Is there any route to automating America's ports? Could it work out in negotiations to give massive payoffs to current workers in exchange for allowing future automation?
I think that is a reasonable direction to explore.
Another one would be long term job security for current individuals, but unrestricted headcount.
While I think progress is important, I dont think we should repeat what we saw with NAFTA or heavy industry. It simply isnt realistic to expect every 50 year old dock worker to be able and willing to retrain and retool as a software engineer (not that that is a particularly good option right now).
I think a reasonable compromise between the unions and ports could be found where they essentially freeze hiring and allow headcount to dwindle as folks age out. perhaps some internal retraining would be possible as well so that people aren't just sitting on their hands.
> Could it work out in negotiations to give massive payoffs to current workers in exchange for allowing future automation?
Absolutely it could. The real obstacle is a pervasive Calvinist workism that rejects paying people to stay home (essentially severance pay) even when it would be better for everyone. The ports could easily make this offer, and the offer would easily be accepted by the union at some threshold of payout. The ports just don't make the offer.
Pretty much. It's not enough to be more productive. There's still a "butt in seat mentality", and corporate cannot imagine paying someone who's no longer working for them.
And given the US's pathetic string we call a safety net, the businesses need to foot that bill if they really care about efficiency and long term benefits. But it's never truly about "advancement" for these people. It's control.
I feel for dock workers, but the bulk of their job is one that is going to be replaced by automation. The industry as a whole should work on reskilling and encouraging early retirement and such for the existing workers.
Reskilling is not in their best interest. These people are paid enormous amounts of money because employment is so strictly controlled by their cartel. Reskilling would mean taking a paycut of $100,000+. The only way to buy these people out is to set them up for life
Only because they think their job will still be around. You can only prop up an industry with inefficient fake jobs for so long, and dock workers are getting near the end of that cycle.
>The only way to buy these people out is to set them up for life
Or just let them fail when their job is eliminated. Having some plan to step down the number of employees gradually through buy-outs, retirement, and reskilling, is the better option.
Yeah the best solution is to automate the docks, but these unions are very politically powerful, which is why their jobs still exist in the first place. It's also a bad look for a democratic president to bust unions so if Kamala wins then I think these guys are safe for another 4 years. I don't think their strategy is sustainable, but I don't think it will be very simple to get rid of them
>If you believe the unions and they're not just no-show jobs
Your link proves both my points:
>That *top-tier hourly wage of $39 amounts* to just over $81,000 annually, but dockworkers can *make significantly more by taking on extra shifts*
And the report you link to seems to confirm that:
>During FY 2019-2020, deep-sea longshore workers (including checkers and special craft) were
paid $621,858,750.79, including regular overtime wages, vacation and holiday benefits.
If your argument is really that ports are paying overtime for work that isn't needed, that sounds like a problem for the government to fix. If they are instead being paid to basically be "on call" because they need docksmen there at any time, or if docking gets delayed, then that's the cost of doing business. Pretty sure risking a no show to an on-site job is less likely than just needing to be there if/when shipments drol
I will grant you that the report goes very anti-union tho (and racist, for some reason) :
>Today, every terminal within the Port still has special compensation packages given to certain ILA
longshore workers, the majority of whom are white males connected to organized crime figures or union
leadership. Based on the industry’s reported figures, the Commission has again identified over 590
individuals who collectively received over $147.6 million dollars last year in outsized salaries, or for hours
they never worked.
It's food for thought. But the fact that they are conflating "union leadership" with "organized crime" isn't doing them a good favor in impartiality.
Because dockworkers have a union that can use its size and influence to slow down the shift to automation. For them its job protection which is more important for them than increasing efficiency, lowering costs etc for the shipping companies etc.
>For them its job protection which is more important for them than increasing efficiency, lowering costs etc for the shipping companies etc.
Sure, but that isn't the question they were asking. They weren't appealing to the workers sense of efficiency. They simply asked if they can be paid off.
It’s a temporary deal, hopefully the automation ban will not survive in the final negotiations, I can’t wait for all the robotics jobs that will be created
>hopefully the automation ban will not survive in the final negotiations,
I hope they can compromise a proper retraining/pension plan. I'm normally fine with automation, but we've seen for a few decades now that companies just use it as an excuse to reduce labor costs while leaving people on the streets to fend for themselves. And the savings never pass to the consumer. Who's winning here?
If they won't budge on that, then clearly the intentions here are not efficiency. Pay your labor.
Is there any route to automating America's ports? Could it work out in negotiations to give massive payoffs to current workers in exchange for allowing future automation?
I think that is a reasonable direction to explore.
Another one would be long term job security for current individuals, but unrestricted headcount.
While I think progress is important, I dont think we should repeat what we saw with NAFTA or heavy industry. It simply isnt realistic to expect every 50 year old dock worker to be able and willing to retrain and retool as a software engineer (not that that is a particularly good option right now).
I think a reasonable compromise between the unions and ports could be found where they essentially freeze hiring and allow headcount to dwindle as folks age out. perhaps some internal retraining would be possible as well so that people aren't just sitting on their hands.
> Could it work out in negotiations to give massive payoffs to current workers in exchange for allowing future automation?
Absolutely it could. The real obstacle is a pervasive Calvinist workism that rejects paying people to stay home (essentially severance pay) even when it would be better for everyone. The ports could easily make this offer, and the offer would easily be accepted by the union at some threshold of payout. The ports just don't make the offer.
Pretty much. It's not enough to be more productive. There's still a "butt in seat mentality", and corporate cannot imagine paying someone who's no longer working for them.
And given the US's pathetic string we call a safety net, the businesses need to foot that bill if they really care about efficiency and long term benefits. But it's never truly about "advancement" for these people. It's control.
Maybe I'm understanding this wrong, but you're asking why dockworkers don't cash out and pull the ladder up behind them?
I feel for dock workers, but the bulk of their job is one that is going to be replaced by automation. The industry as a whole should work on reskilling and encouraging early retirement and such for the existing workers.
Reskilling is not in their best interest. These people are paid enormous amounts of money because employment is so strictly controlled by their cartel. Reskilling would mean taking a paycut of $100,000+. The only way to buy these people out is to set them up for life
>Reskilling is not in their best interest.
Only because they think their job will still be around. You can only prop up an industry with inefficient fake jobs for so long, and dock workers are getting near the end of that cycle.
>The only way to buy these people out is to set them up for life
Or just let them fail when their job is eliminated. Having some plan to step down the number of employees gradually through buy-outs, retirement, and reskilling, is the better option.
Yeah the best solution is to automate the docks, but these unions are very politically powerful, which is why their jobs still exist in the first place. It's also a bad look for a democratic president to bust unions so if Kamala wins then I think these guys are safe for another 4 years. I don't think their strategy is sustainable, but I don't think it will be very simple to get rid of them
The jobs max out at $40/hour on the east coast. Lots of overtime pay as well, but that's not something to encourage.
That's part of the issue. west coast shoremen do indeed make 6 figures. There's less to lose in the East coast unless you truly are a workoholic.
>The only way to buy these people out is to set them up for life
Pension plan would work fine too. But we know companies would rather die than bring that back. Loyalty is dead after all.
1/3rd of these people make more than $200k a year https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/how-much-do-dock-workers-ma...
> Lots of overtime pay as well
If you believe the unions and they're not just no-show jobs
>If you believe the unions and they're not just no-show jobs
Your link proves both my points:
>That *top-tier hourly wage of $39 amounts* to just over $81,000 annually, but dockworkers can *make significantly more by taking on extra shifts*
And the report you link to seems to confirm that:
>During FY 2019-2020, deep-sea longshore workers (including checkers and special craft) were paid $621,858,750.79, including regular overtime wages, vacation and holiday benefits.
If your argument is really that ports are paying overtime for work that isn't needed, that sounds like a problem for the government to fix. If they are instead being paid to basically be "on call" because they need docksmen there at any time, or if docking gets delayed, then that's the cost of doing business. Pretty sure risking a no show to an on-site job is less likely than just needing to be there if/when shipments drol
I will grant you that the report goes very anti-union tho (and racist, for some reason) :
>Today, every terminal within the Port still has special compensation packages given to certain ILA longshore workers, the majority of whom are white males connected to organized crime figures or union leadership. Based on the industry’s reported figures, the Commission has again identified over 590 individuals who collectively received over $147.6 million dollars last year in outsized salaries, or for hours they never worked.
It's food for thought. But the fact that they are conflating "union leadership" with "organized crime" isn't doing them a good favor in impartiality.
Isn't the proposal under discussion exactly that, set them up for life and make it in their interest?
That is my question. People do it all the time in all kinds of situations, why not here too?
Because dockworkers have a union that can use its size and influence to slow down the shift to automation. For them its job protection which is more important for them than increasing efficiency, lowering costs etc for the shipping companies etc.
>For them its job protection which is more important for them than increasing efficiency, lowering costs etc for the shipping companies etc.
Sure, but that isn't the question they were asking. They weren't appealing to the workers sense of efficiency. They simply asked if they can be paid off.
They probably could you would have to bribe both workers and leaders and probably something like 50-100k
It’s a temporary deal, hopefully the automation ban will not survive in the final negotiations, I can’t wait for all the robotics jobs that will be created
>hopefully the automation ban will not survive in the final negotiations,
I hope they can compromise a proper retraining/pension plan. I'm normally fine with automation, but we've seen for a few decades now that companies just use it as an excuse to reduce labor costs while leaving people on the streets to fend for themselves. And the savings never pass to the consumer. Who's winning here?
If they won't budge on that, then clearly the intentions here are not efficiency. Pay your labor.
Can't make more robotics jobs at the port than there were operators, after all, it is a cost savings endeavor.
well the thing is i'm a robotics guy and not a longshoreman :)
Ha, fair!