They make this much by working significant overtime [1]: > That top-tier hourly wage of $39 amounts to just over $81,000 annually, but dockworkers can make sig

They make this much by working significant overtime [1]: > That top-tier hourly wage of $39 amounts to just over $81,000 annually, but dockworkers can make significantly more by taking on extra shifts. For example, according to a 2019-20 annual report from the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, about one-third of local longshoremen made $200,000 or more a year. > A more typical longshoreman's salary can exceed $100,000, but not without logging substantial overtime hours. Daggett, the ILA president, maintains that these higher earners work up to 100 hours a week. Working 100 hours a week to get to this level of salary hardly seems excessive to me. The real question is why is this necessary? are the ports not hiring enough people? Is the union blocking hiring to protect overtime? I don't know. But I'd like to see someone only needing to work ~40 hours a week to live comfortably and, given that the above is from the New York ports, one of the more expensive areas to live, that currently doesn't seem to be the case. > His claims that Trump will be good for the union fly in the face of all we know about Trump and the people he places in cabinet level positions. I agree. It's similar with the Teamsters president, Sean O'Brien. Politically, these union workers tend to be pretty split politically and that's really the Democrats' fault for abandoning organized labor. It's worth noting that the leadership is accountable to the members. The union president is elected. But regardless of their political leanings, I want them to get paid a living wage. I also have no problem with them, or anyone, exerting political pressure in an election. That's what elections are for. [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-do-dock-workers-make-longshoreman-salary/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-do-dock-workers-make-l...