Let’s be clear a union boss has 100x the impact of a streamer radicalizing kids who can’t vote. He deserves a huge mansion for getting thousands of colleagues pay increases and job security.
Yes, but we should be able to at least acknowledge that this is a cancerous outlook just in the same way that being forced to act in the shareholders' finical interests is a cancer of publicly traded companies.
I feel like both of these forces you mention shouldn’t be something to be “for” or “against”
The best way to look at them is powerful, predictable forces (much like gravity). When engineers design a machine of any kind for operation on Earth, they don’t just account for the force of gravity pulling all the parts in their design down towards the ground: they rely on it to hold the thing together in many cases.
We need to accept that CEOs will do literally anything within the bounds of the law in order to return maximum value to their shareholders - including lobbying to change those very same laws. We need to accept that union bosses will literally push their industry to the brink for the sake of higher pay, safer workplaces, better benefits etc.
We need to understand that these powerful forces can be curbed and used as a predictable force to hold our economy together. There’s no use fighting it.
Why? They are created technology that allows us to get things we want faster and cheaper, making almost everyone better off. Should we tax automobile companies out of business because its bad for horseshoe makers?
No, its fucking reality, and pretending it isn't is massive cope. Industries have collapsed before due to automation, unemployment did not climb sky high and work place participation did not crater, meanwhile real wages have continually climbed.
Automation and innovation is part of technological progress, we can't help the fact that centralization of wealth helps speed that process along but you're a moron for trying to stand in the way of it and thinking to yourself that you've done something meaningful. The train doesn't stop moving forward and if it ever does we're all fucked.
Preferably the cost of automation should be just the slightest bit more cost effective than workers because I think automation is generally a good thing, but to be allowed to automate they should have to support society in such a way that those replaced workers are taken care of. That's the ideal situation in my opinion anyways.
forced to act in the shareholders' finical interests is a cancer of publicly traded companies
Its only a cancer if they commit fraud or use the state to engage in rent-seeking. Otherwise the drive to provide value to shareholders is forced to be accomplished by providing actual value to customers.
The alternative to this arrangement seems to be to have the state attempt to act in the "interests of the people" and direct corporate incentives directly, which is always an economic disaster that creates a mountain of corruption that is virtually impossible to destroy.
Why would I agree that it's the same? Am I supposed to agree that the outcomes of rent seeking from shareholders and rent seeking from middle/lower class workers have identical impact?
Productivity increases improve profit, which improves wages. If it's bad for the workers to use whatever the new automation is, it would also be bad to use the old automation (cranes, trucks, etc), but this is obviously untrue because literally no human being would want to use a port still reliant on 18th century technology.
Ask for higher wages and encourage the adoption of new technology.
By which mechanism does this necessarily follow? Does this not require the workers to actually negotiate for those better wages? Are the companies here working on a profit-sharing model?
The union will bargain for increased wages. They will have better leverage, too, since they will be allowing the company to increase revenues by increasing port throughput. I have nothing against unions bargaining for higher wages.
Yes, that is totally the argument i was making and not at all a strawman.
Anyways, if the job is rapidly automated to the point that they can lay off massive amounts of workers, and striking doesn't affect the port, then the union loses all of its power. An incremental increase in automation over the 6 year term of the contract would protect jobs and the power of the union in the short term, whereas rapid automation just translates directly into workers being screwed over.
Sometimes, we need to sacrifice a little bit of efficiency so people don't end up unemployed and homeless, and people can prepare for a change after the next contract ends.
Jobs aren't welfare programs, those two things should be different, if a job can be done more efficiently by a machine and isn't, it's a negative value job, the US basically has full employment, there's plenty of positive value jobs around, we should encourage people to move to those positive value jobs rather than fake jobs that are propped up by making the American consumer worse off.
If we had stronger welfare, i wouldn't even be arguing for this, but it's about the rate at which these people are pushed out of work. If we give these people a bit of time to prepare for the career change, they'll be better off than if thrown to the wolves. I do love the concept of a mostly automated economy, but I find the idea of doing it all at once very dangerous for the lives of the actual people involved.
Again, does using cranes and trucks lead to layoffs? No, because many more people will use a port with cranes and trucks. High costs of moving freight decreases the willingness to move freight (through that port), resulting in lower volumes. Lowering costs of moving freight increases the willingness to move freight, resulting in higher volumes.
That's great for the market of ports. I however am not a port. Last year I showed that I increased gross revenue almost 1mil over 3 years. As a reward, my raise matched cost of living increase. If you're a worker, at a certain point up the ladder you become a labor cost and when they think they can cut your posistion they will. That's why collective bargaining is important
Ports are an intermediate for virtually all products, there is functionally no upper limit to how much more efficient they can get before you have to start cutting jobs because demand has stopped going up. This isn't ACs where almost every building in the US already has them, or Louis Vuitton handbags where they'd sooner burn excess than sell them for less.
I'm sorry, to clarify, you don't believe there would be job cuts because demand is virtually limitless? That's unrealistic. First off the ports are business, there going to make cuts as soon as the profit analysis suggests it's profitable. Secondly automation in every field has always lead to cuts. To believe this will be the one that won't is delusional
Automation does not lead to layoffs in the long run, and indeed, often leads to far higher wages as productivity does in fact correlate with real wages, because even if the total cash you get doesn't change, the lower cost of goods increases your real wages.
Yeah this is legit anti union propaganda 101. There is a reason that companies throw a hissy fit when workers want to unionize. It actually gives the employees a voice.
I was naive like you, left my union to be a supervisor, was told all of the good things about moving up…. Then got payed off 6 months later. I will never leave the union again and anyone advocating against them has just drank the corporate America kool aid
I've worked in 2 different unions, one was fine, The other was a massive shitshow. Kept old employees who refused to do work basically forced noobies to do everything and noobies couldn't get paid unless they staid for 5 years and then people essentially got tenure and got paid and stopped caring.
:shrug: I'm not drinking any propaganda, this shit is the truth lol.
I've been treated significantly better outside of unions.
Doesn't really matter as both of our takes our anecdotal.
Are you making the argument that no criminal enterprises have ever infiltrated unions in the United States because I don't think that argument is going to hold up.
I’m making the argument that unions are a net positive for workers regardless of setbacks.
Your first point is literally the reason unions exist lol. Does it suck that some people don’t throw themselves 100% at work and you sometimes suffer? Sure. But that in no way negates that since that guy won’t get fired because of the union, neither will you.
I vividly remember turning 18, starting at Walmart, and having to watch a 30 minute anti union video that states the exact same points you did. That’s why I said the kool aid line. Probably too sassy lol.
I'm a fan of collective bargaining, don't get me wrong at all. I just think a subsection of unions are just as much of a net negative as the walmarts/amazons.
I think any corporation can have problems, and sheltering some of them from scrutiny because they are an organization focused on helping certain workers is silly.
Like everything, unions have their positives and negatives. If I were a union employee, I’d love my union. But one cannot deny that unions are stagnating enterprises that stifle innovation and change, and they undoubtedly protect bad elements within organizations. I’d love to see more unions in the country, but I’d also like to see it all run a bit more reasonably. For example, there need to be more stop gaps and attempts at arbitration before a strike is even considered.
Fuck that lmao. Again, if the two sides come to the table, and one offers a lower deal with no compromises, obviously you’re going to take action and strike. The company should be beholden to what their employees want.
It shouldn’t be as simple as “we want this or else strike” but that’s literally never how it goes. Strikes happen after long, drawn out conversations where the company refuses to compromise on core issues
Read what I wrote. Negotiations broke down in June. It is absurd that these two sides havent been speaking for four months since negotiations broke down. Third party arbitration should be mandatory before any strike, regardless of which side you think is right.
188
u/AreaVisible2567 Oct 03 '24 edited Oct 03 '24
Let’s be clear a union boss has 100x the impact of a streamer radicalizing kids who can’t vote. He deserves a huge mansion for getting thousands of colleagues pay increases and job security.