An interesting thing about labor disputes like this is they're presented as quasi-political stories, where people eagerly argue "for" or "against" the union or corp as though they were political parties or philosophical camps or something.
But as with most economics, it doesn't really matter what you think is fair, or who has the best justification. These are simply economic forces testing each other, and whichever is strongest will prevail.
People in the US are so accustomed to working class people being universally disempowered that we find it perverse and "upside down" that some workers could actually have the economic force to make demands and have them met. Meanwhile employers routinely make arbitrary demands and have them met. It doesn't even occur to anyone to argue about them, because it's recognized that employers simply have the power to demand whatever they want from their employees, and that this is natural and reasonable.
> An interesting thing about labor disputes like this is they're presented as quasi-political stories, where people eagerly argue "for" or "against" the union or corp as though they were political parties or philosophical camps or something.
That's because they are political.
> But as with most economics, it doesn't really matter what you think is fair, or who has the best justification. These are simply economic forces testing each other, and whichever is strongest will prevail.
That's not different than other political issues (“politics” and “economics” are different lenses for viewing the same disputes over the distribution of social power) and “strength” here is absolutely inclusive of political strength in the narrow sense, since government has a substantial potential role in both the immediate resolution of the dispute and in setting the playing field on which the repeated series of disputes takes place.
They rejected a 5$/h per year increase for 6 years (77% salary improvement over the period). Given what I know of Canadian Port workers they are often paid more than 100k$/y and they put their children on lists to get jobs. The incentives to automate as much as possible is clearly there for business owners even outside of strikes.
They also dont get much love from the public. The known ties with organized crime might have something to do with it and the general impression (right or wrong) that they are never happy despite having very good conditions/salaries.
The union demands “a total ban on the automation of cranes, gates and moving containers in the loading and unloading of freight” [1]. This is purely extractive.
Better: encourage automation, but require re-training alongside job guarantees and better pay and benefits. Do we really think making our ports more efficient won’t yield dividends in increased volumes?
The longshoremen unions are legitimately the reason Americans dislike unions. They are involved in organized crime. They are nepotistic. Worst of all they're luddites who are directly causing inflation on imported goods by refusing to allow any automation at our ports. American ports are the least competitive in the world because of this bs.
Going on strike to keep your job from being replaced by automation does not seem like a winning strategy. Not only does your job not need to exist, you actually want more money for doing something no one needs you to do?
If you want a payment for doing nothing of value, that's something government handles, not a private employer.
There's SO MUCH demand for labor right now, let's not have people do jobs that computers can do.
The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger by Marc Levinson is a book I cannot recommend enough. I never thought a book about shipping containers could be so engaging. It's one of those that will have your nose in it til you're done. It talks about the fight with unions in the face of container shipping among other things, and gives you a nice overview on the history of these port workers unions and the politics around them.
I'm personally in much agreement with you and am not sympathetic to unions generally speaking. It's one thing if a company needs you and you band together to get better pay, it's another to blackmail whole industries and even countries to keep paying you for something nobody needs you to do.
Can someone make the case for why we should support the port workers in this situation? My intuition is that while they are probably competent at what they do, there are likely many people who would be eagerly and immediately replace each of them if offered the opportunity to do the same work for the same wage. And increased automation and efficiency at the ports seems like it would have significant benefit for rest of the nation.
There is no need to make a case. They have the right to strike. In general though one should support workers when they seek higher wages since the pay has increased at a much lower rate than productivity the last 40 years or so. Enough wealth has been extracted from labor. It’s time to give labor its due.
Labor is the source of all wealth and all culture (Marx). They strike because they can, and their labor has value. If it didn’t, the strike would not be feared.
Why should we care if the corporation profits more? I am not in the top 10% owning 93% of total US equities, so I do not care. Automation so the wealthy get wealthier doesn’t help anyone but the wealthy, and they need no help. Consumer excess can come from there as well, vs the pockets of people who do actual work.
Because the working class deserve a share of the wealth they generate and if they don’t get it, it’s a matter of when, not if society collapses?
There has been an unprecedented acceleration of the concentration of wealth to the billionaire class, and that’s fundamentally unsustainable. History has shown the end result is either a decrease in inequality naturally, through government intervention, or violence.
I prefer naturally (a strike and negotiation), I’d accept government intervention, but I fear a lot of people will take your jaded view of “why should they get more money when we can replace them with automation” and we’re going to eventually end up with violence when enough people can’t afford the basic necessities.
To be clear, you're not a port worker.. correct? You're just an outsider looking in, making a blanket judgement about how easy other people's jobs are; and how easy they are to replace?
A single union spans all these ports? This shouldn’t be allowed - we need antitrust laws to break up unions and promote a healthy amount of competition. Biden could prevent this strike by invoking his legal powers given this is critical infrastructure, but I doubt he will do that given it’s an election year.
thecrash|1 year ago
But as with most economics, it doesn't really matter what you think is fair, or who has the best justification. These are simply economic forces testing each other, and whichever is strongest will prevail.
People in the US are so accustomed to working class people being universally disempowered that we find it perverse and "upside down" that some workers could actually have the economic force to make demands and have them met. Meanwhile employers routinely make arbitrary demands and have them met. It doesn't even occur to anyone to argue about them, because it's recognized that employers simply have the power to demand whatever they want from their employees, and that this is natural and reasonable.
dragonwriter|1 year ago
That's because they are political.
> But as with most economics, it doesn't really matter what you think is fair, or who has the best justification. These are simply economic forces testing each other, and whichever is strongest will prevail.
That's not different than other political issues (“politics” and “economics” are different lenses for viewing the same disputes over the distribution of social power) and “strength” here is absolutely inclusive of political strength in the narrow sense, since government has a substantial potential role in both the immediate resolution of the dispute and in setting the playing field on which the repeated series of disputes takes place.
simonsarris|1 year ago
I guess the mob making demands on business is simply economic forces testing each-other, by one accounting. But it feels a tad incomplete.
Sytten|1 year ago
They also dont get much love from the public. The known ties with organized crime might have something to do with it and the general impression (right or wrong) that they are never happy despite having very good conditions/salaries.
JumpCrisscross|1 year ago
Better: encourage automation, but require re-training alongside job guarantees and better pay and benefits. Do we really think making our ports more efficient won’t yield dividends in increased volumes?
[1] https://apnews.com/article/longshoremen-strike-ports-pay-con...
HDThoreaun|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
mistrial9|1 year ago
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/26/port-worker-...
ars|1 year ago
If you want a payment for doing nothing of value, that's something government handles, not a private employer.
There's SO MUCH demand for labor right now, let's not have people do jobs that computers can do.
big-green-man|1 year ago
I'm personally in much agreement with you and am not sympathetic to unions generally speaking. It's one thing if a company needs you and you band together to get better pay, it's another to blackmail whole industries and even countries to keep paying you for something nobody needs you to do.
RGamma|1 year ago
nkurz|1 year ago
skhunted|1 year ago
bankcust08385|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo|1 year ago
Why should we care if the corporation profits more? I am not in the top 10% owning 93% of total US equities, so I do not care. Automation so the wealthy get wealthier doesn’t help anyone but the wealthy, and they need no help. Consumer excess can come from there as well, vs the pockets of people who do actual work.
NegativeLatency|1 year ago
tw04|1 year ago
There has been an unprecedented acceleration of the concentration of wealth to the billionaire class, and that’s fundamentally unsustainable. History has shown the end result is either a decrease in inequality naturally, through government intervention, or violence.
I prefer naturally (a strike and negotiation), I’d accept government intervention, but I fear a lot of people will take your jaded view of “why should they get more money when we can replace them with automation” and we’re going to eventually end up with violence when enough people can’t afford the basic necessities.
rgbrenner|1 year ago
blackeyeblitzar|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]