ILWU Contract Negotiation Update, July 2, 2014

The ILWU contract expired on June 30th and thus far we have not seen any major labor action. The ILWU and PMA issued a joint statement yesterday indicating their intention to continue keeping cargo moving until a new agreement can be reached.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Jimmy Ting
jimmyting@gwlcorp.com

Possible Shipping Disruption Due to West Coast Longshoremen Contract Negotiations

The Problem

The ILWU (International Longshoremen Worker’s Union) six year contract with the West Coast terminal operators (represented by the PMA – Pacific Maritime Association) is set to expire on July 1, 2014. The 2008 contract negotiations were contentious, but ultimately settled without a long work stoppage. Many in the shipping community still remember the 2002 contract negotiation which resulted in a two week work stoppage that shut down West Coast ports for two weeks. During that time, vessels piled up at various ports, with many ultimately discharging their containers in Mexico, Panama, and some even returning back to their originating foreign ports. The carriers declared Force Majeure, thereby transferring the financial burden of relocating the containers onto the shipping community.

What can we expect for this year’s negotiations?

I thought this article posted by Bill Mongelluzo of the JOC published on the ILWU13 website was very telling.

Bill describes what he believes will be the headline issues of this year’s negotiations:

  • Health Care: The Affordable Care Act places a tax on “Cadillac” health care plans. It is no surprise that one of the most well compensated unions would have health care plans (no premiums, co-pay for medicine of $1) that fall within the ACA’s definition of a Cadillac plan.  The terminal operators are not going to want to pay this additional tax (estimated by Jim McKenna, president of the PMA, to be roughly  $150 million a year).
  • Jurisdictional Authority: With terminals consolidating the ILWU will continue to be concerned about work possibly moving to non-union labor. We saw this with the dispute last summer when a labor dispute broke out over whose job it was to maintain chassis at the Oakland terminal.
  • Pension reform: As we’ve seen across other industries the last six years, employers are pushing for unions to take on a greater share of pension contributions.
  • Productivity: As with 2008, the terminals will continue to push for more automation and use of technology to streamline productivity. However there has been talk that this may be less of an issue than in 2008.

Some have asked why the ILWU and PMA don’t begin their negotiations earlier to help those in the shipping community avoid the stress of planning for possible shipping disruptions. Jim McKenna’s addressed this particular issue recently indicating that from previous experience, early negotiations are not fruitful as neither side feels urgency to get a contract completed. Both sides have agreed to begin negotiations in mid-May. However there is a distinct possibility that negotiations may move past the July 1st contract expiration.

We can also expect that during the negotiations, especially during the month of June, the ILWU will try to show their strength by slowing down work at the terminals. We should expect terminal efficiency to drop during the month of June, whether it is via slowdown for a few hours or a complete work stoppage for a day or two.

The Agriculture Transportation Coalition published their “Crystal Ball for the 2014 ILWU-PMA Negotiations”. Peter Friedman, Executive Director, provides interesting insight as well as his take on the different variables involved in the negotiations.

What are carriers planning to do?

The carriers are readily aware of the situation and in fact are already planning for possible congestion in the coming months leading up to the July 1st contract expiration. We have already seen one carrier (APL) announce a Congestion Surcharge (CSU) for containers from Asia to ALL destinations in the USA effective May 1, 2104. The congestion surcharge will be in the amount of $800/20’, $1000/40’, $1125/40’HQ, and $1265/45’HQ container. This charge will be applied if labor unrest occurs. It is important to note that this surcharge applies regardless of the destination. This means even containers bypassing the West Coast would face these surcharges. We saw similar announcements from the carriers in the past when they encountered possible labor disruptions. We expect other carriers to follow suit in the coming weeks with similar announcements.

In the event of actual long term labor disruption, I am not quite clear whether the Congestion Surcharge would take the place of the carriers declaring Force Majeure. However I would not be surprised if the Carriers reserved the right to declare Force Majeure even with the Congestion Surcharge.

 

What should the shipping community begin doing in response?

Importers should immediately begin the following:

  • Bring forward their supply chain and try to get product in before the July 1st contract expiration.
  • Look for alternative routings. For those receiving cargo at inland locations, there are alternatives (bringing product in through the East Coast ports or through Vancouver / Prince Rupert).
  • Look for alternative sourcing for products.
  • Notify customers of potential delays during July.

Exporters should also begin to look for alternative shipping options via other ports. They should also notify their customers an encourage them to move forward their supply chain planning.

I will continue to provide updates on the negotiations in the coming months.

Jimmy Ting

Great World Logistics (GWL)

Great World Customs Service

Great World Express

218 Littlefield Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94080

Direct: 650-308-8838

Tel: 650-873-9050 x 1019

Fax: 650-873-7029 / 7024
Skype: jimmy_ting
email: jimmyting@gwlcorp.com

www.gwlcorp.com

U.S. ITC Considers Antidumping Duties for Taiwanese Solar Cells

Importers of solar panels are very much aware that solar panels manufactured with Chinese made solar cells are subject to Antidumping and Countervailing duties. Most are also aware than an exception to the AD and CVD duties is if the solar panels are manufactured using solar cells sourced from other countries. We have seen a number of imports of solar panels from China this past year using solar cells manufactured in Taiwan. Importers have used this method to avoid the AD and CVD duties on Chinese manufactured solar panels.

Unfortunately, this door may be closing. The U.S. ITC has determined that there was injury to the U.S. solar industry from the Taiwanese solar industry. They have approved further investigation into an AD case regarding Taiwanese solar products with a preliminary AD duty determination due on or around June 9, 2014.

Importers of solar panels using Taiwanese  solar cells are urged to proceed with caution. Despite the June 9, 2014 Preliminary  Determination date being more than three months away, there is the possibility that the ITC will determine Critical Circumstances exist thereby allowing the AD duties to be retroactively applied three months from the date of the Preliminary Determination. While it is difficult to predict whether or not the ITC will determine Critical Circumstances, in this case there is history supporting the possibility. The ITC did find and impose Critical Circumstances for the original AD & CVD case on solar panels from China. Importers who think they can rush a shipment into the United States within the next three months before the Preliminary Determination may find that the AD duties are retroactively applied to their shipments during that time period.

Please feel free to contact me if you have questions.

Jimmy Ting
Great World Logistics (GWL)
Great World Customs Service
Great World Express
218 Littlefield Ave.
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Direct: 650-308-8838
Tel: 650-873-9050 x 1019
Fax: 650-873-7029 / 7024
Skype: jimmy_ting
email: jimmyting@gwlcorp.com
www.gwlcorp.com
blog: http://gwlcorp.com/gwlcorp/resources/

 

 

 

Factors that Contribute to Oakland Port Congestion and Possible Solutions

I attended a CBFANC sponsored town-hall meeting yesterday to discuss the ongoing terminal congestion issues at the port of Oakland. Present at the meeting were a number of brokers, forwarders, truckers, Elizabeth Martin (Senior Account Manager from APL), and Damon Gomes (Business Relations Manager for Ports America). The representative for SSA terminal was invited, but was unavailable to attend.

I had two goals for this meeting:

1.) Get a better understanding of the causes of the port congestion.
2.) Find out what solutions are available.

Here is a summary of what I learned.

Chassis Shortages

Chassis shortages and chassis repositioning delays play a role in slowing down turn times in the terminal. There are three main chassis providers for the terminals in Oakland. They are responsible for getting chassis positioned correctly at various terminals. The terminals will provide advanced notice to the chassis providers to let them know how many chassis they need in advance of a vessel arrival. Unfortunately, the chassis are not always being provided in sufficient quantities. In other circumstances, the chassis that are available in the terminal are not necessarily the right ones to be used with the container.

One trucker mentioned that SSA on that very day did not have enough chassis available. This ended up causing truckers to wait at the terminal for chassis to become available, leading to further congestion. The irony here is that one of the reasons for chassis shortages is that congestion prevents truckers from returning the chassis. Damon Gomes mentioned that Ports America has tried to proactively address this situation by creating a lane purely for the pickup and return of chassis.

One possible solution that could assist with the chassis shortages would be moving to a gray chassis pool. Under such circumstances, any chassis could be used with any container, regardless of the carrier. The challenge to this is how to divvy up responsibility for maintenance of chassis, as well as how to deal with the one or two carriers that have still not fully divested from the chassis game.

We discussed how other countries handled their chassis issues. It was noted that in some countries, the truckers managed their own chassis rather than 3rd party chassis providers. This concept was thought to be unworkable in the port of Oakland. The cost of maintaining trucks (especially with the new CARB requirements) was considered already a burden on the trucking community. Impact Transportation estimated that if truckers maintained their own chassis, the cost they would pass down to the import community for a chassis fee would be upwards of $100 a day. That is significantly more than the $15 to $25 a day most chassis providers are currently charging. The main reason for this discrepancy in cost seems related to the cost of maintaining the chassis and economies of scale. The large chassis providers are able to buy and maintain the chassis fleets at far lower cost than truckers. While I am aware that there are truckers who do have their own chassis, I am unsure if it is a long term viable model for other truckers in the Oakland market.

Consolidation of Terminals

We discussed the how we ended up with the four main terminals we now have in Oakland. Most everyone is aware the SSA absorbed APL terminal and Hanjin’s TTI terminal back in July 2013. Ports America also added services in November 2013. In so doing, SSA and Ports America have become “super terminals” managing far more containers than any one Oakland terminal previously handled. The consolidation of terminals is a major contributing factor to the congestion. While the total acreage used for all the terminals remains the same, the bottleneck is found in the terminal operations. My understanding is that the terminals are now serving the same, if not slightly more containers than before, with less equipment, in particular, less transtainers. Furthermore, in previous years when a number of carriers had their own terminals, there were more wheeled operations where containers came off vessels and were immediately placed on chassis.

The shipping community is very much aware that in the past two months, Ports America, seems to have had the greatest congestion issues. I do want to say that Damon Gomes was very forthright about how Ports America is trying to tackle this problem.

1.) They currently are operating six transtainers and have four more transtainers on the way. This should significantly help relieve the turn times at Ports America.

2.) They are working to find ways to eliminate or reduce the “5D” situation where containers are placed in areas that are closed off and unavailable to drivers. One possible solution would be to rotate sections of the terminal that are placed on “5D” status.

3.) Ports America has opened Saturday gates in previous weeks and even opened during Presidents’ Day. One issue that was brought up was that even during the Saturday gates, the turn times were still slow. It was explained that this was due to less experienced longshoremen working the Saturday gates.

4.) Ports America has also approached Customs about allowing them to open up Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday night gates in March. These night gates would allow truckers to come and grab containers between 6pm and 3am. They are still waiting for approval from Customs as any night gate will require Customs officers to be working the gate during those hours. Ports America did indicate that they would do this at their own expense in the month of March, if they can get Customs approval. They are also confident that night gates would not run into the same slow turn times that the Saturday gates have experienced.

I was extremely encouraged by the suggestions offered by Ports America, despite their recent problems with congestion.

Permanent Night Gate: The Solution?

We spent a good part of the time talking about what seems to be the one realistic long term solution to the congestion issue, a permanent Night gate.
Would it help relieve congestion? There seemed to be consensus that a Night Gate could greatly help relieve congestion. Truckers would not be closed out and turned away from the terminals in the mid afternoon. The extra time (expected to be from 6pm to 3am) allotted to pick up containers would allow truckers to spread out their pickup times.
The main concern was that a Night Gate program would require buy-in from the shipping community. Importers and exporters would have to not only be willing to accommodate with their shipping and receiving schedules, they would have to be willing to pay a possible additional cost. A Night Gate program would likely be modeled after the Los Angeles – Long Beach Pier Pass program. Those in Southern California are currently paying $66.50 per 20’ container and $133 per 40’ container for picking up containers during the day. Containers picked up during Night Gate hours would not be subject to this fee. Whether the cost of a Night Gate program in Oakland would be more or less must still be evaluated. However importers and exporters are already paying additional fees under current conditions:

• Truckers charging for waiting time
• Additional chassis fee assessed for containers requiring more time to delivery and return
• Detention fees for containers that are returned late

I am not even taking into account the business cost of containers not being delivered on time. I expect to see the shipping community strongly supporting a permanent Night Gate program. Please let your voices be heard.

ILWU Labor Contract Negotiations

While I came away from the meeting feeling optimistic that the parties involved at the port of Oakland, in particular Ports America, are working on solutions, the shadow hanging over the head of our discussions was the forthcoming contract negotiations between the ILWU and the PMA. Everyone is aware that the longshoremen’s contract is up at the end of June. We are also aware that the union is extremely strong and likely will find opportunities to show their strength during the negotiation process. These demonstrations of strength often lead to slow downs at the terminals.
I would therefore say that it is imperative that the shipping community work hard in the coming months to try to push for and enact the Night Gate solution.

We are living in the reality of consolidated terminal management at the port of Oakland. These next few months are important to help solve the current congestion problem and help avert potential further congestion leading up to the ILWU contract renewal.

Port of Oakland Congestion Update – Truckers Beginning to Charge Waiting Time

We received a message today from one of our long time trucking partners that they will begin charging for waiting time at the terminals. They will provide two hours of free waiting time. However any additional time will be billed at $55 an hour. We have other truckers who have long since instituted a waiting time fee. We urge importers and exporters who rely on these truckers to please be patient and understanding. The truckers really are struggling to make a living as they continue having to waste more time at the terminals trying to get containers. We have been told that drivers have been experiencing wait times ranging from two to five hours.

Here’s our latest update of the four main terminals serving the port of Oakland.

1.) Ports America – This port seems to have taken over the number one ranking as the biggest offender from the standpoint of terminal congestion. Containers arriving at the port are taking more days than usual to become available for pick up. They are often times sitting in locations that truckers are not allowed to pick up at. We’ve seen containers remain unavailable for over one week (beyond the free time allowed by the terminal). Right now, Ports America is extending their free time in these situations. This has even affected containers that are subject to Customs examinations. However you do have to be careful which carrier you are using. Hapag Lloyd recently billed a customer for storage fees despite the fact that the container was not available for pick up. Also note that even once containers are available, the first available pick up appointment is usually a few days later.

I do believe some of the carriers using Ports America understands they have a major congestion issue. The past two weekends, they have had Saturday gates open to help relieve some of the congestion. They plan on opening a Monday gate on Presidents’ Day.

2.) SSA Terminal – SSA is still dealing with long wait times. Adding to the headache, SSA sent out a message today that they are dealing with chassis shortages.

3.) Ben E. Nutter – Things are hopefully going to be looking up in the coming month at this terminal. The broken transtainer was fixed last week. However we currently are still seeing delays in container availability and congestion within the terminal. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that this terminal can right itself in the coming month.

4.) Trapac – This terminal seems to have received the least amount of complaints.

Some members of the shipping community have asked whether it is worthwhile to consider Los Angeles-Long Beach as an alternative. Please note that Los Angeles-Long Beach is also facing congestion issues related to chassis shortages.

I will be attending a CBFANC town hall meeting next week with other brokers, freight forwarders and hopefully some representatives from the Oakland terminals. I will report back with news from our meeting.

We wish everyone a happy Presidents’ Day Weekend!

Jimmy Ting
Great World Logistics (GWL)
Great World Customs Service
Great World Express
218 Littlefield Ave.
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Direct: 650-308-8838
Tel: 650-873-9050 x 1019
Fax: 650-873-7029 / 7024
Skype: jimmy_ting
email: jimmyting@gwlcorp.com
http://www.gwlcorp.com

Reflections on the State of the Port (Oakland)

I was at the State of the Port dinner last night. One of the speakers was the Executive Port Director for the port of Oakland. He got grilled by the shipping community during the QA session. Frustrations really boiled over. In fact, I’m surprised he didn’t get hammered even more.
On the surface, the problem is massive congestion. The congestion affects shipping in two ways:
1.) Container availability. With too many containers in limited space, containers are often put in closed off areas. These containers are often left in closed off areas for days on end. In some terminals that require an appointment to pick up a container, the terminals don’t have enough pickup dates readily available.
2.) Drivers can wait in line first thing in the morning to pick up a container. They may get out of the terminal by mid morning. If they are lucky, they are able to return to the terminals in the early afternoon to pick up another container. They then have to wait in line. However some of the terminals are closing the drivers out early/mid afternoon (3pm or earlier in some cases). Despite waiting in line, truckers may not be able to pick up a second container if they get closed out. This type of congestion is unworkable for most truckers. Their livelihood depends on making as many truck moves as possible. The shipping community cannot find enough truckers to do the work that is available. It’s not that the truckers don’t want to do the moves, they just can’t get out of the terminals fast enough.
What I was hoping Chris Lytle would do last night was provide a serious framework for solving these problems. Unfortunately, he barely touched on the problems during his speech. I think that was partly why the shipping community really went after him during the Q&A session. What we need is an open and honest conversation with the entire shipping community. The port of Oakland is not experiencing a huge sudden huge influx of surplus containers. The port of Oakland has handled this volume before and should be able to handle it now.
Keep in mind that I am not blaming Chris Lytle for the problems. He came on board last summer and walked right into a hornet’s nest. My own viewpoint is that it ultimately starts with the steamship lines. They are doing everything they can to cut costs. These measures have put a real damper on productivity at the ports:
  • Maersk, APL, and Hanjin (three big carriers) have in the past few years stopped using their own terminals and merged in with 3rd party terminals in Oakland. Chris did acknowledge this as a big part of the problem yesterday. Consolidation of terminals is a key contributor to congestion at the terminals.
  • From talking to one of the terminal managers, the carriers are really reluctant to spend extra money on more longshoremen crews to work the ships. I don’t know if this ultimately falls on the terminals or the carriers. I do know that in the case of Evergreen, they do have some power to decide on how many crews to hire. I don’t know if more longshoremen would lead to great efficiency.
  • I learned the other day that the recent congestion at Ben E Nutter terminal was partly due to a broken transtainer. The transtainer had been broken since December. One month later, it is still broken. The terminal only had two transtainers to begin with. One is obviously not enough. The public hasn’t received any message of explanation as to why it is taking so long to get it fixed.
I have heard others in the shipping community say that the carriers really don’t mind if containers sit at ports longer. They feel that storage/demurrage charges are revenue generators for the carriers. I’m not sure if I completely agree with the argument, but I can see why members of the shipping community would feel this way.
The reality is that in the past five/six years carriers have really struggled with their profitability. What we are seeing at the port of Oakland is an example of legacy of the cost cutting measures. If service is measured by transit time and reliability, it is obvious to me that the quality of the service that carriers provide has seriously degraded.
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? I am not sure. Chris Lytle mentioned that the port of Oakland should consider creating a Pier Pass system like the one in Los Angeles and Long Beach. The Pier Pass system would allow for before and after hours pickups. It would extend terminal operation hours from early morning to very late into the night. The cost of this system, if designed in the same way as that of Los Angeles and Long Beach, would be placed directly on the shipping community. I do believe most in the shipping community, after having spent the past half year complaining about service level at the port of Oakland, will accept this added cost.
Another related suggestion floated out there was adding a weekend (Saturday) service. Who would directly bear the cost of this service is a bit more difficult to figure out. If it requires the carriers to pay directly for more longshoremen, I can see the carriers being stingy. The track record of the carriers the past few years is that they are willing to sacrifice service, the importing community be damned.
Another x-factor in the whole situation is the ILUW (longshormen’s union). With the contract expiring on June 30th, we can be sure to expect games to be played by both sides (terminal and union) in the months leading up to the renewal.

Port of Oakland – Update on Ben E. Nutter Terminal

I’ve written and spoken with the shipping community extensively the past few months about the troubles at the port of Oakland. One issue I mentioned recently was how congestion had spread to other terminals in Oakland, beyond just SSA terminal. I learned today that the reason for congestion at Ben E. Nutter terminal is that one of their two transtainers has been broken since December. The terminal has been operating on only one transtainer for over one month. This is the reason why many containers have remained decked and unavailable for days after vessel arrival. It is also the reason why we have been unable to request wheeled containers during this time. This terminal primarily serves Evergreen vessels. Speaking with Evergreen representatives today, I learned that they don’t expect the broken transtainer to be repaired until sometime in February. Until then, we can continue to expect delays in container availability.

-Jimmy Ting

Great World Logistics (GWL)
Great World Customs Service
Great World Express

ALL Port of Oakland Terminals Continue to Operate Slowly

I’ve mentioned over the last half year about the problems at SSA terminal in Oakland. However it is important to note that SSA is not alone when it comes to causing problems for the importing community. Over the past three weeks, we have seen containers at Ports of America take over a week after arrival to become available for a pickup appointment. We recently experienced the same situation with another container at Ben E. Nutter Terminal. From talking to truckers, these problems are widespread across all the Oakland terminals.

Truckers have also advised us that they are being closed out of terminals by early/mid afternoon each day. One local drayage company, Devine Intermodal, discusses this issue in detail on their news site. If truckers are not able to pick up containers in the mid-afternoon, they will not be able to deliver the required number of containers necessary to make a living wage.

At the heart of the matter of terminal efficiency apparently is $$$.

  • Terminal operators and the steamship lines that operate them want to save money by limiting the number of longshoremen used each day as well as the amount of overtime paid.
  • Longshoremen seem to be flexing their muscles and showing their ability to affect terminal efficiency in recent weeks in the slow buildup to their contract renewal negotiations. Note that the ILWU current contract is set to expire on June 30, 2014.

The end result of these issues is that importers will have to face the following:

  • An increase in the cost of trucking if drivers are not able to deliver their usual number of loads.
  • Delays in receiving containers as the terminals remain congested.

What is unfortunate is that we do not see a solution in the near future. As the steamship lines continue to lose money in recent years, we have seen them take a number of actions to save money:

  • Slow steaming to reduce fuel cost.
  • Pushing the responsibility for chassis rental directly onto the backs of importers.
  • Limiting the amount of labor used at terminals.

All of these actions add to the total cost that importers have to pay for bringing in their products while at the same time making it very difficult for importers to expedite shipments. I urge that importers in the Oakland and Northern California community plan accordingly and adjust their expectations in the coming year.

-Jimmy Ting

Great World Logistics (GWL)
Great World Customs Service
Great World Express

 

U.S. Solar Manufacturing Industry Attempts to Extend the Solar Module AD/CVD Case to Cover Taiwan

SolarWorld, on behalf of a coalition of U.S. domestic solar manufacturers, has submitted new AD and CVD cases to the ITC for review. This time around, the AD and CVD cases are broadened to cover both China and Taiwan. This is an attempt to close what SolarWorld has argued is a loophole in the original AD and CVD cases that were issued one year ago. The loophole allowed Chinese manufactured solar panels to enter into the U.S. without being subject to AD or CVD duties if they were manufactured in third countries. You can read more about SolarWorld’s justification in their news release.

What is important to understand is that by creating a case that includes Taiwan directly, SolarWorld is doing more than just closing a loophole. This is an attack on solar modules and solar cells from Taiwan, whether or not they are shipped indirectly through Chinese products. The Taiwanese solar industry is essentially the victim of collateral damage from the solar trade war between the U.S. and China. Since the U.S. instituted AD and CVD duties on Chinese solar modules last year, the Chinese government has responded by beginning their own AD and CVD investigations of U.S. polysilicon (a key raw material in solar module production) exports to China.

Note that as during the first AD and CVD investigation, not everyone in the U.S. solar industry supports this trade war. The Solar Energy Industries Association, a broad based coalition of solar companies in the United States that includes researchers, installers, and manufacturers, has spoken out against the new AD and CVD case. They would like to see a compromise to end this dispute.

The ITC has until February 14, 2014 to make a preliminary injury determination. It is extremely important that importers of solar modules made directly or indirectly from Taiwan solar cells follow this news closely. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

- Jimmy Ting

Great World Customs Service

http://www.gwlcorp.com

http://www.great-world.com

t: 650-873-9050 x1019

email: jimmyting@gwlcorp.com

More Labor Disruption from the Port of Oakland Truckers Association: The Saga Continued

The Port of Oakland Truckers Association (POTA) voted on late last Friday to stop work at the port of Oakland this Wednesday, November 27th. While truckers are still dissatisfied with the turn time at various terminals at the port of Oakland (specifically with SSA), their current complaint is mainly focused on the January 1st deadline set in place by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the trucks to be retrofitted to meet new emission standards. POTA is asking the port of Oakland to charge a $50 per container emissions fee to help pay for the cost and maintenance of CARB compliant trucks.

With CARB and the port of Oakland not signaling any willingness to accept the request, POTA has has indicated they will demonstrate. The city of Oakland has indicated they will have police officers on site to make sure the roads leading to the terminals are open. However there is no guarantee that they will be successful. The other wildcard in the process are the ILWU longshoremen. If the longshoremen do decide not to cross the picket lines, it isn’t going to matter whether the Oakland police are able to keep the roads open.

Importers should be prepared for more possible delays.