Sun.
Mon.
Change my location 
Article History There are updates to this article.
)
Protesters bring attention to port security in front of Rash Field by the Inner Harbor on Thursday.
BALTIMORE (Map, News) - The United Food & Commercial Workers International Union wants nothing less than 100 percent.
Working through one of its national campaigns, WakeUpWalMart.com, the group wants to hold Wal-Mart accountable for its business actions. At the Inner Harbor on Thursday the local 27 chapter of the UFCW, along with WakeUpWalMart.com, took Wal-Mart to task for the mega-retailers stance on a piece of port security legislation in Congress.
The groups, joined by the Maryland chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, voiced displeasure with Wal-Mart’s opposition to a bill that would require security to check 100 percent of the containers that come through the port.
“There has to be tighter and better security,” said Brian Nesbit, organizer of the Baltimore rally for the UFCW Local 27. “We have an opportunity to make sure that we have secure ports and to take care of them.”
Wal-Mart, which spent more than $760 million in Maryland during 2006, views the UFCW’s attack through both advertisements and news conferences nationwide as unwarranted.
As of February, Bentonville, Ark-based Wal-Mart employed more than 15,650 people in Maryland.
“Wal-Mart is proud of our efforts to ensure a more secure supply chain and we will continue to play a central role into finding real solutions to enhance cargo security,” Wal-Mart spokesman Robert Traynham said. “This union-funded ad is in poor taste and an irresponsible attempt to avoid facts, play upon people’s fears and disparage our company and the 127 million Americans that shop our stores every week.”
Port officials view the issue as being one that will require both sides, and the legislature, to find a common ground.
“We are in favor for as high a percentage as practical, but the key is finding the right balance between effective and efficient trade and security and that balance is critical so to not negatively impact the flow of commerce,” port spokesman Richard Scher said.
By the end of April, the Port of Baltimore expects to be screening 100 percent of its incoming containers for radiation or radioactive materials.
dcarey@baltimoreexaminer.com
 Not ranked |
 EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY 
Comments from Examiner Readers
2:13 PM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007 re: "County workers union rejects pension changes"
Report as inappropriate
5:24 AM MST on Wed., May. 9, 2007
re: "County workers union rejects pension changes"
Report as inappropriate
6:36 AM MST on Fri., May. 4, 2007
re: "Union rejects health care offer"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
I am not sure where Ms. Malarkey is getting her information from, There is no "Law requiring governments to prefund retirement benefits." There is however GASB which is an accounting standard that has governments accounting for and paying for other post employment benefits, ie. health care, so they will be able to maintain their AAA bond ratings. Within GASB there is no mention of pensions. I sure do wish that reporters would verify their facts prior to printing such information. It should also be noted that this article depicts the union memebers in a positive light, which is good, but recent artcles about the BCFPE appeared to show the union as the "BAD GUYS". Thank you Ms. Malarkey for your true and honest information. Not.
225 agree | 210 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
finaly, a union that has sence to protect their members rather than line the pockets of a few. Thank You ASCME How many of the members of the other Unions voted to ratify because they were strong armed . Every employee out there should be writing to their Councilman right now and letting them know how this retirement proposal affects their family .and demand that the portion affecting prior and existing employees be removed..not approved, whether you voted to ratify or not.
216 agree | 237 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I am a little confused by Johnny Olzewski's comment --- The future action hings on the FPE vote? There are 6 unions in Baltimore County, why does the future of all employees depend on this one vote? The contract was ratified by a vote of 152 to 146! Since the majority of the members (corrections and 911) were given a two step upgrade, those numbers say a lot. 146 people were willing to give up the upgrades to protect their benefits. And what about the other 1300 employees represented by this union, many who are on the low end of the pay scale and can not afford to join for the right to vote. These changes affect them also. Remember councilman, you are in an elected position. These are not just employees, they are tax payers!
234 agree | 218 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree