[diggan]

How does this affect national security? Seems the union already made exceptions for Military cargo and other related transit.

> “We continue our pledge to never let our brave American troops down for their valour and service and we will proudly continue to work all military shipments beyond October 1st, even if we are engaged in a strike.”

https://ilaunion.org/ila-will-maintain-pledge-to-handle-mili...

Economically, there is a easy and suitable way of reducing all strikes across the country, rather than just focusing on the ports. Pay people a wage they can live on, provide with, and people won't have to strike.

[gruez]

>Economically, there is a easy and suitable way of reducing all strikes across the country, rather than just focusing on the ports. Pay people a wage they can live on, provide with, and people won't have to strike.

Except the union isn't only asking for a 77% pay raise over 6 years, they're also want a "complete ban on automation"[1]

[1] https://apnews.com/article/port-strike-ila-dockworkers-begin...

[diggan]

That article is kind of weird, first it says:

> Local ILA president Boise Butler said workers want a fair contract that doesn’t allow automation of their jobs.

But then there is no actual quote from Boise Butler about "doesn't allow automation".

Then later, the article states:

> “We are prepared to fight as long as necessary, to stay out on strike for whatever period of time it takes, to get the wages and protections against automation our ILA members deserve,”

Which is more in line with the existing (well, since yesterday not anymore) agreement that automation should be discussed with the union beforehand, not completely banned.

[dialup_sounds]

The existing agreement was a complete ban.

The 2018-2024 contract already said no fully automated terminals or equipment at all, and the 2024-2030 negotiations stopped in June because ILA considered a gate at one port (the actual gate that trucks pass through) to be in violation of the previous contract.

[45HCPW]

In the context of container terminals a gate refers to the process of registering and routing containers, not just a physical gate but also a process. Not knowing any details, probably this process was automated, which the union objected to?

[dialup_sounds]

It's a process, sure, but it feels distinct from the gantries or carriers that actually move containers.

This video published by the same terminal operator is the closest thing I can find to illustrate the process, and it's hard to imagine why in 2024 you would do it any other way: https://youtu.be/bd-RDpMBBHg

It's difficult to know what ILA objected to, as the system had apparently been in place at the port of Mobile for over a decade. It may just be the principle of the thing more than a specific objection, and that's their right. But the point is they definitely have a hard line stance on automation if something like OCRing container numbers is going to far.

[teeray]

> they're also want a "complete ban on automation"

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind"

[FollowingTheDao]

Well that make sense since a pay raise is useless if your job is taken away by automation.

[readthenotes1]

Well, they'll need that pay raise to pay for their hand sewn clothes and stables for their horses

I assume they'll eschew all automation in solidarity with all the other workers whose job has been made redundant.

[pg_bot]

You need to take the long view. The United States is the only global superpower because of our economic might. If other countries catch up to us, they will start to test the waters on whether going to war is advantageous for them.

The ports play a crucial role in wealth generation for the USA. If other countries are able to ship goods cheaper and faster than us, more industry will be transferred overseas. This creates a vicious cycle where industries that exist due to agglomeration slowly decay. Being able to move a container 1000ft is the limiting reagent for entire economies. Buy the unions off and automate it. Everyone only cares about a relatively small amount of money compared to how much is moving through the system.

[stego-tech]

If we’re going to take the long view, then we’re long past due to create a society where the excess wealth generated by labor is shared among us all such that nobody must work to survive, as opposed to the current model of allowing a handful who already have enough money to never need to work again to hoover up even more wealth for themselves.

If we’re going to take the long view, we’re about fifty years late to the transition away from fossil fuels so we protect and preserve our current climate.

If we’re going to take the long view, then we’re about a hundred years too late in the US to expanding and modernizing our mass transit such that it benefits the whole, rather than the private.

If we want to talk about the long view so damn bad, then we need more housing and less office space; we need more integrated communities and less segregated zoning; we need equitable and affordable access to healthcare and education to ensure a functioning worker base, and less gatekeeping of knowledge or health behind individual wealth.

Don’t trot out the tired trope of automation as a long view goal, and then ignore the entire past century of sacrificing the long view for short teem gains. It reveals your insincerity as well as your ignorance.

[diggan]

> You need to take the long view. The United States is the only global superpower because of our economic might. If other countries catch up to us, they will start to test the waters on whether going to war is advantageous for them.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if there was no "global super powers". And I don't believe there has to always be at least one "super power" country either. This is considering the long view, not just "USA #1" view that seems many in the US seems to hold.

> If other countries are able to ship goods cheaper and faster than us, more industry will be transferred overseas.

Are other countries able to ship goods cheaper and faster than the US currently? This seems uncertain.

> Everyone only cares about a relatively small amount of money compared to how much is moving through the system.

Seems like the executives of the companies refusing to give people a living wage is the ones "cares about a relatively small amount" if what you are writing is true.

[Uehreka]

> Buy the unions off and automate it.

There’s an old marxist saying: “if workers owned the means of production, automation would be a holiday, not a layoff”. If you’re proposing turning over the shipyard profits to the workers, that’s a policy the unions will absolutely get behind. It’s also something the shipyard owners will fight tooth and nail to prevent, they’re the ones you’ll need to buy off, and buying the shipyards will be expensive.

At the end of the day I don’t think enough people share your sentiments to make any policy of this scale (even the 30 years of payments you specify elsewhere) politically viable. And as I said in another thread: if your solutions aren’t viable in the current political environment, they’re just wishful thinking, and the workers on strike want solutions that will work today.

[phil21]

Slight nitpick: I think you mean ports, not shipyards. Shipyards are where ships get constructed and repaired. Ports are where cargo is loaded and offloaded.