Showing posts sorted by date for query NORTHERN GATEWAY. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query NORTHERN GATEWAY. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, May 04, 2024

 

Kazatomprom issues quarterly update

03 May 2024


The Kazakh national atomic company's first quarter uranium production saw a slight year-on-year increase but its guidance metrics remain unchanged. Kazatomprom's first quarter trading announcement also included an update on plans for a new sulphuric acid plant.

(Image: Kazatomprom)

Production for the quarter was 5077 tU (100% basis), up from 4744 tU for the same period in 2023, a year-on-year increase of 7%. The company reiterated that its production guidance for 2024 of 21,000-22,500 tU (100% basis) remains unchanged but noted that "sanctions pressure due to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and limited access to some key materials are not known" and "as a result, annual production volumes may differ from internal expectations".

The company said it does not anticipate any effect on Kazatomprom from an act prohibiting the import of Russian enriched uranium products into the USA which was passed by the US Senate this week and is now to be signed into law, since its primary business is the production of natural uranium. "Whether shipped by Kazatomprom or its JV partners, Kazakh-origin uranium retains its origin until its arrival at a conversion facility," the company noted.

It reiterated that the recent severe floods in western and northern regions of Kazakhstan had not affected its uranium mining, processing and transportation activities to date and all Kazatomprom enterprises continue to operate without any disruptions. It said it "continues to monitor the situation around the floods in Kazakhstan, and contributes to restoring vital infrastructure and supporting affected communities".

In 2023, Kazatomprom set up a partnership enterprise, Taiqonyr Qyshqyl Zauyty LLP (TQZ) to implement a project to build a new sulphuric acid plant, but said it now expects the completion of the construction and the start of production at the TQZ plant to be postponed from 2026 to 2027 due to "restructuring procedures and delays in the timing of approval of project design documentation". TQZ is partnering with Italian firm Ballestra which will be responsible for the project's design, equipment procurement and technical support.

Akkuyu nuclear plant's first airlock gateway installed

03 May 2024


The 7-metre diameter and 14-metres long cylindrical chamber has an airlock system allowing the moving of material or equipment into and out of the heart of the first unit at Turkey's new Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant.

(Image: Rosatom)

The 260-tonne structure was installed using a caterpillar crane. It will allow the delivery of equipment for the operation and maintenance of the reactor compartment, such as the upper reactor unit, reactor coolant pump, primary circuit pipelines and steam generators.

Once the unit is in operation, used and fresh fuel and other equipment can pass through it, with the doors at either end able to maintain an airlock system to ensure the reactor compartment remains sealed.


(Image: Rosatom)

Sergei Butckikh, first deputy CEO of Akkuyu NPP, said the installation meant they were "one step closer to the completion" of the first unit and it was "a result of well-coordinated and labour-intensive work of Russian and Turkish specialists" working in the Akkuyu project team.

Akkuyu, in the southern Mersin province, is Turkey's first nuclear power plant. Rosatom is building four VVER-1200 reactors, under a so-called BOO (build-own-operate) model. According to the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey, the commissioning of the first power unit of the nuclear power plant must take place within seven years from receipt of all permits for the construction of the unit.

The licence for the construction of the first unit was issued in 2018, with construction work beginning that year. Nuclear fuel was delivered to the site in April 2023. Turkey's Nuclear Regulatory Agency issued permission for the unit to be commissioned in December, and in February it was announced that the reactor compartment had been prepared for controlled assembly of the reactor - and the generator stator had also been installed in its pre-design position.

The aim is for the unit to begin supplying Turkey's energy system in 2025. When the 4800 MWe plant is completed it is expected to meet about 10% of Turkey's electricity needs, with the aim that all four units will be operational by the end of 2028.

Holtec sets up maintenance and modification subsidiary

02 May 2024


US company Holtec International has established a wholly-owned subsidiary aiming to "energise the presently placid business sector of modification and maintenance", with the initial project being the restart of the Palisades plant.

Palisades (Holtec)

Holtec Maintenance & Modification International (HMI) is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and is being headed by Christopher Bakken. In its statement announcing the move, Holtec International said the new company's mission was "to meet the time-critical maintenance and modification needs of the world’s operating nuclear power plants with assured performance certainty".

It added: "To provide maximum value to its clients, HMI is poised to introduce cutting edge technologies such as AI-aided preventive maintenance and robot-led crew radiation dose reduction methods at its clients’ plants ... we believe the HMI management model will bring about a vastly improved control of operating costs of nuclear plants and ensure heightened plant reliability, which will support the expected renaissance in nuclear generation around the world."

HMI will operate under its parent company's programmes on nuclear quality assurance, environmental protection, personnel safety assurance, corporate governance and supply management "but will be otherwise autonomous". It will work with Holtec’s Nuclear Power Division "to provide replacement components and systems - reverse engineered as necessary to replace obsolescent items - to meet target outage schedules".

As well as its initial work on the project to restart the 840 MWe Palisades plant, Holtec says that "discussions with other clients in the USA and overseas are under way".

Rick Springman, Holtec’s President of Global Clean Energy Opportunities, said: "With the launch of HMI, we can now provide an integrated capability to meet the operating needs of the scores of SMR-300 plants that we hope to be building in the US and around the world."

Holtec agreed to purchase Palisades from then-owner and operator Entergy in 2018, ahead of the scheduled closure, for decommissioning. The acquisition was completed in June 2022, within weeks of the reactor's closure, and at that time Holtec planned to complete the dismantling, decontamination, and remediation of the plant by 2041. But the company then announced plans to apply for federal funding to enable it to reopen the plant, with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer amongst those pledging support for the move. The State of Michigan's Fiscal Year 2024 budget, signed by Whitmer in mid-2023, provides USD150 million in funding towards the plant's restart. In March, the US Department of Energy Loan Programs Office conditionally committed up to USD1.52 billion for a loan guarantee to Holtec Palisades for its project to bring the Palisades plant back online. The aim is for Palisades to be back operating by the end of 2025.

Holtec has also said it intends to locate its first two small modular reactor (SMR) units at Palisades. It also has hopes for fleets of its 160 MWe SMRs elsewhere - in Europe in countries including Ukraine, the Czech Republic and the UK.

STEP components to undergo testing in Czech research reactor

02 May 2024


High temperature superconducting (HTS) tapes for use in the UK's prototype fusion power plant will be tested in a Czech research reactor following the signing of an agreement between the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and Research Centre Řež.

The LVR-15 research reactor (Image: CVŘ)

The UKAEA carries out fusion energy research on behalf of the UK government, overseeing the country's fusion programme, including the MAST Upgrade (Mega Amp Spherical Tokamak) experiment as well as hosting the recently closed Joint European Torus (JET) at Culham, which operated for scientists from around Europe. It is also developing its own fusion power plant design with plans to build a prototype known as STEP (Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production) at West Burton in Nottinghamshire, which is due to begin operating by 2040.

Under a multi-year use of facility agreement, UKAEA and Research Centre Řež (CVŘ) will develop a first-of-a kind test rig - called Hi-CrIS (High neutron fluence Cryogenic Irradiation of Superconductors) - to provide data on the effect of a fusion-relevant neutron spectrum on superconducting properties of HTS tapes. These will be used in the STEP prototype plant to confine the fusion plasma which can reach temperatures ten times hotter than the core of the Sun (about 150 million degrees Celsius).

The rig, expected to be operational in 2026, will produce test results to help inform the design and lifespan of STEP's superconducting magnetic components. These components will operate under cryogenic temperatures, and will be subjected to a high flux of high energy neutrons due to their close proximity to the fusion plasma.

During the experiment, the samples will be irradiated with high energy neutrons using CVŘ's LVR-15 light water tank-type research reactor. They will then remain at -253°C whilst being transported and measured within the test rig setup.

The Hi-CrIS test rig will allow samples of HTS tapes to be cooled to the same cryogenic temperatures expected for STEP's superconducting magnets. Maintaining the sample temperature during irradiation, transportation and measurement is critical in understanding how the HTS tapes degrade within their operating environment.

How the STEP building may look (Image: UKAEA)

"We are excited to reach this agreement with CVŘ for building and operating a complex test rig using their LVR-15 research reactor," said Fiona Harden, STEP Hi-CrIS technical lead for UKAEA. "The objectives of Hi-CrIS are critical to fusion power plant design and this importance is recognised by our partner who has worked openly with us to put this agreement in place.

"We were delighted to host CVŘ representatives at UKAEA's Culham Campus, promoting the close collaborative approach of both UKAEA and CVŘ to reach our objective, whilst maximising many secondary benefits that this agreement will generate."

CVŘ Business Development Manager Marek Miklos: "Working in partnership with the STEP team is a fantastic opportunity to support the UK's world-leading programme to develop a prototype fusion energy plant. The Hi-CrIS testing rig will open lots of opportunities for further material studies for fusion applications."

UKAEA noted that in addition to testing superconductor components, Hi-CrIS could also enable alternative materials testing for the potential development of future fusion power plants.

The aim for the first phase of work on STEP is to produce a 'concept design' by the end of this year. The UK government is providing GBP220 million (USD227 million) of funding for this part. The next phase of work will include detailed engineering design, while all relevant permissions and consents to build the prototype are sought. The final phase is construction, with operations targeted to begin around 2040. The aim is to have a fully evolved design and approval to build by 2032, enabling construction to begin.

The technical objectives of STEP are: to deliver predictable net electricity greater than 100 MW; to innovate to exploit fusion energy beyond electricity production; to ensure tritium self-sufficiency; to qualify materials and components under appropriate fusion conditions; and to develop a viable path to affordable lifecycle costs.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

Thursday, April 25, 2024

 The legacy of Portugal's Carnation Revolution in Africa




On April 25, 1974, the Carnation Revolution marked a turning point for Portugal and its colonies in Africa. Fifty years later, links between the Lusophone countries are stronger than ever — with a few exceptions.

Antonio Cascais 
DW


Led by the left-wing Armed Forces Movement and supported by the vast majority of the population, Carnation Revolution not only brought down Portugal's nearly 50-year dictatorship under Antonio de Oliveira Salazar and Marcelo Caetano, but also paved the way for the end of the country's colonial wars in Africa.

Within a few years, Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-BissauCape Verde, and Sao Tome and Príncipe would celebrate their independence.

On Thursday, the 50th anniversary of the Carnation Revolution will be officially celebrated in Portugal's capital, Lisbon, in the presence of various heads of state and government, including from Africa's five Lusophone countries.
Carnation Revolution and Angola's independence

"In Angola, the Carnation Revolution evokes positive feelings," said Nkikinamo Tussamba, a political analyst who was born in the northern province of Zaire 13 years after the revolution.

"The Portuguese Revolution significantly influenced the independence process of our own country," Tussamba said. "Thanks to the Carnation Revolution, the independence of our country could be proclaimed a year and a half later — on November 11, 1975."

With the change of regime, direct negotiations between the Portuguese government and the independence movements in Angola began in earnest, and, in January 1975, Portugal signed independence agreements with the three liberation organizations of Angola — MPLA, UNITA and FNLA — in the southern Portuguese town of Alvor in the Algarve.

Portuguese officials sign the Alvor Agreement with representatives of Angolan liberation movementsImage: casacomum.org/Arquivo Mário Soares

'An important milestone' in Mozambique

The journalist Fernando Lima told DW that "April 25 was an important milestone," in Mozambique.

"It is indisputable that the Carnation Revolution was decisive in allowing us to sign an independence agreement with Portugal a few months later — in September 1974 — and that our country could become independent a year later," he said.

The son of Portuguese settlers, Lima chose Mozambican citizenship after independence, opting to "remain an African in Africa."

Fernando Cardoso, a professor of international relations and geopolitics at the Autonomous University of Lisbon, had the opposite experience: Cardoso had also grown up in Mozambique during colonial times but moved to Lisbon with his parents shortly after independence.

As an adult, he kept his links to the African continent, traveling to Mozambique, Angola and Cape Verde as a lecturer and as the head of several research projects.

"The Carnation Revolution undoubtedly accelerated the process of decolonization," Cardoso told DW.

"The independence of the Portuguese colonies would have occurred sooner or later, even without the Carnation Revolution in Portugal," Cardoso said. He added that the United Nations and several countries had exerted enormous diplomatic pressure on Portugal as the "first and last colonial power in Africa."

There was also increased military pressure on Portugal to grant Mozambique its independence: Angola's MPLA, UNITA and FNLA were receiving increasingly large weapons deliveries and military training from the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries, as well as from China.

This helped fighters of the Mozambican liberation movement FRELIMO advance from the north toward the heart of the country.

In June 1974, Portuguese Foreign Minister Mario Soares met Samora Machel, who became Mozambique's president a year later
Image: casacomum.org/Arquivo Mário Soares


Cape Verde and Sao Tome and Principe

If the Carnation Revolution had not taken place in Portugal, Sao Tome and Príncipe, as well as the Cape Verde islands, might have remained in the hands of European colonizers for longer.

Even now, island groups such as the Azores remain in Portugal's hands despite the liberation movements that established a foothold there in the 1970s.

This was not quite the case on the ground in Cape Verde and in Sao Tome and Principe. However, Cardoso said, "there were loud voices demanding comprehensive autonomy or even complete independence for the islands," in both archipelagos.

In Cape Verde in particular, the struggle for freedom was seen as an extension of the independence movement of Guinea-Bissau.

Guinea-Bissau set tone for other colonies

At the time of the Carnation Revolution, the process of gaining independence was most advanced in Guinea-Bissau. Militarily, the Portuguese army had long lost control over large parts of the West African colony.

The African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC) under the leadership of Amilcar Cabral had unilaterally declared independence from Portugal on September 25, 1973 — exactly seven months before the Carnation Revolution.

By the time Portugual's dictatorship — and thus the colonial regime — collapsed, 34 UN member states had already recognized Guinea-Bissau as an independent state.

Carmelita Pires, the former justice minister of Guinea-Bissau, told DW that the independence movement in Guinea-Bissau helped Portugal throw off the shackles of dictatorship. "Through our successful liberation war in Guinea-Bissau," Pires said, "we indirectly supported the demands of the Portuguese population for an end to colonialism and war and for freedom."

"We Guineans do not want to be immodest," Pires said, "but I dare say that we have made a not insignificant contribution to the success of the Carnation Revolution."

Guinea-Bissau, 1972: The liberation organization PAIGC, under the leadership of Amilcar Cabral (in the foreground), gradually takes control over large parts of the country
Image: casacomum.org/Documentos Amílcar Cabral

Relations in the Lusosphere 'never better than now'

In the first years after independence, relations between the newly emerged independent states of Africa and Portugal were difficult.

The five new countries took ideologically divergent paths from their erstwhile colonial power: While Portugal turned toward Western Europe, the African nations established Marxism-based one-party systems with the help of the Soviet Union.

In the early days, the new African governments repeatedly accused Portugal of harboring representatives of rebel organizations, especially Mozambique's RENAMO and Angola's UNITA, who would fight against the Soviet-aligned regimes in their countries.

But the discord between Portugal and the former colonies did not last for long, Pires said: "After a certain transitional period, we Guineans approached Portugal again. For us, it was always clear that our liberation struggle was directed against the Portuguese colonial system, and by no means against the Portuguese people."
Familial and cultural ties in Lusophone Africa

Pires is a descendant of a Portuguese settler in Guinea-Bissau who married a woman from the Fulani ethnic group. For her, these familial and cultural ties continue to connect the people of Guinea-Bissau to Portugal.

"Many Guineans still bear Portuguese names today," Pires said. "That sets us apart from peoples from other colonial systems, such as Anglophone or Francophone ones."

Carmelita Pires, former Minister of Justice of Guinea-Bissau, says her country's ties to Portugal remain strong
Image: DW/F. Tchumá

The Mozambican writer Adelino Timoteo, whose latest novel is set during the Carnation Revolution, told DW that "in Mozambique, there have always been close contacts between African, European and even Arab cultures."

"Later, Indians and Chinese from the former Portuguese colonies in Asia also joined in," Timoteo said. "They were all integrated with us. We are still influenced by this legacy of the Portuguese colonial era and therefore are better able today, despite all the wounds of the past, to maintain good relations with Portugal and the Portuguese."

Community of Portuguese Language Countries

It wasn't clear from the outset that the cultural relationship between Portugal and its former colonies would always be painted in such positive colors.

Andre Thomashausen, a professor of international law and constitutional law at the University of South Africa, told DW that, after the Carnation Revolution, "people in Portugal asked anxious questions: What will become of Portugal's relations with Africa?"

"I was in Portugal at the time and advocated the firm belief that the country should play an important and special role in Africa, and that Portugal had the potential to serve as a gateway from Africa to Europe," Thomashausen said.

Portugal went on to establish close links with all the Lusophone countries based on the shared history, culture and language. "All former colonies adopted Portuguese as the official language," Thomashausen said, "and, for many young people as well as businessmen from the former colonies, Portugal today is the most important gateway to Europe."

In fact, Thomashausen said, Lusophony is part of Portugal's "raison d'etat."

In 1996, the Community of Portuguese Language Countries was founded. The CPLP encompasses the nine countries where Portuguese is the official language — from East Timor in Asia to Brazil in South America.

"The CPLP is now more important and functions better than the Francophonie of the French," Thomashausen said. "Portuguese diplomacy has achieved excellent results."

The CPLP was founded in Lisbon in 1996 with nine core member statesImage: Ricardo Stuckert/PR


'Historical and emotional'

Cardoso said Portugal's diplomatic, cultural and economic relations with its former colonies had developed relatively well. "More important than trade exchange for the Portuguese, however, is the historical and emotional dimension," Cardoso said.

"In Portugal, it is believed that a privileged cultural and political partnership with the Portuguese-speaking countries is indispensable," he said. "That was also the main motivation for the founding of the CPLP in 1996," he added. He said Portugal had also done much to process the negative aspects of its shared history with its former colonies.

This does not mean that all of the governments in the CPLP always see eye-to-eye; the war in Ukraine, for instance, has shown that there are divergent positions.

"The dividing lines on the Ukraine issue run through the Portuguese-speaking countries," Cardoso said. "Some African countries abstained from voting on UN resolutions condemning Russia's aggression, unlike Portugal."

Still, the overall impression half a century later is one of success. "People perform together, record albums together, organize joint parties and concerts or sports events, or publish books on transnational topics together," Cardoso said.

"Fifty years ago, in the turmoil of the Carnation Revolution, I would not have dared to dream that encounters — both in qualitative and quantitative terms — would develop so well."

Ngungunyane, a king against Portuguese occupation
01:39

Edited by: Sertan Sanderson


Antonio Cascais Antonio Cascais is an award-winning documentary filmmaker and investigative journalist.twitter.com/antoniocascais

Monday, April 22, 2024

The Strike of the Longshoremen: Seattle 1934


 
 APRIL 22, 2024

LONG READ
Facebook

Hooverville, Seattle, 1934.

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 all of 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, second only to San Fransico in the volume of goods passing over its piers.

The long 20s 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, as well as the smaller ports. (400), 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 strike 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 President Roosevelt.

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 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 opposed 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. 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 strikebreakers, though of course this still might have happened. Ottilie Markholt 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, and 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, 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 threatened to withdraw from the Alaska agreement. There were many casualties.

On June 30 a contingent of strikers traveled 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 sheriff’s deputies 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. More casualties, many, on both sides. In fifteen minutes, the police had chased pickets from the gates to the railroad tracks where a last stand was made. 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, knew already 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, and countless disputes. Here is one account:

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 or quick strikes (“quickies”) localized to one dock…

“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, 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 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, the union and leadership have distorted this history, exaggerating triumphs and disguising 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, relying, as they so 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 is the author of Radical Seattle: the General Strike of 1919. He can be reached at cwinslow@mcn.org