Labor and the Geographic Reorganization of Container Shipping in the U.S

The globalization of production and the geographic dispersion of economic activity have elevated the importance of the transportation and logistics sectors of the economy. One sector in particular that has experienced significant expansion is maritime transport and container shipping. As the cargo has become increasingly “discretionary” such that it can conceivably be transported through any port that allows intermodal access to the hinterland, the industry has become much more foot-loose vis-à-vis a particular port of entry. The enhanced mobility of the cargo results in more intense port competition. One particular place to observe and study this dynamic is in the port and terminal selection of shippers and shipping lines and the role of port authorities in attempting to attract these carriers to their facilities. In this paper, the focus is on the role of labor and labor relations in such decisions. These issues will be studied in the context of the potential container traffic rerouting from the West to the East Coast of the U.S. and, as an illustrative case study, how these developments have played out for the East Coast port of Jacksonville, Florida.grow_537 520..539 T he globalization of production and the geographic dispersion of economic activity have elevated the importance of transportation and logistics in the management of commodity chains and global production networks (Coe et al. 2004; Gereffi and Korzeniewicz 1994; Henderson et al. 2002). As a greater percentage of the world’s goods are transported by shipping lines and moved through maritime ports, the cost and efficiency of these processes has also become increasingly critical. With the advent of containerized “discretionary cargo” that can conceivably be transported through any port that allows intermodal access to the hinterland, the geographic location of the port is less critical than the ability to move the cargo quickly and efficiently. In this sense, cargo is much more footloose vis-à-vis a particular port of entry today than in the past. Accordingly, the enhanced mobility of the cargo, and the shipping lines that transport the cargo, results in more intense competition among the ports seeking the business of the shipping lines (Fleming 1989; Fleming and Baird 1999; Jacobs 2007; Notteboom David Jaffee is an assistant vice president for Undergraduate Studies and Professor of Sociology, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA. Jaffee’s e-mail address is: [email protected] Growth and Change Vol. 41 No. 4 (December 2010), pp. 520–539 Submitted March 2010; revised June 2010; accepted July 2010. © 2010 The Author Growth and Change © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2004). The net result is greater pressure on all parties to cut costs, increase efficiency, and enhance the profitability and value of global production networks and supply chains (Juhel 2001; Slack and Fremont 2005). One particular place to observe and study this dynamic is in the port and terminal selections of shippers and shipping lines and the role of port authorities in attempting to attract these carriers to their facilities. In this paper, the focus is on the role of labor and labor relations in such decisions. These issues will be studied in the context of the shift of container traffic from the West to the East Coast of the U.S. and, as an illustrative case study, how these developments have played out for the East Coast port of Jacksonville, Florida (herein referred to as Jaxport). The Geographic Migration of Cargo in the U.S. This study can be placed in the larger context of research that has investigated the factors contributing to the mobility of capital investment and capital facilities from one geographic location to another (Sassen 1990; Yeung 1998). Much of the research in this area emerged during the geographic reorganization of capital that was prompted by the economic crisis that began in the 1970s resulting in the shifting of industrial and manufacturing production from the Northeast and Midwest regions of the U.S., first, to the Sunbelt and, subsequently, to offshore locations (see Bluestone and Harrison 1982; Markusen 1985). What Harvey (1982) referred to as the “spatial fix” was seen as a strategy by capital to regain and reestablish greater control over the labor process and greater rates of return on investment. This generated an outpouring of work by political economists and geographers identifying the factors responsible for the spatial reconfiguration of production (e.g., Massey 1995; Storper and Walker 1984). The end result of this extended process, aimed at institutionalizing a new “social structure of accumulation” (Gordon, Edwards, and Reich 1982), was neoliberal economic policy and the globalization of production (Dicken 1998). The locations from, and to which, capital migrates are not passive geographic “spaces” but rather active, though constrained, “places” represented by port authorities, city governments, and public–private partnerships attempting to shape location and investment decisions in their favor (Heaver, Meersman, and Van De Voorde 2001; Slack 1993). In this sense, the process has similarities to other forms of capital migration that are enticed by tax breaks, subsidies, and other fiscal lures offered by sub-national governmental units (Feiock 1989). In the case of ports, competition has intensified and geographic location is less important than how the port integrates with global logistics supply chains, the available infrastructure in terminal space and terminal operating technology, and the existence of “dedicated CONTAINER SHIPPING IN THE U.S. 521