[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.