Your tax dollars shouldn’t pay to automate Washington’s public ports

A recent News Tribune editorial (2/9) about port automation missed the boat on what Puget Sound-area ports need to remain competitive.

The editorial claimed that House Bill 2828 is “short-sighted and defensive” as it would “tie the hands of port leaders and their shipping partners.” This is not the case.

The bill, along with similar legislation passed in California, is not anti-automation; it is simply about prohibiting using taxpayer money to fund that automation.

Growing the Northwest Seaport Alliance’s cargo volumes is of the utmost importance to the men and women of the ILWU. The ports of Tacoma and Seattle have lost market share in recent years, primarily to British Columbia, and more recently to the Gulf and East Coasts.

The reasons for this are complex, but common industry knowledge is that the factors driving this shift are the Harbor Maintenance Tax (placed on goods entering through US ports, but not Canadian); cheaper and more efficient rail connections in Canada; and the widening of the Panama Canal.

The cargo that enters the ports of Tacoma and Seattle is a mix of local and so-called discretionary cargo. Local cargo is bound for the local region; discretionary cargo is bound for points inland from the coast, typically to the major rail hubs for distribution in the Midwest.

Discretionary cargo is the market share that Pacific Northwest ports are losing to Canada and the East Coast. There are many things that all industry stakeholders should be doing to stem this, such as jointly lobbying for Harbor Maintenance Tax reform and collaboratively tackling freight mobility and infrastructure issues.

Canada seems to be light years ahead of us on this. Besides using the tax against us, their message to the worldwide shipping industry seems to be “we’re open for business.” (The ILWU also represents longshore workers in Canada.)

The ILWU is not against automation. In fact, our master contract allows for it. But again, this bill is not about automation; it is about doing it with public tax dollars.

The highly regarded McKinsey Report on port automation warned that fully automated terminals “are generally less productive than their conventional counterparts.” So why would a terminal operator want an automated terminal? The simple answer is you need fewer workers to operate it.

So why haven’t more terminals become automated? Because the upfront cost involved and the return on investment often don’t pencil out. So the new game that the shipping industry has turned to is to have taxpayers foot the bill of automating, then reap the corporate rewards, at the expense of the local economy.

A report by Prism Economics and Analysis on the impacts of port automation states: “automation and subsequent job loss would have a substantial effect on the local economies and on tax revenues that support services in those communities.”

Robots don’t pay taxes, shop at local businesses or volunteer in their community. Humans do.

The editorial was correct in saying that good-paying union jobs have sustained many of our members for generations. For that we make no apologies, and will continue to fight for the basic rights of everyone to earn a livable wage, have access to affordable health care and one day retire in dignity.

The taxpayers of Pierce County do not pay the wages of longshore workers; those costs are borne by the member companies (most of whom are foreign owned) of the Pacific Maritime Association.

Local taxpayers do fund other port financial needs. What do citizens get in return? Thousands of good-paying jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars deposited directly back into the local economy.

Using public money to fund fully automated cargo handling equipment would lead to loss of those jobs. That does not sound like a win for taxpayers, and that is why we support HB 2828.

Jared Faker is president of International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 23, based in Fife.