Pilots fear collisions as staffing crisis leaves Australian Control Towers empty

Concerned crews are blowing the whistle after a surge in passenger traffic

Published: June 19, 2024

 Bloomberg

Concerns among pilots about a possible mid-air collision are spilling over in Australia as a shortage of air traffic controllers leaves airport towers unmanned, forcing passenger jets to fend for themselves.


There are currently no overnight air traffic control services at Darwin, a northern gateway for carriers including Qantas Airways Ltd. and Virgin Australia. Schedules show that at around midnight almost every day, more than a dozen flights have to arrive or depart with almost no guidance from the ground.

On Australia's northeast coast, the airport at Townsville — a popular jumping off point for the Great Barrier Reef — doesn't staff its control tower at weekends. Almost 50 commercial services have to coordinate their own landings or takeoffs on Sunday alone.

The labor crisis on the ground is adding risk in the air during the post-Covid travel boom, with flight crews taking on the task of distancing their planes from other air traffic "- a responsibility that ordinarily lies with air traffic controllers. Pilots say landing without direction from a tower removes an important layer of security at a critical period of the flight.

Concerned crews are blowing the whistle after a surge in passenger traffic. Airlines have scheduled 866 flights into Darwin this month, the most this year, up from a Covid-era low of 171 in May 2020, according to Cirium data. Runway construction work at the airport that restricts plane movements is making landing and taking off without help even more complicated, pilots say.

In a statement, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said it's "satisfied that the arrangements between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. are safe for the anticipated traffic mix" at Darwin. The regulator said it's working with the defence department, which is responsible for air traffic control at Darwin, to "support a return to the previous service levels." The defence department didn't respond to a request for comment.

A spokesperson for Airservices Australia, the government agency that manages airspace, said "rosters are tight in some areas" but "safety is never compromised." The organization has recruited and trained 100 new air traffic controllers since 2020 and more than 70 others will join in the 2025 fiscal year, it said.

Like the rest of the aviation industry, air traffic controllers worldwide took a blow during the pandemic, with many laid off when international travel ground to a halt. Employment levels in a sector that's essential to keeping aviation safe have failed to keep pace with the swift recovery in air travel.

The depleted ranks have been in the spotlight globally after a spate of close calls on runways in the US, including a near collision at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in April between a JetBlue Airways Corp. flight and a Southwest Airlines Co. plane. In January, a fiery crash on the tarmac at Tokyo killed five people.

Safety concerns among air traffic controllers themselves in Sydney, Australia's main aviation gateway — emerged early last year when staff submitted at least 15 confidential reports to the transport safety investigator. Some warned that an accident was almost inevitable unless the manpower deficit was addressed.

As recently as last week, flight-planning notices for pilots warned that control tower operating hours at airports across Australia were subject to "post-Covid Airservices staffing shortages." The list included the airports of the nation's capital, Canberra, and Hobart, the capital city of Tasmania.

"Without air traffic control, the chance of errors by any one aircraft or pilot increases, and the ability to identify and correct those errors is dramatically reduced," said Tony Lucas, a senior Qantas pilot who's also president of the Australian and International Pilots Association. "We want to see normal operations resume as soon as possible."

In Australia, a vast country where air travel is just about unavoidable, it's common for small aerodromes or remote airstrips to operate on their own. But pilots converging on Darwin, where there's no air traffic control from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. most nights, describe a late-night airspace busy with commercial flights, military aircraft and small medical evacuation planes.

One Boeing Co. 737 captain, a 20-year Qantas veteran, said he was relieved to land safely there in early April shortly after midnight without air traffic control. He spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject. Under those conditions, said the pilot, an accident would come as no surprise.

That same month, the Australian Airline Pilots' Association was so concerned that it issued a safety bulletin on the matter. The body warned there's a higher risk of a mid-air collision in areas of uncontrolled airspace because not all aircraft are equipped with crash-avoidance systems. The alert was distributed to professional pilot bodies worldwide.

Qantas declined to comment, but pointed to its recent submissions to an Australian parliamentary transport committee.

In a May 14 letter to the committee, Qantas said "for safety reasons" its jets avoid uncontrolled airspace unless there's no other option. Making pilots responsible for so-called self-separation in the air "was once an extremely rare event "" almost unheard of in Australian airspace and even in a global context," the airline said.

Now, it's commonplace.

Some 1,600 Qantas group flights in 2023 were delayed because normal air traffic services were unavailable, the carrier told the committee. Almost 400 flights ran late in the first four months of this year for the same reason. The airline called for "additional regulatory oversight" of Airservices Australia.

Virgin Australia declined to comment but it told the same parliamentary transport committee last month that air traffic control was withdrawn on 810 occasions between Jan. 1, 2022 and April 24, 2024. Those incidents occurred both mid-flight and as aircraft were approaching Australian airports.

At Darwin Airport, there will be no overnight service until at least November this year, according to instructions for pilots on the Airservices Australia website. The restrictions were put in place in July 2022.

The dense cluster of flight arrivals and departures at Darwin either side of midnight point to the challenges of maintaining mid-air separation. As many as 16 flights operated by Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin land or depart inside a window of about two hours, well after Darwin's control tower has closed, according to the airport's flight timetable.

The Qantas pilot who spoke anonymously said the last time he approached Darwin Airport, he received an overview of nearby flights from an area controller, allowing him to build a picture of the situation in the air. He then contacted other aircraft to ensure they were distanced "- vertically and horizontally "- and wouldn't be landing at the same time.

He touched down without incident after getting on the plane's Wifi and checking Flightradar24, a site more typically monitored by aviation enthusiasts on the ground. Many jets do not have Wifi.

It's not as if government bodies aren't aware of long-standing concerns among pilots and air traffic controllers.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau in March 2023 published an anonymous confidential submission, apparently from an air traffic controller, which highlighted a lack of understanding among controllers and flight crews about what to do in uncontrolled airspace. The situation was "an accident waiting to happen," the person said.

Three months later, the safety bureau said air traffic controllers had made "a large number" of confidential reports in the preceding four months. Fifteen of them related to operations in Sydney. There had been just one in the previous five years.

Excerpts from those submissions, published by the bureau, point to widespread concerns about staffing levels and procedures in Sydney. One controller warned it was "only a matter of time before the current practices at Airservices result in a major aviation incident." Another said it would take years to fix the labor crisis. At the time, Airservices denied there were shortages in Sydney.

Meanwhile, another Boeing 737 pilot familiar with the current restrictions at Darwin says the airport is too busy to run without full-time air traffic control. Airservices Australia has had ample time to fill holes in its workforce, the Australian airline pilot said, speaking anonymously because he isn't authorized to speak to media.

The situation at Darwin is as bad as he's known, said the pilot, who's also flown for around two decades.

After South Africa's historic election, what now for its global role on issues like the war in Gaza?

GERALD IMRAY

ASSOCIATED PRESS

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — It was a historic day for South Africa. The political party that ended the racially divisive era of apartheid and sent global hopes soaring with a vibrant new democracy has lost its three-decade grip on power, according to election results Saturday.

For the first time, the African National Congress will have to form a coalition to govern South Africa, whose role on the global stage is growing as it takes Israel to court over its actions in Gaza and assumes the presidency of the Group of 20 nations late this year.

Here’s what might lie ahead for a leading voice for the developing world after the ANC lost its dominance at home.


CHALLENGING ISRAEL OVER GAZA

South Africa has become the most visible critic of Israel’s actions in Gaza by accusing it of genocide in a case at the International Court of Justice, the U.N.'s top court.

The case has been largely driven by the ANC, which has long identified with the Palestinian cause and sees in Gaza and the occupied West Bank uncomfortable parallels with the distant "homelands" created for South Africa's Black people by the former white-controlled government under the brutal system of apartheid.

Israel vehemently denies the allegations of genocide. The ANC’s loss of its parliamentary majority in this week's election made news in Israel.

The case at the world court could go on for years, meaning a new South African coalition government will inherit it. The ANC likely will form a governing deal with one or more of South Africa's three main opposition parties — the centrist Democratic Alliance, the far-left Economic Freedom Fighters and the populist new MK Party of former President Jacob Zuma.

The Democratic Alliance, which received around 21% of the vote, has said it doesn't agree with the genocide case against Israel and would rather see South Africa push for a mediated settlement in the Israel-Hamas war. The EFF is seen to be at least as pro-Palestinian as the ANC and has also accused Israel of genocide. The position of the MK Party, formed late last year, is not clear.

G20 PRESIDENCY LIES AHEAD

South Africa has long been seen as a leading representative of the African continent in the world, and on Dec. 1 it assumes the prominent presidency of the Group of 20 nations — 20 leading rich and developing nations. South Africa will take over from Brazil, which is using its presidency to push for greater representation of developing nations on the global stage.

South Africa is the only African nation in the G20. The ANC and its new governing partner or partners will need to look beyond South African politics and find a common stance on pressing global issues such as climate change, conflict and reforms of international financial institutions.

“Regardless of the electoral outcome, deep-seated elements of South African foreign policy will persist, such as championing the rights of Palestinians and calling for international institutions to reform to better reflect the priorities of African states,” Michelle Gavin wrote last month for the Council on Foreign Relations.

AND THEN THERE'S RUSSIA

South Africa’s diplomacy under the ANC has drawn attention for its historic pro-Moscow stance that continued after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than two years ago. While the United States and others in the West have long recognized the ANC's ties to Russia — they go back to the fight against apartheid — the U.S.-South Africa relationship was seriously strained when the ANC government allowed Russian and Chinese warships to conduct drills off its coast in early 2023.

The main opposition Democratic Alliance has been strongly critical of the ANC over its relationship with Russia, accusing it of betraying its claimed position of nonalignment and neutrality with regards to the war in Ukraine and the larger tensions between Russia and the West.

Gavin suggested that an “unstable” governing coalition could hurt South Africa as a gateway for foreign investors and “push the country even closer to Russia and China."

___

AP Africa news: https://apnews.com/hub/africa


A guide to what's next for South Africa and the key figures in unprecedented coalition talks

GERALD IMRAY


CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — South Africa's election has decided little, other than the African National Congress that liberated the country from apartheid in 1994 has lost its 30-year majority.

It remained the biggest party, though. With no one holding a majority, South Africa's party leaders are embarking on coalition talks to form a government. South Africa has never had to do this due to the ANC's long dominance.

There are four major political parties and at least eight with significant shares of the vote after last week's election. It'll be complicated.

Here's a guide to some of the key figures and what might be coming next as South Africa enters uncharted territory.

PRESIDENT CYRIL RAMAPHOSA

Once a protege of Nelson Mandela, Ramaphosa, 71, has now overseen the worst election result in the ANC's history. He is under pressure within his own party as well as with voters, but he managed to laugh when an official made a slip Sunday and referred to him as the “extinguished” president rather than distinguished. “I'm not yet extinguished,” Ramaphosa said.

Ramaphosa's challenge is to guide his party to a coalition he sees as best amid different factions within the ANC. The obvious choice is the main opposition Democratic Alliance. Between them, they would have enough seats in Parliament to govern. But the DA has been fiercely critical of the ANC's policies for years and the marriage wouldn't be an easy one, even if both have said they are open to discussions.

Another option for the ANC is to join with one or both of the two other main opposition parties, the uMkhonto weSizwe party, or MK party, and the Economic Freedom Fighters. That could be damaging for South Africa's image with foreign investors given MK and the EFF have both pledged to nationalize South Africa's important gold and platinum mines and the central bank.

Ramaphosa's presidency is in the balance given a coalition agreement also has to translate into reelecting him for a second term. South Africans vote for parties in elections to decide how many seats they get in Parliament. Lawmakers then elect the president and the ANC now doesn't have enough lawmakers on its own to reelect Ramaphosa.

JOHN STEENHUISEN

Steenhuisen, 48, is the main opposition leader as head of the centrist DA and the only white leader among the four main parties. He said his party was also initiating talks with various parties, except MK and the EFF. The DA has drawn a line there and said it will never work with those two over ideological differences.

Getting Steenhuisen's DA and Ramaphosa's ANC together is widely viewed as the most stable coalition option by analysts. Some have suggested that other smaller parties could be brought in to create a wider coalition and dilute the ANC-DA mix.

FORMER PRESIDENT JACOB ZUMA

Zuma was the leader of the ANC and president of South Africa until he was replaced by Ramaphosa in both positions. They've become fierce rivals. Zuma, who is 82, was the wildcard of this election after only announcing his political comeback in December. His newly formed MK Party had a huge impact by winning 14% of the vote and taking some of the ANC's support to become the third biggest party in its first election.

Zuma's party has demanded Ramaphosa step down as a condition for a coalition, a mark of the personal animosity. The ANC rejected the condition. While it would seem there's little for them to work with to come together, MK does now have a significant vote share and seats in Parliament.

Zuma, who has served a prison sentence for contempt of court, is due to go on trial next year on charges of corruption. He was barred from running for a seat in Parliament in this election because of his criminal record.

JULIUS MALEMA

Malema's EFF party lost support in the election to drop to the fourth biggest party behind MK. Malema is the youngest of the major leaders at age 43 and also has old ties to the ANC as its former youth leader before he was expelled for misconduct.

Renowned as a firebrand, his party follows a Marxist ideology but there's some common ground between it and the ANC and the EFF was raised as a logical coalition partner for the ANC before MK overtook it and reduced its significance. Because of their differences, the inclusion of the EFF and MK in any coalition may result in the DA pulling out.

___


South Africa's president urges parties to find common ground in talks after election deadlock

MOGOMOTSI MAGOME and GERALD IMRAY

Updated Sun, June 2, 2024 election result, South Africa's African National Congress was talking to everyone in an effort to form a stable coalition government for Africa's most advanced economy after it lost its 30-year majority


JOHANNESBURG (AP) — President Cyril Ramaphosa called Sunday for South Africa's political parties to overcome their differences and find “common ground” to form the first national coalition government in its young democracy.

His comments came in a speech straight after final election results were announced confirming that no party won a majority in last week's vote. Unprecedented coalition talks were set to start to find a way forward for Africa’s most industrialized economy.

Ramaphosa's African National Congress party had already lost its 30-year majority after more than 99% of votes were counted by Saturday and showed it couldn’t surpass 50%. The ANC received 40% of the votes in last week’s election in the final count, the largest share.

Without a majority it will need to agree on a coalition with another party or parties for the first time to co-govern and reelect Ramaphosa for a second term. South Africa’s national elections decide how many seats each party gets in Parliament and lawmakers elect the president later.

“Our people have spoken,” Ramaphosa said. “Whether we like it or not, they have spoken. We have heard the voices of our people and we must respect their choices and their wishes. ... The people of South Africa expect their leaders to work together to meet their needs. This is a time for all of us to put South Africa first.”

The ANC was the party of Nelson Mandela and freed South Africa from the apartheid system of white minority rule in 1994. It had governed with a comfortable majority since then, but this election saw an unprecedented slump in its support as voters deserted the party due to its failure to solve widespread poverty, extremely high unemployment levels and problems with delivering basic government services to many in a nation of 62 million.

The ANC had said earlier Sunday that it was starting its negotiations with all major parties. More than 50 parties took part in the election, and at least eight had significant shares of the vote. At least 26 of them, including the MK Party led by former President Jacob Zuma, have lodged objections and complaints with the electoral body alleging voting irregularities, which it has promised to address.

ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula said it was open to all negotiations, even with the main opposition Democratic Alliance, which has led the chorus of criticism of the ANC for years but is viewed by many analysts as the most stable coalition option for South Africa.

The DA won the second most votes with 21.8%, and the two parties would hold a majority together and be able to govern. DA leader John Steenhuisen said his party was also initiating talks with parties. The ANC won 159 seats in the 400-seat Parliament, down from the 230 it won in the last election. The DA increased slightly to 87 seats.

There is some time pressure for coalition talks to progress and for the uncertainty to be minimized, given that the new Parliament needs to sit for the first time and elect a president within 14 days of the election results being declared.

Ramaphosa is seeking a second and final term and Mbalula said his position as leader of the ANC was not in question despite the election result. Mbalula said the ANC would not consider the demands by Zuma's MK Party that Ramaphosa step down as a condition for talks.

“No political party will dictate terms to us, the ANC. They will not ... You come to us with that demand, forget (it),” Mbalula said.

He said the ANC would not be arrogant, though. “The elections have humbled us, they have brought us where we are,” he said.

South Africa is a leading voice for its continent and for the developing world on the global stage and is due to take over the presidency of the Group of 20 rich and developing nations late this year. It’s the only African nation in that group.

“Everyone is looking to see if South Africa can weather the storm and come out the other side,” political analyst Oscar van Heerden said on the eNCA news network.

Amid many coalition options, the ANC could also join with MK and the far-left Economic Freedom Fighters, although they have been cast as partners that would make investors uneasy. Both have pledged to nationalize parts of South Africa’s economy, including its gold and platinum mines, among the world’s biggest producers.

The DA has long said it will not work with the EFF and MK, calling them a “doomsday coalition” for South Africa. Steenhuisen, the party's leader, repeated that stance Sunday in a speech on national television but said his party was starting talks with others and would approach them “with cool heads and open minds.”

Political analyst van Heerden said an ANC-DA coalition would “possibly give stability” but there were some within the ANC who would oppose it. Other smaller parties could be involved to dilute it and make it more palatable for the ANC, some commentators said.

“The DA has approached the ANC as the enemy over many, many years,” van Heerden said. “The next few days is going to be a very difficult period. People will have to be mature behind closed doors.”

___

Imray reported from Cape Town, South Africa.


South Africa general election results: What was the vote share and will there be a new leader?

Lola Christina Alao
Mon, June 3, 2024 

People queue to cast their votes at a polling station in Johannesburg (AP)

The African National Congress (ANC) party has lost its majority for the first time in 30 years of full democracy, in the South African general election.

The ANC famously led the fight to free South Africa from apartheid. High unemployment, power cuts, violent crime and crumbling infrastructure are said to have led to a loss of support for the former liberation movement.

The ANC also lost its majority in three provinces: Northern Cape; Gauteng, and KwaZulu-Natal, where MK was the largest party.

South Africa’s current president, 71-year-old Cyril Ramaphosa, has indicated he will not resign after the ANC’s defeat.

"What this election has made plain is that the people of South Africa expect their leaders to work together to meet their needs," he said.

He added that after 30 years, South Africans should be grateful their democracy worked: "We must respect their choices and their wishes."
What were the final vote numbers?

The ANC won 159 seats on a vote share of just over 40%.

The full results are as follows:

Here are the top parties:

ANC - 159 seats

DA - 87 seats

MK - 58 seats

EFF - 39 seats

IFP - 17 seats

PA - 9 seats

The remainder of the seats went to smaller parties.
Will there be a new president?

South Africans do not directly elect the president. They elect the members of the National Assembly, who then elect the president by a simple majority.

201 or more votes are needed to determine the presidency.

Now that the results have been announced, certain steps must be followed for South Africa to form a government. They include:

The allocation of seats


The first sitting of the National Assembly


The election of the president


The formation of government

All eyes on ANC as it discusses who to enlist to govern South Africa

Updated Mon, June 3, 2024 
By Nellie Peyton and Tannur Anders

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) -South Africa was on tenterhooks on Monday for the African National Congress to signal whom it will choose as a partner to govern the nation after it lost its majority in last week's election for the first time in 30 years of democracy.

The ANC had comfortably won every previous election since the end of apartheid in 1994 but this time voters weary of joblessness, inequality and rolling power blackouts gave it just 40.2% of the vote, down from 57.5% five years ago.

Its vote share was still the largest of any party but was not enough for the ANC to govern alone, thrusting South Africa into unknown political territory.

"This moment in our country calls for responsible leadership and constructive engagement," said President Cyril Ramaphosa in a weekly newsletter published on Monday.

The ANC's potential partners are diametrically opposed, ranging from the free-marketeer Democratic Alliance (DA) to uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), parties that advocate nationalising mines and banks and redistributing land.

"We would work with anyone who wants to work with us but not with a cap in the hand," ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula said late on Sunday after the official results were announced.

With the future direction of government policy at stake, a working committee of 27 ANC officials was scheduled to meet on Tuesday to prepare a presentation on the party's options to be delivered to the National Executive Committee on Wednesday.

The meetings were earlier scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, respectively.

"It's a rescheduling," ANC spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri told Reuters, refuting a local media report that the meetings were postponed due to internal conflict and adding "how can you have disagreements when they haven't even met yet?".

The DA and the smaller, socially conservative Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) have both announced they had set up negotiating teams to engage with other parties. Both are part of an alliance of parties formed before the election.

"The people of South Africa spoke loud and clear that political parties must find each other and constitute a government on their behalf as they did not give a full mandate to one political party," said IFP leader Velenkosini Hlabisa.

The DA came second in the election with 21.8% of the vote, while MK, which is led by former president Jacob Zuma, got 14.6%. The EFF received 9.5% and the IFP 3.9%.

Under the constitution, the newly elected parliament must convene within two weeks of the results being declared, and one of its first acts must be to choose the nation's next president.

So far, ANC officials who have spoken in public have rallied round Ramaphosa but he may nevertheless come under pressure, whether from an internal challenge or from other parties refusing to work with him.

TOUGH TALKS AHEAD

"It is going to be very difficult coalition negotiations, even more so for the ANC because of its internal contradictions," said Zwelinzima Ndevu, director of the School of Public Leadership at Stellenbosch University.

Political analyst Ralph Mathekga said the DA was likely to push the ANC hard on making a strong commitment to root out corruption in party ranks, which could trigger resistance from some ANC figures he described as "heavily compromised".

"It's going to be a question as to whether the ANC signs up for anti-corruption or not," he said.

Despite that potential hurdle, some analysts said a deal between the ANC and the DA looked like the likeliest outcome because the DA had a positive record in government at the provincial level, in Western Cape where the major tourist city of Cape Town is located.

"I'm tending intuitively to think the DA has got slightly better odds than the EFF at this stage," said Susan Booysen, director of research at the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection.

Financial markets, which favour the DA over either the EFF or MK due to its pro-business policy stance, appeared to be taking a similar view. South Africa's rand, stocks and government bonds made up some of their recent days' losses linked to post-election uncertainty.

Some analysts noted that a coalition was not the only possible outcome. A government of national unity bringing in all the main parties could not be ruled out, although that was seen as potentially unstable and prone to gridlock.

A minority ANC government, possibly with a confidence-and-supply deal whereby one or more other parties would support it on key parliamentary votes, was another hypothetical option.

The dark horse in the election was MK, the new party led by Zuma, but few analysts expected an ANC-MK tie-up given the bitter acrimony between them.

A divisive figure who remains popular in his home province of KwaZulu-Natal, Zuma was forced to quit as president in 2018 after a string of corruption scandals during his term in office and has since become an implacable enemy of Ramaphosa.

MK has said it is considering a court challenge to the election results despite its strong showing.

Analysts have long feared Zuma's party may stir up trouble if his supporters reject the results. They rioted and looted for days when he was arrested for contempt of court in 2021.

(Additional reporting by Bhargav Acharya, Alexander Winning, Wendell Roelf and Karin Strohecker; Writing by Estelle Shirbon; Editing by Gareth Jones and Emelia Sithole-Matarise)


South Africa election 2024: When will we know the result?

Damian Zane - BBC News
Sat, June 1, 2024

In the campaign President Cyril Ramaphosa said the ANC's achievements should not be forgotten [Reuters]


Almost all of the votes have been counted in South Africa after Wednesday's general election.

The governing African National Congress (ANC) has got just 40% - meaning it does not have a parliamentary majority for the first time in 30 years. It will now have to form a coalition with one or more parties.

Mounting criticism of the party that led the fight against apartheid under the late Nelson Mandela has chipped away at its support.
When will we know the result?

The electoral commission is expected to announce the final results at around 18:00 local time (16:00 GMT) on Sunday, but legally it has seven days to make the announcement. The count started as soon as polls closed on Wednesday and figures are being released as the tallying and verification in various areas is completed.

All of the votes have been counted and almost all tallied but the commission has until Sunday to deal with any complaints or objections.

South Africans have been used to knowing the result by the Saturday after polling day, but this time things are expected to take longer as there are more ballot papers to count because of the introduction of an extra vote for the national parliament.
What happened on Wednesday?

Wednesday's election saw long lines of voters outside polling stations late into the night across the country, with one electoral official in Johannesburg saying the queues were reminiscent of the historic 1994 election.

That was when white-minority rule ended and the ANC came to power. This was the country's seventh democratic general election.

Nearly 28 million South African had registered to vote and they were electing representatives to the national and provincial parliaments.

Queues 'as long as 1994' : The vote as it happened
What is at stake for the ANC and what are its policies?

The ANC, now led by President Cyril Ramaphosa, was under growing pressure going into the election.

Stubbornly high unemployment, which hit 32% last year, persistent economic inequalities, corruption allegations and frequent power cuts have reduced its popularity.

High levels of violent crime - on average 130 rapes and 80 murders a day in the last three months of 2023 - have also dented confidence in the authorities.

But the ANC said it was working to fix these problems.

And it urged people not to throw away gains made since the end of apartheid. The party said poverty levels had fallen, a greater proportion of South Africans were living in decent homes and access to healthcare had improved.

The ANC promised to create millions more jobs over the next five years, to boost investment, support the private sector and end corruption.

Desperate search for jobs overshadows vote
What are the DA and EFF opposition parties offering?

The main opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) said the "country is in crisis".

It wants to liberalise the economy, including a move towards greater privatisation.

It has pledged to create two million new jobs, end power cuts and "halve the rate of violent crime".

The DA says it can save South Africa [EPA]

To address unemployment and inequality, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) - the third largest party in parliament - has radical economic solutions.

The party argued that the ANC had not redressed the racial economic imbalances of apartheid. It plans to redistribute land to the less well-off.

The EFF also wants to nationalise mines, banks and other key parts of the economy, arguing that the wealth of the country would then be used to benefit the majority of the population.
What about Jacob Zuma and the MK party?

Disgruntled former President Jacob Zuma - who was ousted by Mr Ramaphosa amid corruption allegations that he denies, and later jailed for defying a court order - is the leader of a fresh rival to the ANC.

Ex-President Jacob Zuma was campaigning as the leader of the new MK party [BBC]

The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party, which took its name from the ANC's former armed wing, added further unpredictability to the race. It could make a strong showing, especially in Mr Zuma's home province of KwaZulu-Natal.

Before the election, the party saw off a court challenge by the ANC over the use of the MK name.

In a separate case, the country's highest court barred the ex-president from running for parliament. The Constitutional Court ruled that his 15-month prison sentence disqualified him. However, his image still appeared on the ballot paper.

In its manifesto, the MK party said the country took a wrong economic turn by pursuing market-led policies and that society was "adrift from its core values".

Jacob Zuma's MK takes fight to ANC stronghold


Jacob Zuma - the political wildcard
Who will be South Africa's next president?

South Africans do not vote directly for a president.

Instead they elect the 400 members of the National Assembly, who go on to vote for a new head of state within 30 days of the general election.

The EFF says that greater state control of the economy would create a fairer society [Getty Images]

As a result, there were no presidential candidates as such, but each party leader fronted their national campaign and their portrait appeared on the ballot paper.

The ANC's President Ramaphosa, the DA's John Steenhuisen and the EFF's Julius Malema all featured prominently.

The leader of whichever party can muster a majority in the National Assembly after the election would be expected to become the next president.

Cyril Ramaphosa - union leader, mine boss, president


John Steenhuisen - the man vowing to 'rescue' South Africa


Julius Malema - the radical agenda-setter
How do general elections work in South Africa?

The proportion of seats that parties are allocated in the 400-member National Assembly is directly related to their share of the vote.

In 2024, independent candidates were included for the first time.

This meant that South Africans had three votes:

National parliament: One for 200 of the seats with just political parties named on the ballot


National parliament: One for the remaining 200 seats with a different ballot paper for each of the nine provinces, listing the parties in that region and independent candidates


Provincial assembly: One for the independent candidates or parties in the regional legislature.
How would a coalition be formed in South Africa?

The constitution does not spell out how a coalition could be formed if no party gets more than 50% of the vote.

But assuming the ANC remains the largest party, smaller groupings could informally agree to support an ANC government on a vote-by-vote basis in return for some concessions.

Or, at the other end of possibilities, the ANC could enter a formal coalition with some parties, including a written agreement outlining legislative plans and the distribution of cabinet posts.

Any other party would face the same choices.

An opposition coalition has also been mooted, though analysts say this is highly unlikely.

In a pre-election deal, a group of parties - led by the DA - signed up to what has been called the Multi-Party Charter for South Africa. If together they get more than 50% of the seats, they have already agreed to form a coalition. The agreement does not include the EFF or the MK party.

[BBC]
More about the election:

South Africans still battling 'economic aparthied' after 30 years


Cynthia voted for Nelson Mandela. Now she's abandoning his successors


Election issues in eight charts


Influencers rally youth to vote


Full coverage of the elections

[BBC]

21 / 21



















15/ 15

South Africa Election
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, center, arrives at the National Results Operations Center during the announcement of the results in South Africa's general elections, in Johannesburg, South Africa on Sunday, June 2, 2024. Humbled by a stinging

 

Climate change causing Siberia’s Batagay crater expansion amid environmental concerns

By Elías Thorsson - May 15, 2024

 

The Batagay crater in Siberia is the world’s biggest permafrost crater. (Reuters)

A vast crater in Siberia, known as the Batagay crater or megaslump, has garnered attention for its remarkable growth and impact on the surrounding landscape. As climate change continues to affect the region, the crater, resembling a “gateway to the underworld,” expands, revealing layers of permafrost dating back hundreds of thousands of years, reports The Week.

• The Batagay crater, also referred to as a megaslump, was first identified in 1991 after a hillside collapse in northern Sakha, Russia, revealing the vast depression in the Earth’s surface.
• Megaslumps are a result of melting permafrost, a characteristic feature of the Arctic landscape, which loosens and collapses the Earth’s surface as the frozen soil and rock thaw due to rising temperatures.
• The crater, measuring up to 100 meters deep and around one kilometer long in 2017, continues to expand, with its cliff face retreating at a rate of 12 meters per year due to permafrost thaw.
• Locals have mixed feelings about the crater, with some fearing it due to mysterious sounds it emits, while others explore the site, which locals call “the cave-in.”
• The expansion of the megaslump poses significant danger, releasing large quantities of organic carbon into the atmosphere as permafrost thaws, exacerbating global warming.
• However, scientists see an opportunity to study the exposed layers of soil dating back hundreds of thousands of years, hoping to gain fresh insights into climate change from the crater’s formation.

Seattle 1934, Soviet on the docks

The Strike of the Longshoremen Ninety Years On

By Cal Winslow

May 8, 2024

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Striking longshoremen on picket duty along Portland's waterfront.


Rise like Lions after slumber–

In unvanquishable number–

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you–

Ye are many — they are few.’

-Percy Bysshe Shelley



On the morning of May 9, 1934, a rejuvenated International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) struck shippers in the West Coast Ports, shutting down them all the docks from Bellingham, WA to San Diego.

Seattle’s dockers, some 1500, walked off their jobs that morning, to face an array of hostile shippers united to maintain an “open shop” and the “fink hall” on Elliott Bay, as well as hundreds of scabs reporting to work on city piers. Seattle was the coast’s second leading port, the hub of a dozen Columbia River, coastal and Puget Sound ports, following only San Fransico in volume of goods passing over its piers.

The long twenties had taken its toll, ILA members were few and scattered along the waterfront and it was not at all clear that the Seattle men would prevail. In the immediate days after the strike began, there were still hundreds of strikebreakers at work, and the employers clearly had plans to introduce more. The Tacoma dockers saw the situation as “shaky,” and no one wanted to see shipping continue in Elliott Bay, least of all rank-and-file longshoremen themselves; defeat in Seattle would undermine the strike everywhere.

Tacoma, a smokey industrial city, thirty miles south of Seattle, was the one port on the Pacific Coast where the ILA emerged from the twenties unscathed, the union’s single stronghold. On May 12, following a secret meeting early in the morning, the Tacoma leaders sent out a call. By 8:30 am, one thousand dockers from Tacoma (600) and Everett (400), as well as the smaller ports, astonishingly, had assembled at the McCormick piers, there to join the Seattle strikers in sweeping the scabs from the waterfront. These strikers and their supporters, led by Tacoma’s “flying squad,” marched from pier to pier, breaking down barricades and overwhelming company guards, throwing more than a few into the Bay. When strikebreakers came off the ships, they were forced to walk through “gauntlets,” crowds of hundreds of jeering strikers shouting abuse. Those who resisted were dragged off, often beaten.

The Mayor, John Dore, sent a token contingent of police. They remained in their cars, however, or if they alighted were seen mingling with the strikers on the march up the waterfront. The Times reported many of the police sympathized with the strikers and also offered that the strikers had “a great deal of right and justice on their side.” The employers, helpless, appealed to the mayor, specifically for the National Guard. Dore, elected with labor support, insisted the Guard was not needed. The Governor, Clarence Martin, declined to offer them. At the same time, the off-shore unions, the sailors and the Masters, Mates and Pilots made the longshoremen’s strike a maritime strike. The maritime workers tied up their vessels when they reached port and joined the strike demanding higher wages, three instead of two watches, and employer recognition of their unions. On the shore, rank-and- file Teamsters joined the crowds of Seattle strikers, refusing to cross ILA picket lines. The strike became the first industry-wide walkout in shipping history –on the Coast some 35,000 strong.

The strikers’ demands were for coast-wide bargaining and exclusive control of the dispatch hall. These were non-negotiable. Wages and hours were to be submitted for arbitration. The agreement would have to be to be approved by the entire membership. It would also have to be accompanied by a seamen’s strike settlement.

One striker reckoned there were others in the crowds of men that seized the waterfront that morning, “1000 unemployed came down and backed us up… they stayed until there was not one scab working on the Seattle waterfront.” And among these were the radicals of the day, “outsiders,” loggers and sailors, IWWs (Industrial Workers of the World) and Communists. As much as anything, it was the sight of these men that shook the city’s elites; it was all too reminiscent of 1919, when workers took over the city and ran it for five days. The mayor proclaimed that “a soviet of longshoremen are dictating what can be done on the waterfront.” The Seattle Times led with “Soviet Rules Seattle.”

The West Coast waterfront strike is most often remembered as the San Francisco strike, as well as for the “Albion Hall” group, communism, and Harry Bridges who emerged as the radical leader of the strike committee. And then San Francisco is remembered alongside the other great ’34 strikes, above all those of the Auto-lite workers in Toledo and the Teamsters in Minneapolis.

There is a problem with this. It is not the place given to the magnificent San Francisco general strike, nor the other “pre-CIO” strikes that previewed the emergence of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Rather, it is the fact that the West Coast longshoremen’s strike was much more than simply a San Francisco event; understanding the strike that way buries another remarkable chapter in the story of 1934. In Seattle the 1934 strike became a movement; longshoremen there joined thousands of others in that glorious year, itching for a fight, one that would ultimately revolutionize workplace relations, opening the door for millions, the prologue to the story of the CIO and the great awakening of America’s industrial workers.

Seattle’s longshoremen first organized in the late nineteenth century, and from the beginning they fought long, often bloody campaigns for union recognition and a fair hiring system. In these years, almost everywhere dockers were seen as unskilled laborers, “wharf rats,” who sought work as casuals in the brutal shape-up, the daily gatherings of men, often desperate for work, at pierheads in overcrowded work “markets.” This system, as the late E.J. Hobsbawm wrote, “dominated the entire picture [of the industrial waterfront] … the casual system of hiring put foremen into something very like the position of the sub-contractor… their profits might well be made illicitly, by bribery, money lending and the like.”

Yet, if for the worker the shape-up was the jungle, man against man, it also offered everyone the chance to work, but only in the hope of finding it on the docks with backbreaking hours of grueling tasks. Stretches of unemployment, then, were interrupted with long hours of toil, day into night; “the ship must sail on time.” No wonder that waterfront strikes could be frequent, dramatic events, with each battle, lost or won, etched in the collective memory, the fights for union recognition, for abolition of the shape-up, that to be replaced by a union-controlled system, most often a union dispatch hall.

Certainly, this was the case in Seattle, where memories of the 1916 defeat (and the betrayal of San Francisco) remained bitter. At the same time. however, there were the memories of the triumphs of 1919 when these workers astounded the nation by discovering and dumping crates full of rifles bound for Russia’s white armies, saying they would rather starve than receive wages to load ships on a “mission of murder.” In 1919 the longshoremen ruled the Seattle waterfront. J.T. Doran, an IWW leader out on bail from the Atlanta Penitentiary, speaking to an overflow crowd at the longshoremen’s hall congratulated the longshoremen for killing the shape up and replacing it with an alphabetical list. “There was only one more step to contemplate,” he told the giant crowd, gathered to celebrate Eugene Debs’ birthday, that would be when a longshore cooperative Stevedore Company came into being and the “bosses were driven from the waterfront for all time.” Alas, it was not to happen, the “open-shop” employers’ response was ferocious, taking advantage of repression and the 1920 depression to force the “fink hall” back on to the dockers, a system seen by reformers as rationalization, but by workers as a return to the past. All this too was part of a workers’ memory.

American workers were unprepared for the crash of 1929 and its aftermath. The rebellions of the war years seemed distant, like another country, boom years in comparison with the cold winter of 1933, when fifteen million were unemployed and millions more worked part time “Grim poverty stalks throughout our land…It embitters the present and darkens the future.” said the President.

The percentage of American workers in unions had collapsed by 1933. The post- war Red Scare kicked off a decade of aggressive anti-union corporate policy – policies that vacillated between the big stick and the carrot of welfare capitalism-had taken their toll. The depression of 1920-21, “the forgotten depression” (production fell by 32.5%, a decline second only to the Great Depression, unemployment approached a 12%) had undermined the gains of the war years, including those on Seattle’s waterfront.

Strikes were few, mostly lost. The steel workers had been battered in their massive strike in 1919. The railway shopmen lost in their 1922 nationwide strike. The results for the United Mine Workers, long the backbone of the American labor movement, were catastrophic. The union in the central coalfields -Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana -was impoverished and factionalized by decade’s end. There was no union at all in the southern fields -from West Virginia to Alabama. The Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, heirs to the militant Western Federation of Miners, disintegrated. Its 1927 convention was attended by fewer than a dozen members. Seattle’s shipyards, the heart of the rebellion of 1919, fueled no longer by war, were shuttered, victims of a conspiracy of the owners, the government and compliant East Coast unions, a political deindustrialization in a union town. The metal workers scattered.

On the West Coast waterfront, by 1929, the ILA virtually ceased to exist; the shipowners had asserted all but complete control over wages and conditions. Seattle’s dockers worked out of a company hall, as did Portland and San Pedro longshoremen. There were no members in San Francisco. There dockers shaped up each morning, gathering at dawn at piers along the Embarcadero to be hired, or not, most often one day at a time. Tacoma alone weathered the storm, the ILA and its union dispatch hall remained intact.

There were 30,000 workers unemployed in Seattle and King County in 1931, with their dependents, more than a third of the population, another third had only partial employment. Gone were the queues of ships waiting for unloading in the Bay, as shipping declined and Seattle fell behind San Francisco. Light manufacturing continued, but on a scale much reduced; workers faced wage-cuts and short-time. The city became synonymous with its “houseboat menace” and its “Hoovervilles,” and “hobo jungles,” the largest of which was made up of thousands of shacks on the premises of the closed Skinner and Eddy shipyards on the east waterway of the Duwamish River. Its inhabitants were called by the city’s “respectables,” “a scrap heap of castoff men.” These men, however, did their best to maintain order, as well as dignity, electing a mayor and a town council. Most were unemployed lumberjacks, fishermen, miners and seamen.

Only the Teamsters Union prospered. It was led by the young Dave Beck, a laundry driver who made his name with the shakedown, while opening the door to thugs and racketeers, and offering the employers collaboration, an alternative to strikes and Communists. In the fifties, he would become the International President of the Teamsters, following that a prisoner on McNeil Island federal penitentiary, convicted of tax evasion. But by 1926, Beck and his supporters dominated the Seattle Central Labor Council (SCLC). In 1934 he quickly moved to call off the rank-and-file strike supporting truckers.

The first “rumblings of discontent” came in 1931. The Seattle unemployed formed the Unemployed Citizens League, “the first self-help organization in the United States,” according to the historian Irving Bernstein. The initiative came from Carl Brannin and Hulet Well’s of the Seattle Labor College, an institution founded in 1922 in the last days of the Seattle rebellion. Wells, a socialist, had been President of Seattle’s Central Labor Council during the war. He was in prison in 1919 on McNeil Island for having opposed conscription. The two men rejected the idea of charitable handouts; instead, they launched the League. It quickly grew to 12,000. In a year it had 80,000 members in the state of Washington. It became ubiquitous in King County, its presence a seedbed of radicalism. The League’s Seattle waterfront branch was instrumental in reviving the ILA, whose members had begun trickling back, bypassing the Communists’ Marine Workers Industrial Union.

The revival of the union also reflected the passage of the New Deal National Recovery Act that created the National Recovery Administration to work with industry and labor to increase employment. The Act’s Section 7-A provided workers the choice of their own representatives to bargain collectively with employers.

The employers were stunned by “Gauntlet Day.” WES, the Washington Employers of Seattle, appealed to the mayor as well as the governor, demanding assurances that the strikebreakers be protected – until then there would be no work on the waterfront. Mayor Dore wrote the Governor that, “to avoid bloodshed…it was absolutely essential that we have troops here immediately.” The Governor refused but wrote to the President requesting federal assistance. Meanwhile WES organized strike committees, recruited strikebreakers, housed them and assessed the shippers, the stevedores and the various dock business; by May 16 they had collected $40,000. They reiterated their stand; no union, no coastwide bargaining and no union dispatch hall. It was revealed only later that Beck was secretly meeting with them. On May 11, he overruled the eight Seattle Teamsters locals, ordering the truckers back to work –to no avail, the rank-and-file, “voted with their feet,” at least for the time being.

The shippers, in the aftermath of Gauntlet Day, having no protection, retreated, the harbor was effectively closed, though sporadic fighting continued, indeed it might be more accurate to see the waterfront as a battleground in an eighty-three-day war. There was a “riot” in early June at the Alaska Building in downtown Seattle where strikebreakers were being hired. At the same time, violence was likely whenever strikers met sheriff’s deputies, company guards, suspected strikebreakers, or vigilantes. The American Legion claimed to have 1,000 members. Steven Watson, a sheriff’s deputy was shot and killed, as was a sailor and a dock foreman

San Francisco, nevertheless, remained the center of attention throughout the strike, negotiations held there, even with strikers (also in San Pedro) in the first days still fighting to clear the Embarcadero of hundreds of strikebreakers. It was where the Australian born Harry Bridges and his allies took control of the ILA Coast District strike committee, a committee they would control negotiations right until the settlement in July.

By mid-May negotiations were already stalled. Franklin Roosevelt responded by sending Assistant Secretary of Labor Edward McGrady to California from Washington DC. The employers, however, continued to refuse to recognize a coastwide ILA – they agreed only to recognize the San Francisco local – and the union held firm on its demands for a union hiring hall. The administration then requested that Joseph Ryan, ILA “International” President, intervene. Ryan, the flamboyant, gun toting New York mobster who ran the ILA, was known for silk suits and diamond rings. He arrived on May 24, where he piled on with the employers and Beck, who greeted him in San Francisco, where they agreed to an employers’ offer – the “May 28 Offer” for San Francisco. Ryan claimed it would “enable the ILA to get a strong foothold on the entire Pacific Coast.” At once, however, it was clear that the rank and file everywhere would reject this; word came down from Seattle that it had no chance. “Absolutely, nothing doing” responded the union’s Secretary, Dewey Bennett. “We stick with every local on the Coast,”

Nevertheless, the next day Ryan and Beck flew up to the Northwest, where in Tacoma, Ryan was met with overwhelming opposition. In Seattle, accompanied again by Beck, the two argued that the agreement was “best for Seattle,”’ lest San Francisco and/or San Pedro take advantage. The response was the same. Ryan was continually interrupted with among other things, “Hey Ryan, you’ve still got time to catch the Empire Builder [the train} for New York.” McGrady suspended negotiations.

The strikers had little in terms financial resources, certainly nothing to match the millions of the shippers and their allies. Still, they had community support. The SCLC took on the tasks of relief and support. Soup kitchens were set up for individuals and commissaries for families. Farmers responded with fruit and vegetables. Restaurants offered free meals. The fisherman’s union donated salmon. Most longshoremen could sleep at home, but unions donated space for sailors to sleep. Women, wives and others, organized an Auxiliary. Solidarity ruled. There is no evidence of the systematic use of black strike breakers, though of course this still might have happened, as it did in Oakland and San Pedro. The Seattle union, led by its IWW members, had opened its doors to black workers in 1919. Ottilie Markholt, a local historian, reported that there were forty black ILA members among the strikers. Black cooks and waiters helped in the kitchens. Frank Jenkins, a second-generation black longshoreman, was working on the Seattle docks in 1934, as did his younger brother. The Japanese unions too offered support. And there were rallies, large and small. On June 19 Charles Cutright, a veteran of 1919, addressing 10,000 strikers and supporters at the Municipal Auditorium, called for a general strike, setting off a “wild” roar of support.

There were frequent threats of a general strike – in Portland, in Tacoma, in the coastal towns. There, the towns, Longview, Kelso, Raymond, Aberdeen, Hoquiam, were radical outposts, still home to a sizeable number of IWWs and Communists. The closest one came to a general strike was in Longview-Kelso where in response to the violence is Seattle 600 loggers, sawmill workers, warehouse workers and pulp mill workers walked out The Central Labor Council, representing 3,500 workers, wired the Northwest Strike Committee, “We are prepared to use whatever means are necessary to protect members of the ILA.” Bridges said he felt at home in Aberdeen. In Seattle, the ILA requested the SCLC call a strike, but it was blocked by Beck and his allies. Beck said he feared the union leaders would lose control.

Seattle in 1934 remained the “gateway” to Alaska, and from the start the employers and the press raised the specter of economic ruin, above all for the fisheries, including the canneries of Bristol Bay and the Inside Passage. At the same time, Seattle’s fishing fleet was locked down in the Fisherman’s Terminal. The press led with forecasts of starvation for the population of the Pan Handle – to a skeptical rank and file in Seattle – condemning what it called an “embargo of food and medicine for the Alaskans.” The longshoremen claimed to see industrial parts and equipment, also crates of beer.

This became a crisis of sorts for the strikers. They were divided, and the public appeared to be turning against them. The Joint Northwest Strike Committee – led by Paddy Morris of Tacoma – had been organized to maintain solidarity amongst the Northwest ports. It was composed of representatives of all the striking local unions in Puget Sound, as well as other Washington ports and Portland, then too the seamen and supporting organizations and individuals. An unexpected consequence, it also became a gathering place and meeting ground for rank-and-file strikers from an array of union and places. After much argument, the Committee ultimately decided to release vessels to alleviate the “emergency”; on June 8 the ILA signed the off again on again “Alaska Agreement” with the shippers, in what the strikers hailed as a victory.

It provided for the closed shop, union hiring hall, the six-hour day and retroactive wages to be arbitrated. The employers also acceded to demands of the seagoing unions. And it was agreed that the Alaskan ships would be loaded in Tacoma, understanding that no effort would be made by employers to open Commencement Bay by force. Longshoremen from Pacific Northwest ports would travel to Tacoma, where they would be dispatched from the union hall to work the ships. A half of the wages would be paid directly to the men, one-fourth was sent to their local strike committee, and another fourth went to the joint Northwest Strike Committee, the rest to San Francisco.

In early June, Charles Smith replaced Dore as Seattle’s Mayor. Smith was the former President of the King County (Seattle) Republicans with the support of the WES and the Chamber of Commerce, and having made it clear that he intended to open the port, if necessary, with violence. Smith announced that he intended to break the strike. Smith took personal pride in the introduction of tear gas and machine guns on a large scale. The police were armed with the latest “riot control weapons.” Sherriff Claude Bannick deputized 500 new men. Smith became known as “machine gun Smith.” In preparation, the shippers organized a small army of private guards.

The violence continued on all fronts. On June 20, Smith sent his forces to Smith Cove where 600 strikers assembled under the Garfield Street Bridge. They had piled junk on to the railroad tracks, which in addition they covered with grease and oil. All telephone lines were cut, and cars and trucks were turned away. On arrival, the truckers and railroad engineers refused to move freight, saying the conditions were too dangerous. The Strike Committee threated to withdraw from the Alaska agreement. There were many casualties.

On June 30 a contingent of strikers travelled to north Point Wells, investigating a rumor that strikebreakers at the Standard Oil docks were about to sail a tanker into the Sound that night. They were attacked by guards with axe handles, then a shot rang out. Striker Shelvy Daffron, a leader of the Seattle longshoremen, was shot; he died in a Seattle hospital. 1,000 longshoremen and seamen attended his funeral, then marched four abreast to the Lakeview Cemetery.

Nevertheless, the strike was far from broken, and the waterfront remained to the end a battleground. The final conflict would come in July, at Smith Cove on the northern end of the waterfront. There, on July 17, police, the sheriffs deputes and the shippers with their strikebreakers and guards massed, preventing strikers trying to get through the gates to evict the strikebreakers. That evening, 3000 strikers and sympathizers attended a rally sponsored by the Joint Northwest Strike Committee at the Civic Auditorium. The following morning, flying squads from Tacoma, Everett and Bellingham, led a thousand Seattle strikers and sympathizers against police lines. Police hurled tear gas bombs at the charging men. The strikers retreated but came back a second time holding handkerchiefs to cover their faces. They broke through the police lines, and encamped on the railroad tracks in front of the dock gates. The next day, the police raided the Marine Workers Industrial Union and the Communist party halls, as well as the Workers Bookstore and the offices of the Voice of Action, the Communist party paper.

On July 19, Seattle Police Chief George Howard argued with Mayor Smith over the use of force against strikers; he resigned. Smith took command. At 5 am, the Tacoma, Everett, Aberdeen and Bellingham reinforcements marched in semi-military formation into the strikers’ enclave in front of the pier gate. At 6:45 am the mayor gave the order to drive pickets from the Cove. Longshoremen in the front ranks yelled, “Come on men, hold your ground.” Police Captain George Comstock shouted to this army from the top of the bridge that spanned the Cove, “Al right, let ‘er go. Tear gas rained down from the bridge onto the pickers. Strikers with gloves picked up cannisters and tossed them back. The police then on foot attacked the strikers, shooting tear gas and wielding riot sticks against those who tried to hold their ground. A few pickets, not yet affected by the gas, threw stones at the advancing police; resistance was met by police clubs. Olaf Helland, a sailors’ union striker, fell mortally wounded, hit in the head by an unexploded gas grenade. There were casualties, many, on both sides. In fifteen minutes, the police had chased pickets from the gates to the railroad tracks where they made a last stand. Then mounted police drove the men up the slopes of Queen Ann Hill, where they scattered. The battle had ended. Mayor Smith and the Chamber of Commerce President Alferd Lundin congratulated each other.

The outcome of the strike, in the most immediate sense, then, was at best inconclusive, worse a defeat. On August 3, the Communists’ paper, Voice of Action, led, “Betrayed by the top leadership of the American Federation of Labor, sold out by the government arbitration board, terrorized by the police, the longshoremen returned to work, the eighty-third day of the coast wide strike They returned to the same hiring hall system which they had when they struck, to the same open shop method, at the same wage scale.” William Crocker, the San Francisco banker was jubilant, “Labor is licked.”

In many ways they were. In Tacoma, with pickets still on the docks, Paddy Morris, no radical, confessed, “The labor unions are tired of the fight…The return of the Teamsters has weakened our position…We don’t feel the fight is over – it has just begun. This is merely a truce. The ship owners have lined up all capital on their side, and this is a battle between Labor and Capital.” In San Fransisco, Bridges, appealing to the seamen, said much the same. “I think the longshoreman is ready to break tomorrow. They have had enough of it…The ship owners have got us backed up… we are trying to back up step by step… instead of turning around and running…I don’t think that they will last. They have had enough of it. They have their families to support. They are discouraged by the Teamsters going back to work, they didn’t get enough support from the council… I disagree with our officials in lots of things they have done.”

The longshoremen had opposed arbitration; they had little faith in the National Longshoremen’s Board when hearings were held in San Francisco, Seattle, Portland and San Pedro in September. In October the Board issued its award: it fixed the basic wage rate at $.95 an hour, $1.40 for overtime. It established a six- hour day, thirty- hour work week. Saturdays, Sunday and legal holidays were made overtime days.

On the crucial issue of the hiring hall, the Board ruled: “The hiring of all longshoremen shall be through hiring halls maintained and operated jointly.” But “the dispatcher shall be selected by the International Longshoremen’s Association.” Longshoremen were to be dispatched “without favoritism or discrimination” because of “union or non-union membership.” Victory. The union would select the dispatcher!

The men, however, already knew that they had won. They realized it well before the Board’s October findings. The strike had empowered them, it had illuminated their courage and power. The longshoremen had undertaken a campaign that would utterly transform working conditions and relations on the West Coast. The unions were made more democratic; racism was challenged; their chief weapons, solidarity and direct action.

In the aftermath of the strike, they fought incessantly; they detached themselves from the New York gangsters who ran the ILA. and they founded a new union, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). They affiliated with the industrial unions in the Congress of Industrial Organizations. They came to see themselves – far from the “wharf rats” of before – rather as “The Lords of the Docks”, proclaiming, immodestly, “We are the most militant and organized group of workers the world has ever seen.” All this, they did, from the bottom up.

The struggle, then, had just begun. In the next years there would be hundreds of strikes on these docks, countless disputes. The shippers often found themselves helpless in the face of the “quickie.”

On every dock the gang elected from among themselves a so-called gang or dock steward. There were endless disputes, some resulting in job actions on the part of the workers.

Suddenly in the midst of unloading a ship, the longshore gang would walk off, causing the stubborn employer sailing delay, considerable additional expense, and general irritation. The employer then called the union hiring hall for another gang, which came promptly enough, but as likely as not pulled another “quicky” an hour later; and so on till the employer yielded to, say, a demand that the sling load be made two or three thousand instead of four thousand pounds.

The strike empowered the longshoremen, and along with them a generation of working people. This raises many issues for the historian: what were its origins? was it a Communist strike? why the employers hysteria? how to explain the Board’s findings? could the workers have won more? is this of any relevance today?

These are questions well beyond the scope of this brief celebration of the strike and the longshoremen who led it. In any case, there are no easy answers here. The federal government, for example, had its own agenda, and this was not workers’ power. It was, however, more far-seeing than the industrialists, who, in any event, opposed it all, that is, the unions, the New Deal, reform, the reorganization of American capitalism. The Roosevelt administration believed that the chaos of the industrial system had to be reined in, regulated. It believed it could succeed in doing this, in alliance, when possible, with the conservative leaders of the AFL, if necessary, then the CIO. It understood that the strike was not in fact a “Communist plot,” also that “smashing” the strike might have unintended consequences.

The uprising in Seattle and the Northwest strikes, needs featuring in this history; it drew on long memories, on the tradition of direct action, mass movements, immigrant strikes, labor wars and rank-and-file rebellions that have repeatedly exploded the conservatism and complaisance of this country, above all, in the Seattle in the great strike of 1919.

The strike was not a Communist strike, a handful of party members notwithstanding, although cults of Bridges have distorted this history. The union too exaggerated its triumphs and disguised failings. And neither were the other strikes of 1934 revolutionary strikes, even those led by revolutionaries. The bolshevized socialism of the thirties rarely was successful in penetrating the rank and file of the workers’ movements and the new unions, never in the long run. The rise of Dave Beck and his Teamsters brought home again the problem of the AFL and its leadership, undermining everything that was decent in Seattle’s (and everyone’s) labor movement, leaving a stain that rank- and- file workers contend with to this day.

The longshoremen’s strike was, however, a radical strike, a very radical strike, a mass strike led by rank-and-file workers, who relied, as they often have, on themselves alone. It was, in this sense, a festival of the oppressed. It showed the courage of workers, of ordinary people, it was an example of the power of workers, their ability to organize, their capacity for struggle, the power of solidarity.

My thanks go to Zack Pattin, Aaron Goings and the late Ron Magden

Cal Winslow’s latest book is Radical Seattle, the General Strike of 1919, Monthly Review Press.

 

Morocco’s Automotive Boom: A Model Of Economic Growth And Sustainable Development – OpEd

 May 6, 2024  

By Said Temsamani

In the competitive landscape of global automotive exports, Morocco has emerged as a powerhouse, surpassing economic giants like China, Japan, and India to become the leading exporter to the European Union (EU). This meteoric rise is not merely fortuitous but the result of strategic investments, astute policies, and a relentless drive for excellence by the Moroccan government and its partners.

At the heart of Morocco’s automotive success story lies a robust infrastructure of modern factories, industrial parks, and a skilled workforce. These pillars, coupled with low production costs, have propelled Morocco’s annual vehicle production to unprecedented heights. In the northern region alone, over 535,000 cars were produced last year, signaling the country’s formidable industrial prowess.

The economic impact of Morocco’s automotive sector is undeniable. With a contribution of $13.7 billion to the economy, the sector has become a key driver of growth and prosperity. Notably, exports saw a remarkable growth of over 30% in 2023, underscoring the industry’s resilience and competitiveness on the global stage.

Morocco’s strategic location, just 14 kilometers from Spain, has positioned it as Europe’s gateway to Africa, offering unrivaled access and connectivity. This geographical advantage, combined with a concerted effort to enhance infrastructure and streamline trade agreements, has cemented Morocco’s status as a pivotal player in the automotive industry.

Moreover, the Moroccan government’s proactive approach to regulatory reforms, as outlined in the Investment Charter and the Industrial Acceleration Plan 2014-2020, has created an environment conducive to investment and innovation. As a result, multinational corporations like Neo Motors, Snop, Renault, Dacia, and Stellantis have flocked to Morocco, drawn by its business-friendly policies and market opportunities.

In parallel with its economic achievements, Morocco is committed to social inclusion and environmental sustainability. Efforts to narrow the gender gap in the automotive sector have yielded tangible results, with integration rates steadily rising. Furthermore, Morocco’s embrace of electric vehicle production aligns with global efforts to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change, positioning the country as a leader in green technology and innovation.

As Morocco continues to chart its course towards economic prosperity and sustainability, its automotive sector stands as a beacon of progress and potential. With a relentless focus on innovation, inclusivity, and environmental stewardship, Morocco exemplifies the transformative power of visionary leadership and strategic planning in driving economic growth and societal advancement.

Kenitra automobile manufacturing facility in Morocco. Photo Credit: Stellantis

Said Temsamani is a Moroccan political observer and consultant, who follows events in his country and across North Africa. He is a member of Washington Press Club.