The sight of cargo ships impatiently idling outside the Port of Los Angeles signifies a state of unrest in global markets. The unsettling consequences continue despite a temporary 90-day reprieve of the tariffs instituted on China on ‘Liberation Day’. Uncertainty prevails as trade at some of America’s major ports comes under the shadow of impending port fees suggested by the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). The proposed fees could vary from $1 million to a staggering $3.5 million for each China-constructed vessel berthing at a U.S. port.
The USTR has set a target of mid-October 2025 to introduce these enormous fees. Before the actual implementation, a hearing will be conducted in the middle of May. The resultant repercussions of these lofty port fees are expected to be significantly troublesome for the workforce, within and beyond the U.S. borders. A massive $3 trillion in U.S. imports and the employment opportunities they bring are at stake.
The broad-ranging impact of these proposed steps was emphasized by Gene Seroka, who leads the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach. He reminded that one out of every nine jobs in Southern California, employing almost a million people, are linked to the port’s operations. Seroka’s simple equation highlights the potential crisis: ‘Every four containers we move, on average, create a job. If we see a reduction of about 10% in cargo, jobs will inevitably be lost.’
Employees are cognizant of the fact that global conglomerates will either pass the increased tariffs and port fees cost to the consumer or halt cargo shipments entirely. This change occurs at a moment when the prices of daily essentials have already peaked. As a result, the further imposition of tariffs and port fees could exacerbate the financial strife of workers.
On March 24, at an International Trade Commission hearing in Washington, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union extended its endorsement for the port fees. This organization represents several tens of thousands of dock workers along the West Coast in both Canada and the U.S. The consequent toll of the trade measures on U.S. truck workers is thought to be acute, labeled as a ‘bloodbath’.
The industry has observed a swift decline in container volumes. With forecasts indicating that port freight from California could nearly cease by May, the outlook is grim. However, the notion that American shipbuilders can fill the goods vacuum left by Chinese-made vessels is far removed from reality. It turns out that 20 of the world’s largest container vessels (averaging a capacity of about 22,500 twenty-foot equivalent units or more) are built or managed by Chinese and South Korean firms, while the largest U.S.-made vessel, Daniel K. Inouye, has a capacity of 3,600 TEU.
Presently, according to a USTR report, the U.S. stands 19th in the global ranking of commercial shipbuilding, producing less than five vessels annually. This is a stark decline from 1975, when it was the front-runner in global shipbuilding, producing 70 ships a year in a pre-globalization era.
Current shipbuilding statistics indicate that China produces more than 1,700 vessels annually. In fact, China bagged 74 percent of all new shipbuilding orders in the 2024 fiscal year because of its increased manufacturing capacity. This disparity in production rates underscores the challenges faced by U.S. shipbuilders.
Simultaneously, the global market is exploring alternative sources for their grain supplies, aiming to evade U.S. tariffs and port fees related to Chinese vessels. They have shifted focus towards exporters set in Latin America or the Black Sea region.
The trade conflict with China and the ensuing measures to counteract its perceived dominance receive bipartisan support. An investigation released last year suggested that China’s hold over maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors constituted an ‘unreasonable’ advantage, ‘severely disadvantaging U.S. companies, workers, and the U.S. economy.’
These economic measures are a part of a larger strategy to equip American supply chains for potential large-scale naval conflicts with China. Paradoxically, the challenges faced by American workers don’t originate from overseas workforces in Canada, Mexico, or China, but from capitalist pro-corporate policies globally.
The feasible alternative approach lies in rejecting nationalistic ideologies like ‘America First’ and fostering worldwide unity among the working class. This global alignment can counteract the adverse effects of capitalist exploitation, the threat of war, and dictatorship.
This fundamental change requires a departure from pro-corporate collaborations in the trade union bureaucracy. It calls for the development of the International Workers Alliance of Rank-and-File Committees. This transformation targets a shift of power dynamics within the workforce, favouring ‘shop floor’ employees over the better-established bureaucracy.
In an era where economic policies have wide-reaching impact on the everyday lives of ordinary workers, it is clear that there is a pressing need to rethink the tenets that govern global trade. The trade war outlined in this piece symbolizes a wider discontent among workers who must bear the brunt of policy changes.
As trade measures are executed and tariffs rise and fall, the effect on everyday people must not be lost in the shuffle. The plight of workers waiting in line for their shift at the Port of Los Angeles, or the truck drivers seeing dwindling cargo volumes is a stark reminder of the real stakes in this global trade war.