Task force urges L.A. port to cut 269 jobs.

It figures that will save $40 million over 5 years

The Port of L.A. needs to eliminate 269 positions during the next 12 months in an effort to save about $40 million over the next five years, according to a plan recently released by a port task force.

The task force was reacting to a study conducted by McLean, Va.-based Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. released last January. The study, requested by the L.A. Board of Harbor Commissioners, called for the port to restructure its operations and reduce its staff through attrition.

The Strategic Planning Task Force's "Plan of Action" was released at a Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners meeting July 27. The task force is made up of Harbor Commission President Leland Wong, port Executive Director Ezunial Burrs, and Peter Mandia, secretary of the Harbor Commission. It was formed to evaluate the port's operations and organization, and to develop a restructuring plan for the port.

However, more than 100 employees and community members packed the meeting and demanded more time to review the plan before the board approves it, according to port spokeswoman Barbara Yamamoto. The commission also wants to examine the plan more closely, she added.

Thus, said port spokesman Jeff Leong, Wong agreed to delay a vote.

The plan states that "through a combination of privatizing port functions in several key areas, realignment and retraining of other workers and attrition and early retirements, the task force has developed a plan which achieves a staffing level which will enable the port not only to compete in the new environment, but remain a world-class facility and a leader in the port industry."

Most of the changes should take place during the rest of this year and in 1996, it states.

Plan realignment

To begin with, the plan calls for eliminating 142 positions in the port's engineering, environmental management and construction management divisions. Instead of working directly for the port, the plan recommends that 135 of these workers form their own private company. This company would then sell its services to the Port of L.A., along with other ports.

The plan also recommends eliminating the port's 32 pilot positions. As many of these posts as possible would be transferred to an outside vendor, which would also sell its services to the port.

"No other U.S. port offers municipal piloting services to its tenants," the plan states.

Other parts of the plan involve selling, or privatizing, the Cabrillo Marina, a marina in the port, and refocusing the role of the port police.

The plan also calls for forming a new Office of Strategic Planning, and realigning the management services and wharfinger divisions, according to the plan. Wharfingers tally cargo that comes through the port.

"Following full implementation of all proposals, staffing at the harbor department (port) would be reduced to 437 positions, a level appropriate to optimum efficiency and growth facilitation of the port," the plan states.

"The net economic benefit to the port during the initial five years of implementation would total at least $39.7 million," it further states.

The L.A. Harbor Commission "has an interest to make sure the port remains competitive over the long term," Wong said. "It comes down to work force reduction."

Such a restructuring "is a necessary step every business entity has to take periodically," added Jay Winter, executive secretary of the Steamship Association of Southern California. The group is made up of companies that own and operate vessels that carry cargo to and from the Southland ports and pay fees to do so. "The process has to take place," he said.

But the plan is not being greeted with wholehearted approval.

"I don't like the idea of privatization" of the piloting services, said Chief Pilot Ward Pearce Jr. The piloting program is safe and efficient as it is, and customers are happy. It would be hard to improve upon it by privatizing it, he said.

The Service Employees International Union Local 347 also opposes the plan. If these various departments are privatized, workers would probably not be unionized, and it is likely their wages and benefits would be reduced, said Julie Butcher, staff director of the union, which represents many blue-collar workers at the port.