ADVERTISEMENT

Longshoreman strike

When your job is one that is almost certainly going to be displaced by technology in the next 10 years or so, is the best strategy to use all your current leverage to get what you can while you can (knowing doing so may only serve to hasten that fate)…or to backpedal in an effort to delay it?

Honestly, if I’m this guy, I’m probably favoring the first option too. I doubt that any concessions they make would actually delay the transition. The incentives to make it are so large that nothing the stevies do or don’t do seems likely to have any effect.
 


No one in this labor dispute is acting honorably
I wonder how many people that guy has had anchored to the bottom of the ocean. Mercy. Sleeve of tats. Big gold chain. Sometimes you forget what men look like and sound like when you post on here. Board full of pencil necks and paper pushers
 
Last edited:


No one in this labor dispute is acting honorably
If I were President I would drag this asshole into a room and tell him to end the strike or I will make it my job to get funding in our next spending appropriation to upgrade our ports since his strike constitutes a national security threat.

Take the ****ing deal on the table or I help put half your workforce out of a job. And with all his threats, I would have the IRS crawling up his ass and have the FBI investigating for potential racketeering.
 
If I were President I would drag this asshole into a room and tell him to end the strike or I will make it my job to get funding in our next spending appropriation to upgrade our ports since his strike constitutes a national security threat.

Take the ****ing deal on the table or I help put half your workforce out of a job. And with all his threats, I would have the IRS crawling up his ass and have the FBI investigating for potential racketeering.

With Biden not running again, he may actually have the political latitude to do something like this. The Teamsters letter would indicate some level of expectation of him intervening.

But Harris can't do this.
 
If I were President I would drag this asshole into a room and tell him to end the strike or I will make it my job to get funding in our next spending appropriation to upgrade our ports since his strike constitutes a national security threat.

Take the ****ing deal on the table or I help put half your workforce out of a job. And with all his threats, I would have the IRS crawling up his ass and have the FBI investigating for potential racketeering.
Use the IRS and FBI to threaten people? Have the President come down hard on one side of a labor negotiation between private parties?

No thanks.
 
When your job is one that is almost certainly going to be displaced by technology in the next 10 years or so, is the best strategy to use all your current leverage to get what you can while you can (knowing doing so may only serve to hasten that fate)…or to backpedal in an effort to delay it?

Honestly, if I’m this guy, I’m probably favoring the first option too. I doubt that any concessions they make would actually delay the transition. The incentives to make it are so large that nothing the stevies do or don’t do seems likely to have any effect.

Their real strike reason isn't over pay. They want in the contract that all automation is banned from the docks.
 
Use the IRS and FBI to threaten people? Have the President come down hard on one side of a labor negotiation between private parties?

No thanks.
He can use the Taft-Hartley Act to order an 80 day cooling off period. Doing this would suspend the economic pressures until after the election. And while Kamala Harris would probably give him a huge hug for doing it, she could also distance herself from it to minimize the political impact to her.
 
Their real strike reason isn't over pay. They want in the contract that all automation is banned from the docks.
Ah, the classic Luddite grievance. LOL...that's never going to happen. And, even if it somehow did, any company bound to that pledge would just be displaced by somebody else who isn't.

They're pissing in the wind here.
 
Their real strike reason isn't over pay. They want in the contract that all automation is banned from the docks.
I get their concerns but manual workers can't hold off against automation for much longer.

It's 2024. People need to develop skills in areas/fields where workers can't easily be replaced by automation and/or AI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Just read the strike will have a $4.5 billion a day impact on the US economy. Bad news for retail, construction, small businesses, etc.
Oh, it'll be devastating.

Most stoppages are akin to having a localized health issue in, say, your lower back. Shutting down the ports is akin to being strangled. And the ILU knows it.

I'd be pretty surprised if Biden doesn't invoke the TH cooling off period. The ILU's political leverage is considerably higher before the election than it is after the election.
 
Oh, it'll be devastating.

Most stoppages are akin to having a localized health issue in, say, your lower back. Shutting down the ports is akin to being strangled. And the ILU knows it.

I'd be pretty surprised if Biden doesn't invoke the TH cooling off period. The ILU's political leverage is considerably higher before the election than it is after the election.

Well, I just saw that Biden is saying he won't intervene -- because he "doesn't believe in Taft-Hartley" (which is kind of a bizarre thing for a POTUS to say...given his pledge to faithfully execute the laws, etc....not to mention the fact that Taft-Hartley also has some provisions that unions favor -- such as federal jurisdiction). But POTUS is under no obligation to invoke the cooling off period.

Should be interesting to see who blinks first in this. I still think it'll be Biden.

biden-strike.jpg
 
It's 2024. People need to develop skills in areas/fields where workers can't easily be replaced by automation and/or AI.
Taking this on a bit of a tangent:

We might be approaching an era of technology where that isn’t possible for a large part of our society.

~50% of our nation has an IQ of 100 or lower. Those people might not be able to develop skills that can’t be done be AI/robotics. What happens then?

I’m not saying we are there yet—but it isn’t inconceivable for this point to occur within the next 100 or so years.

Brings up an interesting question: do we start coming up with policies now to deal with such a risk, or wait until it happens (cf. climate policy). Are social/economic policies better developed with an eye towards the long game, or is it better to deal with them in the moment, when you know more but it might be too late?
 
With Biden not running again, he may actually have the political latitude to do something like this. The Teamsters letter would indicate some level of expectation of him intervening.

But Harris can't do this.
Taking this on a bit of a tangent:

We might be approaching an era of technology where that isn’t possible for a large part of our society.

~50% of our nation has an IQ of 100 or lower. Those people might not be able to develop skills that can’t be done be AI/robotics. What happens then?

I’m not saying we are there yet—but it isn’t inconceivable for this point to occur within the next 100 or so years.

Brings up an interesting question: do we start coming up with policies now to deal with such a risk, or wait until it happens (cf. climate policy). Are social/economic policies better developed with an eye towards the long game, or is it better to deal with them in the moment, when you know more but it might be too late?
Maga meets modernity
 
Use the IRS and FBI to threaten people? Have the President come down hard on one side of a labor negotiation between private parties?

No thanks.
He is acting like a mobster (and there is a history there), I would be looking into him. And that wouldn't be a threat I share with him, I would want to know if he is dirty. If he is, he would go down.

These dickheads were offered a 50% pay increase and turned it down. Over $50 an hour in pay. If their labor strike shuts down commerce to the country, I believe it is the President's duty to get something done. And in the case of the negotiation, when they have already been offered a 50% pay increase, they are the ones being unreasonable. I would (metaphorically) bury him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Univee2
Use the IRS and FBI to threaten people? Have the President come down hard on one side of a labor negotiation between private parties?

No thanks.

Ronald Reagan: Hold my...um...just a sec Nancy, what do I want them to hold again? Oh yeah, Hold my beer!
 
He is acting like a mobster (and there is a history there)

I deal with union leaders regularly. Not all of them are like this guy, but some of them are. As many things as they point fingers at for the collapse of unionization that's taken place over the past 50-60 years, the one that they almost never consider is themselves (or their predecessors).

I honestly don't think they understand the concept of Pyrrhic victories, losing by winning. If they do, it's an afterthought. Ultimately, they're mostly politicians who, like other politicians, are primarily driven by keeping their jobs...which is to say their own short-term interests, not their members' long-term interests.

I would be looking into him. And that wouldn't be a threat I share with him, I would want to know if he is dirty. If he is, he would go down.

You'd like to think the authorities would always be trying to guard against corruption...in unions, business, finance, politics and everywhere else it tends to thrive. If they only do it because of the strike, that's not a good thing.

These dickheads were offered a 50% pay increase and turned it down.

As @twenty02 pointed out to me, pay isn't really their issue. They want a contract that prohibits the automation of the ports -- which is something they're not going to actually be able to stop.

If their labor strike shuts down commerce to the country, I believe it is the President's duty to get something done.

As far as I know, there isn't all that much he can do beyond requiring an 80 day cooling off period. But, for now, he's saying he won't do that.
 
Ronald Reagan: Hold my...um...just a sec Nancy, what do I want them to hold again? Oh yeah, Hold my beer!

The PATCO strike was an illegal strike under Taft-Hartley. And it wasn't between two private parties. It was between the PATCO union and the FAA. That's why it was illegal and Reagan was empowered to fire them.

In retrospect, that was a very misguided strike. But I think they were convinced that it would so devastate the civil transportation sector that people would be so frustrated and force the Reagan Administration to give into their demands. It didn't work out that way for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4You
I deal with union leaders regularly. Not all of them are like this guy, but some of them are. As many things as they point fingers at for the collapse of unionization that's taken place over the past 50-60 years, the one that they almost never consider is themselves (or their predecessors).

I honestly don't think they understand the concept of Pyrrhic victories, losing by winning. If they do, it's an afterthought. Ultimately, they're mostly politicians who, like other politicians, are primarily driven by keeping their jobs...which is to say their own short-term interests, not their members' long-term interests.



You'd like to think the authorities would always be trying to guard against corruption...in unions, business, finance, politics and everywhere else it tends to thrive. If they only do it because of the strike, that's not a good thing.



As @twenty02 pointed out to me, pay isn't really their issue. They want a contract that prohibits the automation of the ports -- which is something they're not going to actually be able to stop.



As far as I know, there isn't all that much he can do beyond requiring an 80 day cooling off period. But, for now, he's saying he won't do that.
And for all this it’s a potentially bad, bad look for Biden and, ultimately, Harris.

If this drags out - supplies dwindle, prices increase, medical items that can be critical post-Helene - then this can well approach “October Surprise” status.

And Trump is the king of the visual. Standing on the dock, cranes and mountains of containers behind him - “I will fix this!”
 
Taking this on a bit of a tangent:

We might be approaching an era of technology where that isn’t possible for a large part of our society.

~50% of our nation has an IQ of 100 or lower. Those people might not be able to develop skills that can’t be done be AI/robotics. What happens then?

I’m not saying we are there yet—but it isn’t inconceivable for this point to occur within the next 100 or so years.

Brings up an interesting question: do we start coming up with policies now to deal with such a risk, or wait until it happens (cf. climate policy). Are social/economic policies better developed with an eye towards the long game, or is it better to deal with them in the moment, when you know more but it might be too late?
Are you advocating for more social net policies? I wonder how this all plays into the thought that we need more immigration in America, it clearly seems as if job will be or could be at a premium in the coming years so why flood the land with individuals if we are looking at a situation where many will be job less?

I could cut my staff by 1/3 tomorrow if we wanted just by putting our capital in AI and letting many go. I don't think it is the right thing to do, and thankfully neither does the Executive team but the option is out there. I often think, if corporate taxes are raised would it give corporations more incentive to look to AI to offset the increase and depreciate the cost to save on payroll while also showing a lower profit?
 
And for all this it’s a potentially bad, bad look for Biden and, ultimately, Harris.

If this drags out - supplies dwindle, prices increase, medical items that can be critical post-Helene - then this can well approach “October Surprise” status.

And Trump is the king of the visual. Standing on the dock, cranes and mountains of containers behind him - “I will fix this!”
“I’ve been dealing with these guys for 50 years. I know how they operate. Harris. She wants to talk to HR about Dei while we can’t get our food and meds”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Univee2
And for all this it’s a potentially bad, bad look for Biden and, ultimately, Harris.

If this drags out - supplies dwindle, prices increase, medical items that can be critical post-Helene - then this can well approach “October Surprise” status.

And Trump is the king of the visual. Standing on the dock, cranes and mountains of containers behind him - “I will fix this!”

Yeah, it has the potential to create a helluva political problem for Kamala Harris. But the good news for her is that she's not POTUS. Biden may have to make a tough decision -- he's in a no-win situation. But, since she doesn't have to make the decision, she's free to be ambiguous (and she's proven to be an expert at that) and appear to take both sides at once.

But this assumes that it drags on for a period of time. Hopefully it won't. We haven't had such a major port strike in almost 50 years.
 
Are you advocating for more social net policies? I wonder how this all plays into the thought that we need more immigration in America, it clearly seems as if job will be or could be at a premium in the coming years so why flood the land with individuals if we are looking at a situation where many will be job less?

I could cut my staff by 1/3 tomorrow if we wanted just by putting our capital in AI and letting many go. I don't think it is the right thing to do, and thankfully neither does the Executive team but the option is out there. I often think, if corporate taxes are raised would it give corporations more incentive to look to AI to offset the increase and depreciate the cost to save on payroll while also showing a lower profit?
I'm not advocating anything right now. Just pointing out things humanity is going to need to consider in a future that might be closer than we recognize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4You
The PATCO strike was an illegal strike under Taft-Hartley. And it wasn't between two private parties. It was between the PATCO union and the FAA. That's why it was illegal and Reagan was empowered to fire them.

In retrospect, that was a very misguided strike. But I think they were convinced that it would so devastate the civil transportation sector that people would be so frustrated and force the Reagan Administration to give into their demands. It didn't work out that way for them.

My post was a joke and I am aware of the differences in the two scenarios.

Heck, as a DM I hired a guy in the late 90's who was one of the fired air traffic controllers. To say his life went downhill from there would be an understatement. He hadn't worked since then but had to get back into the workforce due to family health concerns. The manager had reservations as the guy seemed a mess and compounding that he was grossly overqualified for the position. But I called him back to talk with him and in the first few minutes I knew I was hiring him. Literally, the guy was one of the best hires I ever made. We would talk now and again about that strike and it's effects on his career, and you would think he would harbor ill will over it, but he didn't for either side.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT