I wouldn't expect any better given the source, but this is complete nonsense... what is the logic here? If per-worker productivity increases, there are 3 optio

I wouldn't expect any better given the source, but this is complete nonsense... what is the logic here? If per-worker productivity increases, there are 3 options: 1) output increases; 2) under pretty much any labor rights some workers are going to lose jobs; 3) some former workers have to be maintained for free. Is this supposed "labor" movement advocating for (3)? Because they are clearly against (2), seeing how they destroy the machines, and they are not considering (1) seeing how they don't plan to just get jobs working on the machines and not trying to compete with machines/go to other industries. If it's (3) it's at best a "now-useless labor" movement. It's like throwing a tantrum because back in the days your parents gave you some cash to clean your room but at present that no longer obtains.