3 ms·
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 inc
by 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 agoWhat if the workers are opposing automation?
- zifpanachr23 2y agoWorkers have a right to oppose automation and strike over it if they so choose.
- refurb 2y agoSure they have the right. But the bigger question is - is it a net benefit for society to do so?
- skhunted 2y agoWould 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 agoWe 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 agoIndeed. And we shouldn’t ask if it is in society’s best interest only when the discussion is about benefits for labor.
- ethbr1 2y agoWe shouldn't. Dockworkers should allow automation, and those jobs that remain should capture a fair share of the increased productivity in increased wages.
- thecrash 2y agoThe difficulty is that owners don't just voluntarily hand out "fair shares" to workers who agree to play nice. The only reason workers get paid at all is because if they stopped getting paid, they would stop working. Once enough automation is introduced, the owners really have no incentive to pay a fair share to anybody whose labor they no longer need. So any promises to "share the wealth" that comes from automation ring hollow.
- ethbr1 2y agoThat is and isn't how things work in reality. Once business adds additional automation, (a) the business made additional investment in the automation, (b) the remaining jobs tend to be higher-skill, (c) (after recouping cost of automation) the business now has better margins and can afford to pay the remaining employees more, (d) because of (b) and (c), they usually do pay their remaining employees more as a way to retain now even more critical labor. Businesses rarely automate the hardest / highest-skill parts of the job first. Why would they? There are lower-hanging fruit.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoI don’t think is true. “Higher skill” is nebulous, but lots of automation quick reduces higher paid positions, such as software that allows people to be more productive or technology that obviates many other devices (smartphones). But the pace of automation is slower for high touch work, such as nursing home work, cleaning, cooking, and other jobs that typically pay the least. Of course, there is a need for very specialized work that could pay more, such R&D in cutting edge computing, medicines, chemistry, etc, but the chances of achieving that level of expertise does not seem realistic for the majority of the population.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Workers have a right to oppose automation and strike over it if they so choose Workers have a right to strike. But there should be room, at the same port, for trying a more-efficient approach. The management of this unionised workforce shouldn’t have a choice. But this union’s members shouldn’t have dictatorial power over our Eastern seaboard’s port infrastructure. (Also, I have the right to demand a personal battleship. Not everything one has the right to do is reasonable.)
- talldayo 2y ago> But there should be room, at the same port, for trying a more-efficient approach. I'll gladly steelman the opposite idea. If you're running a McDonalds and you fire half your employees to replace them with burger-flipping robots, you damn well better expect the cashier to quit or go on strike. People aren't that stupid - they can see the Looney-Tunes ACME anvil suspended over their heads, they know when they have to negotiate themselves off the red painted 'X'. Similarly, I think introducing automation to a historically-human career like longshoring is absolutely an all-or-nothing shtick. You're either displacing your human workers entirely with unpaid alternatives, or you're dealing with the consequences of a partially human workforce. There is no magic compromise, despite what management wants. You either acquiesce or replace them with robo-scabs.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoLongshoring has had numerous technological advancement over centuries that have resulted in fewer workers being needed. Far, far, fewer longshoreman are accomplishing magnitudes more work than longshoremen a few generations ago.
- throwawa14223 2y agoAnd the rest of society has a right to bypass and work around them.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoAnd society has a right to ignore people who want to make it worse.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> What if the workers are opposing automation? The union is demanding “a total ban on the automation of cranes, gates and moving containers in the loading and unloading of freight” [1]. That said! They are negotiating. This is their opening ask. If they stick to it, fuck them. But maybe they can permit modernisation alongside a pay raise. [1] https://apnews.com/article/longshoremen-strike-ports-pay-consumers-automation-october-77289c12bf3c3eff5e42cb6372126576 https://apnews.com/article/longshoremen-strike-ports-pay-con...
- seizethecheese 2y agoI just looked up FRED data on productivity and total compensation (including benefits) and they look roughly in line. Actually, compensation seems to have gone up faster. To be honest, this comment reads like a political campaign statement, and I’d like less of this on Hacker News.
- whatever1 2y agoCan you share the links because from what I see the federal minimum wage is stagnant for decades.
- seizethecheese 2y agoSearch FRED employment cost index. The federal minimum wage is irrelevant. Something like one percent of workers make federal minimum wage. It’s a good political talking point though…
- skhunted 2y agoYes, let’s ignore the million plus workers getting minimum wage. A wage that hasn’t increased in a very long time. It’s not a political talking point; it’s a moral talking point.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the million plus workers getting minimum wage Neither of you have a point. Median wages have lagged productivity growth. But most Americans don’t earn the minimum wage.
- skhunted 2y agoWe should ignore that a million plus people are working for minimum wage. They don’t count. I agree with you. It’s better to say that the statistics aren’t changed much by increasing the federal minimum wage as it pertains to the productivity/pay gap. But one should acknowledge that for those making minimum wage it is a disgrace that it hasn’t increased for a long time and that it is far too low. Those people do matter. This isn’t just a discussion about statistics. There is a human element to the issue and morality is part of what one ought to consider when thinking about the issue. EDIT: I edited my comment while you were responding. The discussion in the present thread is not about the dockworkers. It’s about the pay/productivity gap in the U.S. In that discussion a person said that minimum wage workers were irrelevant and that the minimum wage was just a political talking point.