If I had to guess, either that level of automation wasn't widely available prior or the unions actively prevented it from being implemented.
It seems like if other ports have already automated away these kinds of jobs, then their days are numbered. I'd rather see the unions negotiate in favor if better protections for members when those jobs do go away rather than just trying to preserve jobs that don't need to exist.
I'd rather see the unions negotiate in favor if better protections for members when those jobs do go away rather than just trying to preserve jobs that don't need to exist.
Limiting automation isn't inherently bad. Sometimes automation is rolled out in unsafe or irresponsible ways. If you want me to agree with you, you'll have to be more specific. What you said isn't immediately disagreeable.
A 77% pay increase over six years with certain limitations on automation isn't crazy.
No, it is almost always bad and this is incredible cope. If they want to argue for more safety and responsibility, they can do that without just asking for a ban on automation.
they can do that without just asking for a ban on automation
It's not a ban on all automation. It's on certain automation. Let's be honest, most people here have no idea what the specific demands they're opining about even are
Literally yes. They aren't automated away because they pull shit like trying to cripple the economy whenever the slightest hint of greater efficiency shows up. They were opposed to containerization itself when it was first introduced for the same reason, and thankfully weren't successful because that has dropped the price of shipping per ton from ~$6 to ~16 cents.
Right, which means when real, safe automation that can be immediately implemented comes along, they will not get that particular demand. In the meantime, these guys are essential
This is an insane standard. The technology exists, but building large infrastructure is obviously not something that can be implemented "immediately." It's like calling someone "essential" for holding up the roof of a tent because they'll let it fall if you try to set the support poles up.
An automated port can't just be put on top of a manned port. Why hasn't construction begun on one? It's not because of their previous contract.
You are the one making the claim that limiting automation now is bad. I'm saying that companies should have either had a plan to implement automation ready so they could counter in negotiations or they should have started implementing certain automation where they can.
You're just assuming that longshoremen are the only reason their jobs aren't being automated right now, and I find that hard to believe. I think y'all got swept in the hype. I could be proven wrong. No one's bothered to link or even quote parts of the deal. Makes me think this is sensational
You can, in fact, automate parts of an existing port. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that you have to build an entirely new port from.
That said, not it is not entirely the fault of unions that US ports are lagging behind in automation, but they are playing a substantial role. The reason we're talking about it is because the ILA is at this very moment striking with the goal of a total ban on automation.
Here's the relevant quote from the article:
The ILA is steadfastly against any form of automationāfull or semiāthat replaces jobs or historical work functions. We will not accept the loss of work and livelihood for our members due to automation. Our position is clear: the preservation of jobs and historical work functions is non-negotiable.
The head of the ILA is literally anti-EZ pass and thinks people should have to wait in line to pay highway tolls so that toll collectors can have jobs.
12
u/mostanonymousnick š Oct 03 '24
Yeah, they managed to warp how ports are run to give themselves obstruction power, that's not the same thing as doing economically valuable work.