally binding on 196 countries, including Canada” he wrote. 

Hannaford noted that “Surrendering Canada’s sovereignty” to the IHR bodies is itself “contrary to the constitutional principle of democratic accountability, also found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Among the most criticized parts of the agreement is the affirmation that “the World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

While the agreement claims to uphold “the principle of the sovereignty of States in addressing public health matters,” it also calls for a globally unified response in the event of a pandemic, stating plainly that “(t)he Parties shall promote a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

Constitutional lawyer Allison Pejovic noted that “(b)y treating WHO edicts as binding, the federal government has effectively placed Canadian sovereignty on loan to an unelected international body.”

“Such directives, if enforced, would likely violate Canadians’ Charter rights and freedoms,” she added.

Hannaford said that “Canada’s health policies must be made in Canada.”

“No free and democratic nation should outsource its emergency powers to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva,” he wrote.

The report warned that new IHR regulations could mandate that signatory nations impose strict health-related policies, such as vaccine mandates or lockdowns, with no “public accountability.”

“Once the WHO declares a ‘Pandemic Emergency,’ member states are obligated to implement such emergency measures ‘without delay’ for a minimum of three months,” the JCCF said.

“Canada should instead withdraw from the revised IHR, following the example of countries like Germany, Austria, Italy, the Czech Republic, and the United States,” the JCCF continued. “The report recommends continued international cooperation without surrendering control over domestic health policies.”

Earlier this year, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis condemned the Liberal government for accepting the WHO’s IHR.

Continue Reading

Trending

X