[tw04]

Because the working class deserve a share of the wealth they generate and if they don’t get it, it’s a matter of when, not if society collapses?

There has been an unprecedented acceleration of the concentration of wealth to the billionaire class, and that’s fundamentally unsustainable. History has shown the end result is either a decrease in inequality naturally, through government intervention, or violence.

I prefer naturally (a strike and negotiation), I’d accept government intervention, but I fear a lot of people will take your jaded view of “why should they get more money when we can replace them with automation” and we’re going to eventually end up with violence when enough people can’t afford the basic necessities.

[nkurz]

Upvoted because I like and agree with much of your answer, though I'd ask you not to assume my worldview just because I'm asking the question. Growing up, the richest relatives I had were union machinists. I appreciate the role of unions even if I'm not always on their side. I'm asking genuinely because I wonder what the specific pro-dockworker argument is here since I don't know much this particular situation.

My worry would be that by making possibly excessive demands that would further benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of the nation, they may accelerate the demise of their positions altogether. I'm not altogether against this (because I do think would benefit the rest of the nation in the medium term) but like you I also worry about the increased chance of societal collapse if inequality keeps increasing. I'd probably prefer the safer choice of two decently paid new jobs for new workers than one soon-to-be-phased out job at a higher rate. I'm asking so I can understand better the opposite preference.