7 ms·

Probably also the world's most costly port to operate. Every decade or so the workers organize a slowdown in order to increase their salary and benefits. They

Probably also the world's most costly port to operate. Every decade or so the workers organize a slowdown in order to increase their salary and benefits. They are already incredibly overcompensated workers, which is why the jobs are so coveted. https://www.practicaladultinsights.com/how-do-i-become-a-longshoreman.htm https://www.practicaladultinsights.com/how-do-i-become-a-lon... https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dockworker-pay-20150301-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dockworker-pay-201503...

mistrial9 5y ago
prior to containerization, there were 100x more jobs in the port system
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Were there? Port volume was much smaller. The reduction in port jobs per ton of goods moved must be somewhat compensated by significantly increased volume.
ianleeclark 5y ago
> They are already incredibly overcompensated workers They work incredibly socially necessary jobs and they are able to bargain collectively to increase negotiation power, so they seem to be compensated fairly.
- emaginniss 5y ago
  Honestly, they are essentially using regulatory capture. They require that anyone who works there has to be a member of the union and if they don't like what's going on the entire union refuses to work and to allow anyone else to work.
  - kfprt 5y ago
    Start your own port then. It's not as if there's a shortage of coastline.
    - Rebelgecko 5y ago
      That wouldn't be legal in CA
      - kfprt 5y ago
        How about OR or WA, or even Mexico. You could unload onto trains to cross the boarder.
        maccolgan 5y ago
        That's what has been happening. California hasn't seen a new port since Port of San Diego in 1962 iirc.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      There are very few places along the Pacific Coast of the US that are reasonable as ports. Puget Sound, the San Francisco Bay, and southern California are pretty much it. Portland is 100 miles from the ocean; only smaller ships can reach it. Astoria and Eureka have terrible connections on the land side. You could think about starting a new port at, say, Santa Monica or San Clemente. It could be done. You'd have to build a breakwater, a bunch of piers, and you'd have to buy a huge amount of land for facilities. How much would it cost to buy, say, 10,000 acres and 20 miles of waterfront in Santa Monica? Yeah, that's why nobody has done it. Expanding San Diego is about the only workable option.
      - kfprt 5y ago
        It was mostly sarcasm. I just don't like the argument that it's regulatory capture because it's fallacious to blame capture when you refuse to compete. This also ignores the fact that there is competition between existing ports. Outlawing unions would just be another form of regulatory capture anyways.
  - ianleeclark 5y ago
    > They require that anyone who works there has to be a member of the union and if they don't like what's going on the entire union refuses to work and to allow anyone else to work. Good for them.
  - clairity 5y ago
    > "...essentially using regulatory capture." no, it's not even remotely close to regulatory capture[0]. it's closer to cornering a (labor) market, which has nothing to do with the complicity of regulators here. california labor laws aren't being explicitly and specifically written to favor the longshoremen's union--that would be regulatory capture. the main reason labor unions came into being is because companies, as they grew beyond human scale, began exerting highly coercive leverage on labor markets, sometimes via regulatory capture. some unions can sometimes exert political power, but that's not a regulatory capture mechanism, that's just regular politics. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > california labor laws aren't being explicitly and specifically written to favor the longshoremen's union--that would be regulatory capture Yes, they are. There should be different unions representing each port. The law won’t allow that, giving the ILWU a monopoly on legal port labor.
      - clairity 5y ago
        that isn't special to the ilwu, or labor in general. labor can organize as they see fit. that's a constitutionally recognized freedom, not a special privilege (aka regulatory capture).
    - GaryTang 5y ago
      Why doesn’t anyone build a competing port? Is it just too expensive for someone to build? Or are there actual laws prohibiting the creation of another port?
      - briffle 5y ago
        There is really only one more deepwater capable port left that is undeveloped on the west coast of the US. Coos Bay, OR. They are pushing hard to bring in larger ships, but need to dredge the channel to make it deeper and wider for larger ships. That is planned for a few years from now. But this port also only has one rail line, now owned by the port, that connects to Eugene, OR, where the other large railroads are. There is also only 2 lane highways out of town, in the mountain ranges, so really rail is the only way out of the port.
- phillipcarter 5y ago
  Yeah, and I'd also applaud the effort to have wages rise more proportionally to overall productivity gains. The big story of the US is that wages are stagnant but productivity has only gone up over that same time. If they have leverage, they should absolutely use it.
  - pas 5y ago
    Yes and no. Total compensation went up, even discretionary income did too on average, but compared to the rest of the world the "purchasing power" seems to have fallen behind. Especially in certain service sectors (healthcare, education, social services).
toiletfuneral 5y ago
You only here this rhetoric when referring to blue collar and service jobs, which is weird because the most objectively useless, lazy and overpaid people in our economy are landlords & shareholders.
notJim 5y ago
The tremendous scandal here is that the median salary of a union longshoremen is $100k? I'm not sure why this is such a huge problem. Other skilled blue collar work pays in the same ballpark.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- twoodfin 5y ago
  Salary is not total compensation, as most HN readers are likely aware.
  - pas 5y ago
    Do they get serious overtime? Or bonuses? Other perks? Are they being paid in RSUs? :D
    - twoodfin 5y ago
      Yes, they get serious overtime. And guaranteed pensions.
AdamN 5y ago
Median comp of $100k in LA for a skilled job isn't "incredibly overcompensated" to operate the busiest container port in the western hemisphere.
- notsureaboutpg 5y ago
  It's an unskilled job, and yes it is. If you transport goods from a boat to the shore, you make a junior software developer level salary. If you transport goods from a truck to a warehouse, you make $12 an hour
- diebeforei485 5y ago
  Comp != salary, and union jobs tend to have more benefits.
Robotbeat 5y ago
“Overcompensated”? I’m skeptical of unions, but that they tend to increase wages (therefore allowing workers to reap the benefits of productivity improvements) is a GOOD thing. The bad thing is when they reduce efficiency, like go on strike, organize a slowdown, cause friction with management (although this can sometimes be a good thing if what management is doing is counterproductive), or fight automation/technology. I want the wage benefits of unions without the productivity penalty. (This is partly why I’m in favor of minimum wage increases tied to economy-wide productivity and consumer/worker cooperatives.)

mistrial9 5y ago

prior to containerization, there were 100x more jobs in the port system

Robotbeat 5y ago
Were there? Port volume was much smaller. The reduction in port jobs per ton of goods moved must be somewhat compensated by significantly increased volume.

ianleeclark 5y ago

> They are already incredibly overcompensated workers They work incredibly socially necessary jobs and they are able to bargain collectively to increase negotiation power, so they seem to be compensated fairly.

emaginniss 5y ago
Honestly, they are essentially using regulatory capture. They require that anyone who works there has to be a member of the union and if they don't like what's going on the entire union refuses to work and to allow anyone else to work.
- kfprt 5y ago
  Start your own port then. It's not as if there's a shortage of coastline.
  - Rebelgecko 5y ago
    That wouldn't be legal in CA
    - kfprt 5y ago
      How about OR or WA, or even Mexico. You could unload onto trains to cross the boarder.
      - maccolgan 5y ago
        That's what has been happening. California hasn't seen a new port since Port of San Diego in 1962 iirc.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    There are very few places along the Pacific Coast of the US that are reasonable as ports. Puget Sound, the San Francisco Bay, and southern California are pretty much it. Portland is 100 miles from the ocean; only smaller ships can reach it. Astoria and Eureka have terrible connections on the land side. You could think about starting a new port at, say, Santa Monica or San Clemente. It could be done. You'd have to build a breakwater, a bunch of piers, and you'd have to buy a huge amount of land for facilities. How much would it cost to buy, say, 10,000 acres and 20 miles of waterfront in Santa Monica? Yeah, that's why nobody has done it. Expanding San Diego is about the only workable option.
    - kfprt 5y ago
      It was mostly sarcasm. I just don't like the argument that it's regulatory capture because it's fallacious to blame capture when you refuse to compete. This also ignores the fact that there is competition between existing ports. Outlawing unions would just be another form of regulatory capture anyways.
- ianleeclark 5y ago
  > They require that anyone who works there has to be a member of the union and if they don't like what's going on the entire union refuses to work and to allow anyone else to work. Good for them.
- clairity 5y ago
  > "...essentially using regulatory capture." no, it's not even remotely close to regulatory capture[0]. it's closer to cornering a (labor) market, which has nothing to do with the complicity of regulators here. california labor laws aren't being explicitly and specifically written to favor the longshoremen's union--that would be regulatory capture. the main reason labor unions came into being is because companies, as they grew beyond human scale, began exerting highly coercive leverage on labor markets, sometimes via regulatory capture. some unions can sometimes exert political power, but that's not a regulatory capture mechanism, that's just regular politics. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > california labor laws aren't being explicitly and specifically written to favor the longshoremen's union--that would be regulatory capture Yes, they are. There should be different unions representing each port. The law won’t allow that, giving the ILWU a monopoly on legal port labor.
    - clairity 5y ago
      that isn't special to the ilwu, or labor in general. labor can organize as they see fit. that's a constitutionally recognized freedom, not a special privilege (aka regulatory capture).
  - GaryTang 5y ago
    Why doesn’t anyone build a competing port? Is it just too expensive for someone to build? Or are there actual laws prohibiting the creation of another port?
    - briffle 5y ago
      There is really only one more deepwater capable port left that is undeveloped on the west coast of the US. Coos Bay, OR. They are pushing hard to bring in larger ships, but need to dredge the channel to make it deeper and wider for larger ships. That is planned for a few years from now. But this port also only has one rail line, now owned by the port, that connects to Eugene, OR, where the other large railroads are. There is also only 2 lane highways out of town, in the mountain ranges, so really rail is the only way out of the port.
phillipcarter 5y ago
Yeah, and I'd also applaud the effort to have wages rise more proportionally to overall productivity gains. The big story of the US is that wages are stagnant but productivity has only gone up over that same time. If they have leverage, they should absolutely use it.
- pas 5y ago
  Yes and no. Total compensation went up, even discretionary income did too on average, but compared to the rest of the world the "purchasing power" seems to have fallen behind. Especially in certain service sectors (healthcare, education, social services).

toiletfuneral 5y ago

You only here this rhetoric when referring to blue collar and service jobs, which is weird because the most objectively useless, lazy and overpaid people in our economy are landlords & shareholders.

notJim 5y ago

The tremendous scandal here is that the median salary of a union longshoremen is $100k? I'm not sure why this is such a huge problem. Other skilled blue collar work pays in the same ballpark.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
twoodfin 5y ago
Salary is not total compensation, as most HN readers are likely aware.
- pas 5y ago
  Do they get serious overtime? Or bonuses? Other perks? Are they being paid in RSUs? :D
  - twoodfin 5y ago
    Yes, they get serious overtime. And guaranteed pensions.

AdamN 5y ago

Median comp of $100k in LA for a skilled job isn't "incredibly overcompensated" to operate the busiest container port in the western hemisphere.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago
It's an unskilled job, and yes it is. If you transport goods from a boat to the shore, you make a junior software developer level salary. If you transport goods from a truck to a warehouse, you make $12 an hour
diebeforei485 5y ago
Comp != salary, and union jobs tend to have more benefits.

Robotbeat 5y ago

“Overcompensated”? I’m skeptical of unions, but that they tend to increase wages (therefore allowing workers to reap the benefits of productivity improvements) is a GOOD thing. The bad thing is when they reduce efficiency, like go on strike, organize a slowdown, cause friction with management (although this can sometimes be a good thing if what management is doing is counterproductive), or fight automation/technology. I want the wage benefits of unions without the productivity penalty. (This is partly why I’m in favor of minimum wage increases tied to economy-wide productivity and consumer/worker cooperatives.)