> what are we really supposed to do here? The obvious, simple, everyone-wins solution is for the ports to offer to continue to pay every worker who gets replac

> what are we really supposed to do here? The obvious, simple, everyone-wins solution is for the ports to offer to continue to pay every worker who gets replaced by automation for some negotiated period of time where they don't have to show up to work and can instead focus entirely on re-skilling or starting their own business or whatever else they want without needing to worry about winding up on the street or going hungry or losing healthcare. The initial double cost for the business is an investment in long term savings. Literally everyone wins in this scenario. Anyone who can't stomach the idea of paying someone to stay home despite the fact that literally everyone would win can enjoy the strike, I guess. > a union's primary responsibility is to protect the jobs of its members This is a common but wrong misunderstanding. The union exists to protect the members, not the jobs. It so happens that losing your job in this country generally means you also lose food, shelter, and medicine. Negotiate to protect the members in good faith and they'll have no need to fight automation. > I'm all for figuring out some way to ease that pain for the people in the transitional period but I don't know who's really responsible for that. If I had my way, the federal government would mandate my policy as a legal requirement when automating away domestic jobs. In the absence of that, if an employer wants to avoid a strike, it's in everyone's best interest to do it my way anyway. Because, and I cannot stress this enough, my way literally everyone wins.