4 ms·

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 fi

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.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >How did the ports "go too far"? They agreed to 50% raises over 6 years. That's still well above inflation. I think you can look up all the stipulations dock workers had to put up with, especially over the pandemic. But just to keep it to this question: we had inflation a lot crazier than 7% or so they initially offered. And given historical ways they use "automation" I would want better contracts highlighting what they do with workers when automation is stationed in. The whole bust of "okay we don't need you get out." is already way over the line of what EU and Asia would do. Especially for pensioned workers. >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. Yeah, sounds like a pension by another name of "royalties". I'm sure the first thing to automate out is whatever they define "container royalties" as. Even if it is indeed less efficient. There's probably issues to address, but my general theme is that companies (including the government) will always keep trying to take from workers. If that means higher taxes, then whatever. They'd make up any other reason for tax hikes anyway.
        gruez 2y ago
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  If the unions really did shut down ports, I would be completely in favor of changing laws to allow non-union employees to work critical infrastructure. Critical infrastructure like ports, power plants, and sewage should not be allowed to be held hostage to further enrich - at the expense of the public - a group that already makes well above average wages.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    I wouldn't, pay your labor. And if you only read that one report that says how a third of workers make 200k+, you should read their hours and actual hourly pay. That overtime pay is probably also in their contracts. And if you would rather push overtime pay than hire more docks men, you reap what you sow.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      Their hourly pay is misleading, because of overtime and container royalties. > And if you would rather push overtime pay than hire more docks men, you reap what you sow. The ports would absolutely love to hire more workers. It's the union that tightly controls membership, to rake in that lucrative overtime.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >Their hourly pay is misleading, because of overtime and container royalties. Overtime isn't a good thing to rely on. Especially blue collar work where your phyaical body is being whittled away. And yes, I wish we had more royalties for jobs. Everyone would jump on AI overnight if we got a kickback. >The ports would absolutely love to hire more workers. It's the union that tightly controls membership, to rake in that lucrative overtime. Seems backwards that people would want to work 14+ hours a day to make more money. What's money without a life to live? At least CEOs can vacation at their leisure. Blue collar overtime is just draining your life.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  They just don’t need to hire people, isn’t automation a loophole, especially when it’s more efficient even if the labor could be done manually by lower cost workers (why Chinese ports are automating). I don’t see any easy way out of this, and it will just get worse as the automation gets cheaper and more efficient. > If it's that critical, give the older workers their pension early and let them enjoy their life. We expect ports to be run like efficient businesses, who pays for that? Consumers I guess via increased shipping fees. Isn’t that just stealing from Peter to pay Paul?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >I don’t see any easy way out of this, and it will just get worse as the automation gets cheaper and more efficient. I see many "easy" ways out of it. None that would satisfy the USMX. Because their primary goal isn't efficiency of process but of costs. So I guess I agree. >We expect ports to be run like efficient businesses, who pays for that? Consumers I guess via increased shipping fees. Isn’t that just stealing from Peter to pay Paul? Sure. But the ILA didn't make that cost increase directly. The USMX decides instead to pass the costs to the people. Because they'd rather do that than simply pay their way into automation that satisfies the port workers.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Where does the money come from if it doesn’t come from the people who get things from the ports? I guess you could magic away investor money and profit, but that in the long term just leads to less investment in ports and higher costs anyways. You can go about it anyway you want, but we all pay in the end for these contracts, the money doesn’t come from some magic source, in the long run inefficiency and higher costs get passed on one way or the other.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >Where does the money come from if it doesn’t come from the people who get things from the ports? In addition to fees from traders: our tax dollars? The USMX isn't some fully private company, it's a mixture of government funding and various private contractors. As long as the US needs ports they will budget for it. >but we all pay in the end for these contracts, the money doesn’t come from some magic source, in the long run inefficiency and higher costs get passed on one way or the other. Yes, to us. Becsuse the USMX isn't in risk of going out of business. They have little skin in the game. So we lose either way. If I'm gonna lose I may as well make sure others get something out of it.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

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.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >How did the ports "go too far"? They agreed to 50% raises over 6 years. That's still well above inflation. I think you can look up all the stipulations dock workers had to put up with, especially over the pandemic. But just to keep it to this question: we had inflation a lot crazier than 7% or so they initially offered. And given historical ways they use "automation" I would want better contracts highlighting what they do with workers when automation is stationed in. The whole bust of "okay we don't need you get out." is already way over the line of what EU and Asia would do. Especially for pensioned workers. >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. Yeah, sounds like a pension by another name of "royalties". I'm sure the first thing to automate out is whatever they define "container royalties" as. Even if it is indeed less efficient. There's probably issues to address, but my general theme is that companies (including the government) will always keep trying to take from workers. If that means higher taxes, then whatever. They'd make up any other reason for tax hikes anyway.
      - gruez 2y ago
Manuel_D 2y ago
If the unions really did shut down ports, I would be completely in favor of changing laws to allow non-union employees to work critical infrastructure. Critical infrastructure like ports, power plants, and sewage should not be allowed to be held hostage to further enrich - at the expense of the public - a group that already makes well above average wages.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I wouldn't, pay your labor. And if you only read that one report that says how a third of workers make 200k+, you should read their hours and actual hourly pay. That overtime pay is probably also in their contracts. And if you would rather push overtime pay than hire more docks men, you reap what you sow.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    Their hourly pay is misleading, because of overtime and container royalties. > And if you would rather push overtime pay than hire more docks men, you reap what you sow. The ports would absolutely love to hire more workers. It's the union that tightly controls membership, to rake in that lucrative overtime.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >Their hourly pay is misleading, because of overtime and container royalties. Overtime isn't a good thing to rely on. Especially blue collar work where your phyaical body is being whittled away. And yes, I wish we had more royalties for jobs. Everyone would jump on AI overnight if we got a kickback. >The ports would absolutely love to hire more workers. It's the union that tightly controls membership, to rake in that lucrative overtime. Seems backwards that people would want to work 14+ hours a day to make more money. What's money without a life to live? At least CEOs can vacation at their leisure. Blue collar overtime is just draining your life.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
They just don’t need to hire people, isn’t automation a loophole, especially when it’s more efficient even if the labor could be done manually by lower cost workers (why Chinese ports are automating). I don’t see any easy way out of this, and it will just get worse as the automation gets cheaper and more efficient. > If it's that critical, give the older workers their pension early and let them enjoy their life. We expect ports to be run like efficient businesses, who pays for that? Consumers I guess via increased shipping fees. Isn’t that just stealing from Peter to pay Paul?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >I don’t see any easy way out of this, and it will just get worse as the automation gets cheaper and more efficient. I see many "easy" ways out of it. None that would satisfy the USMX. Because their primary goal isn't efficiency of process but of costs. So I guess I agree. >We expect ports to be run like efficient businesses, who pays for that? Consumers I guess via increased shipping fees. Isn’t that just stealing from Peter to pay Paul? Sure. But the ILA didn't make that cost increase directly. The USMX decides instead to pass the costs to the people. Because they'd rather do that than simply pay their way into automation that satisfies the port workers.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Where does the money come from if it doesn’t come from the people who get things from the ports? I guess you could magic away investor money and profit, but that in the long term just leads to less investment in ports and higher costs anyways. You can go about it anyway you want, but we all pay in the end for these contracts, the money doesn’t come from some magic source, in the long run inefficiency and higher costs get passed on one way or the other.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >Where does the money come from if it doesn’t come from the people who get things from the ports? In addition to fees from traders: our tax dollars? The USMX isn't some fully private company, it's a mixture of government funding and various private contractors. As long as the US needs ports they will budget for it. >but we all pay in the end for these contracts, the money doesn’t come from some magic source, in the long run inefficiency and higher costs get passed on one way or the other. Yes, to us. Becsuse the USMX isn't in risk of going out of business. They have little skin in the game. So we lose either way. If I'm gonna lose I may as well make sure others get something out of it.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]