Longshoremen’s Strike (currently paused, but not ended)

Some of the issues in the United States longshoremen’s strike (temporarily paused) captured my interest. Especially after comments from the head of the longshoremen’s union (Harold Daggett) became so widely distributed. Parts of this topic arose in the hurricane relief discussion, but I thought it should have its own discussion without distracting from the discussion of hurricane relief efforts.

As I understand the union’s demands, they fall into three categories: 1) more pay, 2) better “benefits” (including pensions) and 3) no more automation. I understand that the pay issue has been settled, for now at least (October 7, 2024). I’m not sure about the “benefits” issue. But the automation issue has certainly not been settled.

Pay and Benefits

I’m sure many workers whose wages have not kept up with inflation over the last four years might have something to say about whether the longshoremen should have special treatment on the pay issue. Similarly for the question of “benefits,” as we are decades into most non-government workers dealing with the opportunities and risks of self-directed retirement funds, and not being tied to a company-specific defined-benefit pension, and also participating in the costs of employer-provided medical insurance.

The president of the longshoremen’s union says longshoremen should be paid more because they are critical to the flow of goods. Well, lots of other workers are also critical to the flow of goods – truck drivers, warehouse workers, shipboard crew, fuel suppliers, etc. What if each of them makes similar demands? It appears the longshoremen’s union has about 50,000 members. 50,000 longshoremen in a land of 350,000,000 US population = 0.014 %.

Something about the privileged 1% comes to mind.

The longshoremen’s union seems to be demanding privileges in pay and benefits beyond what most people who are also essential to a functioning economy get, and at the expense of everyone else. I wouldn’t think this popular among the general population.

Automation.

(Irony alert.)

The union not long ago justified the current very high pay for longshoremen (often between $100,000 and $200,000 per year, supposedly more than a third of the union members earn more than $200,000 per year) on the basis that they require a high level of skill to operate sophisticated machinery. Well, that sophisticated machinery they currently operate is the result of prior generations of “automation” that replaced many dockworkers manually unloading and loading ships. Wheeled hand trucks allowed one man to “carry” what previously several men carried individually. Forklifts powered by internal combustion engines then allowed one operator to transport pallets loaded with what previously took several men with hand trucks or many more men carrying individual bags or barrels. Cranes with large scoops or augurs allowed one operator to move grain and other bulk material previously carried by many individual men packaged in bags or barrels. For decades now cranes have moved large containers (often 20 feet or 40 feet long) filled with manufactured items that previously would have been moved by many, many men carrying individual items or boxes, each containing a small number of items.

So longshoremen’s current jobs are the result of automation that displaced prior generations of workers. But NOW they want to stop the progress of automation? Or is the union suggesting that we should go back to individual men carrying individual 50-pound bags of a commodity, or individual boxes of finished goods, from deep in the holds of ships all the way into a warehouse? Go back to a time when a strong back was the key characteristic for a longshoreman?

Absolute resistance to automation looks like resisting normal human progress.

Longshoremen’s Union President Harold Daggett

Who thought putting this particular union head in front of the general public was a good idea? Is the longshoremen’s union trying to provide the public (most of whom do not belong to a workers’ union) yet more reasons to think that unions are bullies only out for themselves?

What I think the public hears when the head of the longshoremen’s union speaks is, “I’m going to make your life miserable until you give me more of your money, and I get special treatment none of the rest of you have.” Exactly what people heard the schoolyard bully say when they were children — and what the rumors say about how Mafia bosses operate.

On the topic of automation, the head of the longshoremen’s union cites with disapproval the automated highway and bridge toll collection system called “EZPass,” a system created in 1987 (almost forty years ago) and used mostly in the northeast and on the west coast. Similar systems exist in other parts of the country. In my area of north Texas, it’s “TollTag.” Although few people like paying highway tolls altogether, if they’re going to pay tolls, this man is suggesting that preserving the jobs of a few thousand toll collectors should take priority over the time and convenience of millions of drivers who save thousands of hours of delay and effort through toll collection automation.

Out in the real world, where real people deal with real issues, workers of all types, including those in the “creative” fields previously thought to be exempt from the threat of automation, have had to begin considering the possibility that their jobs (or at least parts of their jobs) could be automated. I don’t see why most people should think longshoremen should be exempt from world that the rest of us occupy.

As one looks back in history, some form of “automation” has always displaced human labor. Oxen and horses replaced humans for pulling things. Levers and pulleys replaced many men in lifting. Water wheels and windmills replaced men delivering power to certain tools. Steam engines, and then internal combustion engines, provided yet greater power to tools. Mechanical devices replaced many people performing manual labor.

Control mechanisms (first mechanical, then electrical, and then electronic) have successfully enabled mechanical machinery to do even more work, continuously replacing more human labor. For example, automated fuel delivery to a burner or to the cylinders of an internal combustion engine eliminated the need for men to shovel coal into a fire of a steam engine.

In another example, a modern automated tractor and computer-controlled planter operated by one person (who may even be a small relatively weak woman) does in a few hours of work (planting dozens of rows of fertilized seed) that which a little over a century ago would have employed the labor of dozens of strong men over several days using a horse-drawn implement. And even farther back in time, the use of a horse to pull a planting implement replaced many men pulling individual plows with even more men (or maybe women) following to place seeds and then fertilizer into the proper place. Some farmers find the tradeoff worthwhile (such tractor and planter setups can cost $1 million or more). Others do not. But the longshoremen’s union seems to think any such progress should be stopped altogether.

Questions

Is it just me, or does the public see that the longshoremen’s union is either — or both — out to harm most of the public, and trying to resist the inevitable progress of humanity?

The union may win a temporary battle but seems likely to lose in the long term.