7 ms·

They are in the position to hold critical infrastructure hostage, via a government mandated monopoly on labor. The ports can't just reject the union offer and e

They are in the position to hold critical infrastructure hostage, via a government mandated monopoly on labor. The ports can't just reject the union offer and employ non-union workers. Laws mandate that the ports can only hire union labor. The Union can, if it so desires, shut down most East coast ports until it gets its demands. They're not power drunk, they genuinely have the power to cause massive economic damage. Imagine halfway through a kitchen remodel, your contractor stops working and demands 70% more than the initial quote. But not only that, the government prohibits you from hiring a different contractor at market rates and forces you to negotiate with the original contractor. That's what union negotiations are like.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
That's a weird metaphor considering the situation here was that a contract expired and they had months to negotiate. It's more like if you were in the middle of reworking your kitchen and while that was happening you were talking about doing the bedroom next for a cheaper cost. They said no but you thought you could get a bulk deal. Now add that to a bigger time scale and mass inflation happened between the batrhoom and he bedroom. They have to charge more just to keep buying power.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  The analogue to the kitchen remodel is that critical infrastructure is held hostage. Ports are prohibited, by law, from hiring non union port workers if they find the union's demands too onerous. This gives the union incredible leverage to harm the rest of society if their demands are not met.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    I see that as a good thing, given that we're on the receiving end of when companies can drop any employee on a dime with no explanation. If it's that critical, give the older workers their pension early and let them enjoy their life. And the younger workers should he retrained to work with the automation. But we know that's never what happens when work gets more efficient. So it's not just about "advancement" for the ports. The fact that those things were never even on the table speaks for itself. ---- Alternatively, congress can always repeal the law and break whatever contracts they have. Surely their own dysfunction wouldn't bite them in the butt when it's in the government interest, right?
    - gruez 2y ago
      >I see that as a good thing, given that we're on the receiving end of when companies can drop any employee on a dime with no explanation. Companies aren't a monolith, and dock worker unions screwing over port companies isn't magically going to make all other workers better off. If anything the supply chain disruptions resulting from a strike and costs (as a result of lack of automation) is going to make their lives worse through higher inflation. >If it's that critical, give the older workers their pension early and let them enjoy their life. If your business is that critical, just pay the mafia protection money so they can enjoy their life!
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >and dock worker unions screwing over port companies isn't magically going to make all other workers better off. no, it won't fix everywhere else overnight. But it'll remind other companies of what happens if they go too far (hence why they spend so much on union busting/prevention). Or show that unions can indeed work to the workers who think it's hopeless. >If anything the supply chain disruptions resulting from a strike and costs (as a result of lack of automation) is going to make their lives worse through higher inflation. And the current status quo is so much better as our buying power decreases slowly and goes to businesses? If companies are so greedy they'd rather crash the economy than pay workers fairly, so be it. I'll clarify here that unionization is the best of the worst options. If the government properly kept housing costs down and minimum wage reasonable, and made it so companies can't just layoff because it's in fashion, we wouldn't need to collectively bargain just to survive and pay rent. But I'm open to other alernatives for this that's not "just lie down and hope things get better". Been hoping for decades. >If your business is that critical, just pay the mafia protection money so they can enjoy their life! I guess the Pinkertons had connections to the mafia. Gets harder to just kill people overnight in this interconnected era though. The Boeing stuff shows that old style mafia scheme is outdated and just makes your case worse.
        Manuel_D 2y ago
        > But it'll remind other companies of what happens if they go too far (hence why they spend so much on union busting/prevention). How did the ports "go too far"? They agreed to 50% raises over 6 years. That's still well above inflation. Laid off dock workers still get paid via container royalties. In fact, about half of the ILA isn't even working, they're being paid to do nothing by mere virte of the fact that they used to be longshoremen. Even if the get another job. Increased shipping costs are a regressive tax: when the price of toilet paper goes up, proportionally the poor pay more because billionaires crap as much as paupers. Longshoremen already make well above average wages. They jealously guard union membership, a past lawsuit revealed that 50% of new union members had family ties to existing members, despite 20,000 people applying to just 350 positions. There is absolutely nothing progressive about this strike: their demands are to make the US economy less competitive, and to increase costs for the many to further enrich a privileged few.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- philwelch 2y ago
  You’re glossing over the most important part of the metaphor, which is the part where you’re not allowed to hire a different contractor.
mistermann 2y ago
Imagine how people would react if their operating system was so hilariously incapable of managing its responsibilities. But when it comes to the management of the majority of our lives (the system we conduct our lives within, and according to), right thinking people insist on mediocrity. There are many paradoxes like this in the world, but for some reason it is not possible to get minds to focus on them. I wonder what the underlying cause of this is...perhaps there is a causal relationship between the two phenomena in this case?
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Imagine how people would react if their operating system was so hilariously incapable of managing its responsibilities. Are you forgetting decades of Windows blue screens? It took Windows ages to become somewhat reliable, and when it finally did, they added a bunch of advertisements to it. Yet, in all that time of enduring BSODs, most people happily stuck with it instead of exploring alternatives that were proven to be far more reliable.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    For desktops users, there were other appeals for windows. A solid productivity suite, gaming support, and easier user experience But the important part is that they had the choice of exploring other alternatives. Unlike ports, which have to deal with union workers and have no alternative labor options.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >For desktops users, there were other appeals for windows. A solid productivity suite, gaming support, and easier user experience Really? In 1995-98? I'm pretty sure OS/2 offered a better experience for most things at the time, except gaming. And I don't think MS Office existed at the time; WordPerfect was pretty strong still, as was Lotus.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    All things considered they were not necessarily superior for the tasks at hand. The part I'm interested in is that most people aren't averse to discussing improvements and alternatives, for these kinds of operating systems...but others are different.
bumby 2y ago
That take is predicated on the assumption that the govt will always side with the union. Ask ATCs from the 1980s who the govt tends to side with when it comes to critical infrastructure.
- tacticalturtle 2y ago
  The difference there was that PATCO was a union for government air traffic controllers. Every government employee swears an oath not to strike against the federal government: https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdfimage/sf61.pdf https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdfimage/sf61.pdf There were existing laws on the books to remove the striking ATCs. That’s not the case with the ILA. The most they can do is block strikes for 80 days.
  - bumby 2y ago
    >The difference there was that PATCO was a union for government air traffic controllers. The Taft-Hartley Act already made it illegal for public sector unions to strike (later replaced by a similar law, the same law from which the SF-61 oath is derived). That same act allows the President to suspend private union strikes, so I don't think there is a fundamental difference. It's been used 37 times since passage. There's even precedent in this specific area: President GW Bush use the Taft-Hartley Act in 2002 for a port dispute. >The most they can do is block strikes for 80 days The 80 days is part of the "cooling off" period: 60 initial negotiation days + 15 days of secret voting + 5 days of certification. While the President and courts can't stop a strike after a legal cooling off period, Congress may still have the power to do so. Congress has been given Constitutional authority to intervene is labor disputes that affect inter-state commerce (see the arguments around the recent rail labor dispute). "They" (as in the entire govt) still have cards to play after the cooling off period ends. Given the historical and legal context, I don't think the OPs assumption that govt is inherently pro-union holds.
    - tacticalturtle 2y ago
      You’re right that Congress has the ability to pass new directives that could stop a private strike. My original comment was assuming that Congress in its current state would be unable to pass such legislation.
unethical_ban 2y ago
Ah yes, applying household analogues to national government issues. How about this: imagine you're a multi-billion dollar per annum organization openly researching how to put tens of thousands of your core workforce out of a career, and they ask for more money to protect their families and livelihood. And the government forces you to negotiate.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Even if they're put out of a career, they'll still be receiving container royalty payments until retirement (even if they get another job). More expensive shipping is a regressive tax: any product requiring shipping becomes more expensive. Dock workers are quite literally demanding worsening income inequality: they make well above average wages, and the cost of their demands would be borne by the public at large who on average make less than dock workers.
- Dracophoenix 2y ago
  Look no further than the automobile industry!

johnnyanmac 2y ago

That's a weird metaphor considering the situation here was that a contract expired and they had months to negotiate. It's more like if you were in the middle of reworking your kitchen and while that was happening you were talking about doing the bedroom next for a cheaper cost. They said no but you thought you could get a bulk deal. Now add that to a bigger time scale and mass inflation happened between the batrhoom and he bedroom. They have to charge more just to keep buying power.

Manuel_D 2y ago
The analogue to the kitchen remodel is that critical infrastructure is held hostage. Ports are prohibited, by law, from hiring non union port workers if they find the union's demands too onerous. This gives the union incredible leverage to harm the rest of society if their demands are not met.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I see that as a good thing, given that we're on the receiving end of when companies can drop any employee on a dime with no explanation. If it's that critical, give the older workers their pension early and let them enjoy their life. And the younger workers should he retrained to work with the automation. But we know that's never what happens when work gets more efficient. So it's not just about "advancement" for the ports. The fact that those things were never even on the table speaks for itself. ---- Alternatively, congress can always repeal the law and break whatever contracts they have. Surely their own dysfunction wouldn't bite them in the butt when it's in the government interest, right?
  - gruez 2y ago
    >I see that as a good thing, given that we're on the receiving end of when companies can drop any employee on a dime with no explanation. Companies aren't a monolith, and dock worker unions screwing over port companies isn't magically going to make all other workers better off. If anything the supply chain disruptions resulting from a strike and costs (as a result of lack of automation) is going to make their lives worse through higher inflation. >If it's that critical, give the older workers their pension early and let them enjoy their life. If your business is that critical, just pay the mafia protection money so they can enjoy their life!
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >and dock worker unions screwing over port companies isn't magically going to make all other workers better off. no, it won't fix everywhere else overnight. But it'll remind other companies of what happens if they go too far (hence why they spend so much on union busting/prevention). Or show that unions can indeed work to the workers who think it's hopeless. >If anything the supply chain disruptions resulting from a strike and costs (as a result of lack of automation) is going to make their lives worse through higher inflation. And the current status quo is so much better as our buying power decreases slowly and goes to businesses? If companies are so greedy they'd rather crash the economy than pay workers fairly, so be it. I'll clarify here that unionization is the best of the worst options. If the government properly kept housing costs down and minimum wage reasonable, and made it so companies can't just layoff because it's in fashion, we wouldn't need to collectively bargain just to survive and pay rent. But I'm open to other alernatives for this that's not "just lie down and hope things get better". Been hoping for decades. >If your business is that critical, just pay the mafia protection money so they can enjoy their life! I guess the Pinkertons had connections to the mafia. Gets harder to just kill people overnight in this interconnected era though. The Boeing stuff shows that old style mafia scheme is outdated and just makes your case worse.
      - Manuel_D 2y ago
        > But it'll remind other companies of what happens if they go too far (hence why they spend so much on union busting/prevention). How did the ports "go too far"? They agreed to 50% raises over 6 years. That's still well above inflation. Laid off dock workers still get paid via container royalties. In fact, about half of the ILA isn't even working, they're being paid to do nothing by mere virte of the fact that they used to be longshoremen. Even if the get another job. Increased shipping costs are a regressive tax: when the price of toilet paper goes up, proportionally the poor pay more because billionaires crap as much as paupers. Longshoremen already make well above average wages. They jealously guard union membership, a past lawsuit revealed that 50% of new union members had family ties to existing members, despite 20,000 people applying to just 350 positions. There is absolutely nothing progressive about this strike: their demands are to make the US economy less competitive, and to increase costs for the many to further enrich a privileged few.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
philwelch 2y ago
You’re glossing over the most important part of the metaphor, which is the part where you’re not allowed to hire a different contractor.

mistermann 2y ago

Imagine how people would react if their operating system was so hilariously incapable of managing its responsibilities. But when it comes to the management of the majority of our lives (the system we conduct our lives within, and according to), right thinking people insist on mediocrity. There are many paradoxes like this in the world, but for some reason it is not possible to get minds to focus on them. I wonder what the underlying cause of this is...perhaps there is a causal relationship between the two phenomena in this case?

shiroiushi 2y ago
>Imagine how people would react if their operating system was so hilariously incapable of managing its responsibilities. Are you forgetting decades of Windows blue screens? It took Windows ages to become somewhat reliable, and when it finally did, they added a bunch of advertisements to it. Yet, in all that time of enduring BSODs, most people happily stuck with it instead of exploring alternatives that were proven to be far more reliable.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  For desktops users, there were other appeals for windows. A solid productivity suite, gaming support, and easier user experience But the important part is that they had the choice of exploring other alternatives. Unlike ports, which have to deal with union workers and have no alternative labor options.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >For desktops users, there were other appeals for windows. A solid productivity suite, gaming support, and easier user experience Really? In 1995-98? I'm pretty sure OS/2 offered a better experience for most things at the time, except gaming. And I don't think MS Office existed at the time; WordPerfect was pretty strong still, as was Lotus.
- mistermann 2y ago
  All things considered they were not necessarily superior for the tasks at hand. The part I'm interested in is that most people aren't averse to discussing improvements and alternatives, for these kinds of operating systems...but others are different.

bumby 2y ago

That take is predicated on the assumption that the govt will always side with the union. Ask ATCs from the 1980s who the govt tends to side with when it comes to critical infrastructure.

tacticalturtle 2y ago
The difference there was that PATCO was a union for government air traffic controllers. Every government employee swears an oath not to strike against the federal government: https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdfimage/sf61.pdf https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdfimage/sf61.pdf There were existing laws on the books to remove the striking ATCs. That’s not the case with the ILA. The most they can do is block strikes for 80 days.
- bumby 2y ago
  >The difference there was that PATCO was a union for government air traffic controllers. The Taft-Hartley Act already made it illegal for public sector unions to strike (later replaced by a similar law, the same law from which the SF-61 oath is derived). That same act allows the President to suspend private union strikes, so I don't think there is a fundamental difference. It's been used 37 times since passage. There's even precedent in this specific area: President GW Bush use the Taft-Hartley Act in 2002 for a port dispute. >The most they can do is block strikes for 80 days The 80 days is part of the "cooling off" period: 60 initial negotiation days + 15 days of secret voting + 5 days of certification. While the President and courts can't stop a strike after a legal cooling off period, Congress may still have the power to do so. Congress has been given Constitutional authority to intervene is labor disputes that affect inter-state commerce (see the arguments around the recent rail labor dispute). "They" (as in the entire govt) still have cards to play after the cooling off period ends. Given the historical and legal context, I don't think the OPs assumption that govt is inherently pro-union holds.
  - tacticalturtle 2y ago
    You’re right that Congress has the ability to pass new directives that could stop a private strike. My original comment was assuming that Congress in its current state would be unable to pass such legislation.

unethical_ban 2y ago

Ah yes, applying household analogues to national government issues. How about this: imagine you're a multi-billion dollar per annum organization openly researching how to put tens of thousands of your core workforce out of a career, and they ask for more money to protect their families and livelihood. And the government forces you to negotiate.

Manuel_D 2y ago
Even if they're put out of a career, they'll still be receiving container royalty payments until retirement (even if they get another job). More expensive shipping is a regressive tax: any product requiring shipping becomes more expensive. Dock workers are quite literally demanding worsening income inequality: they make well above average wages, and the cost of their demands would be borne by the public at large who on average make less than dock workers.
Dracophoenix 2y ago
Look no further than the automobile industry!