Union Boss’s Indifference to Workers Ignites Strike Threats Again

Some union leaders are making self-sabotaging decisions.

America’s ports have fallen significantly behind.

None of them rank in the top 50 globally.

A major contributing factor is that dock unions impede innovation.

This autumn, the International Longshoremen’s Association halted operations at East and Gulf Coast ports, demanding higher wages and a ban on automation.

They succeeded in obtaining the raise.

Now, ILA President Harold Daggett has indicated that longshoremen will strike again in January if the automation ban isn’t implemented.

His remarks suggest he is aware of the significant impact his strike would have on other Americans.

“Workers who sell cars can’t do so because the vehicles aren’t arriving from the ships. They face layoffs,” Daggett stated.

“Construction workers are losing their jobs because essential materials like steel and lumber aren’t coming in.”

Clearly, labor leaders don’t always prioritize the welfare of workers, notes economist Liya Palagashvili from the Mercatus Center.

“Their stance is, ‘We don’t care if other jobs are destroyed, as long as we get what we demand.’”

Daggett appears out of touch, failing to recognize that a prohibition on automation could also be detrimental to his members.

As Palagashvili explains, “They may preserve some jobs now, but they’ll jeopardize many more in the future.”

This is largely because today’s shipping companies have alternatives.

Daggett’s union controls only the East and Gulf Coast ports.

Shippers have the option to transport their products to ports that embrace automation.

“‘Stone Age’ ports will see decreased activity,” Palagashvili predicts.

“‘Stone Age?’”

“Yes,” she clarifies, “They want to prohibit automated mechanisms for opening and closing port doors, forcing workers to do it manually.”

Ironically, the union leader is voicing demands while simultaneously highlighting the dangers of dockworker jobs.

“Extremely dangerous… We’ve had 17 fatalities in the past three years!”

That’s indeed tragic, but it’s an argument for automation!

Utilizing machines instead of exposing human workers to risk protects their safety.

Daggett is inadvertently undermining his own position!

It’s no wonder he’s avoiding media interviews.

“It’s backwards,” Palagashvili remarks.

If “you truly care about worker safety, you should improve their working conditions through technological advancements in automation.”

Other nations have been utilizing automated cranes for years.

These cranes are 80% more efficient compared to the human-operated ones in many U.S. ports.

“The leading ports,” Palagashvili states, “are situated in Asia and the Middle East, where innovation and technological advancements are welcomed.”

“In Chinese ports, workers manage operations while seated behind computer screens. That’s a more appealing job.”

“I would argue that fewer workers are involved,” I counter.

“Some positions at ports will certainly disappear,” she acknowledges, “but that’s not a negative outcome. Historically, we had thousands of blacksmiths, candlemakers, and watchmakers.”

It’s evident that these and other roles have been rendered obsolete by advancing technology.

However, unemployment didn’t spike.

New roles emerged—careers that were once unimaginable: programmers, mechanics, electricians, medical technicians . . .

This phenomenon exemplifies capitalism’s concept of “creative destruction.”

It consistently generates new employment opportunities.

That, in turn, leads to increased wealth for most people.

The media often overlooks this because it’s a gradual, non-sensational good-news narrative, with new jobs appearing in various sectors.

Conversely, when a factory closes, unions call in the press, and we report the sorrowful tale of workers losing their jobs.

“Journalists rarely follow up with the affected employee two years later,” observes Palagashvili, “but follow-up research indicates that the worker typically finds new employment.”

“On average, [this new job is] better,” I respond.

“Better jobs,” she concurs, “often with higher wages.”

Higher incomes arise because innovation empowers workers to achieve more.

“Machinery such as bulldozers and crane trucks have enhanced the livelihoods of those in construction,” Palagashvili adds, “resulting in increased real wages for construction workers.”

Daggett and his union seem to misunderstand this reality.

They are holding out for outdated, dangerous, and inefficient conditions at American ports.

This will adversely affect their own workforce and ultimately, themselves.

John Stossel is the author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.”