Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lotsofpulp 634 days ago
What if the workers are opposing automation?
2 comments

> What if the workers are opposing automation?

The union is demanding “a total ban on the automation of cranes, gates and moving containers in the loading and unloading of freight” [1].

That said! They are negotiating. This is their opening ask. If they stick to it, fuck them. But maybe they can permit modernisation alongside a pay raise.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/longshoremen-strike-ports-pay-con...

Workers have a right to oppose automation and strike over it if they so choose.
> Workers have a right to oppose automation and strike over it if they so choose

Workers have a right to strike. But there should be room, at the same port, for trying a more-efficient approach.

The management of this unionised workforce shouldn’t have a choice. But this union’s members shouldn’t have dictatorial power over our Eastern seaboard’s port infrastructure.

(Also, I have the right to demand a personal battleship. Not everything one has the right to do is reasonable.)

> But there should be room, at the same port, for trying a more-efficient approach.

I'll gladly steelman the opposite idea. If you're running a McDonalds and you fire half your employees to replace them with burger-flipping robots, you damn well better expect the cashier to quit or go on strike. People aren't that stupid - they can see the Looney-Tunes ACME anvil suspended over their heads, they know when they have to negotiate themselves off the red painted 'X'.

Similarly, I think introducing automation to a historically-human career like longshoring is absolutely an all-or-nothing shtick. You're either displacing your human workers entirely with unpaid alternatives, or you're dealing with the consequences of a partially human workforce. There is no magic compromise, despite what management wants. You either acquiesce or replace them with robo-scabs.

Longshoring has had numerous technological advancement over centuries that have resulted in fewer workers being needed.

Far, far, fewer longshoreman are accomplishing magnitudes more work than longshoremen a few generations ago.

Sure they have the right. But the bigger question is - is it a net benefit for society to do so?
Would that we ask if it is a net benefit for society that so much wealth extraction from labor has occurred the last 40 years.
We shouldn't right wrongs by deliberately capping economic efficiency, especially in sectors that are foundational to the rest of the economy (e.g. maritime trade and energy).
Indeed. And we shouldn’t ask if it is in society’s best interest only when the discussion is about benefits for labor.
We shouldn't. Dockworkers should allow automation, and those jobs that remain should capture a fair share of the increased productivity in increased wages.
And the rest of society has a right to bypass and work around them.
And society has a right to ignore people who want to make it worse.