3 ms·

It says it's their first strike since 1977, must have been pretty horrible conditions for them to strike after so long of not having to. Not quite. The union W

It says it's their first strike since 1977, must have been pretty horrible conditions for them to strike after so long of not having to. Not quite. The union WANTS to keep the massive OT schedule because it enables their members to earn $150k+. The union contract has a relatively low base starting wage, limits on automation, and limits on hiring, basically ensuring the existing longshoremen have a high income. I understand that they want to keep their incomes high. And they enable the rest of the economy to function, so they're definitely adding value. And the docks and shipping companies are turning tidy profits right now. But, the limits on automation and low base wages are a major red flag to me. Sure, keep the $150k+ income, but allow automation because we (the rest of the country) need efficient, competitive ports to play in the world economy. Anyways, I don't have a solution. I'm just not thrilled with some of the anti-competitive demands the union is making. I'm all for good pay and benefits (in particular parity with west coast equivalents, who do earn more today), but they seem to be asking for even more than that.

diggan 2y ago
> because we (the rest of the country) need efficient, competitive ports to play in the world economy. Are you saying that the ports are currently not competitive enough to "play in the world economy"? As far as I understand what's happening now, is that they've had agreement with the companies since 2018 about that the company cannot implement new automation without consulting the union (so not a ban on automation, just require a dialogue before implementing anything). The strike is happening because the companies want to relax the language around this, so they can implement whatever automation they want without having to talk to the union about it. So currently the automation is already limited, meaning the ports aren't currently competitive in your mind?
- alistairSH 2y ago
  My understanding is Chinese ports have a much higher level of automation than ours. Whether or not that translates into overall higher efficiency I do not know.
  - diggan 2y ago
    So you go from: > allow automation because we (the rest of the country) need efficient, competitive ports to play in the world economy to: > Chinese ports have a much higher level of automation than ours. Whether or not that translates into overall higher efficiency I do not know. How are you able to make the former argument if you don't actually know it'll help at all?
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      They want a total ban on automation of gates, trucks, and cranes. [1] Gates? Come on, do we really need to pay somebody $150k+ to open/close a gate? The same article implies the west coast ports apparently also have more automation than the east coast ports. And depending on who you believe (the union or a CA professor), the automation didn't hurt man/hours at the ports. 1- https://apnews.com/article/longshoremen-strike-pay-automation-ports-jobs-consumers-3aa66e0a05db25a49645fad404a5f000 https://apnews.com/article/longshoremen-strike-pay-automatio...

diggan 2y ago

> because we (the rest of the country) need efficient, competitive ports to play in the world economy. Are you saying that the ports are currently not competitive enough to "play in the world economy"? As far as I understand what's happening now, is that they've had agreement with the companies since 2018 about that the company cannot implement new automation without consulting the union (so not a ban on automation, just require a dialogue before implementing anything). The strike is happening because the companies want to relax the language around this, so they can implement whatever automation they want without having to talk to the union about it. So currently the automation is already limited, meaning the ports aren't currently competitive in your mind?

alistairSH 2y ago
My understanding is Chinese ports have a much higher level of automation than ours. Whether or not that translates into overall higher efficiency I do not know.
- diggan 2y ago
  So you go from: > allow automation because we (the rest of the country) need efficient, competitive ports to play in the world economy to: > Chinese ports have a much higher level of automation than ours. Whether or not that translates into overall higher efficiency I do not know. How are you able to make the former argument if you don't actually know it'll help at all?
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    They want a total ban on automation of gates, trucks, and cranes. [1] Gates? Come on, do we really need to pay somebody $150k+ to open/close a gate? The same article implies the west coast ports apparently also have more automation than the east coast ports. And depending on who you believe (the union or a CA professor), the automation didn't hurt man/hours at the ports. 1- https://apnews.com/article/longshoremen-strike-pay-automation-ports-jobs-consumers-3aa66e0a05db25a49645fad404a5f000 https://apnews.com/article/longshoremen-strike-pay-automatio...