3 ms·

Workers have a right to oppose automation and strike over it if they so choose.

by zifpanachr23 2y ago

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.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        We 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        That 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 ago
        I 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.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        You're looking at it in terms of capability, instead of ROI. CFO/COOs typically aren't investing in the highest-capability automation, because that's the most capital-expensive automation. It's far cheaper and easier to buy another crane or loader, driven by a person, than a fully autonomous system. So given the two options, they'll usually pick the former (because it has quicker ROI). There are some exceptions, if a large proportion of the work is high-skilled, e.g. pharmacy, but with dockworkers we're probably talking about the lowest-skilled jobs being eliminated first.
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 ago
    Longshoring 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 ago
And the rest of society has a right to bypass and work around them.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
And society has a right to ignore people who want to make it worse.

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.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      We 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        That 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 ago
        I 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.
        ethbr1 2y ago
        You're looking at it in terms of capability, instead of ROI. CFO/COOs typically aren't investing in the highest-capability automation, because that's the most capital-expensive automation. It's far cheaper and easier to buy another crane or loader, driven by a person, than a fully autonomous system. So given the two options, they'll usually pick the former (because it has quicker ROI). There are some exceptions, if a large proportion of the work is high-skilled, e.g. pharmacy, but with dockworkers we're probably talking about the lowest-skilled jobs being eliminated first.

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 ago
  Longshoring 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 ago

And the rest of society has a right to bypass and work around them.

HDThoreaun 2y ago

And society has a right to ignore people who want to make it worse.