For context, the USMX countered with 50% over 6 years which still sounds high to my ears, having only received 5, 5, and 3% in the years prior.
On top of this, the starting wage for an ILA member is 81k per year and it really starts to seem out of touch for the average American to witness.
While I actually do have personal friends working as ILA members from my years living in a coastal port city, I’m having a hard time getting straight answers from his circle on social media. Just the usual political head talking points about “deserving a fair wage” and “corporate greed,” which, on paper seem reasonable but in the face of the numbers seem, again, out of touch.
At a personal level I’m in an Appalachian town still grappling with storm aftermath spending the morning with trying to research if this will cause any material shortages that I need to attempt to acquire already scarce goods for - or if it will just be a penalty for imports. I see bananas are likely going be scarce but oh well, I can eat an apple instead.
> For context, the USMX countered with 50% over 6 years which still sounds high to my ears, having only received 5, 5, and 3% in the years prior.
This is fully dependent on historical numbers. What I’ve learned about following the Boeing strike is that Boeing’s offers also looked very high. However, news came out that the workers had received almost no raises for far longer and that the offer doesn’t even bring the workers to match COL adjustments during those prior years. I would tread very carefully with reading the news around unions because media outlets will latch onto these big numbers because it catches audience’s eyes. Good reporting and adding context is work that modern media outlets will not do.
>countered with 50% over 6 years which still sounds high to my ears, having only received 5, 5, and 3% in the years prior.
Sounds good to the ear, then you do the math and it turns into 2% raises every year. Probably not even keeping up with inflation for the 2020's. And Assuming they don't try to lay off a lot of that union somehow in those 6 years.
But I get what you're saying about crabs in a bucket. This would all be low balls for tech, but dreams for many other workers.
The strike emphasizes the importance of automation. We should be prioritizing the investments that will allow us to fire as many of them as possible as soon as possible.
It's no wonder people fight the automation - there is no support to help them upskill or retrain. Although they are fighting a force that nobody has successfully stopped, it makes sense why they would do this when the response to "we don't want automation because it threatens our livelihoods" is "get that automation in place ASAP so we can get these people out of here".
Yeah... it's a pretty strong signal to send to the company owners. It's a direct threat to the company's ability to compete and therefore survive in exchange for maximum personal benefits. I guess it's probably mutual and the company squeezed them for maximum profit too but man.. This is not a fight that can be won unless the entire world stagnates at the current technological level forever.
>The union has made it clear that they're not willing to entertain such discussions.
That's not the same discussion. I am sure they are more than willing to turn docks into worker co-ops, then automate so it's a benefit to them not a threat. But I am sure the shareholders and dock owners wouldn't want that.
Right. I was discussing positions the union has actually taken and what their advocates have actually said. If you're looking to discuss wild hypotheticals about what you think they might support in some scenario that doesn't exist, more power to you, but I don't find such conversations productive.
I find it productive. And I find it maddening that negotiations haven't seemingly entertained the idea of talks like "yes automation will come but we'll make sure you can pay your bills and transition". That would be the first topic in eastern countries.
The west treating labor as a dog eat dog world is what lead to this in the first place.
> Daggett contends, though, that higher-paid longshoremen work up to 100 hours a week, most of it overtime, and sacrifice much of their family time in doing so.
> “We do not believe that robotics should take over a human being’s job,” he said. “Especially a human being that’s historically performed that job.”
You might be looking at the 100 hours thinking that’s grueling work. Meanwhile workers could be looking at that thinking it’s their AWS auto scaling for their family income.
I have a friend doing electrical line work. He’s gone back and forth between IC work and management. ICs trend to get paid better, because of strong overtime compensation rules and there’s a queue of overtime work. Those overtime weeks sound rough though. 12+ hour work days working with heavy machinery and 10 Kv power lines.
Hence they're striking before it's possible to try to get the agreement right? I see what you mean on signaling but this seems like the correct play for them
I understand that in a negotiation you always "over ask" so you have room to compromise and you have bargaining chips. But this just sounds absurd.