4 ms·

> They are already incredibly overcompensated workers They work incredibly socially necessary jobs and they are able to bargain collectively to increase negoti

> 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.
    - Retric 5y ago
      There’s plenty of options. Southern CA is actually a longer trip from China than Seattle Washington so basically any west coast port can be expanded. It’s really the infrastructure outside the port that makes Southern California ports appealing.
- 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).

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.
  - Retric 5y ago
    There’s plenty of options. Southern CA is actually a longer trip from China than Seattle Washington so basically any west coast port can be expanded. It’s really the infrastructure outside the port that makes Southern California ports appealing.
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).