Generally previous contracts hold if negotiations go past the prior contact's end date. It's not, oh the contact is up we have to strike. If the employer isn't negotiating in good faith thena strike might be necessary here. I am very skeptical of this union guy who prays Trump wins while complaining about COVID deaths. Crippling the economy right now would definitely hurt the incumbent.
No, the previous contracts have no legal force at that point. The company may continue paying wages at the previous rates if the workers continue working, but if they decide not to there is no breach of contract suit available. It depends on a mutual willingness to believe that the other side is acting in good faith, which is evidently not the case here.
That's interesting. In 2010 my craft union was between contact negotiations and the employer tried to claim that because we weren't currently in a contact, they could violate at will. The arbitrator at a national level binding arbitration hearing ruled our previous contract held until a new contract was either negotiated or imposed via binding arbitration. I would think the NLRB would rule in favor of the contract still being effective.
Ta, Robyn. Why are the longshoremen striking? It's possible they're doing it to get TFG elected. I am a proud Union member (not a longshoreman, obviously), and have agreed to strike when necessary. We have been working without a contract for over a year, and management has yet to negotiate in good faith. Solidarity forever.
For me what matters with automation is who benefits. If the billionaires benefit while workers or customers suffer, then I am against it. If the workers are OK and the customers benefit while the billionaires see their wealth increase slightly less fast, then I am fine with it. And if everyone benefits, then I don't mind the billionaires benefiting too. Benefit good, hurt bad. Not complicated.
" I’ve seen a few others suggest that ILA President Harold Daggett is in cahoots with Trump and is doing this to throw the election to him"
If anything, it would be the USMX execs doing it to hurt Harris. They could have already worked out a better contract before the current one expired. They knew if they didn't, the workers would likely go on strike. They let it happen anyway, knowing the impact it would have on inflation or hoping Biden would step in to end it, opening up attacks on how the Democrats don't really care about the "working class".
I mean, I don't buy that they are doing it to hurt Harris or boost Trump. But if either side WERE trying to do that, it'd be the execs who'd benefit more (at least in the short-term, which is about all they ever consider).
As someone recently said, "two things can be true"... and both sides have reasons to throw their weight toward a 45 win. If otherwise, as someone below stated they could have addressed this already or they could have settled on a shorter term contract as an interim thing to keep the current terms going or some intermediate terms going until just after the election and have continued to work on working it out. Heck even our feckless congress is able to do that.
Am I? The two adversarial parties of our astonishingly unproductive congress were still able to agree now and then on mini-extensions to the budget to minimize damage to both while differences continue to be hacked out. I'm not suggesting the parties to labor contract negotiations and congressional parties are the same but I'm suggesting there are similarities to their situations. They are all parties with often opposing objectives who must negotiate their way to some common ground, and all of whom will be hurt by failing to find an acceptable solution. Anyway my point is not about the comparison it is about options.
The article says if they didn't strike now then they'd have to settle for something unsatisfactory for six years. I'm just questioning why it would have to be six years. I really don't know: Is there some legal reason their contract must be six years? I'd like to know and would gladly feel I'd learned something new. If not, why wouldn't it be possible to agree to a shorter term - say six months - of a compromise pay and benefits package to extend workers having jobs, the work getting done, and the companies continuing business objectives while delaying the deadline for working out the final contract terms? Yes, they've had six years to do this, and I'm not saying it would yield the outcome either wants in the short term but might minimize damage to all parties in the interim in hopes of an acceptable eventual long term contract. Of course when you decrease harm you decrease pressure toward compliance - in both examples - and these workers have been waiting years now and many may be desperate.
I'm mentioning this because of the discussion around how the strike might affect the presidential candidates and who might have an agenda to help or harm either side. If either party to the labor dispute were interested at all in minimizing harm to the Democrat candidates that would be an additional reason to consider delaying this strike. It might not be a bad reason, for individual union members, if taking the long view considering what a Trump presidency will probably mean to them.
It would be EXTRAORDINARILY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE for anyone involved in any administrative union activity whatsoever to try to throw the election to Trump. YES, I KNOW a lot of union members are afflicted with the plague of voting against their best interests, but Trump has shown nothing if not that he's an enabler for the WORST aspects of the Republican Party. You know, the same party that's been trying to eliminate unions for the past forty years. As a Union member myself (United Steelworkers), I'm VERY concerned with the Trump courts' recent anti-NLRB rulings and the VERY REAL specter that another Trump presidency will spell the end of unions altogether.
I love the corporate spin that automation and AI are going to make things easier and cheaper. THEY WON'T. They'll make more money for execs and shareholders. That's it. That's why the company I work for is asking employees to "explore AI efficiencies" in our own jobs. They're making us harvest the threads to weave our own nooses.
You will never, NEVER be able to completely replace the human element in any given job.
You can automate things to speed things up. AI can definitely be a tool to help and employee do something more quickly, not necessarily more accurately the first time (again: you still need a human doing the driving to review everything.)
But a lot of tasks are the kind that cannot be automated, or else they WOULD have been automated already using non-AI methods. Why? BECAUSE THEY NEED A HUMAN BEING TO REVIEW IT! Whether that's due to a regulation, or due to the nature of the data in the task.
Thinking about oh.... I dunno, the lab accessions my office gets in the mail. A human being still needs to scan the physical paper that was sent in, or if the person pre-submitted a request, scan the bar code to summon the request from the sample and make sure the specimen matches what they submitted. AI is not so great at doing stuff like rolling around a sample in a jar and verifying that yep, that's urine. And then the human being gives it the all clear and smacks the accept button, then bundles it up and drops it in the bucket to go to the appropriate lab.
It's labor intensive and the specimens could be any of hundreds of things, from a tiny piece of skin for a biopsy to an entire frozen sheep's head.
We've automated what we could, but there is nothing that can replace the team that handles the incoming packages!
I had one of those only it was the Pontiac version which was an upgraded interior and electric windows, etc. It was a cool wagon and I always had my sleeping bag and some camping ear in the back for spontaneous escapes to the wilderness. When it died, we took the fancy combo bench/bucket high headrest seats out and put them in my friend 1969 Polara and ditched it's basic bench seat. That was super cool.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) welcomed Thursday the support of former Republican President Donald Trump after he was indicted for allegedly taking bribes from foreign governments — then faced almost immediate criticism.
Following Adams' indictment, Trump blamed the charges on the mayor's criticism of undocumented immigrants in the city.
"We have people that use the Justice Department, and the FBI, at levels that have never been seen before," Trump opined last week. "I wish him luck."
On Tuesday, Adams was asked if he embraced Trump's support.
"Listen, I welcome support from every American, no matter where they are and who they are," Adams told reporters. "I welcome support from every American, those who know me and know how I am, and those who are just reading up on this."
"So, every American in this great country, I welcome support from."
Gothamist writer Brigid Bergin argued that Adams was taking a page from Trump's playbook in his defense of the bribery charges.
"Several of Adams' fellow Democrats compared the mayor's rhetoric to that of former President Donald Trump, a Republican who was also indicted — and ultimately convicted — in New York," Bergin explained Tuesday.
For his part, Adams has said the prosecution was "based on lies."
Former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn told Gothamist she believed Adams' argument that the federal government was targeting its critiques was absurd.
“They were sitting around talking about Eric Adams and whether they were annoyed at him?” said Quinn, reportedly referencing the Biden Administration. “It's just ridiculous.”
I guess they would rather pay ransom to the hackers that break into their automated systems and shut everything down than to pay humans that are hack-resistant.
Yeah, that top figure up there, $39/hr, is nice, but at a 40-hour week it still ends up being $81,120/yr. Granted, they're probably pulling down O/T which could put them into six figures, but no one's making stupid money at this game.
The irony of the whole thing starting because of a feud between a Cop Boss and the Union Boss and also McNaulghty finding the body when he was "riding the boat" made it a good season...not the best, but good.
I don't think the Management will give much on "Automation"...The Union needs to get a fluffy Benes package for the laid off workers or early retirements at a living wage level.
No job category can ever be permanently protected.
Isn't the real question, "why do shipping companies think they deserve so much?"
Generally previous contracts hold if negotiations go past the prior contact's end date. It's not, oh the contact is up we have to strike. If the employer isn't negotiating in good faith thena strike might be necessary here. I am very skeptical of this union guy who prays Trump wins while complaining about COVID deaths. Crippling the economy right now would definitely hurt the incumbent.
No, the previous contracts have no legal force at that point. The company may continue paying wages at the previous rates if the workers continue working, but if they decide not to there is no breach of contract suit available. It depends on a mutual willingness to believe that the other side is acting in good faith, which is evidently not the case here.
That's interesting. In 2010 my craft union was between contact negotiations and the employer tried to claim that because we weren't currently in a contact, they could violate at will. The arbitrator at a national level binding arbitration hearing ruled our previous contract held until a new contract was either negotiated or imposed via binding arbitration. I would think the NLRB would rule in favor of the contract still being effective.
I defer to your personal experience.
Ta, Robyn. Why are the longshoremen striking? It's possible they're doing it to get TFG elected. I am a proud Union member (not a longshoreman, obviously), and have agreed to strike when necessary. We have been working without a contract for over a year, and management has yet to negotiate in good faith. Solidarity forever.
You can't eat a balanced meal on an actuarial table.
I'm all for automation, but, the displaced workers need to be protected.
For me what matters with automation is who benefits. If the billionaires benefit while workers or customers suffer, then I am against it. If the workers are OK and the customers benefit while the billionaires see their wealth increase slightly less fast, then I am fine with it. And if everyone benefits, then I don't mind the billionaires benefiting too. Benefit good, hurt bad. Not complicated.
" I’ve seen a few others suggest that ILA President Harold Daggett is in cahoots with Trump and is doing this to throw the election to him"
If anything, it would be the USMX execs doing it to hurt Harris. They could have already worked out a better contract before the current one expired. They knew if they didn't, the workers would likely go on strike. They let it happen anyway, knowing the impact it would have on inflation or hoping Biden would step in to end it, opening up attacks on how the Democrats don't really care about the "working class".
I mean, I don't buy that they are doing it to hurt Harris or boost Trump. But if either side WERE trying to do that, it'd be the execs who'd benefit more (at least in the short-term, which is about all they ever consider).
As someone recently said, "two things can be true"... and both sides have reasons to throw their weight toward a 45 win. If otherwise, as someone below stated they could have addressed this already or they could have settled on a shorter term contract as an interim thing to keep the current terms going or some intermediate terms going until just after the election and have continued to work on working it out. Heck even our feckless congress is able to do that.
That's....not how labor contracts work. You are comparing two completely different things.
Am I? The two adversarial parties of our astonishingly unproductive congress were still able to agree now and then on mini-extensions to the budget to minimize damage to both while differences continue to be hacked out. I'm not suggesting the parties to labor contract negotiations and congressional parties are the same but I'm suggesting there are similarities to their situations. They are all parties with often opposing objectives who must negotiate their way to some common ground, and all of whom will be hurt by failing to find an acceptable solution. Anyway my point is not about the comparison it is about options.
The article says if they didn't strike now then they'd have to settle for something unsatisfactory for six years. I'm just questioning why it would have to be six years. I really don't know: Is there some legal reason their contract must be six years? I'd like to know and would gladly feel I'd learned something new. If not, why wouldn't it be possible to agree to a shorter term - say six months - of a compromise pay and benefits package to extend workers having jobs, the work getting done, and the companies continuing business objectives while delaying the deadline for working out the final contract terms? Yes, they've had six years to do this, and I'm not saying it would yield the outcome either wants in the short term but might minimize damage to all parties in the interim in hopes of an acceptable eventual long term contract. Of course when you decrease harm you decrease pressure toward compliance - in both examples - and these workers have been waiting years now and many may be desperate.
I'm mentioning this because of the discussion around how the strike might affect the presidential candidates and who might have an agenda to help or harm either side. If either party to the labor dispute were interested at all in minimizing harm to the Democrat candidates that would be an additional reason to consider delaying this strike. It might not be a bad reason, for individual union members, if taking the long view considering what a Trump presidency will probably mean to them.
It would be EXTRAORDINARILY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE for anyone involved in any administrative union activity whatsoever to try to throw the election to Trump. YES, I KNOW a lot of union members are afflicted with the plague of voting against their best interests, but Trump has shown nothing if not that he's an enabler for the WORST aspects of the Republican Party. You know, the same party that's been trying to eliminate unions for the past forty years. As a Union member myself (United Steelworkers), I'm VERY concerned with the Trump courts' recent anti-NLRB rulings and the VERY REAL specter that another Trump presidency will spell the end of unions altogether.
I love the corporate spin that automation and AI are going to make things easier and cheaper. THEY WON'T. They'll make more money for execs and shareholders. That's it. That's why the company I work for is asking employees to "explore AI efficiencies" in our own jobs. They're making us harvest the threads to weave our own nooses.
You will never, NEVER be able to completely replace the human element in any given job.
You can automate things to speed things up. AI can definitely be a tool to help and employee do something more quickly, not necessarily more accurately the first time (again: you still need a human doing the driving to review everything.)
But a lot of tasks are the kind that cannot be automated, or else they WOULD have been automated already using non-AI methods. Why? BECAUSE THEY NEED A HUMAN BEING TO REVIEW IT! Whether that's due to a regulation, or due to the nature of the data in the task.
Thinking about oh.... I dunno, the lab accessions my office gets in the mail. A human being still needs to scan the physical paper that was sent in, or if the person pre-submitted a request, scan the bar code to summon the request from the sample and make sure the specimen matches what they submitted. AI is not so great at doing stuff like rolling around a sample in a jar and verifying that yep, that's urine. And then the human being gives it the all clear and smacks the accept button, then bundles it up and drops it in the bucket to go to the appropriate lab.
It's labor intensive and the specimens could be any of hundreds of things, from a tiny piece of skin for a biopsy to an entire frozen sheep's head.
We've automated what we could, but there is nothing that can replace the team that handles the incoming packages!
Semi OT fun fact: the project car I am restoring was stuck in customs in the West Coast dock strike of 1971 from October 71 to Feb or March 72.
I love that tidbit of its history.
Solidarity forever!
Furin Vehicle...are American cars not good enough for you /s?
ha ha, nope. not even close.
1971, name a single American car half as cool as a Beemer 2002 Roundie
Dodge Polara station wagon.
I had one of those only it was the Pontiac version which was an upgraded interior and electric windows, etc. It was a cool wagon and I always had my sleeping bag and some camping ear in the back for spontaneous escapes to the wilderness. When it died, we took the fancy combo bench/bucket high headrest seats out and put them in my friend 1969 Polara and ditched it's basic bench seat. That was super cool.
1971 Super Chicken
https://www.jamesedition.com/cars/pontiac/firebird_trans_am/1971-pontiac-firebird-trans-am-supercharged-lt4-pro-touring-restomod-for-sale-12942008
OK, fair point.
In the end any old car anyone cares about is equally cool.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) welcomed Thursday the support of former Republican President Donald Trump after he was indicted for allegedly taking bribes from foreign governments — then faced almost immediate criticism.
Following Adams' indictment, Trump blamed the charges on the mayor's criticism of undocumented immigrants in the city.
"We have people that use the Justice Department, and the FBI, at levels that have never been seen before," Trump opined last week. "I wish him luck."
On Tuesday, Adams was asked if he embraced Trump's support.
"Listen, I welcome support from every American, no matter where they are and who they are," Adams told reporters. "I welcome support from every American, those who know me and know how I am, and those who are just reading up on this."
"So, every American in this great country, I welcome support from."
Gothamist writer Brigid Bergin argued that Adams was taking a page from Trump's playbook in his defense of the bribery charges.
"Several of Adams' fellow Democrats compared the mayor's rhetoric to that of former President Donald Trump, a Republican who was also indicted — and ultimately convicted — in New York," Bergin explained Tuesday.
For his part, Adams has said the prosecution was "based on lies."
Former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn told Gothamist she believed Adams' argument that the federal government was targeting its critiques was absurd.
“They were sitting around talking about Eric Adams and whether they were annoyed at him?” said Quinn, reportedly referencing the Biden Administration. “It's just ridiculous.”
https://www.rawstory.com/eric-adams-donald-trump/
Thank you, Ranked Voting for this blessing..../s
Biden supports the strike
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/71076cc93b52b4444a9fa55ec4e7f92427187c1563bd7c18b76a3dada22e3171.jpg
Yes and he could legally end it if he chose to.
International Longshoremen’s Association should make sure their new contract expires on May 1, 2028.
How about 2030 instead? Give them a bit of time and 6 years seems to be the standard?
Because it would nicely align with the expiration of the recently approved United Auto Workers' contract!
meh
I guess they would rather pay ransom to the hackers that break into their automated systems and shut everything down than to pay humans that are hack-resistant.
I feel like someone should bellow this so it’s gonna be me:
I DON’T CARE IF THEY MAKE SIX FIGURES THEY ARE STILL UNDERPAID RELATIVE TO PROFITS (and they don’t make six figures arghhhhhhh)
(Yes it’s a long Metro ride)
Yeah, that top figure up there, $39/hr, is nice, but at a 40-hour week it still ends up being $81,120/yr. Granted, they're probably pulling down O/T which could put them into six figures, but no one's making stupid money at this game.
When I first read the title I thought of "The Peasants are Revolting" Wizard of Id cartoon with TFG as the "King".
King: "In these rough times, we must all tighten our belts another notch."
"AAAUUURRRGGGHHHHH!!"
King: "What was that?"
Aide: "Three guys just cut themselves in half."
Great article, very informative, and better than Season 2 of The Wire.
NO.
Better than Jimmy’s job?
The irony of the whole thing starting because of a feud between a Cop Boss and the Union Boss and also McNaulghty finding the body when he was "riding the boat" made it a good season...not the best, but good.
BTW dockworkers demands are not ridiculous. However, the compromise offer is "insulting"!!
I don't think the Management will give much on "Automation"...The Union needs to get a fluffy Benes package for the laid off workers or early retirements at a living wage level.
No job category can ever be permanently protected.
i think of what the internet did to the jizzmoppers at mark robinson's afterwork haunts.