Union Workers Are Fighting To Keep U.S. Ports More Dangerous and Less Efficient
Union president Harold Daggett says longshoremen will strike again in January if they don't get a ban on automation.

Some union leaders are self-destructive idiots.
America's ports have fallen behind. Not a single one ranks in the top 50 worldwide.
A big reason is that dock unions stop innovation.
This fall, the International Longshoremen's Association shut down East and Gulf coast ports, striking for a raise and a ban on automation. They got the raise.
Now union president Harold Daggett says longshoremen will strike again in January if they don't get that ban on automation.
His statement in my new video makes it clear that he knows how badly his strike would damage other Americans.
"Guys who sell cars can't sell cars, because the cars ain't coming in off the ships. They get laid off," says Daggett. "Construction workers get laid off because materials aren't coming in. The steel's not coming in. The lumber's not coming in. They lose their job."
Obviously, labor leaders aren't necessarily "pro-worker," says Mercatus Center economist Liya Palagashvili.
"They're saying, 'We don't care if these other jobs are destroyed as long as we get what we want.'"
Daggett is unusually clueless. He doesn't understand that a ban on automation will also hurt his members.
As Palagashvili puts it, "They'll save some jobs today, but they'll destroy a lot more jobs in the future."
That's because today's shippers have options. Daggett's union only controls East and Gulf coast ports. Shippers can deliver their products to ports that accept automation.
"We're going to see less activity in 'Stone Age' ports," says Palagashvili.
"Stone Age?"
"They want to ban automated opening and closing of port doors," she points out, requiring workers to pull heavy doors themselves.
Weirdly, the union boss makes his demands while also pointing out that dockworker jobs are dangerous.
"Very dangerous….We've had 17 people killed in the last three years!"
That's terrible, but it's an argument for automation! Using machines instead of vulnerable humans protects human workers. Daggett's arguing against himself!
I see why he wouldn't agree to an interview.
"It's backwards," notes Palagashvili. "[If] you care about the safety of these workers, you should enhance their jobs and make them safer and better. And the only way you can do that is with technological advancements in automation."
Other countries have used automated cranes for years. They're 80 percent faster than the human-operated cranes in many American ports.
"The best ports," says Palagashvili, "are Asian and Middle Eastern ports. They allow for innovation and technological advancements. If you look at Chinese ports, they're actually sitting behind a computer and directing port activity through the screen. That's a better job."
"I bet there are fewer of them," I push back.
"Some port jobs will definitely be lost," she says, "but that's not a bad thing. Look at it historically; we had hundreds of thousands of blacksmiths and candlemakers and watchmakers."
Obviously, those and other jobs were destroyed by new technology. But unemployment didn't surge. New jobs emerged—jobs people at the time didn't imagine: programmers, mechanics, electricians, medical technicians.
That's capitalism's "creative destruction." It constantly creates new jobs. That makes most everyone richer.
The media rarely cover that, because it's a slow, non-exciting, good news story, and the new jobs appear in many different places. By contrast, when a factory closes, the union assembles the media, and we report the tragic story about workers losing their jobs.
"That reporter doesn't follow up with the worker two years later," says Palagashvili, "but research does, and research shows that that worker gets a new job."
"On average, [a] better job," I note.
"Better jobs," agrees Palagashvili, "and higher wages."
Higher wages because innovation allows workers to accomplish more.
"Bulldozers and crane trucks made construction industry workers better off," says Palagashvili, "and the real wages of those construction workers increase."
Daggett and his union just don't get it.
They fight to keep American ports dangerous and inefficient.
That will hurt their own workers and, eventually, themselves.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Dock workers already have good jobs. They want to keep them.
Yes, it's at the expense of other workers. And corporate profits.
But it's hard to blame them for keeping the status quo when they have it good.
And no, dock workers aren't going to magically get better jobs when they are replaced with automation. Their skills are unloading. They aren't going to turn into coders (and coding is being replaced by AI, ironically enough)
So selfish (self-centered) greed is good, then? WHY is it hard to blame others who deliberately and knowingly, selfishly get ahead at my expense, through no fault of my own? I blame them, when the blame is fair and square!
THIS particular union is WAAAAAY greedy, and it is an OLD story!!!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2035413/lazy-crane-operators-making-250000-a-year-exacerbating-port-crisis-truckers-say/
. . . Lazy crane operators making $250,000 a year exacerbating port crisis, truckers say
No, dock workers have crappy to mediocre jobs that happen to pay modestly well. Union bosses, on the other hand, have great jobs.
Yes, it's understandable that people fear change and prefer the status quo. That's human nature. That doesn't make it right and certainly doesn't make it the best thing for the people involved. Battered spouses stay with their abusers because they also fear change. That's not a good reason.
Finally, precisely nobody said that dock workers are going to "magically" get better jobs. It will take hard work and retraining - just like every other kind of growth and improvement. But literally every other country in the world has managed this. Why do you have much disdain for American workers?
Actually they did invoke magic getting better jobs eg
Higher wages because innovation allows workers to accomplish more.
Innovation and productivity do not lead to higher wages. Yes - they certainly involve workers retraining and delivering on that productivity. But higher wages are not necessarily the result UNLESS that worker has more labor market power so that the higher productivity outcome is delivered to the worker rather than the shareholder, owner agent (CEO), customer, ship owners, 'stakeholder', etc.
If the scenario is 'workers WILL lose jobs in the industry and will have to find a different job in a different industry', then almost by definition the worker is in a situation where the labor market will become tilted against him and it will have to involve magical thinking that a combo of industry/job shift will bring a tilt back towards the worker. If that wasn't magical thinking, then those workers would have already made the shift to a 'better tilt'.
There are entire regions of the US - see Rust Belt - where different jobs and different industries also required different places and the expense of relocation (not co paid and possibly with loss on sale of housing). Where the population is still dropping and the opportunities are for meth dealers in dying towns.
There are many examples where unions have stood in the way of progress/productivity - to their long-term detriment as the industry itself gets competed away. In the case of longshoremen, it is not the basic wage - which ranges afaik from 20-40 /hour. It is the recorded working hours. Overtime and other stuff that can deliver income (to some) well into six digits. Like it or not, it is the union that has negotiated those terms of working hours. That does evidence labor market power.
But the ENTIRE purpose of this article is to eliminate the power of the union in that particular labor market. Not to deliver on some magic about productivity. Indeed, it is blazingly obvious that the FIRST example of workers not getting paid for their productivity is going to be longshoremen in exactly those ports where that union loses its labor market power. The economics here is that longshoremen are supposed to be paid less for increased productivity. And with fewer jobs as well. So that productivity money can be delivered to someone else.
When robbers are forced to stop robbing, and their victims can keep their money instead, then, of the robbers' money foregone, we can ALSO say that that productivity money can now be delivered to (or kept by) someone else.
See JUST how bad this shit has been, and is!!!
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2035413/lazy-crane-operators-making-250000-a-year-exacerbating-port-crisis-truckers-say/
. . . Lazy crane operators making $250,000 a year exacerbating port crisis, truckers say
The crane operators on docks use Government Almighty (and their dock management) to PUNISH much-less-paid truckers who do NOT kiss the asses of said crane operators!!!
The 'port crisis' was not really because of the dock workers. It is because there has been
a)zero increase for a couple decades in port traffic that can be delivered via rail v truck
b)truck capacity to offload ports creates an interstate bottleneck - and particularly worse traffic. That particular mode is also much more labor intense than ports/docks.
c)a completely distorted trade flow - where full containers come into the port from overseas and empty containers have to be cobbled together from across the US to be delivered to the port for shipment back overseas. Empty ships cost a lot of money for an oceanic voyage.
d)and yes - covid disruption of 'globalized' supply chains.
re that link re truckers v dock workers. How many truckers deliver empty containers back to the ports? If those aren't being delivered by truck, then presumably they have to be delivered by rail. Right?
You haven't refuted anything that my link stated, which was provided by the truckers. The truckers get paid diddly squat compared to the lazy, spoiled-rotten crane operators, who need to be replaced by mechanization!
Since ports are a highly regulated (might ass well be Government Almighty owned), and very valuable fixed-point assets, the crane operators can and do lean on Government Almighty (in the form of cops who chase off any truckers that piss them off)! If crane operators are going to get away with shit like this, and there is NO other viable choice, I'd be OK with nationalizing the ports so that willing, non-lazy, non-spoiled workers can do the jobs! If cops are an arm of crane operators, make the crane operators report to Government Almighty!
(Yeah I know... Government Almighty workers suck too! But the military performs more hard, dangerous work than crane operators do, for a LOT less money!)
Truckers are not hauling empty containers back to port. Period. Full fucking stop. So they know nothing about the PORT operations of loading those back onto ships. So don't tell me about some artificial pissing contest between truckers and dock workers. Because that particular bottleneck is being created by ship owners (and a supply chain in China) - not truckers, not dock workers. Who need some level of incentives in their business to leave the port empty of cargo and head back across the ocean with no empty containers either - if there are no empty containers that can be filled on the other side.
No mode of transport in the US is ever going to make money hauling empty containers back to ports. No matter how low the wages. But that is precisely what must occur in countries that run $800 billion trade deficits (which equals one country). For a couple decades, the US finagled it to load garbage into containers - in order to get enough money to ship useless containers of garbage back to ports - so they could be loaded onto ships. So those ships could go back to China and be reloaded for a trip back to the US. But that was all based on a scam of 'recycling'. Which broke a few years ago. And thus creates a MASSIVE shipping problem (for the US and only the US) whenever trade flows change incrementally.
That link is not even trying to explain that problem. Or anything else I mentioned. Indeed it is obvious that they are just writing a story pitting non-union v union. If that's your source of info - then you are merely a useful idiot for whoever put that story in that media.
The free market can cum up with other uses for empty shitting cuntainers! Small houses... Small whore-houses... Micro-breweries, micro-pot farms, micro-gun shops... Housing for server farms... Storage sheds for just about ANYTHING!!! This is a "red herring"!!!
A LARGE problem here is that Government Almighty can micro-manage the living SNOT out of concentrated value in a small spot! Think mines (minerals and oil and gas alike), but do NOT think of farm lands and far-spread-out highways!!! So farmers and truckers get fuckled and chuckled at... Butt in THIS case, unionized dock workers have hit the jackpotty, via the jackboots of the cops who enforce their will, against low-paid truckers!!! Dockworkers have becum the fuckers of the truckers, 'cause they sit on the geographically concentrated value known ass "shipping ports" ("shitting ports" upon the rest of us, who pay needlessly out of our ASSES for shipping shit); Thank YOU, Government Almighty; Can I PLEASE have another fucked-up-the-ass-by-rich-overpaid-unions jobs?!?!
(I'm gathering my Vaseline now. Maybe Queen Spermy Daniels can spare me some?)
Again, dockworkers in every other country in the world have solved that problem and now work in better paying and safer conditions. Why do you have such a low opinion of only American dockworkers?
dockworkers in every other country in the world have solved that problem and now work in better paying and safer conditions.
Prove it. What is the pay of dock workers by country? I'm sure both the unions and the ports know this. If it was true - then that change would be a no-brainer right?
It is true that WAR hurts everyone! Including plants, animals, the environment, etc.! There are MANY human evils that make NO sense, including greed, and greedy unions!
If the above is true - then that change would be a no-brainer, right? War and other evils... Poof! Gone!
Hello, SHIT DEPENDS ON WHOSE OX GETS GORED!!! Also, some people are EVIL! Hello?!?!?
Learn to plumb!
3 rules only to learn:
1. Hot on Left, Cold on Right
2. Paid day is Friday
3. Shit runs down hill
Learn to plumb!
Union Workers AreElizabeth Nolan Brown Is Fighting To Keep U.S. Ports More Dangerous and Less EfficientJust doin' my job.
America's ports have fallen behind. Not a single one ranks in the top 50 worldwide.
A big reason is that dock unions stop innovation.
*cough* *cough*
Being a dockworker is a dangerous occupation. As an engineering solution, automation protects them from them their own stupidity and the stupidity of their co-workers in a way that rules and PPE cannot. What the union wants is to protect jobs by keeping the jobs as risky as possible for the people who do the work.
A kingdom of idiots easily kept in their places by sleazebags of mediocre intelligence. Welcome to Marxism.
Does this 'engineering solution' definitively eliminate any/all risk or does it just manage it better and/or handle the same, or even larger amounts of it, more efficiently?
As an engineer, do you consider "idiots", "their places", "sleazebags", and "mediocre intelligence" to be observable, fixed quantities or poorly-defined quantities, potentially or even likely subject to change over time?
Because, while I'm no friend to Unions, from where I sit today vs. "two weeks" ago, the choice of Unions vs. unfettered, benevolent genius is a false one.
I was referring, not to engineers, but to the safety triangle of PPE, management and engineered solutions. In safety, the engineered solution is always the preference because it keeps the worker from ignorantly putting themselves into a dangerous situation. An example would be safety rails are better than rules about mandatory distance from a fall zone are better than a safety harness. All 3 are helpful, but the rails ensure that you can't fall even if you are too close to the edge.
I am curious if you have ever worked around longshoremen? It is a dangerous profession because the workers are low IQ and think they are tough. They require constantly being told not stand in places they could be crushed.
"Union Workers Are Fighting To Keep U.S. Ports More Dangerous and Less Efficient."
In other news, scientists have discovered the sun is a tad warm.
FIFY. Again, not trying to be pro-Union, just ball, strike, spade.
That's Okay. CA is going to fail. It would've failed years ago if it wasn't for federal funding. Time for Ports to get-out of the 'democractic' [Na]tional So[zi]alist areas.
Want to make HUGE $$$$$ off these people's idiocy? Buy & Build a Private Port off the Columbia River. So long as the Federal Gov-Guns don't get in your way.
Let the dock workers strike! The ports should be ready to launch an all-media campaign--newspapers (especially those in port cities), Internet, and social media--explaining why automation is good for the dock workers (and highlighting Daggett's idiocy), American exporters, and the consuming public.
Yes, the rest of us will suffer for awhile, but breaking the automation stalemate will be worth it.
Remember the Ala--er--the air traffic controllers! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#:~:text=At%207%20a.m.%20on%20August,eight%2Dhour%20day%20combined). Yes, President Reagan had a no-strike law in his armory, but prepared, determined, and courageous employers can also win.