[JumpCrisscross]

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

Better: encourage automation, but require re-training alongside job guarantees and better pay and benefits. Do we really think making our ports more efficient won’t yield dividends in increased volumes?

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

[thecrash]

That looks better from your position, but if your proposal was a better deal for port workers, they would probably be asking for it in negotiations.

The port workers are negotiating based on what is best for their careers, not what would be optimum for society broadly.

Almost everyone does this with their own career - we push for more favorable wages, conditions etc simply because we want them and we believe our value to our employer justifies them.

Rarely does anyone else complain about this. The difference is that union workers do it at scale, and are therefore often more effective than the rest of us. So it seems like they're getting an unfair deal, but there's nothing unfair about it - they're just better negotiators.

[JumpCrisscross]

> we push for more favorable wages, conditions etc simply because we want them and we believe our value to our employer justifies them

Sure. That works until someone has a monopoly. If this union is allowed to block automation, it shouldn’t have a monopoly on our ports.

[blackeyeblitzar]

What’s unfair is that others can’t work without paying the union. It’s a monopoly on labor in a system that relies on competition.