Business
Some dockworkers earn more than $400,000 a year
From The Center Square
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.
Brett Rowland
Investigative Reporter
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
According to this week’s fiscal update, amid falling oil prices, the Alberta government will run a projected $6.4 billion budget deficit in 2025/26—higher than the $5.2 billion deficit projected earlier this year and a massive swing from the $8.3 billion surplus recorded in 2024/25.
Overall, that’s a $14.8 billion deterioration in Alberta’s budgetary balance year over year. Resource revenue, including oil and gas royalties, comprises 44.5 per cent of that decline, falling by a projected $6.6 billion.
Albertans shouldn’t be surprised—the good times never last forever. It’s all part of the boom-and-bust cycle where the Alberta government enjoys budget surpluses when resource revenue is high, but inevitably falls back into deficits when resource revenue declines. Indeed, if resource revenue was at the same level as last year, Alberta’s budget would be balanced.
Instead, the Alberta government will return to a period of debt accumulation with projected net debt (total debt minus financial assets) reaching $42.0 billion this fiscal year. That comes with real costs for Albertans in the form of high debt interest payments ($3.0 billion) and potentially higher taxes in the future. That’s why Albertans need a new path forward. The key? Saving during good times to prepare for the bad.
The Smith government has made some strides in this direction by saving a share of budget surpluses, recorded over the last few years, in the Heritage Fund (Alberta’s long-term savings fund). But long-term savings is different than a designated rainy-day account to deal with short-term volatility.
Here’s how it’d work. The provincial government should determine a stable amount of resource revenue to be included in the budget annually. Any resource revenue above that amount would be automatically deposited in the rainy-day account to be withdrawn to support the budget (i.e. maintain that stable amount) in years when resource revenue falls below that set amount.
It wouldn’t be Alberta’s first rainy-day account. Back in 2003, the province established the Alberta Sustainability Fund (ASF), which was intended to operate this way. Unfortunately, it was based in statutory law, which meant the Alberta government could unilaterally change the rules governing the fund. Consequently, by 2007 nearly all resource revenue was used for annual spending. The rainy-day account was eventually drained and eliminated entirely in 2013. This time, the government should make the fund’s rules constitutional, which would make them much more difficult to change or ignore in the future.
According to this week’s fiscal update, the Alberta government’s resource revenue rollercoaster has turned from boom to bust. A rainy-day account would improve predictability and stability in the future by mitigating the impact of volatile resource revenue on the budget.
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is criticizing the Memorandum of Understanding between the federal and Alberta governments for including higher carbon taxes.
“Hidden carbon taxes will make it harder for Canadian businesses to compete and will push Canadian entrepreneurs to shift production south of the border,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Politicians should not be forcing carbon taxes on Canadians with the hope that maybe one day we will get a major project built.
“Politicians should be scrapping all carbon taxes.”
The federal and Alberta governments released a memorandum of understanding. It includes an agreement that the industrial carbon tax “will ramp up to a minimum effective credit price of $130/tonne.”
“It means more than a six times increase in the industrial price on carbon,” Prime Minister Mark Carney said while speaking to the press today.
Carney previously said that by “changing the carbon tax … We are making the large companies pay for everybody.”
A Leger poll shows 70 per cent of Canadians believe businesses pass most or some of the cost of the industrial carbon tax on to consumers. Meanwhile, just nine per cent believe businesses pay most of the cost.
“It doesn’t matter what politicians label their carbon taxes, all carbon taxes make life more expensive and don’t work,” Terrazzano said. “Carbon taxes on refineries make gas more expensive, carbon taxes on utilities make home heating more expensive and carbon taxes on fertilizer plants increase costs for farmers and that makes groceries more expensive.
“The hidden carbon tax on business is the worst of all worlds: Higher prices and fewer Canadian jobs.”
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
‘Modern-Day Escobar’: U.S. Says Former Canadian Olympian Ran Cocaine Pipeline with Cartel Protection and a Corrupt Toronto Lawyer
CDC’s Autism Reversal: Inside the Collapse of a 25‑Year Public Health Narrative
Cocaine, Manhunts, and Murder: Canadian Cartel Kingpin Prosecuted In US
-
Alberta3 hours ago
From Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
Crime2 days agoB.C.’s First Money-Laundering Sentence in a Decade Exposes Gaps in Global Hub for Chinese Drug Cash
-
Crime2 days agoFBI Seizes $13-Million Mercedes Unicorn From Ryan Wedding’s Narco Network
-
armed forces2 days ago2025 Federal Budget: Veterans Are Bleeding for This Budget
-
Banks2 days agoThe Bill Designed to Kill Canada’s Fossil Fuel Sector
-
Crime2 days agoMexico’s Constitutional Crisis
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta and Ottawa ink landmark energy agreement
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days agoTrump’s New AI Focused ‘Manhattan Project’ Adds Pressure To Grid