Striking is one thing, but violence and damage? Ben, do you think less than peaceful protest is acceptable? I would not want to work with anyone violent...they just seem like unreasonable crazy people. Why reward violence? That would just be a form of positive reinforcement for unacceptable behavior.

Striking during a recession? Or while heading back into a recession? Are these people not reading about the economy?

The ILWU is making a stand just as the Occupy movement throughout the world is. OH, OWS, OO has much in common with the events today in Cairo where there are people losing their lives. So I guess the question is - How much of a stand do you want to take? How firm is that line in the sand?

Should protest be peaceful? Of course it should. But I remember a line from the 60's, something about having the "courage of your convictions." How far do you take reaction, and how far do you take non-reaction? Take the gunman in the park last night, if the police weren't readily there to take him down, what should the occupiers have done, especially if they were to have been fired on? Do we throw up our hands and plead for mercy or do we take action and risk safety and take him down ourselves? Personally, I opt for the latter.

Now about striking during a recession? Again, what's the alternative? Roll over and take huge losses on what is contractually agreed upon or shut down the operation and let the grain run on the ground causing hurt in the only place shippers ever feel it - their bottom line.

In Egypt, in Syria, on Wall Street, in Oakland, in Houston and all across this country and world people have had enough. Promises have been made and broken. There's supposed to be this American Dream that we work for, where we can succeed and prosper. Yet the vast majority of Americans fall further and further behind each year while those at the top prosper in ever greater wealth. People have taken a stand and made it clear they want change and they see that it is only with change that the ills of our country can ever be reversed. It takes determination and sacrifice to get to the point that those changes will become reality.

Understand please that I come from the perspective of a child growing up in the 50's and 60's, not only a time of great turmoil but also a time of great strides in organized labor. My Dad was a union man and he made decent money, but only because of the union. I now have family who are Longshoremen and are directly impacted by the Longview actions. Look at the fingers on your hand. If one is broken do not the others defend it and work harder until it is healed again? Now what of the Occupiers in Davis being pepper sprayed, or the encampments across the country being torn down, do not the Occupy Houston people come to their defense? Of course you do for an injury to one is an injury to all.

Lets take USPS as an example. Supervisers are not unionized, Letter carriers are. USPS lost a little over 5 Billion this year. UPS made money and not unionized. Labor cost is bankrupting the postal service. Don't tell me about the added cost of congress makeing them pay for pensions in advance. Thats a small drop in what they are loseing. My wife has been a carrier there for 14 yrs and a superviser for 7. I know how union workers are. File on everything. Work slow because they can. Inless a postal carrier brings a gun to work. They can not be fired for poor work. Its the same with all unions. Higher pay for less work. Thanks for asking BOB

They are the main problem, They drive up cost and force jobs out of this country. If Unions were so great then Detroit would be the poster child of greatness.

James, then as much as the unions are forcing jobs out of this country, could it be said that the countries that provide cheap labor are also the problem?  How do unions drive up 'cost', James?

In case, I forget to say this: James, I think you not fully aware of what is going on in this country if you think unions 'are the main problem'...<turn off fox news>

Pierre

Striking during a recession? Or while heading back into a recession? Are these people not reading about the economy?

Vandalism, violence, burning and shutting down the nation’s fifth busiest port weren’t enough for Occupy Oakland. On Friday, the General Assembly for the group voted unanimously for “a coordinated shutdown of ports on the entire West Coast on December 12."

According to a statement from Occupy Oakland, this move is in “response to coordinated attacks on the occupations and attacks on workers across the nation.” “We call on each West Coast occupation to organize a mass mobilization to shut down its local port.”

Occupy Los Angeles had already called for action against one shipper at that port, stating, “occupation will take place at at least one facility owned by SSA Marine, a shipping company belonging to Goldman Sachs, (coordinated with a possible port shut down by the port truck drivers).”

The Occupy Oakland statement also complained about “continued union-busting and attacks on organized labor, in particular the rupture of Longshoremen jurisdiction in Longview Washington.”

Longview has been the site of some nasty union action already. According to the Sept. 8 New York Times, “About 500 longshoremen stormed the new $200 million terminal in Longview before sunrise Thursday, carrying baseball bats, smashing windows, damaging rail cars and dumping tons of grain from the cars, police and company officials said.”

The statement from Occupy Oakland also included multiple threats if their actions were opposed, including extending the shutdown past one day. “Should there be any retaliation against any workers as a result of their honoring pickets or supporting our port actions, additional solidarity actions should be prepared.” And this, “In the event of police repression of any of the mobilizations, shutdown actions may be extended to multiple days.”