Long Stay Container Fees

[catalinajack]

I read that just recently they were going to try the radical proposal of operating CA ports 24/7, instead of the one shift that the idiot unions enforced for decades. They should get the best poets to send some experts in to show them how to do it, like Singapore, Rotterdam, etc. Its bad enoigh that the US is looking more and more like a third world s-hole country in somany ways as it is.

So, how willing would you be to work second or third shift? It sucks but, hey, it is not you so to hell with those longshoremen and the quality of their family life.

 

[catalinajack]

Dont know if it true but a driver told me today the tacoma ports wont let non union drivers come in to pick up cans which could limit independents from hauling. I know guys were hauling cans for 300 bucks to portland but they were independents running with old iron but it got the job done. Now were seeing ports that are full and they seem to think they can fine there way out of a trucking problem. Logic tells me if i had a can at the port i would want to get it as soon as they could clear it. i wouldn't be wanting to let it sit.

In this context, what is a can?

 

[BandB]

BandB, I didn't know you needed special licensing in each state to do your OWN deliveries.... that's crazy!

You have Unified Carrier Registration which covers all states but insurance varies widely for different states. Plus you need additional permits for certain things, such as customs ports and certain cities. We could go elsewhere but it's not worth it to us yet. We don't know all the ins and outs.

 

[Portage_Bay]

In this context, what is a can?

Slang for a shipping container

 

[kthoennes]

As of Nov 10, I see there are now 111 container ships in a holding pattern off Long Beach. I don't think poor beleaguered Joe LongShoreman pulling a few extra shifts is going to make a dent. Something bigger and broader is very wrong here.

 

[catalinajack]

What we're still adapting to is the concept of last mile shipping as well as all the ecommerce business. They you have the lay offs of OTR long range drivers during the pandemic, many of whom never returned.



I think when companies have regular routes that they run constantly, they can do much better bringing it in house. Many companies are scared to because of the unions involved in trucking, especially companies without unions.



In our manufacturing operations, we have trucks that run daily around to our NC plants or SC plants just picking up goods and taking to our SC distribution center. They also deliver to our retail stores in those states. We have trucks that do runs from South Florida to the distribution center and deliver goods to our retail stores on their return trips. Those runs are all done more efficiently internally. They are also dream routes for drivers who are home most nights and never gone more than three nights in a row. Many of our drives came from long run driving. They make as much or more and have a far easier life.



We do not pick up materials for manufacturing or product for retail at any ports but we do have solid arrangements with truckers we use for that weekly. We don't ship our wholesale product on our own trucks but use regular OTR lines. We do continue to reassess the viability of doing it ourselves. Our distribution is located in one of the top corridors. We do have some regular runs with trucking companies. For instance we have a weekly run one company does for us with shipments to NYC area and a return to us with finished goods. It's about a 12 hour run so day 1 two drivers run within an hour of the city. Day 2 they deliver to multiple locations and load their trailer near the end of the day and drive out about an hour. Day 3 they drive back so SC. We could do that but it would require so much licensing and insuring in additional states as we only run in 4 states.



Last mile delivery. Oh the disruption. Amazon shipping and then so much pushed to FEDEX and UPS. Uber and all the other car shares have tried to get into this along with Doordash and Instacart and all the restaurant delivery. It's a nightmare. We had no desire to have our own trucks doing those deliveries, but the costs of a 10 mile delivery with any of the others is very high. It's why Amazon logistics is so big. If Walmart and grocers want to thrive in this area, I truly believe they must do it themselves. An overall problem is all the free shipping has created huge amounts of inefficient shipping. I need to get two shirts to someone 10 miles away. Do I pay FEDEX $15-20? Do I pay the USPS $12-15? Do I pay Uber or Doordash $10-12? It was not my desire for us to end up with 150+ delivery vehicles.



Then you add in E-commerce and when you combine E-commerce and last mile, you now have stretched UPS, FEDEX and USPS beyond their capacities. That reduces their long distance deliveries and shifts business to Trucking companies. It also uses a lot of drivers. You now also have trucking companies doing more short distance delivery.



So the deliveries to consumers are up 30% and that comes out of the total shipping capability. That hurts transport all the way up the line.



OTR Truck Driving has been traditionally a very exhausting career. Fits the underpaid and overworked picture, but also huge negative on personal lives.



I've read a lot of articles for fixing this. One longshoreman's union representative suggested adding truck driver training to prisons and allowing the prisoners to get CDL licenses.



Solutions other than that one? Well, a couple of things to be aware of. Truck driving is largely populated by 45+ year old males. It was a large population group but the next generation after baby boomers is 12% smaller.



So here are some solutions I think have been well suggested:



1-Improve the job quality and environment. Shorter routes. More time home. Better teams and drop offs.



2-Pay. Payment by the mile has resulted in cuts as traffic has increased in many areas. Truck drivers who help load and unload get nothing for it, but if they don't help they lose time. I firmly believe pay should be hourly and increased and the majority should be employees, not contractors. 11% of truck drivers are owner operators and they average 100,000 miles a year and earnings of $50,000. We talk here about shortening the boating day to avoid fatigue. Look at drivers who are allowed to drive 11 hours and work 14 interstate and allowed 12 hours and 15 hours intrastate up to 60 hours and 70 hours a week, respectively. Wonder why so many accidents?



3-Attract new drivers. This won't happen without #1 and 2 but even with them needs focus. Only 7% of OTR drivers are female. That is failure on the part of the industry. If it was 30% we'd have no driver shortage. Should 18 year old drivers be allowed intrastate? I don't know that is wise, but seems to make sense where two drivers if not all the time. Also training is expensive and trucking companies once would pay for recruits, but not now. Perhaps community colleges and technical schools and even high schools should put in driving schools. The average truck driver training school is $8000. Also there's been a heavy dependence on owner operators. That for many is how to go $80,000 in debt and lose your truck when the trucking company has cut backs. You shouldn't have to invest to have a job.



4-Build relationships in the companies. I remember sitting in a trucking firm when I was young, doing some basic accounting for my father. I never heard such distrust among employees and employer anywhere else. Management and drivers don't communicate and don't like each other, even though they don't know each other.



Then there is autonomous but let's not hold our breath. We're not there yet.



I see a lot of trucking companies offering incentives to hire today but no one doing anything that solves any of the problems long term. The majority hired by incentive just move from one company to another.

Eighteen-year-olds driving trucks, what's the big deal? In World War 2, we had 19 and 20-year olds flying high performance fighter planes and bombers.

 

[BandB]

So, how willing would you be to work second or third shift? It sucks but, hey, it is not you so to hell with those longshoremen and the quality of their family life.

I grew up in a company that didn't run multiple shifts. If you have a sewing factory in a small town and most of your employees are mothers with families, it won't work. However, as we faced distribution and finishing in major cities, multiple shift operations were far easier. You offer shift premiums and many workers prefer other shifts. Actually third shift has surprising popularity, more than 2nd. You pick up a lot of college students and you pick up workers needing to stagger hours. For instance, parents with young kids needing to work different shifts to care for their children.

In situations that are not too physically exhausting we run "nursing or hospital schedules." You run 12 hour shifts and employees work 4 day weeks alternated with 3 day weeks and then once a month they flip days and get a full week vacation. No separate vacations or holidays since already off 3.5 days per week on average. These are used a lot in furniture manufacturing and in textiles plants although not so much in apparel and soft goods.

There are also other options. One we've used is four 10 hour days or five 8 hour days for main shifts and then weekend shifts of two or three 10 or 12 hour days. Again, students flock to the weekend shifts.

Running ports 24/7 isn't just an issue with the port and Longshoremen. You must have truckers picking up 24/7 and this is so contrary to traditional trucking schedules. It requires major adjustment and careful consideration of sleep schedules.

There's a lot of study of supply chains taking place and one issue often coming up is limited hours. You arrive in a city at 7:00 PM with a huge delivery but can't deliver until 7:00 AM. Currently that is built into schedules so appears to work. Run 2 or 3 drivers and alternate time in the sleeping berth. Don't make drivers wait and don't make them load. At our distribution center, our drivers just drop loads and pick up loaded trailers. Now for deliveries to other locations they do unload.

One other trucking point. Domino's Pizza lost major suits over their 30 minute guarantee years ago. They were encouraging drivers to speed. In trucking, we encourage bad behavior with our incentive pay, paying by miles. I strongly believe drivers should be paid hourly wages and there should be no incentive for speed or production, but should be safety incentives. Semi's have accident rates nearly 3 times that of passenger cars and that is per mile. Now, part is the size, but part is the pay system. "Time is money". Well, time shouldn't be the driver's issue, other than time worked. It should fall on scheduling and planning. Our drivers have their speed monitored, easy to do. Increases safety, lowers insurance, and instills upon the drivers that we're after safety not speed. Trucking companies look the other way far too often. Now we're not going to cut hours with a driver shortage, but should anyone really be driving a truck 14 hours a day on a regular basis?

 

[kthoennes]

That's why I keep thinking of Stalin and the potato farmers. Doesn't matter how hard or long you arbitrarily make the farmers hoe that row. You increase one input, a single component in a complex chain and that ultimately does nothing. Operating ports 24/7 creates not a single additional truck or railroad car or port worker or port derrick. Since Biden's great announcement the container ships continue to stack up. AlaskaProf and I plowed through Robert Caro's book on Robert Moses in our grad program (and I grew up riding on his highways). He'd mow down whole neighborhoods with bigger highways, always more and bigger highways, another parkway, another overpass, another expressway, but it ultimately relieved nothing. Just moved the jams to a different place and those families on the way to Jones Beach still sat for hours on the Meadowbrook State Parkway when I was a kid in the 80's and probably still do to this day.

 

[JWellington]

So, how willing would you be to work second or third shift? It sucks but, hey, it is not you so to hell with those longshoremen and the quality of their family life.

When a facility such as a port, or factory or McDonalds runs 24/7, its not the same workers who work three shifts a day, but another crew takes over the next shift. This is a well know concept, shift rotation. And it turns out some guys even like working nite shift.

 

[BandB]

Operating ports 24/7 creates not a single additional truck or railroad car or port worker or port derrick. Since Biden's great announcement the container ships continue to stack up.

It wasn't an overnight change, nor a single factor. And there has been progress. Yes, doing 24/7 creates additional hours as the longshoremen agreed to work extra hours plus others were available. Job pays well. As to more trucks, a significant number of major customers agreed to get trucks there 24/7. This included Walmart, Target, Costco, Fedex, UPS, Gap, and many others.

From 11/1 to 11/8 the number of containers on the docks in LA and Long Beach dropped from 127,000 to 101,000. I would call a 20% drop in one week fairly significant. Other steps were taken. Savannah has created five pop up yards to take containers. Many of the customers do have the capacity to make off hour pickups.

I don't know how they'll ultimately address the increased traffic long term. However, there was at least one week of progress since the agreement and hopefully we'll see more.

There are still major issues but they aren't going to be solved overnight. Meanwhile I'll take progress in whatever form it comes.

 

[JWellington]

That's why I keep thinking of Stalin and the potato farmers. Doesn't matter how hard or long you arbitrarily make the farmers hoe that row. You increase one input, a single component in a complex chain and that ultimately does nothing. Operating ports 24/7 creates not a single additional truck or railroad car or port worker or port derrick. Since Biden's great announcement the container ships continue to stack up. AlaskaProf and I plowed through Robert Caro's book on Robert Moses in our grad program (and I grew up riding on his highways). He'd mow down whole neighborhoods with bigger highways, always more and bigger highways, another parkway, another overpass, another expressway, but it ultimately relieved nothing. Just moved the jams to a different place and those families on the way to Jones Beach still sat for hours on the Meadowbrook State Parkway when I was a kid in the 80's and probably still do to this day.

The poets that operate 24/7 load and unload more cargo. The best ports in he world do that. But I accept it if some think three shifts doesnt get as much work done as one shift.

 

[catalinajack]

The poets that operate 24/7 load and unload more cargo. The best ports in he world do that. But I accept it if some think three shifts doesnt get as much work done as one shift.

Of course three shifts produce triple the capacity but first you need manpower to staff those three shifts. But, even assuming one could magically triple your staff with trained, skilled workers quickly, without the trucks and truckers to haul the stuff away, it simply does not matter. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?

 

[BandB]

Of course three shifts produce triple the capacity but first you need manpower to staff those three shifts. But, even assuming one could magically triple your staff with trained, skilled workers quickly, without the trucks and truckers to haul the stuff away, it simply does not matter. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?

Why is 20% reduction of backlog in week one so difficult to understand. The longshoremen were involved in the step up. The major customers were involved. It's not the complete solution, but it's a major step in the right direction.

 

[kthoennes]

20% reduction? What reports are you reading? Try this one, dated today:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-pushing-u-s-port-logjam-and-waits-to-records

But then like every other topic lately, a person can find news reports to support whatever position they want to take at any moment on almost any public policy, environmental or economic issue.

 

[BandB]

20% reduction? What reports are you reading? Try this one, dated today:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-pushing-u-s-port-logjam-and-waits-to-records

But then like every other topic lately, a person can find news reports to support whatever position they want to take at any moment on almost any public policy, environmental or economic issue.

The numbers I quoted above were the containers at the port, down from 127,000 to 101,000. Your numbers are the ships not yet taken in, up to 83 ships. Together they point to some progress in relieving the pressure but still major congestion offshore. However, I'd still consider it progress as containers must be removed to allow processing of more. So a mixed situation. I consider it some progress. You may not.

 

[JWellington]

Of course three shifts produce triple the capacity but first you need manpower to staff those three shifts. But, even assuming one could magically triple your staff with trained, skilled workers quickly, without the trucks and truckers to haul the stuff away, it simply does not matter. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?

Thanks for conceding three shifts get more boats turned around. But I didntsuggest magic. Instead I recommended, about 50 years ago, that they break the union refusal to have more than one shift, then hire and train guys.

 

[BandB]

Let's keep in mind that 24/7 and other measures might have made sense previously but were never critical. 2019 and prior years were handled using existing methods. Quantities are up dramatically. What we don't know yet is where they will be once the peak is processed. What will the new norm be? If you can handle it all with one shift or two then you don't normally go to three. We're talking about an unprecedented demand. Should it have been anticipated and planned for? Absolutely. The ships didn't just suddenly show up. However, that's another problem the lack of visibility and lack of solid tracking of shipments all the way through the system.

The ports around the world that were already working 24/7 have even greater issues as they had no more hours to use. The entire system has major issues. Lack of visibility. Consolidation and lack of competition. An extended period of building no new containers and removal of many thousand from service. Continued cases of Covid shutting down ports around the world for a day or a few days at a time.

It's not going to be corrected immediately or with only one or two changes. Most solutions are stop gap and the real test will be are any longer term solutions developed. When you have the shipping handled by three alliances, then you have the potential for a lot of continued issues if regulatory authorities around the world don't step up to the plate.

 

[JWellington]

Band B. It was not "unprecedented demand", nor cpuld they " handle it all with one shift". Its been a problem for decades, and caused by the retrograde unions. I recommended they change , about 50 years ago. The american, especially the CA ports are way down on the list of best ports. More like third world.

 

[BandB]

Band B. It was not "unprecedented demand", nor cpuld they " handle it all with one shift". Its been a problem for decades, and caused by the retrograde unions. I recommended they change , about 50 years ago. The american, especially the CA ports are way down on the list of best ports. More like third world.

Actually for the ports being discussed it was unprecedented demand.

I don't even know the ports you'd call third world. Seems to me all major ports have problems and many are tied together. Those from Asia struggling are then shipping to California struggling. I was barely born 50 years ago so not commenting on it. But the California ports were handling their loads five years ago without operating 24/7.

 

[Benthic2]

Of course three shifts produce triple the capacity but first you need manpower to staff those three shifts. But, even assuming one could magically triple your staff with trained, skilled workers quickly, without the trucks and truckers to haul the stuff away, it simply does not matter. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?

I think it does matter. It moves the backlog from ships offshore to a storage lot. When a container sits on a ship it is burning fuel and consuming labor hours for the ships crew. It also prevents that ship from starting its next run.

If you off load the container and just stack it somewhere, the crew and ship can go back to generating revenue. Increasing port productivity may not reduce shipping time, but it would reduce shipping cost.

 

[Benthic2]

I don't understand the unions resistance to 3 shifts. Unions are usually about employing people.....if they had 3 shifts they would have a bigger, more powerful union that employed more people. It seems odd that a union would not want to have more employees.

 

[kthoennes]

I still don't get this -- union or not, where do all these trained, licensed and instantly functional additional port employees suddenly materialize to staff the two additional shifts? We're not talking McDonald's where you get 15 minutes orientation on the French fry line and you're good to go. They built two Starbucks here in the last couple months and can't open them because they can't find the staff. Now I'll admit a good cup of coffee might require some artistry, but you don't hire somebody off the street to even run fork lift let alone a crane operator and just toss him the keys. Maybe Captain Kirk in the USS Enterprise will magically transport a few thousand port workers from the Planet Maersk to Long Beach. 1,200 to beam down Captain!

 

[JWellington]

Actually for the ports being discussed it was unprecedented demand.

I don't even know the ports you'd call third world. Seems to me all major ports have problems and many are tied together. Those from Asia struggling are then shipping to California struggling. I was barely born 50 years ago so not commenting on it. But the California ports were handling their loads five years ago without operating 24/7.

Maybe they were just pretending they had problems 50 years ago. But those of us around made valid suggestions at the time, to imitate better ports that operated 24/7, instead of one shift.

 

[kthoennes]

I don't understand the unions resistance to 3 shifts. Unions are usually about employing people.....if they had 3 shifts they would have a bigger, more powerful union that employed more people. It seems odd that a union would not want to have more employees.

I don't want to climb on JWellington's union bashing bandwagon, I've worked in both environments and it can be the worst of times or the best of times depending on local culture. But from my experience, unions may be about a lot of things but expanding the number of employees is not one of them. Might initially seem illogical I know, but unions are generally about exclusivity, licensing, certifications, and every other barrier they can throw up to market entry. Like cab drivers in New York pre-Uber, exclusivity and barriers to entry help maintain higher wages and higher union revenue. Three certified welders for 900 waiting jobs can charge a heck of a lot per hour than 900 welders for 900 jobs. Ultimately short sighted for the unions I know, but that's the dynamic in my experience.

When I was in college in the 80's I worked very briefly in a Con Ed plant in New York. I was with a visiting contractor, not the regular plant employees. Their union contract had a written provision on working safely in the rain. If 55 drops of rain fell on the lid of a 55 gallon drum in 55 seconds, then the crew was called off for two hours (but still paid of course). Whenever it started to sprinkle the union steward would roll over an empty drum and stand there and stare at it with a stopwatch, counting raindrops. It was the silliest thing I ever saw, but productivity is not the priority for them.

 

[JWellington]

I don't want to climb on JWellington's union bashing bandwagon, I've worked in both environments and it can be the worst of times or the best of times depending on local culture. But from my experience, unions may be about a lot of things but expanding the number of employees is not one of them. Might initially seem illogical I know, but unions are generally about exclusivity, licensing, certifications, and every other barrier they can throw up to market entry. Like cab drivers in New York pre-Uber, exclusivity and barriers to entry help maintain higher wages and higher union revenue. Three certified welders for 900 waiting jobs can charge a heck of a lot per hour than 900 welders for 900 jobs. Ultimately short sighted for the unions I know, but that's the dynamic in my experience.

When I was in college in the 80's I worked very briefly in a Con Ed plant in New York. I was with a visiting contractor, not the regular plant employees. Their union contract had a written provision on working safely in the rain. If 55 drops of rain fell on the lid of a 55 gallon drum in 55 seconds, then the crew was called off for two hours (but still paid of course). Whenever it started to sprinkle the union steward would roll over an empty drum and stand there and stare at it with a stopwatch, counting raindrops. It was the silliest thing I ever saw, but productivity is not the priority for them.

Yes, unions prefer LESS workers, thus less competition, thus they get more pay. They are more interested in more pay for themselves by locking others out. The old guildhalls of medieval times did the same. Youre right, theyre more into exclusivity, restrictions.

 

[BandB]

Yes, unions prefer LESS workers, thus less competition, thus they get more pay. They are more interested in more pay for themselves by locking others out. The old guildhalls of medieval times did the same. Youre right, theyre more into exclusivity, restrictions.

Actually the only issue unions create in this today is rules and agreement. Hiring and termination rules, temporary or permanent. Understand they had a lot of layoffs that they likely didn't feel were handled right. They want more hires but at their full pay scales and benefits and hard to lay off. They don't want stop gap temporary employees. They likely also pushed for shift and overtime rates.

 

[catalinajack]

Yes, unions prefer LESS workers, thus less competition, thus they get more pay. They are more interested in more pay for themselves by locking others out. The old guildhalls of medieval times did the same. Youre right, theyre more into exclusivity, restrictions.

So, let me understand your thinking. Unions prefer fewer workers. That makes absolutely no sense. The fact is, unions have no control over the number of workers that are hired. They also have no incentive to oppose adding shifts as the contracts (rate of pay) are already in place and the day shift is unaffected. Have you ever heard of automakers not being able to run multiple shifts? Of course not. In fact, second and third shift workers receive premium pay. Your assertions are unfounded by any facts.

 

[Seevee]

I still don't get this -- union or not, where do all these trained, licensed and instantly functional additional port employees suddenly materialize to staff the two additional shifts? We're not talking McDonald's where you get 15 minutes orientation on the French fry line and you're good to go. They built two Starbucks here in the last couple months and can't open them because they can't find the staff. Now I'll admit a good cup of coffee might require some artistry, but you don't hire somebody off the street to even run fork lift let alone a crane operator and just toss him the keys. Maybe Captain Kirk in the USS Enterprise will magically transport a few thousand port workers from the Planet Maersk to Long Beach. 1,200 to beam down Captain!

This is not rocket science.... I doubt it would take a few weeks to train them....just keep the politics and unnecessary requirements out.

 

[Seevee]

So, how willing would you be to work second or third shift? It sucks but, hey, it is not you so to hell with those longshoremen and the quality of their family life.

MANY people work a second or third shift. I went thru my whole like working odd ball shifts and the back of the clock. If it's part of the job, then you work it.... or get senior to bid a better shift. And some people like those odd ball shifts. If one doesn't like it, get another job.



Back in my college years, I loved the third shift. Work 7 hours, paid for 8 and work work your sleep around to have days or evenings free.

 

[JWellington]

So, let me understand your thinking. Unions prefer fewer workers. That makes absolutely no sense. The fact is, unions have no control over the number of workers that are hired. They also have no incentive to oppose adding shifts as the contracts (rate of pay) are already in place and the day shift is unaffected. Have you ever heard of automakers not being able to run multiple shifts? Of course not. In fact, second and third shift workers receive premium pay. Your assertions are unfounded by any facts.

It makes the sense that I and that other guy described. Check the history of lonshormen unions , then compare to autoworkers.