Pier Trucker Oakland, Oakland, CA (2026)

05/22/2026

-- ILWU chief slams ‘foreign shipping companies’ ahead of contract expiration --

The president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) on Wednesday slammed US West Coast employers as being dominated by foreign shipping companies, accusing them of caring more about the profits they send back to their headquarters than the port communities in which they operate.

The message, delivered by Bobby Olvera at the annual meeting of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC) in Tacoma, Washington, sends a warning shot to employers — and cargo owners — ahead of the expiration of the union’s coastwide contract in 2028.

The previous contract, in which the ILWU scored a 32% increase in wages for its members, was finalized in 2022 after work stoppages and slowdowns that resulted in a significant diversion of cargo to East and Gulf Coast ports.

“The foreign shipping lines, they should not be operating our terminals here in the United States. That should be American stevedoring companies,” Olvera told the AgTC event. “They don’t care about our ports. It’s all [about] profit generating. It’s control generating.”

Olvera said the ILWU is using this period to advocate for strong West Coast ports and their customers, which include agricultural importers and exporters, before the appropriate state and federal agencies regarding legislation and regulations that impact the flow of cargo.

“But things have changed. What they’ve done, in my opinion, is turned the PMA into a one-trick pony. All they advocate [and] lobby for are tax incentives, tax breaks, dollars for tax breaks and tax funds for the terminals,” Olvera said.

The Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), which represents ocean carrier and terminal operator employers in negotiations with the ILWU, said that is not the case at all.

“PMA is focused each day on promoting strong and efficient West Coast ports that support the nation’s supply chain and sustain thousands of jobs at port terminals and millions of jobs throughout the US economy,” the association said in a statement Thursday.

-- The role of private equity --

Former shipping company executive and Journal of Commerce contributor Ted Prince noted that the phenomenon of ocean carriers dominating terminal operators in a vertically-integrated operation developed decades ago, but that model has been changing due to investments by private equity and infrastructure funds in ports and marine terminals.

“How do you deal with this silent force of private equity that in my mind is going to increasingly call the shots?” Prince asked Olvera during the event.

“It starts and stops with the ports, with our public port authorities,” Olvera said. “I think we fail to recognize that they’re owned by the citizens. They’re owned by the communities. The port authority has an obligation when they execute 30- and 40-year leases on the terminals to ask the right questions.”

Those “right questions” involve how to make their facilities more responsive to port users and their needs for sufficient gate hours and efficient operations, he added.

A California-based agriculture exporter told Olvera that the lack of trust between the PMA and the ILWU has hurt the supply chain by imposing higher costs on shippers, which has resulted in a diversion of cargo to East and Gulf Coast ports. She suggested that some forms of technology that are now common at marine terminals are designed to reduce costs and improve efficiency, not to eliminate longshore jobs.

“That’s where the technology comes in — to move more cargo,” she said.

Olvera responded that he was not going to talk about automation at the ports. The West Coast longshore labor contract allows for automation, but anticipated union resistance has resulted in a new dynamic in which port authorities are working with terminal operators and the ILWU to ensure that future projects move forward with the cooperation of both parties.

Source: JOC

05/20/2026

-- US ports outline spending goals in push to reshore crane making --

US ports face an almost $7 billion price tag for ship-to-shore cranes and other container-handling equipment over the next five years, according to the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE). But the spending is hamstrung amid an unclear tariff on Chinese cranes and halting efforts to reshore crane manufacturing to the US.

In a survey of 25 port and terminal executives published Tuesday, NAWE said US ports and marine terminals will need more than 100 ship-to-shore (STS) cranes through 2031 to replace aging assets or provide new crane capacity. In total, NAWE expects US ports to need $6.7 billion in equipment over the next five years.

“These findings underscore the scale and urgency of the investment challenge facing US ports,” NAWE President Carl Bentzel said in a statement accompanying the survey. “Modern cargo-handling equipment is essential to ensuring terminal productivity, supply chain resilience, and the ability of US ports to compete with international gateways.”

New and replacement cranes, along with other cargo-handling equipment, account for $5.1 billion of NAWE’s estimate. In addition, US ports are looking to spend $917 million on rail-mounted stacking cranes and another $790 million for repairing existing STS cranes and equipment.

Along with the equipment bill, Bentzel told the Journal of Commerce that equipment is just the “tip of the iceberg” as US ports need to spend many billions more to improve underlying infrastructure including road, rail and maritime access.

NAWE released the survey as Congress takes up other infrastructure-related legislation, including the five-year surface transportation reauthorization, which provides federal support for roads and bridges.

Bentzel said NAWE is looking to get the attention of both Congress and the White House about how they can help expedite and support those equipment purchases. NAWE members face uncertainty from Washington’s dual mandates of penalizing China’s maritime industry and how to reshore critical industries such as crane manufacturing.

US ports faced an array of Trump’s tariffs that added 30% to the cost of Chinese-made cranes. In addition, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) levied a 25% penalty on Chinese-made ship-to-shore cranes under a 2024 investigation begun during the Biden administration.

Under the Trump administration, the USTR intended to stack another 100% penalty on Chinese STS cranes as of last November. The Supreme Court has knocked down almost all of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs against China, while the USTR put a one-year pause on its 100% penalty.

Even so, Bentzel said it is unclear what the current tariff regime is for Chinese-made cranes, or if the Trump administration is even enforcing the Biden-era tariffs on cranes. NAWE called on the USTR to clarify the current state of penalties and tariffs on Chinese cranes.

“The challenge is we don’t know what is happening with the United States Trade Representative,” Bentzel said. “There’s going to be a short-term need to continue using Chinese manufacturers. But no one in the industry can arrange for the construction and delivery of cranes with a one-year suspension.”

An executive for a North American terminal operator who took part in the survey told the Journal of Commerce his STS crane purchases are running about $25 million currently, compared to roughly $15 million a year ago. Global prices have risen due to the tariff and the switch to crane makers, enabling the manufacturers to raise prices due to new demand and limited capacity, he said.

“Our main reason for reaching out to the USTR is because we want to make sure that we have certainty about the exact import duties at the time when we place an equipment order,” the terminal executive said. “Nobody can afford to order equipment and then suddenly get a 10% cost increase from new import duties after this equipment order has been contracted.”

-- Crane makers eye US yards --

In the long-term, Bentzel said critical industries such as crane and yard equipment need to be reshored so US ports will not be reliant on Chinese manufacturers. He said the White House and Congress need to begin the process now for reshoring crane manufacturing as it will take two years or more for a domestic manufacturer to start making cranes.

NAWE recently added new members including European crane manufacturers Liebherr and Konecranes, along with Japan’s Paceco-Mitsui, as part of its outreach to reshore crane manufacturing, Bentzel said. Germany’s Kunz and Phoenix-based Stafford Port Cranes are also looking to join NAWE, he added.

Sources have told the Journal of Commerce that Liebherr has inquired about laydown yard space at the Port of Houston, along with other Gulf and Southeast ports, for assembling and distributing cranes. has sought similar space at the Port of Seattle, according to sources.

Liebherr and could not be reached for comment.

Bentzel said the companies are only making soft inquiries now as they await clarity about long-term US trade policy on STS cranes. The Biden administration made $20 billion in infrastructure funding available for STS crane makers to set up US operations. At the time, Paceco said it would invest in a new US facility, but it never went forward due to market uncertainty, Bentzel said.

“NAWE’s members are supporting the onshoring of port cranes,” he said. “Those companies are doing a lot of assessing and waiting because the penalties on Chinese-made cranes aren’t clear.”

With the Trump administration looking to revive the US maritime industry, Bentzel said now is the time to support US-made cranes. NAWE’s capital spending survey also sets the table for these companies on their addressable US market, he added.

NAWE plans to lobby Congress to have funding made available to domestic crane manufacturers under the Defense Production Act, which supports industries critical to national security, or the Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security for America (SHIPS) Act, Congress’ broad bill to incentivize the reshoring of ship building and crane-making.

“Our argument is that if we don’t have this equipment and don’t create this domestic market, this will impact the nation’s fortunes in the long-term,” Bentzel said. “We believe without some level of assistance and direction, it will take us two years to get any domestic production going.”

One potential incentive that has been floated is the 2021 Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act, which requires infrastructure to be built with a minimum of 55% US-sourced steel to receive federal funding. However, the terminal executive said not enough of the actual crane parts can be made in the US at this point to qualify.

“Crane assembly in the US not enough to be BABA compliant,” he said. “This will require on top of the assembly to also get some of the components sourced from the US."

Source: JOC

05/19/2026

-- ‘Montgomery’ ruling likely to raise pressure on trucking insurance, broker vetting --

The unanimous Supreme Court ruling allowing certain state-level negligence claims against freight brokers is expected to increase pressure on motor carriers to carry higher insurance limits and could eventually contribute to higher transportation costs, trucking attorneys say.

The May 14 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transports LLC held that freight brokers are not shielded from some state personal injury lawsuits, potentially expanding liability exposure for intermediaries that arrange truck freight. Attorneys on both sides of the trucking industry said the ruling is likely to intensify scrutiny of carrier selection practices and insurance coverage.

“A lot of brokers are going to go to their trucking companies and say, ‘You’ve been running loads with $1 million worth of insurance. Since we’re exposed, you can cause a lot more than $1 million worth of damage,’” Ed Leonard, a partner at San Diego law firm Tyson & Mendes, which represents trucking companies in civil litigation, said.

Leonard told the Journal of Commerce that brokers are likely to require higher liability coverage from carriers moving freight, particularly smaller operators with marginal safety records.

“They’re going to be asking these trucking companies to buy more insurance,” he said. “This is going to cost more money to get things done.”

The ruling could also tighten trucking capacity if higher insurance premiums force some smaller fleets and owner-operators to exit the market, Leonard said. That could place additional upward pressure on freight rates at a time when parts of the trucking industry are already navigating labor and regulatory disruptions.

-- ‘A big deal’ --

Plaintiff attorneys, meanwhile, said the decision gives crash victims a significant new legal avenue by allowing brokers to be named in lawsuits involving serious injuries and fatalities.

“These major trucking accidents result in deaths, amputations and traumatic brain injuries, and this opens the door to brokers, making them a viable defendant,” said Edward Bassett, a partner at Mirick Law and former president of the Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America. “Whether you are popping champagne or Diet Coke at plaintiff firms, this is a big deal.”

Bassett said brokers are likely to more carefully scrutinize the carriers they hire, rather than selecting providers primarily on price.

“They’re going to start looking carefully at the carriers they hire and not just the cheaper ones,” he said. “They’re being held responsible if they hire fly-by-night companies.”

The case decided by the Supreme Court last week stemmed from a 2017 crash in Illinois involving truck driver Shawn Montgomery, who suffered catastrophic injuries and lost a leg after his parked tractor-trailer was struck by another truck. The Supreme Court ruled Montgomery could pursue claims against freight broker C.H. Robinson, which arranged the shipment. Montgomery’s attorneys argued that carrier Caribe Transport II had a poor safety record and that the broker should share liability for hiring it.

C.H. Robinson argued that because trucking companies are federally licensed and regulated, brokers should be shielded from state negligence claims tied to carrier safety. The court disagreed, concluding that federal transportation law does not broadly preempt those claims.

-- Federal data under scrutiny --

The decision could renew debate over trucking insurance minimums, which have remained largely unchanged since the Reagan administration. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) currently requires minimum liability coverage ranging from $750,000 to $5 million depending on the type of freight being hauled. Since 1985, Congress has repeatedly considered raising those thresholds or indexing them to inflation, but those efforts have stalled.

FMCSA studies have suggested current minimums may be insufficient to cover catastrophic crashes and rising medical costs. Industry groups, however, have argued most claims settle below existing coverage requirements and that raising insurance mandates would disproportionately hurt small and midsize carriers by increasing operating costs.

“We think it’s a bad decision. We had to be defending these cases before and we’ll be defending them after,” said Nathaniel Saylor, a partner at transportation law firm Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary. “The question in these cases before the jury will always be, what is reasonable care. That standard was the standard yesterday and tomorrow as well. Nothing has changed regarding the broker’s duty. But the temperature is up on this issue, and you can expect the plaintiff bar will be pursuing these cases very aggressively.”

Saylor said one major issue going forward will be the reliability of FMCSA safety data used by brokers to evaluate carriers, because critics of the system have said the information can be incomplete or outdated.

“Brokers are dealing with carriers authorized by the federal government to operate,” Saylor said. “If brokers can be liable, we should at least make sure brokers have the right information available. How is the broker supposed to know that one carrier is more or less safe than another?

“More information is good, and it helps,” he added. “With that information, FMCSA can identify unsafe carriers, remove them from the market and ensure the available capacity is safer.”

Source: JOC

05/15/2026

-- Supreme Court ruling strips broker protection linked to carrier safety --

Federal law does not automatically shield freight brokers from lawsuits alleging they hired unsafe carriers involved in accidents, the US Supreme Court ruled Thursday, a decision likely to reshape how shippers and third-party logistics providers assess carrier risk.

The unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II does not make brokers liable every time a truck crashes. But it removes a major legal shield the brokerage industry has relied on for years.

The case involved a December 2017 crash in Illinois involving a Caribe Transport II truck that struck a vehicle parked on the side of the road. The accident injured Shawn Montgomery, who was forced to have one of his legs amputated. C.H. Robinson brokered the freight to Caribe.

Robinson argued that brokers arrange transportation but do not own trucks, maintain equipment, hire drivers, or operate vehicles. Because selecting a carrier is a brokerage service, the company argued that negligent hiring claims against brokers should be preempted by federal law.

But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court, rejected that argument, allowing Montgomery’s lawsuit against Caribe and Robinson to proceed.

“Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim thus falls within the FAAAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s] safety exception, which saves it from preemption,” Barrett wrote. “The safety exception saves only a subset of preempted claims: those involving regulations concerning motor vehicle safety. State laws related to motor carrier prices, routes, and services that have no relationship to safety remain preempted [by federal law].”

The case is centered on the FAAAA, a federal law that broadly preempts state regulation of freight rates, routes and services. The question before the court was whether that preemption also blocks state law negligent hiring claims against brokers, or whether those claims survive under the law’s safety exception.

Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson, claiming the broker negligently hired Caribe, which had a “conditional” safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and several violations involving driver qualification, hours of service, vehicle maintenance, and crash rates.

Lower courts sided with Robinson, stating that FAAAA blocked the claim because the law preempts state rules related to freight rates, routes and services. But the Supreme Court ruling Thursday reversed that, deciding that a broker does not have to own, drive, or repair trucks for its carrier-selection decision to involve highway safety.

“Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore ‘concerns’ motor vehicles — most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods,” Barrett wrote. “So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception.”

C.H. Robinson said it was “disappointed with the outcome [but] respects the court’s ruling.”

“While we are disappointed in the court’s decision, we will continue to operate responsibly, support stronger federal enforcement, and work constructively with regulators, carriers, and customers to strengthen the national safety system and support safe, reliable transportation across the country,” the company said in a statement.

The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) said it was “deeply disappointed with the decision.”

“...The law and legal precedent for decades has given the federal government, not states, the responsibility for setting safety standards for motor carriers,” TIA said in a statement. “To date, carriers, not brokers, have been responsible for complying with these standards.”

-- Brokers can’t fall back on FMCSA registration --

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito said the case was a close one, but they concurred with the unanimous opinion. Kavanaugh and Alito pointed out that motor carriers are already open to lawsuits for injuries on a state level, and rejected the idea that FMCSA registration alone ends the safety conversation for brokers.

“Given that Congress in the FAA Authorization Act sought economic deregulation — not safety deregulation — it is hard to read the statute as written and conclude that Congress subtly sliced and diced state tort law so that trucking companies would be subject to state tort suits for accidents, but brokers would operate free of any such tort liability,” they wrote.

The ruling does not impose a new checklist or instruct brokers on how to vet carriers. But it enforces an important standard of reasonable care when deciding whether a broker was negligent in hiring.

For a small carrier with clean authority and no visible problems, reasonable care may be simple. For a carrier with a conditional safety rating, a poor crash record, or repeated serious violations, reasonable care may now mean more than what the brokerage industry has historically been accustomed to.

Source: JOC

05/13/2026

Are you having issues with renewing your Medical Certificate? How far in advance you need to do it now to keep your CDL licence valid without an interruption?

05/09/2026

-- Weak consumer confidence, rising inflation dim peak season hopes --

The traditional peak shipping season in the US may effectively pass unnoticed this year, a major retail group suggested Friday, citing weak consumer confidence and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook.

The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker (GPT).

“With inflation rising and consumer confidence falling among global economic uncertainty driven by the conflict in Iran, the overall trend of lower imports is expected to continue...,” Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for Supply Chain and Customs Policy, said in a statement accompanying the group’s forecast.

The NRF said US imports in May and June will actually be moderately higher than the year-ago figures, but noted that growth is largely artificial because it’s being compared with May and June 2025 when imports fell sharply following the Trump administration’s implementation of widespread tariffs that April.

The true import picture will come into focus in the heart of summer, with the NRF’s July forecast of 2.2 million TEUs down almost 8% year over year. And things will weaken progressively from there, despite August being the traditional start of peak shipping season when retailers stock up ahead of the year-end holidays.

The NRF projects August imports at 2.19 million TEUs, down 5.5% year over year; and September at 2.08 million TEUs, 1.3% below the year prior. The fact that September — typically the heart of peak season — is forecast to be one of the weaker import months of 2026 is especially telling.

“Containerized imports in the first quarter were down year over year, and forward demand is weakening,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said in the statement. “Stalling restocking efforts and rising geopolitical tensions are increasingly clouding the outlook.”

This year would be the second in a row without the typical August through October peak season, following last year’s tariff-linked disruptions.

“It’s not like we have a traditional peak season anymore,” said Serkan Kavas, executive vice president for imports at the forwarder MTS Logistics. “There may be a couple months peak, year over year, but at the end of the day, the expectations are not that great right now from our customers and from what I’m hearing from industry and from other companies too.”

-- Consumer confidence at new low --

Meanwhile, fresh consumer indicators were grim. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, out Friday, fell to a new record low of 48.2, down from 49.8 in April.

“About one-third of consumers [surveyed] spontaneously mentioned gasoline prices and about 30% mentioned tariffs. Taken together, consumers continue to feel buffeted by cost pressures, led by soaring prices at the pump,” Joanne Hsu, the survey’s director, said in a statement.

“Middle East developments are unlikely to meaningfully boost sentiment until supply disruptions have been fully resolved and energy prices fall,” Hsu added.

US retail sales in March, the most recent data available, increased 1.7% month over month to $752.1 billion, according to the US Census Bureau, driven mainly by soaring gasoline prices, which do not contribute to retail merchandise imports.

Container lines on the eastbound trans-Pacific are nevertheless deploying or planning to deploy progressively more capacity in May through July than they did a year ago.

According to ocean freight visibility provider eeSea, carriers are deploying almost 2 million TEUs in May, 2.13 million TEUs in June and just under 2.2 million TEUs in July. That’s up from 1.6 million TEUs, 1.98 million TEUs, and 2 million TEUs, respectively, in May–July 2025.

Carriers are also blanking less capacity, according to eeSea: 207,797 TEUs in May, 117,403 TEUs in June, and 50,969 TEUs in July. That compares with 472,948 TEUs, 249,745 TEUs, and 239,573 TEUs, respectively, in the same period last year.

The GPT forecasts imports at 13 US ports: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York/New Jersey, Virginia, Charleston, Savannah, Port Everglades, Miami, Jacksonville and Houston.

Source: JOC

05/07/2026

DUE TO LOW VOLUMES AT THE TERMINAL AND LOW PARTICIPATION ON THE NIGHT GATE EFFECTIVE TODAY MAY 7TH OICT WILL NOT BE OPERATING A THURSDAY NIGHT GATE. NIGHT GATES WILL RUN MONDAY THRU WEDNESDAY.

05/07/2026

5/7-NO BARE CHASSIS OUT TODAY at OICT

04/24/2026

America wants to make its maritime sector globally competitive again. But significant obstacles hinder development and expansion, says the chief U.S. ocean shipping regulator.

04/23/2026

Due to low volumes at the OICT terminal and low participation on the night gate effective the week of May 4th, OICT will not be operating a Thursday night gate. Night gates will run Monday through Wednesday. This is on a temporary basis and will be revisited once they see a consistent activity increase.

Pier Trucker Oakland

05/22/2026

05/20/2026

05/19/2026

05/15/2026

05/13/2026

05/09/2026

05/07/2026

05/07/2026

04/24/2026

04/23/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share