The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger

by Marc Levinson

Contrary to the union’s expectations, these massive productivity gains came from sweat, not automation. “The evidence suggests that the employers, for the most part, devoted their effort to trying to squeeze more physical labor from the workforce, rather than innovating or undertaking new investment,” wrote economist Paul Hartman after a careful analysis of the trends. Sacks grew larger, and sling loads, no longer bound by the former weight limit of 2,100 pounds, increased to as much as 4,000 pounds. The result was much harder physical work for the men in the hold, who had to shove these heavy loads into place. Extremely large sling loads, long prohibited by contract, were soon known on the docks as “Bridges loads.”29 Bizarrely, the parties now switched sides. The union demanded that the employers mechanize faster to eliminate these physical burdens. “We intend to push to make the addition of machines compulsory,” Harry Bridges told management negotiators in 1963. “The days of sweating on these jobs should be gone and that is our objective.” The ship lines were hesitant to spend the money. The ILWU responded by filing grievances against the lack of machinery on docks and in holds. After one of the strangest arbitration proceedings ever to occur in any industry, the employers were ordered in June 1965 to provide longshoremen with more forklifts and winches.30