Port strikes: pros & cons
I have always been opposed to collective bargaining. Innocent bystanders always get hurt.
Strike Repercussions.
Tens of Thousands of Port Workers Strike; Billions in Trade Expected to Be Impacted
https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/us/tens-of-thousands-of-port-workers-strike-billions-in-trade-expected-to-be-impacted-5733035?utm_medium=app&c=share_pos2&pid=iOS_app_share&utm_source=iOS_app_share
BING Copilot’s summary of the issues.
Here are some of the counterarguments to the terms demanded by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA):
Wage Increase: Critics argue that a 77% wage increase over six years is excessive and could significantly raise operational costs for port operators. This increase might be passed on to consumers through higher prices for goods1.
Ban on Automation: Opponents of the ban on automation argue that automation is essential for improving efficiency and competitiveness in global trade. They believe that automated equipment can handle cargo more quickly and safely, reducing the risk of human error and workplace injuries2.
Economic Impact: The strike itself is already causing significant disruptions, with potential costs to the U.S. economy estimated at $5 billion per day3. Prolonged strikes could lead to shortages of goods, increased prices, and a negative impact on businesses that rely on timely shipments4.
These counterarguments highlight the tension between maintaining job security and adapting to technological advancements in the industry. What are your thoughts on these points?
Hostage-taking should be illegal.
The entire population of the USA is being held hostage to settle the terms of this contract dispute between only two parties - the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX) and the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA).
The harmed parties, the “hostages”, include two broad categories: all affected producers who cannot get their products to intended markets thereby losing revenues as a consequence; an untold number of consumers who will find that the prices and availability of food and other products. The rising cost of living is already among the top election issues.
The ILA wants to keep the government out of the strike negotiations.
While governments are supposed to protect the interests of the population at large, the union serves only a very small portion of that population - its ILA members.
This strike showcases the sinister and selfish side of labour unions.
Collective bargaining is an unnecessary use of force.
Free market capitalism works best when opportunistically-corrupt meddle men are unable to meddle in its operations.
Prices adjust with fructuations in supply and demands. This applies to labour prices too. To attract needed human resources, wages and benefits rise.
When factors of production are assessed within businesses operating in competitive markets, managers adjust the mix of those factors to benefit the business. Investments in technology are often made to optimize productivity in the face of competitive pressures. Labour unions hate this because machines and computers don’t pay union dues. While human labour costs have risen steadily over time, technology has become an increasingly attractive option.
A cautionary tale
Detroit offers a case history in the harms of collective bargaining.
Once the centre of North America’s automotive industry, manufacturers begain to move production to American states and Mexico where “right to work” legistation existed. Many automotive plants vacated Michigan to set up shops where unions were absent. The City of Detroit, also unionized, continued to spend like drunken sailors until then creditors came knocking as their doors. Bankruptcy was inevitable to everyone except the collective bargaining crowd who failed to see that their ‘tax & spend’ gravy train had reached the end of the rail.
Collective bargaining is, well, “collective”.
All unions favour any policy that is good for their owners and vested stakeholders.
Often, this attitude filters into their membership communities such that the legitimate needs of the employer are sacrificed at the alter of hundreds if not thousands of union employees. Unions strive to keep union membership as high as possible. For this reason, their leaders discourage personal initiative on the job to improve productivity. They discourage and overtly impede performance gains through modern technology. They promote “workers rights” over workplace performance excellence and build workplace cultures around this theme.
As a young summer student working on a construction crew that built a large shopping centre in Richmond Hill, Ontario, I was told by a unionized veteran labourer: “Don’t work so hard. You make the rest of us look bad”. I thought he was joking at first but soon realized that humour was absent in that comment.
Yesterday, I spoke with a friend you explained why she quit a full time job as a federal government exployer with the CMHC (Canadian Housing & Mortgage Corporation) after eleven months. She explained that “The work place was toxic and the attitude of her co-workers towards their job responsibilities was pathetic.” When she complained about it with others in her work environment, she heard “What are you complaining about? You have a secure government position with excellent benefits and a good pension. Be thankful for your good fortune”.
What if?
As reported in the linked article:
“The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), the largest North American union representing 85,000 maritime employees, rejected a counteroffer from the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX).”
If the ILA did not exist and every one of those 85,000 workers were employed on the basis of their individual merits, would the ports be experiencing the current operational crisis?
My professional perspective.
I was employed as a professional recruiter for 36 years. I placed one new employee into one job at a time. Never once was a labour union involved.
Typically, the person hired possessed the required experience and skillset needed to fill a gap in an already well-functioning team or corporate department. Success for the new employee typically meant that promotions and bonuses could be exported based on merit.
“Merit” was understood to mean ‘meeting or exceeded objectives through dependable hard work, personal initiative and innovation thinking which produced productivity gains’.
Corporate shareholders were not ‘the enemy’ but the owners and executives who understood the value of a productive procecesses executed by a positively motivated workforce.
Unions like the ILA have grown to behemoth size in government workplaces where words like “productivity”, “initiative”, “process improvement” and “merit” are rarely spoken in a positive context of spoken at all.
If I had a magic wand, the words “collective bargaining” would vanish from all government work places. The words in the paragraph above would be expressed often with personal pride by every employee right up to and including the CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors.