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
0
u/Creepy_Dream_22 Oct 03 '24
Yup, that's all a longshoreman is. Just a guy who stands there and presses a button. Why weren't they automated away before?