Port Workers are Set to Strike Tuesday 10/1

[ThatRobGuy]

"Loading and unloading crates" doesn't begin to describe it--or the long, irregular shifts in all kinds of weather. I doubt you could do the job, college boy, or would want to for any money.

Actually, I did a very similar job for a trucking hub back when I was working my way through college. (for about 3 years)...and I'm still physically fit enough to do it now if I had to...

...but insults like "college boy" aside, back to the merits of the facts at hand.

Is a $100k+ income (with the top third making north $200k) for the task described "unreasonable" or "exploitative"? And if so, is it to a degree where a 40-50% raise on top of that number "insulting" to the people doing the work?


Why is a UAW contract negotiated by Shawn Fain that moved the top base rate up to $90k "historic" and "a huge win for labor" ...But guys who are already making more that (many already making double that) feel the need to demand an additional 70% on top of what they were already making?


Like I said before, I know people look through these sorts of things with certain "lenses", but the ILA isn't your typical organized labor outfit.


Here's an NY Times piece from 7 years ago about the organization

Along New York Harbor, ‘On the Waterfront’ Endures (Published 2017)

Much has changed since the days when mobsters controlled the waterfront, but investigators say organized crime still has a presence there.

www.nytimes.com

At lot of the jobs are still held by people with relationships to organized crime figures. Their union boss owns multiple properties, a massive yacht, and rolls around in a Bentley. Per eyewitness accounts from some longshoremen, Daggett would show up to meetings carrying a gun (thought that was illegal in NYC??)

Per investigators and the head of the Waterfront Commission:
In recent years, the union has brazenly recommended friends or relatives of organized crime figures for jobs on the docks, said Phoebe S. Sorial, the general counsel for the Waterfront Commission. She said the union has sought waterfront jobs for “people who posted bail for organized figures” and “people who are in business with organized crime figures,” along with any number of relatives.

In 2014, for instance, the union recommended the 62-year-old daughter of one of New York’s most famous mobsters, Benjamin (Lefty) Ruggiero (played by Al Pacino in the film “Donnie Brasco”), Mr. Arsenault said, adding that other such cases abound.

“You can’t throw a rock on either side of the waterfront without hitting a brother, son or daughter of a made member,”


I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the reason for the high salaries (that are above and beyond what most unionized gigs pay) is, in part, due to the fact that you still need people there to do the actual work, and it's going to be hard to preserve solidarity among the rank and file if they they see quite a few of their co-workers (the nephews, grandkids, and cousins of "connected" people who were given "sweetheart deals" via "container royalties") making a lot more money than them.

If you're going to justify a connected person's nephew getting paid $160k to "work the docks", it's kind of hard to do that without demanding it for everyone else in a unionized environment.

https://waterfront.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2023/11/2019-2020_wcnyh_annual_report.pdf

Some light reading for those who are interested...

When the NYC & NY State governments actually started keeping a closer eye on the matter, they found that 18% of all referrals for dock jobs had confirmed mob ties. Which means there are probably a bunch slipping through that they don't know about.

 

[KathrynAragon]

Speaking of being a college boy, I don't think you need a college degree to be a longshoreman.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

"Loading and unloading crates" doesn't begin to describe it--or the long, irregular shifts in all kinds of weather.

One of the contributing factors to this issue is the ILA's insistence on minimal automation in their facilities. It seems to me that they're creating scenarios that force difficult working conditions and encourage employers to give overtime (I saw a stat that said that a significant percentage of ILA workers were pulling 100+ hour weeks, which is how so many were clearing $200k/yr) in order to increase their compensation. To me, that doesn't sound like the union is really working in the interest of its members - sure, they're making money, but 100-hour weeks aren't safe or sustainable. And perhaps the dockyards would be more open to higher base pay rates if they didn't have to pay so much overtime.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Why is a UAW contract negotiated by Shawn Fain that moved the top base rate up to $90k "historic" and "a huge win for labor" ...But guys who are already making more that (many already making double that) feel the need to demand an additional 70% on top of what they were already making?

Because they're both trying to sell what they're doing/did. How long would Shawn Fain hold onto his job if he came back and said, "this deal sucks; I couldn't do any better"? Same question for the ILA guy if he took the ports' first offer. They're propagandizing.

At lot of the jobs are still held by people with relationships to organized crime figures. Their union boss owns multiple properties, a massive yacht, and rolls around in a Bentley. Per eyewitness accounts from some longshoremen, Daggett would show up to meetings carrying a gun (thought that was illegal in NYC??)

How much the union boss makes is irrelevant to how much the workers make (or should make).

 

[BCP1928]

Actually, I did a very similar job for a trucking hub back when I was working my way through college. (for about 3 years)...and I'm still physically fit enough to do it now if I had to...

You learned to operate a container crane at a trucking hub?

...but insults like "college boy" aside, back to the merits of the facts at hand.

Why? You clearly don't see much merit in blue collar work.

Is a $100k+ income (with the top third making north $200k) for the task described "unreasonable" or "exploitative"? And if so, is it to a degree where a 40-50% raise on top of that number "insulting" to the people doing the work?


Why is a UAW contract negotiated by Shawn Fain that moved the top base rate up to $90k "historic" and "a huge win for labor" ...But guys who are already making more that (many already making double that) feel the need to demand an additional 70% on top of what they were already making?


Like I said before, I know people look through these sorts of things with certain "lenses", but the ILA isn't your typical organized labor outfit.


Here's an NY Times piece from 7 years ago about the organization

Along New York Harbor, ‘On the Waterfront’ Endures (Published 2017)

Much has changed since the days when mobsters controlled the waterfront, but investigators say organized crime still has a presence there.

www.nytimes.com

At lot of the jobs are still held by people with relationships to organized crime figures. Their union boss owns multiple properties, a massive yacht, and rolls around in a Bentley. Per eyewitness accounts from some longshoremen, Daggett would show up to meetings carrying a gun (thought that was illegal in NYC??)

Per investigators and the head of the Waterfront Commission:
In recent years, the union has brazenly recommended friends or relatives of organized crime figures for jobs on the docks, said Phoebe S. Sorial, the general counsel for the Waterfront Commission. She said the union has sought waterfront jobs for “people who posted bail for organized figures” and “people who are in business with organized crime figures,” along with any number of relatives.

In 2014, for instance, the union recommended the 62-year-old daughter of one of New York’s most famous mobsters, Benjamin (Lefty) Ruggiero (played by Al Pacino in the film “Donnie Brasco”), Mr. Arsenault said, adding that other such cases abound.

“You can’t throw a rock on either side of the waterfront without hitting a brother, son or daughter of a made member,”


I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the reason for the high salaries (that are above and beyond what most unionized gigs pay) is, in part, due to the fact that you still need people there to do the actual work, and it's going to be hard to preserve solidarity among the rank and file if they they see quite a few of their co-workers (the nephews, grandkids, and cousins of "connected" people who were given "sweetheart deals" via "container royalties") making a lot more money than them.

If you're going to justify a connected person's nephew getting paid $160k to "work the docks", it's kind of hard to do that without demanding it for everyone else in a unionized environment.

https://waterfront.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2023/11/2019-2020_wcnyh_annual_report.pdf

Some light reading for those who are interested...

When the NYC & NY State governments actually started keeping a closer eye on the matter, they found that 18% of all referrals for dock jobs had confirmed mob ties. Which means there are probably a bunch slipping through that they don't know about.

The point is, you and I are not entitled to an opinion as to what these or any other workers "deserve." My take is that they have been able to negotiate a favorable contract from their employers and it should be a lesson and an encouragement for the rest of us.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Because they're both trying to sell what they're doing/did. How long would Shawn Fain hold onto his job if he came back and said, "this deal sucks; I couldn't do any better"? Same question for the ILA guy if he took the ports' first offer. They're propagandizing.

How much the union boss makes is irrelevant to how much the workers make (or should make).

It's not irreverent...for a few reasons...

A) It can be an indicator about perhaps some other aspects of how they "do business" that could be legitimate cause for concern.

B) Just like unionization debates are heavily contingent on talking points about salary ratios of CEOs to Workers (Robert Reich has written entire chapters of books about why salary ratios matter), it matters here too.

Liz Shuler (president of AFL-CIO): $270k year
Sean O'Brian (president of Teamsters Union): $250k year
Shawn Fain (president of UAW): $185k year

This president of a union much smaller than those: close to a million per year. (and he owns mansions, drives a Bentley, and has 70+ foot Yachts with names like Obsession.



You know how you can tell Daggett is "something different" from the other aforementioned names? Left-leaning media outlets have already turned on him to a degree (when they wouldn't otherwise do so for any other leader of organized labor.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/03/business/port-strike-ila-president-harold-daggett/index.html

Sporting gold chains and a diamond ring, he throws out swear words in virtually every other sentence while threatening to bring the world’s economy to a standstill.
“We’re going to show them, they’re going to have to give a f*** about us, because nothing is going to move without us!” he said to cheers. “We’re going to win this f***ing thing. Trust me. They can’t survive too long. We’re going to get what the f*** we deserve.”

Daggett makes about $902,000 for positions with the ILA and one of its locals – far more than many of his counterparts. His son earns $703,000 from the ILA and the same local. At the United Auto Workers union, with more than four times as many members, UAW President Shawn Fain received just under $200,000 for his eight months on the job last year.

Daggett also has other honors most union bosses don’t enjoy. The union and several locals erected a statue of him outside of its headquarters in 2022, for example.


But his Bentley driving, yacht owning, "have union money used to erect statues in my honor", lifestyles aside...back to the key crux of the conversation.


What, in your honest estimation, was unfair about the previous arrangement where workers were making $150k/year, pension, health benefits better than you or I get, and six weeks of vacation after 3 years in addition to 16 paid holidays (if you don't believe me, look it up...you're reading that right, six weeks of paid vacation plus 16 days worth of paid holidays), for a manual labor job?

These aren't a group of guys that were getting "ripped off"...hell, half of them probably cleared more than you or I last year.

They've largely benefitted from being "mob-adjacent" for the reasons I listed in a previous post. Given that the Waterfront Commission found that 18% of new longshoreman referrals were for people with confirmed mob ties (which means you know it was worse back when the authorities weren't actually looking). A sizeable portion are (as you even referenced earlier in the thread no-shows)...who are collecting "container royalties"...not sure if you saw that part lol. There's a large number of "old timers", still on the active payroll, who collect a big chunk of money for the fact that the shipping industry moved to using containers (which made loading and unloading quicker & easier, thus requiring fewer people)

It's kinda hard to hook your nephew up with a six-figure job if the people who are actually doing the work aren't making in that same ballpark as well. (that's how you get discontent among the ranks).



Again, let's take the "organized labor vs. management" dispute aspect off the table.

If a news story was published about a regional grocery store workers union (where there was no labor dispute happening), where the people who were members were making six figures to bag groceries, 1/4 of the baggers were known associates of mob members, and another 10% of "baggers" were sitting at home, still on the payroll, collecting "conveyor belt & self-checkout royalties", and their leader was rolling up to the Giant Eagle in a Bentley wearing diamond rings to swear at and threaten the Giant Eagle manager (after having statues erected of himself in all the regional grocery story parking lots)

What would your thoughts be?

Just because one side is "typically" the "good guy" and the "other side" is typically the "bad guy" in similar types of disputes doesn't mean people should assume that 100% of these types of disputes follow a "perfect pattern"


I've made clear before, I'm not opposed to organized labor...I've praised the "works council" model the Nordic countries have. But there is a very real difference between a genuine labor leader and a shake-down artist. Daggett is the latter.

 

[BCP1928]

...for a manual labor job?

You don't want to be seen as anti-labor, but you just can't let it go.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You learned to operate a container crane at a trucking hub?

No...but I could do it...I'm 100% confident in that.

The Netherlands has software that operates their cranes in Rotterdam, they've been automated since 1993...and Asian countries have 20-somethings operating the cranes from an office on a computer.

The Rotterdam system allows them to more safely move 80% more cargo than ports in the US.

In terms of the most efficient and safe ports in the world, only one in he US makes the top 50 list, and it's one in Georgia that's not in the grips of the ILA.

Why? You clearly don't see much merit in blue collar work.

I do, that's why I think it's great that some blue collar trades can pull in a six figure income. For the reasons I listed before, the ILA situation is different.

These guys weren't being paid peanuts. They were made damn good salaries for what they did.

The point is, you and I are not entitled to an opinion as to what these or any other workers "deserve." My take is that they have been able to negotiate a favorable contract from their employers and it should be a lesson and an encouragement for the rest of us.

Sure we are... if you've ever made an assertion that a fortune 500 company's CEO is overpaid, without having done the job, then clearly you're willing to make judgement calls about what certain jobs are worth...yes?

We've never been a longshoremen just like we've never been CEOs of "MegaCorp, Intl"....yet only one of those positions' compensation package is "acceptable" to critique in the eye of "labor advocates", correct?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You don't want to be seen as anti-labor, but you just can't let it go.

Not agreeing with "labor" on everything doesn't mean one is "anti-labor"

Stop trying to make it an all-or-nothing thing...it weakens the argument.

That's basically suggesting that only non-labor entities are capable of greed and exploitation, which obviously isn't true.


I'll ask a very simple question.

What do you think a longshoreman should make per year based on objective metrics? (what a person doing that job thinks they should make, or what a Union leader claims they should make, isn't objective)

 

[BCP1928]

Not agreeing with "labor" on everything doesn't mean one is "anti-labor"

Stop trying to make it an all-or-nothing thing...it weakens the argument.

That's basically suggesting that only non-labor entities are capable of greed and exploitation, which obviously isn't true.

Of course it's not true. It can be even worse. Where I grew up on the west coast the ILWU was dominated by communists, not the mob, and the strikes against the Pacific Maritime Association sometimes turned into gunfights. At least the mob are capitalists.

I'll ask a very simple question.

What do you think a longshoreman should make per year based on objective metrics? (what a person doing that job thinks they should make, or what a Union leader claims they should make, isn't objective)

That is a very good question. The answer is that there are no "objective metrics" in a free labor market.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That is a very good question. The answer is that there are no "objective metrics" in a free labor market.

There are some objective metrics to be looked at.

The complexity/difficulty of the task, with regards to the rarity/scarcity of the skill and physical and mental abilities needed to complete the task.

Per a few Dockworker job postings, here's what's listed:

One Company lists:

• Medium work, lifting up to 50 pounds occasionally and up to 70 pounds on a rare basis
• Demonstrate auditory and visual acuity/tracking/inspection
• Stoop/bend/kneel/crouch/balance/climb on an occasional basis
• Exposure to equipment that intensifies the heat factor

Another company lists:

• Load and unload cargo using suitable material-handling equipment
• Inspect the unloaded cargo for any damages or irregularities
• Tally the unloaded cargo and input information onto spreadsheets
• High school diploma or equivalent is preferred
• Must be able to lift approximately 70 lbs. on an occasional basis when required

Another lists:

• High School Diploma or General Education Degree Preferred.
• Good attendance.
• Will be required to stand, walk, lift, carry, push, pull, stoop, and reach.
• Must be able to lift to 60 pounds occasionally and 40 pounds regularly.
• Must have the ability to read and interpret a tape measure.
• Basic math skills to allow for figuring out the best loading of trailers.
• Organizational skills and ability to understand shipping labels and paperwork.

And while this next part is not purely objective, it is a point of reference... we can also refer to other countries that have a track-record with regards to labor/compensation that people generally see to be much better than the environment we have in the US.

The average salary of a Longshoreman (before OT)
Canadian is $90-123k/year CAD (approximately 66-100k/year USD)
Denmark is at 513000 kr. (that's only about $80k USD)
Germany is 69,000 Euros (that's around 75K USD)
Iceland is 9.6M ISK per year (72K USD)
Switzerland 71k CHF per year (85k USD)
Sweden 680,000 kr (70K USD)
Finland 66,000 Euros (similar to Germany, around 72K USD)
Australia 118k AUD (80K USD)
Austria 72,000 Euros (80K USD)
New Zealand 116,000 NZD (72K USD)

You get the idea...

Why is it that just about every other developed nation (and ones like the Nordic countries that are known for treating/regarding "labor" better than the US, across a wide variety of other sectors from grocery store workers to fast food workers, machine shops, etc... and have much better records on "curtailing the excesses of capitalism")
...have managed to land on something in the ballpark of 70k-100k/year USD for that job, yet we're pretty much the only outlier where the people doing that job are already making over that (a third are making double that), and their union was demanding a 70% raise on top of that and called a 50% increase offer "insulting"?


I'm going to still go out on that limb and suggest that this is a case where the ILA, in particular, is exhibiting some of the same traits of some of the "old school unions" that led to unions getting a bad rep and getting demonized in the past, and capitalizing on the fact that they know there's a particular sentiment among some to support the side of organized labor against management "by default" when a dispute gets publicized regardless of the specifics.

 

[iluvatar5150]

There are some objective metrics to be looked at.

The complexity/difficulty of the task, with regards to the rarity/scarcity of the skill and physical and mental abilities needed to complete the task.

Per a few Dockworker job postings, here's what's listed:

One Company lists:

• Medium work, lifting up to 50 pounds occasionally and up to 70 pounds on a rare basis
• Demonstrate auditory and visual acuity/tracking/inspection
• Stoop/bend/kneel/crouch/balance/climb on an occasional basis
• Exposure to equipment that intensifies the heat factor

Another company lists:

• Load and unload cargo using suitable material-handling equipment
• Inspect the unloaded cargo for any damages or irregularities
• Tally the unloaded cargo and input information onto spreadsheets
• High school diploma or equivalent is preferred
• Must be able to lift approximately 70 lbs. on an occasional basis when required

Another lists:

• High School Diploma or General Education Degree Preferred.
• Good attendance.
• Will be required to stand, walk, lift, carry, push, pull, stoop, and reach.
• Must be able to lift to 60 pounds occasionally and 40 pounds regularly.
• Must have the ability to read and interpret a tape measure.
• Basic math skills to allow for figuring out the best loading of trailers.
• Organizational skills and ability to understand shipping labels and paperwork.

And while this next part is not purely objective, it is a point of reference... we can also refer to other countries that have a track-record with regards to labor/compensation that people generally see to be much better than the environment we have in the US.

The average salary of a Longshoreman (before OT)
Canadian is $90-123k/year CAD (approximately 66-100k/year USD)
Denmark is at 513000 kr. (that's only about $80k USD)
Germany is 69,000 Euros (that's around 75K USD)
Iceland is 9.6M ISK per year (72K USD)
Switzerland 71k CHF per year (85k USD)
Sweden 680,000 kr (70K USD)
Finland 66,000 Euros (similar to Germany, around 72K USD)
Australia 118k AUD (80K USD)
Austria 72,000 Euros (80K USD)
New Zealand 116,000 NZD (72K USD)

You get the idea...

Why is it that just about every other developed nation (and ones like the Nordic countries that are known for treating/regarding "labor" better than the US, across a wide variety of other sectors from grocery store workers to fast food workers, machine shops, etc... and have much better records on "curtailing the excesses of capitalism")
...have managed to land on something in the ballpark of 70k-100k/year USD for that job, yet we're pretty much the only outlier where the people doing that job are already making over that (a third are making double that), and their union was demanding a 70% raise on top of that and called a 50% increase offer "insulting"?


I'm going to still go out on that limb and suggest that this is a case where the ILA, in particular, is exhibiting some of the same traits of some of the "old school unions" that led to unions getting a bad rep and getting demonized in the past, and capitalizing on the fact that they know there's a particular sentiment among some to support the side of organized labor against management "by default" when a dispute gets publicized regardless of the specifics.

I don't think this is the proof you think it is. Have you compared white collar salaries in Europe to those in the US? IME, they're significantly lower in Europe. From what I've seen in the games industry (based on both published salaries and talking to colleagues in Europe), you can expect to take a 30-50% pay cut moving from the US to Europe. I routinely see Senior & Lead level positions in Europe advertising rates barely above entry level US rates. And that's for the advanced/expensive regions like Scandinavia and the UK. There's more industry in eastern Europe that pays even less. From what I've seen of job listings, the rest of the tech industry appears to be follow that trend.

If you're trying to use relative difficulty and scarcity of skills as an argument for why longshoremen should get paid a certain amount, you ought to account for the fact that, according to your numbers, the longshoremen across Europe are making about the same (before OT) as senior SWE's.

 

[BCP1928]

There are some objective metrics to be looked at.

The complexity/difficulty of the task, with regards to the rarity/scarcity of the skill and physical and mental abilities needed to complete the task.

Per a few Dockworker job postings, here's what's listed:

One Company lists:

• Medium work, lifting up to 50 pounds occasionally and up to 70 pounds on a rare basis
• Demonstrate auditory and visual acuity/tracking/inspection
• Stoop/bend/kneel/crouch/balance/climb on an occasional basis
• Exposure to equipment that intensifies the heat factor

Another company lists:

• Load and unload cargo using suitable material-handling equipment
• Inspect the unloaded cargo for any damages or irregularities
• Tally the unloaded cargo and input information onto spreadsheets
• High school diploma or equivalent is preferred
• Must be able to lift approximately 70 lbs. on an occasional basis when required

Another lists:

• High School Diploma or General Education Degree Preferred.
• Good attendance.
• Will be required to stand, walk, lift, carry, push, pull, stoop, and reach.
• Must be able to lift to 60 pounds occasionally and 40 pounds regularly.
• Must have the ability to read and interpret a tape measure.
• Basic math skills to allow for figuring out the best loading of trailers.
• Organizational skills and ability to understand shipping labels and paperwork.

And while this next part is not purely objective, it is a point of reference... we can also refer to other countries that have a track-record with regards to labor/compensation that people generally see to be much better than the environment we have in the US.

The average salary of a Longshoreman (before OT)
Canadian is $90-123k/year CAD (approximately 66-100k/year USD)
Denmark is at 513000 kr. (that's only about $80k USD)
Germany is 69,000 Euros (that's around 75K USD)
Iceland is 9.6M ISK per year (72K USD)
Switzerland 71k CHF per year (85k USD)
Sweden 680,000 kr (70K USD)
Finland 66,000 Euros (similar to Germany, around 72K USD)
Australia 118k AUD (80K USD)
Austria 72,000 Euros (80K USD)
New Zealand 116,000 NZD (72K USD)

You get the idea...

Why is it that just about every other developed nation (and ones like the Nordic countries that are known for treating/regarding "labor" better than the US, across a wide variety of other sectors from grocery store workers to fast food workers, machine shops, etc... and have much better records on "curtailing the excesses of capitalism")
...have managed to land on something in the ballpark of 70k-100k/year USD for that job, yet we're pretty much the only outlier where the people doing that job are already making over that (a third are making double that), and their union was demanding a 70% raise on top of that and called a 50% increase offer "insulting"?


I'm going to still go out on that limb and suggest that this is a case where the ILA, in particular, is exhibiting some of the same traits of some of the "old school unions" that led to unions getting a bad rep and getting demonized in the past, and capitalizing on the fact that they know there's a particular sentiment among some to support the side of organized labor against management "by default" when a dispute gets publicized regardless of the specifics.

Unless you are accusing the ILA of corrupt or illegal practices, then what other workers make elsewhere is beside the point. The ILA longshoremen want a bigger piece of the pie that's in front of them, not some other pie somewhere. For all we know, those other workers are sitting in front of a smaller pie and getting a bigger piece of it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Unless you are accusing the ILA of corrupt or illegal practices, then what other workers make elsewhere is beside the point. The ILA longshoremen want a bigger piece of the pie that's in front of them, not some other pie somewhere. For all we know, those other workers are sitting in front of a smaller pie and getting a bigger piece of it.

It's pretty evident that their leader is intertwined with some corrupt activities... You don't get RICO attention, Waterfront Commission scrutiny, and bodies winding up in dumpsters without some shady business dealings...

I'll flip it around:
What is their basis for thinking $120k + OT is "underpaid"? The burden of proof is on the affirmative position.

That's like asking you to prove why I shouldn't make $5 million a year as a Sr level person in the software field. Can you provide any arguments against it that don't appeal to the difficulty of the task or what similar positions elsewhere pay?

My argument is stronger than theirs right now.

I've shown where they make more than similar jobs here in the use (by a lot)

I've shown where every other developed nation has come to the conclusion that the job is worth $75-100k USD per year...and many of them in the ILA are making double that.

Do you think the CEOs are overpaid, if so, what's your basis for that assertion?

Is there any arguments or basis to support their position other than "this is labor vs management, so we have to ideologically side with labor"?

 

[BCP1928]

It's pretty evident that their leader is intertwined with some corrupt activities... You don't get RICO attention, Waterfront Commission scrutiny, and bodies winding up in dumpsters without some shady business dealings...

I'll flip it around:
What is their basis for thinking $120k + OT is "underpaid"? The burden of proof is on the affirmative position.

That's like asking you to prove why I shouldn't make $5 million a year as a Sr level person in the software field. Can you provide any arguments against it that don't appeal to the difficulty of the task or what similar positions elsewhere pay?

My argument is stronger than theirs right now.

I've shown where they make more than similar jobs here in the use (by a lot)

I've shown where every other developed nation has come to the conclusion that the job is worth $75-100k USD per year...and many of them in the ILA are making double that.

Do you think the CEOs are overpaid, if so, what's your basis for that assertion?

Is there any arguments or basis to support their position other than "this is labor vs management, so we have to ideologically side with labor"?

The basic question is this: Labor and capital come together to create wealth. How do you determine what part of the created wealth should go to labor and what part to capital?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The basic question is this: Labor and capital come together to create wealth. How do you determine what part of the created wealth should go to labor and what part to capital?

As it stands right now, their ratio is fairly decent with regards to CEO : Worker compensation.

If the CEOs of the companies in that industry make between 3-5 million per year, and the workers are making $120k-200k per year, that's a far cry from some of the ratios seen as exploitative that were/are seen among other manual/blue collar workforces.

That's a 15:1 CEO-to-Worker compensation ratio.

Pretty much on-par with where things were in the 1950's - 1970's which even the more left-leaning economists agree, was a good time for the middle class.

This union (ILA) in particular hasn't only griped about AI/Automation, they've also rejected other forms of innovation (like when they struck because of the introduction of containers, which actually made the job easier and safer, on the grounds that the job getting easier/safer may cause their pay to get lowered).

The Dockworkers unions also have some other rare aspects that I haven't even touched on yet.

Vying for rare prize: union job paying up to $200,000

Vying for rare prize: union job paying up to $200,000

www.northjersey.com

Their union memberships are largely doled out on a nepotism, which means that the general public almost never even gets a crack at the jobs. (that pro-nepotism policy is what made it so tough for them to eliminate the criminal element that led to 1/5 being "mob-connected" in some way)

They, themselves, actually exploit lower wage labor. They have a position called "Casual Longshoreman", that do the exact same job as the full blown union members, but make far less. They hold raffles to get the position of "Casual"

The 2,400 names drawn in the raffle will become “casual” longshoremen.

Although they perform the same work as union members — loading thousands of containers on and off massive cargo ships to keep the ports running on time — they work far fewer hours. And the wait to receive full union benefits can stretch over a decade.

The average casual worker who showed up for weekly shifts earned nearly $31,000 in 2016

The slots don’t come with benefits or steady hours. But eventually, after putting in years at the docks, some of those part-timers may earn the chance to become unionized longshoremen, who can make as much as $200,000 per year.

Today, there are part-timers who have been waiting 13 years to get into the union.


So, basically, they let a bunch of people come and do a lot of the work for 30k/year in the false hopes that they'll get "invited into the club", meanwhile, the actual members will just sponsor sons/nieces/nephews, and that person will get fast tracked and first priority.


And those lotteries to become a "casual" have even been scrutinized by local chapter-level leaders in the past:
“You’re winning a ticket to a false dream,” said Bobby Olvera Jr., president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 13, which represents about 7,000 full-time union workers. “There are 5,000 (casuals) down there getting work two days a week.”


When you think about it, this "casual" designation they've created isn't unlike the non-secure system of employment that used to happen at Ford before unions started. Where people would sit around waiting and hoping that there was some work for them to do that day and that they'd be allowed to come in.

So these longshore unions aren't quite the "robin hood" characters they're trying to portray. "take from the rich and give to the poor" doesn't accurately define it.

It's more like "take from whoever and give to our exclusive club...some of the people we take from just happen to be rich"

 

[BCP1928]

As it stands right now, their ratio is fairly decent with regards to CEO : Worker compensation.

That doesn't answer the question. Taking abroad look at the relation between labor and capital, the CEO and his management minions are really part of labor.

If the CEOs of the companies in that industry make between 3-5 million per year, and the workers are making $120k-200k per year, that's a far cry from some of the ratios seen as exploitative that were/are seen among other manual/blue collar workforces.

That's a 15:1 CEO-to-Worker compensation ratio.

View attachment 355557

Pretty much on-par with where things were in the 1950's - 1970's which even the more left-leaning economists agree, was a good time for the middle class.

This union (ILA) in particular hasn't only griped about AI/Automation, they've also rejected other forms of innovation (like when they struck because of the introduction of containers, which actually made the job easier and safer, on the grounds that the job getting easier/safer may cause their pay to get lowered).

The Dockworkers unions also have some other rare aspects that I haven't even touched on yet.

Vying for rare prize: union job paying up to $200,000

Vying for rare prize: union job paying up to $200,000

www.northjersey.com

Their union memberships are largely doled out on a nepotism, which means that the general public almost never even gets a crack at the jobs. (that pro-nepotism policy is what made it so tough for them to eliminate the criminal element that led to 1/5 being "mob-connected" in some way)

They, themselves, actually exploit lower wage labor. They have a position called "Casual Longshoreman", that do the exact same job as the full blown union members, but make far less. They hold raffles to get the position of "Casual"

The 2,400 names drawn in the raffle will become “casual” longshoremen.

Although they perform the same work as union members — loading thousands of containers on and off massive cargo ships to keep the ports running on time — they work far fewer hours. And the wait to receive full union benefits can stretch over a decade.

The average casual worker who showed up for weekly shifts earned nearly $31,000 in 2016

The slots don’t come with benefits or steady hours. But eventually, after putting in years at the docks, some of those part-timers may earn the chance to become unionized longshoremen, who can make as much as $200,000 per year.

Today, there are part-timers who have been waiting 13 years to get into the union.


So, basically, they let a bunch of people come and do a lot of the work for 30k/year in the false hopes that they'll get "invited into the club", meanwhile, the actual members will just sponsor sons/nieces/nephews, and that person will get fast tracked and first priority.


And those lotteries to become a "casual" have even been scrutinized by local chapter-level leaders in the past:
“You’re winning a ticket to a false dream,” said Bobby Olvera Jr., president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 13, which represents about 7,000 full-time union workers. “There are 5,000 (casuals) down there getting work two days a week.”


When you think about it, this "casual" designation they've created isn't unlike the non-secure system of employment that used to happen at Ford before unions started. Where people would sit around waiting and hoping that there was some work for them to do that day and that they'd be allowed to come in.

You sure went to a lot of trouble to avoid my question. If you just want to rant about how evil the ILA is, that's fine, you win, the ILA is evil.
If you have any other point, you have failed to even mention it, much less make it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That doesn't answer the question. Taking abroad look at the relation between labor and capital, the CEO and his management minions are really part of labor.

You sure went to a lot of trouble to avoid my question. If you just want to rant about how evil the ILA is, that's fine, you win, the ILA is evil.
If you have any other point, you have failed to even mention it, much less make it.

I'm not trying dance around your question, perhaps I'm just confused by the way your question is framed when you're asking "what part labor, what part capital?"

Specifically when say that the CEO is really part of labor?...I guess that's the part that could be throwing things off.

Capital is earned/owned by the asset owners (which in some cases, is the CEO/President if it's private, and in other case if it's publicly traded, by share holders).

And in the case of the latter, in many instances the members of labor and management get stock options, which means you have have people who are technically in both buckets.


If I'm understanding your question now (hopefully I am)

To determine what is contributing the most value order to determine the fair distribution of proceeds, I'd suggest a fishing analogy.

If a fisherman with an old school fishing rod requires 5 hours to catch 5 fish...
vs.
If that same guy's boss buy him a net and a boat to use, which then allows him to scoop up 30 fish in 30 minutes,

It's pretty clear that the greater proceeds in fish sales and efficiency (and the fisherman's job getting much easier) are driven by the investment/capital that was put into the process. Therefore the increased fish sales can be mostly attributed to that (as the fisherman certainly didn't have to work any harder in order to see those 6x yield gains)

So if that fishing company sees sales that are elevated, it is largely due to that investment and not because the fisherman is working any harder. The fisherman may have had to learn some new skills in the process like net techniques and how to operate a boat, but ultimately, it's the boat and net that is responsible for the massive uptick.


Now, obviously, the notion of "automate all human intervention out of existence" isn't a desirable end game....

However, the opposite side of that pendulum would be needlessly keeping a particular task artificially difficult, harsh, and hazardous intentionally, specifically for the purpose of being able to negotiate/demand a higher wages for it on the grounds of its "harshness"

I would compare it, again, to the Rotterdam port in the Netherlands (which has been mostly robotic since 1993)

It still employs 1,800 people (the US Ports in question employ 1200-2000 per port, so not a huge difference)

But the jobs look like this:

(and they make $89k - $120k USD equivalent based on their specific job at the port...salaried positions, regular shifts, and much better protection from the elements)

One would have to ask themselves, is the only reason the ILA wants to keep the job looking like it currently does states-side, specifically because they want to be able to demand higher wages for it?

Because that's not exactly ethical either. That'd be like someone saying "we want to reject the harnesses for telephone pole workers, because the fact that we were doing it without the harness was what was justifying the extra hazard pay"


I guess it comes down to where one wants to draw the line at artificially keeping labor "more valuable" than it actually should be for certain tasks, just in the name of keeping wages high and requiring more people to do it.

The old analogy of spoons vs. shovels.

Sure, it'd require less capital investment to buy 100 spoons than 5 shovels, and the human-labor part of that contribution ratio would be much higher if you had 100 guys out there digging with spoons, and it'd be a much more time consuming job which means more and harder hours worked, but is that preferable to 5 guys with shovels simply in the name of job creation, or the ability to demand higher salaries (with the justification of 'fair labor to capital proceeds distributions' due to the difficultly of trying to dig a trench with a spoon and the lower investment cost?

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not trying dance around your question, perhaps I'm just confused by the way your question is framed when you're asking "what part labor, what part capital?"

Specifically when say that the CEO is really part of labor?...I guess that's the part that could be throwing things off.

Capital is earned/owned by the asset owners (which in some cases, is the CEO/President if it's private, and in other case if it's publicly traded, by share holders).

And in the case of the latter, in many instances the members of labor and management get stock options, which means you have have people who are technically in both buckets.


If I'm understanding your question now (hopefully I am)

To determine what is contributing the most value order to determine the fair distribution of proceeds, I'd suggest a fishing analogy.

If a fisherman with an old school fishing rod requires 5 hours to catch 5 fish...
vs.
If that same guy's boss buy him a net and a boat to use, which then allows him to scoop up 30 fish in 30 minutes,

It's pretty clear that the greater proceeds in fish sales and efficiency (and the fisherman's job getting much easier) are driven by the investment/capital that was put into the process. Therefore the increased fish sales can be mostly attributed to that (as the fisherman certainly didn't have to work any harder in order to see those 6x yield gains)

So if that fishing company sees sales that are elevated, it is largely due to that investment and not because the fisherman is working any harder. The fisherman may have had to learn some new skills in the process like net techniques and how to operate a boat, but ultimately, it's the boat and net that is responsible for the massive uptick.


Now, obviously, the notion of "automate all human intervention out of existence" isn't a desirable end game....

However, the opposite side of that pendulum would be needlessly keeping a particular task artificially difficult, harsh, and hazardous intentionally, specifically for the purpose of being able to negotiate/demand a higher wages for it on the grounds of its "harshness"

I would compare it, again, to the Rotterdam port in the Netherlands (which has been mostly robotic since 1993)

It still employs 1,800 people (the US Ports in question employ 1200-2000 per port, so not a huge difference)

But the jobs look like this:
View attachment 355562
View attachment 355563
View attachment 355564
View attachment 355565
View attachment 355566
(and they make $89k - $120k USD equivalent based on their specific job at the port...salaried positions, regular shifts, and much better protection from the elements)

One would have to ask themselves, is the only reason the ILA wants to keep the job looking like it currently does states-side, specifically because they want to be able to demand higher wages for it?

Because that's not exactly ethical either. That'd be like someone saying "we want to reject the harnesses for telephone pole workers, because the fact that we were doing it without the harness was what was justifying the extra hazard pay"


I guess it comes down to where one wants to draw the line at artificially keeping labor "more valuable" than it actually should be for certain tasks, just in the name of keeping wages high and requiring more people to do it.

The old analogy of spoons vs. shovels.

Sure, it'd require less capital investment to buy 100 spoons than 5 shovels, and the human-labor part of that contribution ratio would be much higher if you had 100 guys out there digging with spoons, and it'd be a much more time consuming job which means more and harder hours worked, but is that preferable to 5 guys with shovels simply in the name of job creation, or the ability to demand higher salaries (with the justification of 'fair labor to capital proceeds distributions' due to the difficultly of trying to dig a trench with a spoon and the lower investment cost?

Let's leave the ILA out of it for the time being. I don't really have an opinion about whether they "deserve" the pay increase they've gotten. To me, "deserve" doesn't even come into it. What we are talking about is a market transaction--a seller and a buyer negotiating a price.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Let's leave the ILA out of it for the time being. I don't really have an opinion about whether they "deserve" the pay increase they've gotten. To me, "deserve" doesn't even come into it. What we are talking about is a market transaction--a seller and a buyer negotiating a price.

You can't really detach the two can you? This "capitalism use case" is very ILA-specific. I know you want to abstract it, but it doesn't make sense to do that when the circumstances surrounding this one are so unique. (even within the context of collective bargaining and organized labor)

For the portion that can be abstracted.
For instance, if you want to hire me for $80k, and I'm more than happy to work for $80k...but then a 3rd party (who neither owns the company, nor does the actual work...meaning they've artificially inserted themselves into the transaction) strongarms you into paying me $140k, then obviously I (on the labor side) wouldn't be arguing in that scenario because who wants less money...nobody lol.

But it does distort both the "market transactions" between you as the employer and me as the employee, as well as the market transactions between you and your customers as you now have to adjust your pricing model to accommodate increase labor costs.

And in these sorts of cases where the wages are already high, and ratio between the CEO's income and workers income is already at a healthy sustainable level, demanding too high of an increase creates a situation where the math doesn't even line up.


With regards to this "use case"
25,000 port workers going from $120k to $210k (due to a demanded 77% increase) equates to an extra $2.2 Billion a year in labor costs.

Given that the CEOs of these organizations are only at $3-5 million, and there's 20 of them, it's doubtful that you could offset such an increase if you cut all executive salaries by 40% across the entirety of the 20 organizations that are part of the USMX.

To take the exercise a step further, Kirby (from what I've read) is the largest member organization of USMX, posted net earnings of $122 million in 2022.

Now, if we assumed that every other organization in that list of 20 orgs that run through USXM did roughly similar numbers (obviously some may have done more, some may have done less)

That's about ~$2.2 billion in net earnings. ILA is asking for $2.2 Billion in increases to dock workers salaries.


It almost seems like that 77% number (which I thought was an odd number to pick to begin with) isn't one they pulled out of thin air and perhaps it wasn't even based on the merits or difficulty of the task itself. It seems like this could be a scenario of:
"We know that last year, after all expenses were covered, these companies had a collective $2.2 billion dollars left, we want all of that"

Which means that they're not looking for any "fair split of proceeds" between labor and capital, or any split of proceeds for that matter, they want 100% of the proceeds, they're not even looking to split it with other members of "labor" who aren't specifically part of their organization. (I'm sure the other employees who work for Kirby and the other companies who aren't dockworkers may like a pay increase of some sort next year, right?)


Here's an interview with the guy himself...

Britt Mayer on Instagram: "“I will cripple you.” —Harold Daggett, President of ILA Update: Strike officially began at midnight Tuesday 10/01 The strike, which would be the first at these ports since 1977, could stop the flow of a wide variety of go

17K likes, 1,709 comments - rooted.wings on September 30, 2024: "“I will cripple you.” —Harold Daggett, President of ILA Update: Strike officially began at midnight Tuesday 10/01 The strike, which would be the first at these ports since 1977, could stop the flow of a wide variety of goods over...

www.instagram.com

He makes it pretty evident in his little "I'll cripple ya...you have no idea" statement that, unlike other labor leaders, he seems to have little to no regard for other laborers or even other union laborers. He's bragging about how he's going to put retail workers, automotive workers, and construction workers on the unemployment line if he doesn't get what he wants.

Can you imagine Shawn Fain ever saying "Wait till you see those construction workers getting laid off when my men stop making/repairing trucks at the snap of my fingers, you'll see, I'll cripple ya!"?