5 ms·

Port strikes end with deal on wages

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
xnx 2y ago
Is there any route to automating America's ports? Could it work out in negotiations to give massive payoffs to current workers in exchange for allowing future automation?
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  Maybe I'm understanding this wrong, but you're asking why dockworkers don't cash out and pull the ladder up behind them?
  - xnx 2y ago
    That is my question. People do it all the time in all kinds of situations, why not here too?
    - underseacables 2y ago
      Because dockworkers have a union that can use its size and influence to slow down the shift to automation. For them its job protection which is more important for them than increasing efficiency, lowering costs etc for the shipping companies etc.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        >For them its job protection which is more important for them than increasing efficiency, lowering costs etc for the shipping companies etc. Sure, but that isn't the question they were asking. They weren't appealing to the workers sense of efficiency. They simply asked if they can be paid off.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    I feel for dock workers, but the bulk of their job is one that is going to be replaced by automation. The industry as a whole should work on reskilling and encouraging early retirement and such for the existing workers.
    - shortrounddev2 2y ago
      Reskilling is not in their best interest. These people are paid enormous amounts of money because employment is so strictly controlled by their cartel. Reskilling would mean taking a paycut of $100,000+. The only way to buy these people out is to set them up for life
      - Suppafly 2y ago
        >Reskilling is not in their best interest. Only because they think their job will still be around. You can only prop up an industry with inefficient fake jobs for so long, and dock workers are getting near the end of that cycle. >The only way to buy these people out is to set them up for life Or just let them fail when their job is eliminated. Having some plan to step down the number of employees gradually through buy-outs, retirement, and reskilling, is the better option.
        shortrounddev2 2y ago
        Yeah the best solution is to automate the docks, but these unions are very politically powerful, which is why their jobs still exist in the first place. It's also a bad look for a democratic president to bust unions so if Kamala wins then I think these guys are safe for another 4 years. I don't think their strategy is sustainable, but I don't think it will be very simple to get rid of them
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Isn't the proposal under discussion exactly that, set them up for life and make it in their interest?
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
  - nothercastle 2y ago
    They probably could you would have to bribe both workers and leaders and probably something like 50-100k
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  > Could it work out in negotiations to give massive payoffs to current workers in exchange for allowing future automation? Absolutely it could. The real obstacle is a pervasive Calvinist workism that rejects paying people to stay home (essentially severance pay) even when it would be better for everyone. The ports could easily make this offer, and the offer would easily be accepted by the union at some threshold of payout. The ports just don't make the offer.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Pretty much. It's not enough to be more productive. There's still a "butt in seat mentality", and corporate cannot imagine paying someone who's no longer working for them. And given the US's pathetic string we call a safety net, the businesses need to foot that bill if they really care about efficiency and long term benefits. But it's never truly about "advancement" for these people. It's control.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think that is a reasonable direction to explore. Another one would be long term job security for current individuals, but unrestricted headcount. While I think progress is important, I dont think we should repeat what we saw with NAFTA or heavy industry. It simply isnt realistic to expect every 50 year old dock worker to be able and willing to retrain and retool as a software engineer (not that that is a particularly good option right now). I think a reasonable compromise between the unions and ports could be found where they essentially freeze hiring and allow headcount to dwindle as folks age out. perhaps some internal retraining would be possible as well so that people aren't just sitting on their hands.
- rasz 2y ago
  The way things are going it might be easier and cheaper to build brand new west coast automated port and outcompete incumbents to the ground.
rangestransform 2y ago
It’s a temporary deal, hopefully the automation ban will not survive in the final negotiations, I can’t wait for all the robotics jobs that will be created
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Can't make more robotics jobs at the port than there were operators, after all, it is a cost savings endeavor.
  - rangestransform 2y ago
    well the thing is i'm a robotics guy and not a longshoreman :)
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Ha, fair!
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >hopefully the automation ban will not survive in the final negotiations, I hope they can compromise a proper retraining/pension plan. I'm normally fine with automation, but we've seen for a few decades now that companies just use it as an excuse to reduce labor costs while leaving people on the streets to fend for themselves. And the savings never pass to the consumer. Who's winning here? If they won't budge on that, then clearly the intentions here are not efficiency. Pay your labor.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

xnx 2y ago

Is there any route to automating America's ports? Could it work out in negotiations to give massive payoffs to current workers in exchange for allowing future automation?

kelseyfrog 2y ago
Maybe I'm understanding this wrong, but you're asking why dockworkers don't cash out and pull the ladder up behind them?
- xnx 2y ago
  That is my question. People do it all the time in all kinds of situations, why not here too?
  - underseacables 2y ago
    Because dockworkers have a union that can use its size and influence to slow down the shift to automation. For them its job protection which is more important for them than increasing efficiency, lowering costs etc for the shipping companies etc.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      >For them its job protection which is more important for them than increasing efficiency, lowering costs etc for the shipping companies etc. Sure, but that isn't the question they were asking. They weren't appealing to the workers sense of efficiency. They simply asked if they can be paid off.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  I feel for dock workers, but the bulk of their job is one that is going to be replaced by automation. The industry as a whole should work on reskilling and encouraging early retirement and such for the existing workers.
  - shortrounddev2 2y ago
    Reskilling is not in their best interest. These people are paid enormous amounts of money because employment is so strictly controlled by their cartel. Reskilling would mean taking a paycut of $100,000+. The only way to buy these people out is to set them up for life
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      >Reskilling is not in their best interest. Only because they think their job will still be around. You can only prop up an industry with inefficient fake jobs for so long, and dock workers are getting near the end of that cycle. >The only way to buy these people out is to set them up for life Or just let them fail when their job is eliminated. Having some plan to step down the number of employees gradually through buy-outs, retirement, and reskilling, is the better option.
      - shortrounddev2 2y ago
        Yeah the best solution is to automate the docks, but these unions are very politically powerful, which is why their jobs still exist in the first place. It's also a bad look for a democratic president to bust unions so if Kamala wins then I think these guys are safe for another 4 years. I don't think their strategy is sustainable, but I don't think it will be very simple to get rid of them
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Isn't the proposal under discussion exactly that, set them up for life and make it in their interest?
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
- nothercastle 2y ago
  They probably could you would have to bribe both workers and leaders and probably something like 50-100k
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> Could it work out in negotiations to give massive payoffs to current workers in exchange for allowing future automation? Absolutely it could. The real obstacle is a pervasive Calvinist workism that rejects paying people to stay home (essentially severance pay) even when it would be better for everyone. The ports could easily make this offer, and the offer would easily be accepted by the union at some threshold of payout. The ports just don't make the offer.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Pretty much. It's not enough to be more productive. There's still a "butt in seat mentality", and corporate cannot imagine paying someone who's no longer working for them. And given the US's pathetic string we call a safety net, the businesses need to foot that bill if they really care about efficiency and long term benefits. But it's never truly about "advancement" for these people. It's control.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think that is a reasonable direction to explore. Another one would be long term job security for current individuals, but unrestricted headcount. While I think progress is important, I dont think we should repeat what we saw with NAFTA or heavy industry. It simply isnt realistic to expect every 50 year old dock worker to be able and willing to retrain and retool as a software engineer (not that that is a particularly good option right now). I think a reasonable compromise between the unions and ports could be found where they essentially freeze hiring and allow headcount to dwindle as folks age out. perhaps some internal retraining would be possible as well so that people aren't just sitting on their hands.
rasz 2y ago
The way things are going it might be easier and cheaper to build brand new west coast automated port and outcompete incumbents to the ground.

rangestransform 2y ago

It’s a temporary deal, hopefully the automation ban will not survive in the final negotiations, I can’t wait for all the robotics jobs that will be created

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Can't make more robotics jobs at the port than there were operators, after all, it is a cost savings endeavor.
- rangestransform 2y ago
  well the thing is i'm a robotics guy and not a longshoreman :)
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Ha, fair!
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>hopefully the automation ban will not survive in the final negotiations, I hope they can compromise a proper retraining/pension plan. I'm normally fine with automation, but we've seen for a few decades now that companies just use it as an excuse to reduce labor costs while leaving people on the streets to fend for themselves. And the savings never pass to the consumer. Who's winning here? If they won't budge on that, then clearly the intentions here are not efficiency. Pay your labor.