The Fight Against Automation Continues
City files nearly two-dozen criminal charges against casual longshore worker for satirical picket signs; Port of Los Angeles faces likely civil suit after dismissal of charges
Last month, a 20 charge criminal case against 39-year-old casual longshoreman, Carlos Saldana, was quietly dismissed nearly a year after the charges were originally filed. Saldana’s crime? Making satirical picket signs depicting the Los Angeles harbor commissioners who voted July 11, 2019 to allow Pier 400 to become fully automated. Photos of anti-automation protesters carrying the picket signs were shared on social media. According to court documents, the date of the offense was July 14, three days after the highly charged harbor commission meeting at which the board approved the automation of Pier 400 with a 3-2 vote.
Saldana was charged with 20 counts of cyber harassment of the three harbor commissioners whose votes approved the Pier 400 automation permit . He didn’t know criminal charges were filed against him until December 2019.
“There was no warning,” Saldana said. “All of sudden the Port of LA [police] were coming to my house. A couple of days later, I got a letter in the mail stating criminal charges had been filed against me.”
Saldana learned later that on Dec. 15 port police talked to his co-worker and were taking pictures of him while he was on the docks. The next day three port police officers in two squad cars went by his house.
Saldana had anti-automation banners on his house when the officers visited. The police officers knocked on his door. He was there but did not hear them. They left their card behind. Not long after they had left, he called. They offered to turn around to return to his home, but Saldana declined the offer and told them he would go to the police station. Saldana explained that at this point he did not suspect anything was wrong. Saldana described undergoing hard questioning, as if the detectives were trying to play good cop, bad cop, with one officer asking more benign questions while the other asking questions that seemed to suggest a conspiracy of some sort.
“They showed me some pictures of the protest,” Saldana explained. “They asked questions like, ‘Who is with you? How many of you were there? How many are in the union?’ … At that time I had no idea what this was about. After two and half hours I asked if I had done anything that required me to be detained and they said no and they let me go.”
“From one day to the next, I did not know there was someone following me at work, then the next they were at my home,” Saldana said. “I had no idea that this had ruffled their feathers. There was never an indication that I violated their policies.”
In the days that followed Saldana’s questioning by the port police, he sought help wherever he could find it. He started with the ILWU, but its assistance was limited because he is not a union member. To mount a defense, Saldana started highlighting his plight on flyers he distributed to fellow longshore workers. Soon he was put in contact with lawyer Mat Kaestner. A little later, Saldana enlisted the services of lawyer Marc Coleman for the civil suit that’s certain to follow.
Days of Rage Against Automation
The anti-automation movement kicked into high gear in January 2019 when the Port of Los Angeles gave routine administrative approval to APM Terminals to install automated equipment at Pier 400. The goods movement company deemed the move to be necessary for the future of its operations.
The ILWU appealed the decision to the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners a month after the approval.
The original vote on the permit was set for April. But the commission delayed its decision for a month so that LA Mayor Eric Garcetti could step in and mediate.
A series of votes over the next two months threatened to send the dispute to court. The commission voted to reject the ILWU’s appeal, thus greenlighting the permit.
LA City Councilman Joe Buscaino next brought that decision before the city council, which voted to send the permit application back to the harbor commission for another vote.
On July 11, the harbor commission again affirmed the permit.
Through all the public hearings and months of debate on the future of jobs and automation, demonstrations and rallies were staged by longshore workers to galvanize community support and inform the public. They marched in the streets. They lined up to speak at commission meetings. Gary Herrera, then-vice president of Local 13, vowed to not allow the Harbor Area to become the next Detroit.
In the months that followed, state legislators, like Assemblyman Mike Gipson, fought for legislation that would have required the State Lands Commission to hold stakeholder meetings on the impacts of automated technology at California ports. The legislation died without being heard on the senate floor.
In the end, the union didn’t stop automation from coming to the Port of Los Angeles, but fought for re-training for its members to mitigate the job losses to come.
Winning and losing the fight against an existential threat
Even with the new legal firepower at his side, Saldana was still experiencing anxiety from his ordeal.
Ultimately, Saldana was hit with California penal code 528.5A and 653m(B), ten charges each.
“The 528.5 penal code is to impersonate through the internet or web to harm or threaten or intimidate even though Carlos didn’t do any of that,” Coleman explained. “But it was apparent that some of the Harbor Commissioners wanted the satire taken down because they were offended by it. They wanted to force Carlos to back off from his work.”
Penal code 653m(B) states that every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device,
guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.
This charge was applied to the fact that Saldana attended with his picket signs at harbor commission meetings at which automation at Pier 400 was a topic of discussion.
Coleman argued there was no way anyone could not have understood that the Saldana’s picket signs were works of satire. He noted that one of the pickets featured a harbor commissioner with a clown’s nose. Others had the words, “I hate the community,” “I hate the ILWU,” and “I hate the Dodgers” after they lost a game.
“It was satirical fun but no one over there was laughing,” Coleman said.
“There was no evidence and there was no merit,” Coleman said. “That’s why the charges were dismissed. Oftentimes the charging authority will throw everything at the wall and see what will stick. And this is one of those situations where they had a statute that trumps the first amendment.”
Coleman went on to say that when the port police didn’t find anything, prosecutors threw 20 charges making Saldana into an example to other longshore workers.
Coleman highlighted a broader issue.
“They picked a casual worker who wasn’t going to get support from the union and they ignored similar things from the registered workers to make an example of Carlos,” Coleman said. “If he can’t work, he can’t get his hours; he can’t become an ID [a registered longshore worker with the ILWU].”
“If they did this to me wouldn’t everyone else be afraid to protest?” Saldana asked.
For Saldana, the costs have been steep. He reported having to spend more than $10,000 on his defense this past year. He’s taking anti-anxiety medication to cope with the mental health toll the criminal case has taken. The case also contributed to his separation from his wife.
Coleman wrapped up the meaning of this case in the larger issues over automation and future battles the ILWU may have to fight.
“This is a threat to any longshore worker who chooses to speak out,” Coleman said. “They are trying to shut up people like Carlos who aren’t afraid to poke fun at the harbor commissioners who want to protest things that aren’t right.”
As of publication, the Los Angeles city attorney’s office has yet to reply to RLn’s request for comment to this story.