6 ms·

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,

by nkurz 2y ago

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.

bankcust08385 2y ago
Put yourself in their shoes before leaping to hand waiving how it would be "better for everyone else." 100% automation of cranes means lost jobs.
- ars 2y ago
  No, it means shifted jobs. There's enormous demand for construction employment right now, they would have no trouble finding other employment. In the entire history of the world automation has never caused employment reduction, only a shift.
  - redserk 2y ago
    This is either disingenuous or ignorant of reality. Yes. Your Econ 101 class may have taught you jobs will shift. Econ 101 does not give you the case study of a 45 year old worker who finds themselves having to restart their career. So yes, across many years a shift in employment happens. To the guy who lost his job and now has to figure out what to do, he risks being unable to find a career anywhere near where he was at. Ideally we would have retraining programs that would meaningfully train and place people into new jobs, but efforts are largely performative.
    - ars 2y ago
      The type of work they were doing translates really well into construction, trucking, and warehouse work. Any retraining is pretty minimal, and all of those fields are desperate for workers. Also, what's your alternative plan? Just freeze all jobs at current level of technology, because we can never make any changes? Most ports in the world are automated - they are literally doing pointless busy work!
      - giantg2 2y ago
        Yeah, and I should be able to get a Go job if I know Python, Java, etc. Not as easy as it looks on paper.
        ars 2y ago
        You absolutely should be able to do that. If you know how to program another language, then a couple weeks of using the new language should get you the point of employment, and a couple months should put you close to where you were with the previous language (other than some of the rare esoteric stuff). And employers know that, and (other than contracting work) they'll usually hire with the expectation of rapid training, and it's not an issue.
        giantg2 2y ago
        "And employers know that" That hasn't been my experience. Most hiring managers I've had interviews with are in a hurry and want people with experience now. Good luck getting the job if you have to do a code screen against people with years of experience with that language.
      - redserk 2y ago
        What is your experience with construction or working on docks to make this assumption? Assuming that because someone may arrive home with some debris and grease does not mean the work is directly transferable.
      - tzs 2y ago
        Automation can be phased in. As existing workers in a given field retire or leave for different work elsewhere automate their positions instead of hiring replacements. Similar when expanding. Fill the new positions with automation.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        > translates really well into construction, trucking, and warehouse work. I agree with you, but I think Amazon has shown how much it values warehouse workers.
  - darth_avocado 2y ago
    No, it means unemployment for a portion of the workers, shifted jobs for some workers and more responsibilities for the rest who get to keep their jobs. And it also means more profits for CEO pay and shareholders, and no net benefits to end consumers.
- refurb 2y ago
  Plenty of furriers lost jobs when we moved to cars. Bloodletters lost jobs when modern medicine was adopted. I’m not sure jobs should be the priority over progress.
  - darth_avocado 2y ago
    We are all going to pretend that the cost savings will transfer to consumers and not CEO pay and shareholder value like it has every single time in recent history?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > like it has every single time in recent history? You believe you have seen no benefits from industrialisation, electrification and digitisation?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > how it would be "better for everyone else." 100% automation of cranes means lost jobs There is a reason it’s faster, simpler and cheaper to ship stuff via air versus ports in cases where it seems to not make sense. (I recently dealt with this in olive oil and glassware.) The idea that we can run inefficient ports so someone can manually pilot a crane without any cost is ridiculous.
  - skhunted 2y ago
    Someday negative externalities will have to be factored into the costs of doing business. Hopefully it will occur before we turn the world into a toxic shithole. Likely not though.
tw04 2y ago
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.
- nkurz 2y ago
  Upvoted because I like and agree with much of your answer, though I'd ask you not to assume my worldview just because I'm asking the question. Growing up, the richest relatives I had were union machinists. I appreciate the role of unions even if I'm not always on their side. I'm asking genuinely because I wonder what the specific pro-dockworker argument is here since I don't know much this particular situation. My worry would be that by making possibly excessive demands that would further benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of the nation, they may accelerate the demise of their positions altogether. I'm not altogether against this (because I do think would benefit the rest of the nation in the medium term) but like you I also worry about the increased chance of societal collapse if inequality keeps increasing. I'd probably prefer the safer choice of two decently paid new jobs for new workers than one soon-to-be-phased out job at a higher rate. I'm asking so I can understand better the opposite preference.
skhunted 2y ago
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.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  What if the workers are opposing automation?
  - zifpanachr23 2y ago
    Workers have a right to oppose automation and strike over it if they so choose.
    - refurb 2y ago
      Sure they have the right. But the bigger question is - is it a net benefit for society to do so?
      - skhunted 2y ago
        Would that we ask if it is a net benefit for society that so much wealth extraction from labor has occurred the last 40 years.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        We shouldn't right wrongs by deliberately capping economic efficiency, especially in sectors that are foundational to the rest of the economy (e.g. maritime trade and energy).
        skhunted 2y ago
        Indeed. And we shouldn’t ask if it is in society’s best interest only when the discussion is about benefits for labor.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 2y ago
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.
- seizethecheese 2y ago
  Automation helps everyone via lower consumer prices. It’s really basic economic theory that capital would not capture all the gains here.
- ahupp 2y ago
  The cost of shipping contributes to the cost of every product we export and import. Treating this as a purely zero-sum transfer between longshoreman and shippers is ignoring all the reasons this is interesting & important. As a hypothetical example, if there was some new method of transport that bypassed ports entirely at 1/10th the cost, would you support an effort to scuttle it to support longshoreman? This same issue played out with the introduction of the shipping container; if history had played out differently and we were still manually packing ships I don't think you'd choose that world over what we have today.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Great comment, and I'm glad you brought this point up so we can deep dive. If you read the book "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger by Marc Levinson," (Chapter 6: Union Disunion) [1] it covers the historical negotiation and agreement between the longshoreman unions and shippers when the shipping container improved efficiencies; they split the gains from the efficiency improvements knowing it was going to reduce the need for labor into the future. If that was on offer today, I would have a different opinion, for sure. I would strongly support Automating All The Things. I think the grand bargain that was previously made when the world standardized on shipping containers was reasonable and fair. But that is not what is on offer. What is on offer is the Robber Barron equivalent of folks attempting to automate as much as possible to the detriment of labor for shareholder and management returns, and because of that, I hold the opinion that I do. With the decline in labor unions and lack of labor regulation in the US for the last several decades (since the Ronald Reagan era, broadly speaking), Capital has ground down Labor, and Labor needs to grind back to make up for lost time and ground [2] [3]. [1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691170817/the-box https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691170817/th... [2] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ [3] https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-growing-employer-power-have-generated-a-productivity-pay-gap-since-1979-productivity-has-grown-3-5-times-as-much-as-pay-for-the-typical-worker/ https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-gro...
rgbrenner 2y ago
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?
- kortilla 2y ago
  To be clear, the question was explicitly asking what makes these port workers special to demand this. If it’s just, “we want more money and have the collective power to hold the port hostage”, that’s fine. It’s just not spelled out anywhere what the justification is
  - dylan604 2y ago
    That's the beauty of being in a union. You don't have to be special to have the job. Having the job is the thing that is special. Scabs are always possible for any job. Even the NFL had scabs.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      This is a foreign concept to tech workers, who have been fed a religion that they are special. Surprise, you’re closer to a blue collar worker than a billionaire. Belief systems are rigid and die hard. You too can organize for better pay and working arrangements collectively. Or, you can live and die by the at will arrangement and how lucky you are wrt comp. But don’t be sour when other people make better choices that empower themselves while you don’t.
      - kortilla 2y ago
        There is zero evidence that forming a tech union would be successful and result in more pay compared to non-union workers. The first thing to go when people unionize is RSU based comp, which makes up 50+% of income for high income tech workers. Forming a union is an antagonistic action against a corporation. You’re literally forming a cartel controlling one of their critical supplies (labor). There better be significant upside to burn that goodwill because all comp changes going forward are going to be shitty tooth and nail negotiations for salary bumps and RSUs will be kept for management only. People at the big tech companies are looking to make life altering money and that comes through RSU accumulation and appreciation. That means being aligned with shareholders, which is the opposite of a union. The only place you might have success drumming up support for unions are mid to low tier tech companies where people make a low 6 figure salary and next to no equity.
NegativeLatency 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity

by nkurz 2y ago

bankcust08385 2y ago

Put yourself in their shoes before leaping to hand waiving how it would be "better for everyone else." 100% automation of cranes means lost jobs.

ars 2y ago
No, it means shifted jobs. There's enormous demand for construction employment right now, they would have no trouble finding other employment. In the entire history of the world automation has never caused employment reduction, only a shift.
- redserk 2y ago
  This is either disingenuous or ignorant of reality. Yes. Your Econ 101 class may have taught you jobs will shift. Econ 101 does not give you the case study of a 45 year old worker who finds themselves having to restart their career. So yes, across many years a shift in employment happens. To the guy who lost his job and now has to figure out what to do, he risks being unable to find a career anywhere near where he was at. Ideally we would have retraining programs that would meaningfully train and place people into new jobs, but efforts are largely performative.
  - ars 2y ago
    The type of work they were doing translates really well into construction, trucking, and warehouse work. Any retraining is pretty minimal, and all of those fields are desperate for workers. Also, what's your alternative plan? Just freeze all jobs at current level of technology, because we can never make any changes? Most ports in the world are automated - they are literally doing pointless busy work!
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Yeah, and I should be able to get a Go job if I know Python, Java, etc. Not as easy as it looks on paper.
      - ars 2y ago
        You absolutely should be able to do that. If you know how to program another language, then a couple weeks of using the new language should get you the point of employment, and a couple months should put you close to where you were with the previous language (other than some of the rare esoteric stuff). And employers know that, and (other than contracting work) they'll usually hire with the expectation of rapid training, and it's not an issue.
        giantg2 2y ago
        "And employers know that" That hasn't been my experience. Most hiring managers I've had interviews with are in a hurry and want people with experience now. Good luck getting the job if you have to do a code screen against people with years of experience with that language.
    - redserk 2y ago
      What is your experience with construction or working on docks to make this assumption? Assuming that because someone may arrive home with some debris and grease does not mean the work is directly transferable.
    - tzs 2y ago
      Automation can be phased in. As existing workers in a given field retire or leave for different work elsewhere automate their positions instead of hiring replacements. Similar when expanding. Fill the new positions with automation.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      > translates really well into construction, trucking, and warehouse work. I agree with you, but I think Amazon has shown how much it values warehouse workers.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  No, it means unemployment for a portion of the workers, shifted jobs for some workers and more responsibilities for the rest who get to keep their jobs. And it also means more profits for CEO pay and shareholders, and no net benefits to end consumers.
refurb 2y ago
Plenty of furriers lost jobs when we moved to cars. Bloodletters lost jobs when modern medicine was adopted. I’m not sure jobs should be the priority over progress.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  We are all going to pretend that the cost savings will transfer to consumers and not CEO pay and shareholder value like it has every single time in recent history?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > like it has every single time in recent history? You believe you have seen no benefits from industrialisation, electrification and digitisation?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> how it would be "better for everyone else." 100% automation of cranes means lost jobs There is a reason it’s faster, simpler and cheaper to ship stuff via air versus ports in cases where it seems to not make sense. (I recently dealt with this in olive oil and glassware.) The idea that we can run inefficient ports so someone can manually pilot a crane without any cost is ridiculous.
- skhunted 2y ago
  Someday negative externalities will have to be factored into the costs of doing business. Hopefully it will occur before we turn the world into a toxic shithole. Likely not though.

tw04 2y ago

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.

nkurz 2y ago
Upvoted because I like and agree with much of your answer, though I'd ask you not to assume my worldview just because I'm asking the question. Growing up, the richest relatives I had were union machinists. I appreciate the role of unions even if I'm not always on their side. I'm asking genuinely because I wonder what the specific pro-dockworker argument is here since I don't know much this particular situation. My worry would be that by making possibly excessive demands that would further benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of the nation, they may accelerate the demise of their positions altogether. I'm not altogether against this (because I do think would benefit the rest of the nation in the medium term) but like you I also worry about the increased chance of societal collapse if inequality keeps increasing. I'd probably prefer the safer choice of two decently paid new jobs for new workers than one soon-to-be-phased out job at a higher rate. I'm asking so I can understand better the opposite preference.

skhunted 2y ago

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.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
What if the workers are opposing automation?
- zifpanachr23 2y ago
  Workers have a right to oppose automation and strike over it if they so choose.
  - refurb 2y ago
    Sure they have the right. But the bigger question is - is it a net benefit for society to do so?
    - skhunted 2y ago
      Would that we ask if it is a net benefit for society that so much wealth extraction from labor has occurred the last 40 years.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        We shouldn't right wrongs by deliberately capping economic efficiency, especially in sectors that are foundational to the rest of the economy (e.g. maritime trade and energy).
        skhunted 2y ago
        Indeed. And we shouldn’t ask if it is in society’s best interest only when the discussion is about benefits for labor.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 2y ago

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.

seizethecheese 2y ago
Automation helps everyone via lower consumer prices. It’s really basic economic theory that capital would not capture all the gains here.
ahupp 2y ago
The cost of shipping contributes to the cost of every product we export and import. Treating this as a purely zero-sum transfer between longshoreman and shippers is ignoring all the reasons this is interesting & important. As a hypothetical example, if there was some new method of transport that bypassed ports entirely at 1/10th the cost, would you support an effort to scuttle it to support longshoreman? This same issue played out with the introduction of the shipping container; if history had played out differently and we were still manually packing ships I don't think you'd choose that world over what we have today.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Great comment, and I'm glad you brought this point up so we can deep dive. If you read the book "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger by Marc Levinson," (Chapter 6: Union Disunion) [1] it covers the historical negotiation and agreement between the longshoreman unions and shippers when the shipping container improved efficiencies; they split the gains from the efficiency improvements knowing it was going to reduce the need for labor into the future. If that was on offer today, I would have a different opinion, for sure. I would strongly support Automating All The Things. I think the grand bargain that was previously made when the world standardized on shipping containers was reasonable and fair. But that is not what is on offer. What is on offer is the Robber Barron equivalent of folks attempting to automate as much as possible to the detriment of labor for shareholder and management returns, and because of that, I hold the opinion that I do. With the decline in labor unions and lack of labor regulation in the US for the last several decades (since the Ronald Reagan era, broadly speaking), Capital has ground down Labor, and Labor needs to grind back to make up for lost time and ground [2] [3]. [1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691170817/the-box https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691170817/th... [2] https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ [3] https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-growing-employer-power-have-generated-a-productivity-pay-gap-since-1979-productivity-has-grown-3-5-times-as-much-as-pay-for-the-typical-worker/ https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-gro...

rgbrenner 2y ago

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?

kortilla 2y ago
To be clear, the question was explicitly asking what makes these port workers special to demand this. If it’s just, “we want more money and have the collective power to hold the port hostage”, that’s fine. It’s just not spelled out anywhere what the justification is
- dylan604 2y ago
  That's the beauty of being in a union. You don't have to be special to have the job. Having the job is the thing that is special. Scabs are always possible for any job. Even the NFL had scabs.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    This is a foreign concept to tech workers, who have been fed a religion that they are special. Surprise, you’re closer to a blue collar worker than a billionaire. Belief systems are rigid and die hard. You too can organize for better pay and working arrangements collectively. Or, you can live and die by the at will arrangement and how lucky you are wrt comp. But don’t be sour when other people make better choices that empower themselves while you don’t.
    - kortilla 2y ago
      There is zero evidence that forming a tech union would be successful and result in more pay compared to non-union workers. The first thing to go when people unionize is RSU based comp, which makes up 50+% of income for high income tech workers. Forming a union is an antagonistic action against a corporation. You’re literally forming a cartel controlling one of their critical supplies (labor). There better be significant upside to burn that goodwill because all comp changes going forward are going to be shitty tooth and nail negotiations for salary bumps and RSUs will be kept for management only. People at the big tech companies are looking to make life altering money and that comes through RSU accumulation and appreciation. That means being aligned with shareholders, which is the opposite of a union. The only place you might have success drumming up support for unions are mid to low tier tech companies where people make a low 6 figure salary and next to no equity.

NegativeLatency 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity