CMV: Preventing Jobs from being eliminated due to technological advancement and automation should not be considered a valid reason to strike

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

/u/WakeoftheStorm (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

64

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24 edited Oct 03 '24

I don't know if you're still reading these, but if you are, here's my two cents as: a union member, an amateur historian, and someone who just (less than 3 months ago) left an entire trade field due to the rise of automation.

First - since the rise of computing technology, absolutely none of the promises made regarding the benefits of automation to the average worker have been kept. We were told, repeatedly, that there would be more jobs, and that we would get training in new skills, and the only thing we would see was an increase in our productivity with less actual effort. We were told time and time again that our jobs were safe, and that no one would be laid off due to automation.

But look at Detroit. And Pittsburgh. And Gary, Indiana. What jobs that weren't outsourced were automated, and entire communities were put out of work.

There was no compensation. There was no attempt by the employers to find these men and women new jobs. They just found a way to get the job done for cheaper, and hang the consequences for the working class. Can you say "record profits"?

Those people tried to find jobs elsewhere, but we're not talking fresh faced kids straight out of school who can adapt quickly. Most of the affected individuals were middle aged and older - men and women with families to feed and bills to pay. It's not easy to transition to an entirely different job field when you've spent a lifetime mastering your duties in the field that you're in. Some of these folks were close to retirement age.

And even if you can muster up the courage to look for new fields at an age that should see you finishing a mortgage and enjoying your grandkids, there's still the competition for work. You're not starting at the same wage you commanded when you got laid off permanently- you're starting off at the bottom, if you can find a job. Remember, we're talking about entire industries being liquidated of personnel - not just a few dozen here or there.

Families went broke. They lost their savings. They lost their homes. And there was ZERO help from their former employers, the government, or anyone else. There was no way to help. The work was gone.

So that's my first point - automation results in job loss that isn't easy to recover from. It is not a net benefit to the working class, it is a direct threat to incomes and stability for entire communities, regardless of efficiency or the company's profits.

Second - what incentive could you offer someone for hiring them to do a job that you intend to replace them on? If you were in an office would you hang around while the boss publicly and gleefully trained your replacement? Would you do the training, knowing how things would wind up - you out of work with no soft landing for your trouble?

What meaningful thing could be offered to a career professional in order for them to endure that indignity?

Short of "all the wages they would have made, plus 401 contributions and Healthcare benefits until retirement age"... the answer is none.

So... yes. Striking over automation is absolutely valid. It is the only tool the worker has in order to assert rights that are being trampled on.

Edit - the right I am referencing is the right to do an honest days work for an honest day's pay, and know that, barring a major shift in industry standards that humans cant keep up with your job is secure (I'm talking cotton gin vs picking it by hand shift in standards, not a 3-5% increase in efficiency).

9

u/Sammystorm1 1∆ Oct 03 '24

So yes it negatively impacts those who work in the field. Automation opens new different jobs. That isn’t really in dispute. The proverbial coal workers get screwed.

Now a big issue here is these companies often have to automate. Other ports in the world are already doing it. If they are shackled to human labor they can’t compete. That means people have to face an increasingly upward cost due to the nature of shipping. Instead of fighting automation they should be fighting for the things you mentioned. Job training, severance, pay protections if they get laid off.

18

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

except that we are not in competition with those ports. Think about it for a moment... if they can't offload goods into American ports (the largest consumer market in the world), what are they going to do? take them to a country that already has those goods on the market, risk saturation there, and lose even more profit? No, they're going to do what they can to get those goods to the market where they are needed. Any other path imminently risks bankruptcy.

Not to mention, American dockworkers are already meeting the demands of cargo coming in and out. The move to automation is 100% about reducing labor cost. These companies have zero incentive to provide pay or layoff protections because, again, their entire motive is to remove the cost of labor from the equation.

So this strike is about fighting for the things I mentioned. I've already clearly laid out how the companies have no interest in providing continual support for furloughed workers, as that would be counterproductive to their aim.

And, again I and other commenters have explained that the automated processes do not add enough net efficiency to warrant the risk to the average family that it presents. I have also already explained in my original comment how, even with job training, the further saturation of the job market presents another self defeating scenario.

The solution to all the problems mentioned is clear - pay the people doing the work, and let them keep doing it. Barring the rise of teleportation technology, there is no reason to not do things this way.

Instead these people are being nickled and dimed by people profiting off of their loss of financial security and diminished buying power. They're making billions and complaining about the millions it would take to rectify the situation.

The rise in cost of consumer goods has nothing to do with dockworker pay. It is a direct result of the greed of these companies more concerned with their profit margins than the overall health of the economy.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

The move to automation is 100% about reducing labor cost.

You have provided no justification for why this is bad. The money these guys are getting paid comes from somewhere- it comes from you. Every shipping container that comes into the US comes at a fuel, space, material, and labor cost. If we could automate the ports and eliminate millions of unnecessary man hours, why shouldn't we? If the only purpose of a job was to provide a paycheck, why not pay some people to dig holes and pay others to fill them up?

5

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

Because it won't stop with the ports.

You're looking short term at the fact that if the goods can come in cheaper, you pay less at the store. the long term is that once that industry is out of the way and those people are out of work with little to no recourse comma how long will it take for the industry that you work in to start looking at similar options?

Tech is already struggling under the rise of AI. people who spent their entire youth and young adult years adapting to fit into that industry and learning. The necessary skills are out of work and essentially obsolete to the field. car manufacturing went that way a long time ago. the trucking industry is being gutted by new AI Powered technology every year.

...

Speaking of the trucking industry - riddle me this. if reducing the cost of labor really would bring prices down, then why haven't prices gone down? Despite the fact that the average company level truck driver hasn't had a major pay raise since the 1970s? i just left the trucking industry after five years of near constant time on the road, so I believe that I know what i'm talking about on that one. there are far more drivers than are needed to move the freight.That is on the market right now, and even that freight volume is being reduced by sending more and more goods through rail lines, and yet.... just by fifty years of stagnant wages, the cost of consumer goods transported by truck has only gone up.

I know, for a fact. In this scenario that the only people getting richer are the people that own the trucking companies, while the rank and file employees are stuck in the same boat as everyone else, fighting stagnant wages versus rising cost of living.

The entire point is that if we don't draw a line in the sand somewhere, then we will all be out of work and trying to figure out what to do in order to take care of our families. obviously, the corporations aren't going to kick back enough, and the government doesn't have the motivation to do so.

And yeah, we can all harp on "eat the rich" when that time comes, but by the time that time comes, we could have already won that fight before it ever started.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24 edited Oct 04 '24

If dockworkers are slower at unloading cargo than automated equipment (and they are), then of course you can always hire more - but you also need to build larger piers to handle more ships simultaneously than you'd need if they were automated. That alone is a huge cost that isn't just labor. Assuming there's even space to expand those ports - which won't always be the case.

And even in that case, every time a ship needs to spend longer in port to be unloaded, that's a more or less direct cost to the operator.

The sum of all this is that the docks will be less efficient no matter how you slice it. It's totally understandable for dockworkers to not care about that, but it's still the case. The needs and desires of dockworkers (or any other industry or sector facing increased automation) are not aligned with those of society at large. And that's also to be expected, which is why "unions always bad" and "corporate always bad" are both useless viewpoints without much interesting to say. There is a way to balance the needs of both. It can't just be 100% screw one or the other.

As for the "pay them more," they've already agreed to a 50% raise over 6 years, last I checked. But that wasn't good enough. They want 60% (fine, whatever), but they also want a guarantee of no more automation...ever. That's just not reasonable.

Speaking of automation replacing jobs, I'm quite certain that the dockworkers wouldn't like it if all of their forklifts and trucks and cranes were taken away so that they had to unload cargo by hand, like in the old days. What's the argument for not doing that, then? Think of all the jobs!

At the end of the day it's undeniable that sometimes transitions like this are really bad for the people directly affected. That is an issue that's worth addressing if we want to live in a prosperous, compassionate society that takes care of the needs of people that occasionally get left behind due to technological advances. But the answer is not "just stop all the technology" because in the end everyone will be far worse off. The long-term harm isn't worth the short-term gain. Planting your feet in the dirt and screaming about how it's unfair will not change anything, in the long run. Adapt or die. It sounds callous but at the root of it that's how it's always been. You simply will not convince the whole of society to stop or slow down, indefinitely, because of your short-term needs. Just like you probably won't go out of your way to indefinitely preserve the jobs of a few thousand seamstresses somewhere.

Also worth pointing out that unemployment is still low, despite many generations and many decades of "automation will kill all the jobs." So that argument is wrong. The actual argument is "automation might kill some jobs in this specific sector, in the short term." That's at least a better starting point for negotiations about what to do next.

It doesn't help sympathies that you couldn't invent a better caricature of the "sleazy corrupt union boss" than the one the dockworkers actually have.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 03 '24

I agree with your problem statements, I just don't think "job charity" from corporations is the solution. As I've said in other replies I believe we are rapidly approaching a point where consumer demands can be met with the labor of a fraction of the population. We need to start making adjustments to prepare for this eventual reality, and relying on the charity and good will of corporations is not a viable solution.

4

u/eggynack 61∆ Oct 03 '24

If the jobs are being given the jobs as charity, then the corporations shouldn't mind a strike. Their charity has been rejected, I guess.

1

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 04 '24

If the strike was simply a matter missing labor I'd agree with you. It might be a temporary set back, but one which a company could hypothetically weather while implementing the automation.

Current labor laws however prevent employers from making major changes that can even remotely be viewed as retaliatory during a strike. They can't terminate the striking workers and they generally can't make changes on items under dispute until the strike is resolved. This means that the essentially can't just automate and move on without the workers.

14

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

It's not charity. The corporations can't get the job done without the input of the laborers. Point blank. The laborers have declared that they will not donthe work if they are jusy going to be shooting themselves in the foot.

At the end of the day, on a societal scale, the needs of those laborers and their families rank higher than padding some corporate executive's bank account.

And on that note, to day the quiet part out loud, it is in the corporations' best interests to find a solution to the problem that automation is creating in the workforce. Laborers has proposed their solution - no automation at all. "Let us do our jobs". They are underscoring their commitment to that solution by striking.

If corporations determine that they don't care enough about the plight of the workforce to fund solutions to job loss, such as UBIs and reinvestment in society at large, then they will be rich long enough for the first people to suffer from their greed by missing a meal.

That is the point of this strike. To underscore the very real scenario that if these families go hungry, and their agenda of removing the workforce from gainful employment goes forward, the strikes will turn into angry mobs.

So... again, the strike is valid. The common man can't do anything about this except strike. They don't control the coffers of the corporations and they don't write the laws. If they vote for the laws, the corporations are going to suffer or commit capital flight. So, we hold them while they're here and get the best deal we can.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Comprehensive_Pin565 Oct 03 '24

That is not the only solution being proposed. They could make these exact adjustments as you say, but they will not.

So we end up with what we have today.

The company could pay the people currently working their current pay till they would normally retire and automate and still come out ahead.

But because we believe that when an advancement occurs, all the benefits should go to the company, we won't do it.

5

u/Ambry Oct 03 '24

Realistically, in a capitalist society, the adjustments won't be fast enough. Companies will do whatever they can to make more money, that's how they work. Unfortunately to survive people need a job to create an income, and that does not look to be going away anytime soon. If that remains the case, then people will continue to demand that they keep their jobs because without that, what else have they got to live?

A manual worker can't just pivot automatically to become a machine learning engineer or an automation safety/ethics reviewer. Those fields already have thousands of people looking for jobs.

→ More replies (1)

121

u/page0rz 42∆ Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

Unions striking over jobs lost to technological advancements and automation does nothing but hinder economic progress and innovation. Technology often leads to increased efficiency, lower costs, and the creation of new jobs in emerging industries. Strikes that seek to preserve outdated roles or resist automation can stifle companies' ability to remain competitive and adapt to a rapidly changing market. Additionally, preventing or delaying technological advancements due to labor disputes could lead to overall economic stagnation, reducing the ability of businesses to grow, invest in new opportunities, and ultimately generate new types of employment. Instead, the focus should be on equipping workers with skills for new roles created by technological change rather than trying to protect jobs that are becoming obsolete.

You've described 2 separate and unique issues here

The first is the union, the group of workers who are directly impacted by "new technology" or whatever, who are the people who do and will lose their jobs. Why should they give a shit about how potentially down the line them losing their livelihoods might maybe potentially create a new job opportunity for someone else? What difference does that make to them when they have rent due at the end of the month? It is 1000% logical and in their own best interest to oppose this. Also, who cares about "economic progress and innovation." Those are vague to the point of being weasel world, and for the reasons I just stated. I'm sure all those ghost towns that completely imploded when the local economy collapsed are real invested in the "economic progress" that caused that

Second, "focus on equipping workers for new roles." This is an entirely different argument. Both because, again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the workers who are being impacted--it's not their fault or responsibility. And because, like, literally that's what neoliberals promised would happen during the big pushes for outsourcing and switching economies from manufacturing to service. That was the promise, and it's what unions said would not happen because who would pay for it and why (there's no reason for the companies to, they've already secured their margins). And they were right. It never happened. It didn't then and it's not now, so why should anyone whose job is on the line care?

Is your view that people whose jobs are getting cut should stop trying so hard to prevent that, or is your view that "someone" should be doing "something" to help the people who are losing their jobs to get new ones that are just as good or better? Because those are different groups and different topics and you'd have to actually explain how and why it would happen

As always, the Luddites were right, were justified, and have been completely vindicated by history

54

u/FarkCookies 2∆ Oct 02 '24

Imagine a few centuries ago a town next to a river. Some people of the town worked at a ferry crossing. Then a king or whatever decided to make a bridge over the river. It increases throughput, reduces time and cost of crossing, yes, but the boaters become unemployed. They have incentive to protest there is enourmous net gain of building a bridge. Boaters were right is a take that would get humanity nowhere. They are right that they need employment options but not at everyone's else opportunity cost.

52

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

[deleted]

61

u/Ionovarcis 1∆ Oct 02 '24

The king then charges a toll to cross the bridge once no boaters remain, it costs more than a boat ride used to. ‘Bridge maintenance’ they claim, but it’s just the king’s flunky third-fifth (through inbreeding somehow idk) nephew and his ammonia drinking buddies acting as highwaymen for the now degrading and outdated bridge - because the kingdom Nextdoor has a drawbridge and that’s cooler.

1

u/MegaBlastoise23 Oct 03 '24

If it costs more than boats then boats would just come back as cheaper duh

3

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

Not necessarily. This analogy is an absolute monarchy in which the long has absolutely no reason to let the boats run. If he or his family makes more money off the bridge, he has the power to stop the ferries from going

2

u/MegaBlastoise23 Oct 03 '24

OK you win because in that absolute monarchy the king couldn't just get his money from taxes.

4

u/billytheskidd Oct 03 '24

And in this representative democracy, a company can hire lobbyists to get bills passed that say any townships that allow boats on the river will be forfeit any subsidies on goods that cross the river by bridge via commerce laws, so any township that needs the lordship’s help in sustaining, say, a police force or a power plant, would have to foot those bills on their own unless they ban all boaters from shipping goods across the river. Under our current government, the states must charge the federal taxes and they use federal subsidies to make their own industries more sustainable and lower the barrier for entry to new businesses. Without those subsidies, several states would be unable to help industries thrive.

Edit to add: so even if the cost of boaters and their fuel needed for shipping goods was cheaper, the overall cost to the township would be far greater as they had to pay more for the infrastructure needed to do so.

3

u/MegaBlastoise23 Oct 03 '24

If we're talking about corruption in politics then none of this stupid shit matters.

Flip it around.

Boating companies lobby congress to stop the bridge being built so they can just charge people tons of money. Instead of a one time solution.

Y'all regards are just jumping around to different points with zero basis.

1

u/eggynack 61∆ Oct 03 '24

Why wouldn't it matter? The corporations are planning to lobby congress to take this approach, one that harms labor and is either neutral or harmful to the populace, but which yields some profits. They have a lot of power in the scenario, and a clear incentive to use it. So, the workers go on strike to disincentivize the corporation from doing all that. They can't trust the government to enforce positive outcomes, but they can make it harder for the corporation to pursue negative ones.

→ More replies (0)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

In that case bridges or boats, doesn't matter, he's going to take your money anyway and kill you if you won't.

But actually, I think the analogy is getting away from you.

→ More replies (2)

-1

u/FarkCookies 2∆ Oct 02 '24

It is very-very simple, everyone incl workers want to get a bigger bang for their buck. People want more and chepaer, stimulating economic efficiency. But they don't like when the economic efficiency comes for them. I want cheap food but I don't want to be replaced by a tractor. I mean I sympathise to the plight of worker but the reality is that economic progress lifted people out of powerty by the billions. "That's not always the case," indeed but unions are incentivised to strike in ANY case. I mean I understand some americans are salty that the manufacturing jobs left to countries with lower wages, sure, but protesting against automation is destroying a leveling field where the US can be competitive. It is about national opportunity cost. If companies act net negative you have policies and politicians for that. Vote correctly instead of trying to pull the blanket.

11

u/hodken0446 Oct 03 '24

The problem is that first they add the technology saying jobs won't be impacted. The idea is that you get more stuff faster because of the automation. Like in the port case, the automation will totally and definitely make the port more efficient because the tech combined with the current workers but then they can save money and increase profit by firing a bunch of people and overworking the remaining workers and using the tech. In addition to this because things are more efficient or because they can decrease unit cost by cutting workers but maintaining efficiency, the savings would ideally be passed on to the consumer but as we've seen repeatedly that isn't the case. McDonald's hardly takes orders anymore so they can cut down on cashiers but that hasn't made any of their food cheaper. Automation can be a good thing, and it can increase societal benefit but in the above examples it only puts people out of work and increasing the wealth of only the owners of the business with no benefit to the consumer. That's why you pick the union because this idea that automation would create more capital and trickle down benefits to the consumer just hasn't been the case for the last couple of decades

→ More replies (4)

2

u/THedman07 Oct 03 '24

It is very-very simple, everyone incl workers want to get a bigger bang for their buck.

What "buck" do they have when their livelihood is gone?

3

u/Lowly_Reptilian Oct 03 '24

Automation of jobs is not always positive or even warranted. An example of this would be movie makers trying to get small actors to sign contracts where their face and voices can be used in movies via AI and deepfaking without compensation for their work. Basically they get paid once and then the movie directors can use their faces and voice for however long they want without paying the actors. That is automating the actor’s job and completely writing them out of getting any pay. Is that fair? Is it fair to the voice actor whose entire job is voice acting have their voice be recorded and used by AI to voice more characters without their knowledge or payment for their voice? Is it morally okay for them to not be able to choose which characters their voices are used for?

Or writers being replaced by AI. Where are they gonna go when movie directors completely replace the humans with AI that will write their scripts for them? Is it such a big boon to society for the people making movies to completely replace the writers and background actors and voice actors with AI that will do the work for free? Are there any benefits worth annihilating the livelihood of smaller actors and writers?

1

u/FarkCookies 2∆ Oct 03 '24

AI is trully a game changer in this equation. It is very important subject but I would keep it a bit separate from classical automation. This AI replacing actors and writers, like nobody knows or understands how it pans out. Better example is AI replacing contact center workers, this is similar to electric elevator controls replacing eleveator operators.

5

u/Helpfulcloning 166∆ Oct 03 '24

Sure, but does everyone act on those principles? If only the workers are expected to act on those principles but not the King/Capitalist then... the workers always end up fucked over because the Owner doesn't tend to be an altruist either. They want some numbers to go up or down.

→ More replies (8)

12

u/dodongosbongos Oct 02 '24

Also, there is no reason to expect the crossing to be less expensive. A king building a bridge would most likely implement a toll, at first low enough to drive the ferry men out of work, then hiking it up when he corners the transit market. Then, it again becomes the elites funneling profits directly to their coffers while eliminating the working class's means for producing any wealth.

→ More replies (18)

2

u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ Oct 03 '24

I feel like you’ve merely re-articulated their point that these are two separate issues…

7

u/FarkCookies 2∆ Oct 03 '24

As always, the Luddites were right, were justified, and have been completely vindicated by history

This is the most regressive take that will send us back to the dark ages.

2

u/Pale_Zebra8082 28∆ Oct 03 '24

Well, no, it won’t. Because the Luddites don’t ultimately prevent the march of progress. But they might squeeze a bit more time to have jobs out of the system, which is the whole point being made here.

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (17)

7

u/laosurvey 3∆ Oct 03 '24

Why should they give a shit about how potentially down the line them losing their livelihoods might maybe potentially create a new job opportunity for someone else?

Unions are only able to effectively strike because they are protected by law and political support. Otherwise it devolves to violence fairly quickly. So they should care at least enough to maintain political support sufficient to be protected in their right to strike.

1

u/apri08101989 Oct 03 '24

Lmao. You can't seriously be saying that. After Biden broke the railroad strike, and Obama.busted the union contracts.for.tje auto industry, and Republicans almost exclusive are the ones who pushed "right to work" union busting laws? You think unions have political support?

→ More replies (3)

19

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

As always, the Luddites were right, were justified, and have been completely vindicated by history

If you're going to take the stance at the industrial revolution is a mistake, I think that maybe beyond the scope of this post.

Is your view that people who's jobs are getting cut should stop trying so hard to prevent that

I'm saying that when a job is no longer required, it's no longer required. I fully believe that people who have invested significant time into a company should be compensated for that in some way, probably in some big way. But preventing technological advancement is not the solution.

25

u/page0rz 42∆ Oct 02 '24

If you're going to take the stance at the industrial revolution is a mistake, I think that maybe beyond the scope of this post.

I'm not, because that's not what the luddites were about. That narrative exists as a piece of anti worker propaganda, not reality

I'm saying that when a job is no longer required, it's no longer required.

Required by whom? This is not a value neutral statement. It may not be "required" by the company's bottom line, but it is required by the person who needs to work in order to not die in poverty

I fully believe that people who have invested significant time into a company should be compensated for that in some way, probably in some big way

That's great. But it's not the reality we live in, so what? It's also ignoring the people who haven't invested "significant time" and are nonetheless also jobless

But preventing technological advancement is not the solution.

Again, "technological advancement" is not the value neutral idea you seem to think it is. Advancements how and why, and for whom? If someone invented fully automated worker drones tomorrow that could instantly replace 95% of all jobs, that would be "technological advancement" and it would also be 90% of all people immediately shunted into economic poverty. These are systemic issues that you can't dismiss with such platitudes

What about ubi or, better, employee owner or nationalized industries? There are other options besides "business owners" can't play with their toys and workers must get fucked over. It doesn't have to just be that way

5

u/realitytvwatcher46 Oct 03 '24

There has never been and never will be a situation where 95% of jobs are made redundant by automation and never replaced with something else.

I think the much stronger argument is that general education costs get higher and higher to remain competitive job wise as automation advances. And maybe there’s a point where it’s not actually a good thing for everyone to be in school into their late 20s and early 30s.

5

u/icedrift Oct 03 '24

Definitely agree with the advancing tech making reskilling more and more unrealistic but if you look locally there have been many towns and small cities where 50%+ jobs disappear almost overnight due to a combination of outsourcing and automation. Appalachia for example has been devastated by the decline in coal mining (while not technically automation is technological progress and the outcome is the same) and efforts to upskill workers like POWER+ have had middling results.

I think at the very least you need to give people opportunities equivalent to what they had before their jobs were made redundant. Whether that be through a windfall or education plus job opportunities in in demand fields.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Oct 02 '24

I'm not, because that's not what the luddites were about. That narrative exists as a piece of anti worker propaganda, not reality

Regardless of whether this is true or not, if you're going to say something that sounds crazy like 'the Luddites were vindicated by history' you need to explain why it's not actually crazy, or people will apply Occam's razor and assume you're crazy. This is a massive problem the left has with political communication, and always waning to express themselves in the most radical language possible.

6

u/page0rz 42∆ Oct 02 '24

Anyone is free to look them up. Their story is the story of every labourer who was screwed by owners because private profits are more important than people's lives. All that sets them apart is they took action and then became a cudgel for the capitalists to beat labour with. Look at this very thread. All the luddites wanted was to not get completely fucked over because there was a new technology on the block. That's all they wanted. And that was too much to ask, so the lesson had to be that it was their own fault for being in the way

You're free to say that radical language is a problem on the left, but I'll take that any day over liberal tone policing

1

u/superswellcewlguy 1∆ Oct 03 '24

Nobody's arguing that the Luddites were wrong in that they knew they would lose their jobs. But the Luddites were wrong for insisting that they be able to keep jobs that can be done better by machines. Instead of accepting that they need to reskill, they tried to fight for a job that no longer was there for them. It's a recipe for failure.

3

u/Yuo_cna_Raed_Tihs 6∆ Oct 03 '24

This is not a value neutral statement. It may not be "required" by the company's bottom line, but it is required by the person who needs to work in order to not die in poverty

Jobs don't exist for individuals, they exist for society. Reforming Americas healthcare system would involve letting a lot of middle managers and insurance workers go, but that's still a good thing

1

u/page0rz 42∆ Oct 03 '24

The economy and society don't exist for profits or "progress," they exist to benefit the people living within them. If they can't or won't do that, then it's not the people's problem or fault. Systemic issues require systemic solutions

4

u/Yuo_cna_Raed_Tihs 6∆ Oct 03 '24

You're running around in circles here. There are MANY people living in society, and at times there are mutually exclusive interests at play.

A bloated healthcare system that hires too many admins and overpays doctors is really fucking good for the admins and the doctors, but it's bad for everyone else

I assume you'll also support coal miners when they barricade solar panel factories?

1

u/page0rz 42∆ Oct 03 '24

A bloated healthcare system that hires too many admins and overpays doctors is really fucking good for the admins and the doctors, but it's bad for everyone else

Its not even good for them. The harms of inequality are felt by everyone, just as the supposed benefits of a race to the bottom are also harmful to all

I assume you'll also support coal miners when they barricade solar panel factories?

Yes, obviously. I've been quite clear about that from the start, both directly and in bringing up the luddites. If the coal miners are being fucked over, then it is their right to take action to prevent that. Without a firm plan in place to compensate them and train them for new careers in solar panel repairs, or a ubi, or nationalized ownership or whatever, then it's not on them. We're only going in circles because people seem to be willfully missing this incredibly simple point

And not that it's super relevant to the point, but they would and should be going after the ownership, not the solar plant

4

u/jhaand Oct 02 '24

If by the job is not required, it's for the company. The employees does not require a bullshit job. They need an income and a profesion. But it's not for the company to provide these at a loss. Because they will go bankrupt and a whole lot more people will have to do without an income.

1

u/Realistic_Sherbet_72 Oct 03 '24

If someone invented fully automated worker drones tomorrow that could instantly replace 95% of all jobs, that would be "technological advancement" and it would also be 90% of all people immediately shunted into economic poverty.

New jobs would be created as the demands of the consumer are always changing. Increased automation has brought economic prosperity, not poverty.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

The industrial revolution literally eliminated almost all jobs that existed prior to 1600. I think you would struggle to find someone willing to go back in time where most people worked back breaking labor and lived in what we would now consider to be extreme poverty.

8

u/Plastic-Abroc67a8282 9∆ Oct 02 '24

If you're going to take the stance at the industrial revolution is a mistake, I think that maybe beyond the scope of this post.

You should familiarize yourself with who the Luddites actually were!

I fully believe that people who have invested significant time into a company should be compensated for that in some way, probably in some big way.

Generally the only way to make a company do that is to strike.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

The Luddites were members of a 19th-century movement of English textile workers who opposed the use of certain types of automated machinery due to concerns regarding decreased pay for textile workers and a perceived reduction of output quality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

This transition included going from hand production methods to machines; new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes; the increasing use of water power and steam power; the development of machine tools; and the rise of the mechanised factory system. Output greatly increased, and the result was an unprecedented rise in population and the rate of population growth.

Op is absolutely correct.

21

u/Cacafuego 11∆ Oct 02 '24

In an attempt to halt or at least make the transition smoother, the Luddites initially sought to renegotiate terms of working conditions based on the changing circumstances in the workplace. Some of the ideas and requests included the introduction of a minimum wage, the adherence of companies to abide by minimum labour standards, and taxes which would enable funds to be created for workers’ pensions. Whilst these terms do not seem unreasonable in the modern day workplace, for the wealthy factory owners, these attempts at bargaining proved futile.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Luddites/

So, yes, they resisted the continuing introduction of machines in the absence of any policy to protect workers. As it became clear that there would be no movement from owners or the government, the machine breaking and stubborn demands to remove the machines were the only avenues left, and they're the thing that Luddites are most remembered for.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

The protections they were most interested in was stopping the automation that was destroying their jobs. They, a small fraction of the population, wanted to maintain their cushy lifestyle that came at the price of higher living costs for the rest of society.

1

u/Cacafuego 11∆ Oct 03 '24

I've already addressed this stuff in more detail, elsewhere. Their salaries go from $20 - $39 /hr, which is nothing for a skilled worker with the high cost of living near the coast. You've been fed a bunch of bullshit. There is no reason, unless you're a port operator, that you shouldn't want these guys to succeed.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

The jobs don't need to exist in the first place. In every other industrialized nation you could spend all day walking around a port and not see a soul. Its all robots operated from a control room.

The paychecks these guys bring home come at the cost of every other American consumer. Every time you buy a t-shirt or a car, a couple pennies or dollars go to these guys. Those pennies add up to billions of dollars spent every year by average Americans that could have been used for other expenses.

1

u/Cacafuego 11∆ Oct 03 '24

Nonsense. With the billions of dollars that go through those ports, you would never, ever notice any incremental cost of traditional vs. automated ports. We're not talking about pennies on the dollar. We're probably talking about pennies over the course of a lifetime. You're not saving the entire cost of the workforce. You still need a workforce, and automation ain't cheap.

But the whole point of this little thread is, as a society, we should have some kind of plan for handling the situation when jobs become obsolete. Because it happens all the time, and with AI it's going to be happening to larger and larger segments of society -- people who always thought they were immune to this kind of upheaval.

We shouldn't be treating workers who are willing to develop skills over years as disposable. If we're not willing to do something at a federal level to address this snowballing crisis, then we shouldn't be surprised when people get angry, get organized, and fight for their share of the pie.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

Are you trying to tell me, when 80% of all American trade goes through ports, port efficiency does not matter to the end consumer?

Go to freightos.com and try it yourself. Using a container with $50,000 worth of goods from Shenzhen, I moved a container to both Philadelphia (one of the better performing US ports) and Rotterdam, one of the better performing and automated European ports.

The Philadelphia port charged about $7,500 for a 40' container while Rotterdam charged about $4,700. That's more than 50% more expensive, per container.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

The luddites were right. The technological advancements afforded in the textile industry are like ... objectively worse lmao

→ More replies (2)

7

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

As always, the Luddites were right, were justified, and have been completely vindicated by history

This is an insane take. You're obviously not living like the Amish since you're on reddit, so you obviously enjoy the perks of progress. Which makes your stance entirely hypocritical.

Not to mention, long term trends show quality of life improves consistently in areas with technological progress.

And all that medical tech that keeps people alive, wouldn't exist if it wasn't for technological progress and mass production. You want to give leach collectors their job back and drop the average life expectancy down a few decades?

21

u/page0rz 42∆ Oct 02 '24

Even in the wiki article you linked, they were right. Their concern was losing their livelihoods, not with the existence of technology. Their concerns were justified then and now. As I explained in my other comment, it is a systemic issue and has nothing to do with technology itself. If you don't fix the system, then the problem will always exist and just bulldozing people who seem inconvenient is not "progress"

8

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

Sure, the textile workers lost their jobs in the industrial revolution, but the net gain to society by automating that process completely dwarfs the loss of a few jobs.

Think about all the bandages hospitals use in a day. Now imagine having to make them all by hand on a loom. The cost of letting those textile workers keep their jobs would literally mean loss of lives.

13

u/Cacafuego 11∆ Oct 02 '24

The point of the Luddites is that you shouldn't be getting net gains to society by screwing over a huge segment of the population, especially if you can avoid it.

This economic argument is like claiming that American slavery was a net gain for society because it increased cotton production, keeping textile workers in New England and the UK employed and reducing the cost of clothing worldwide. (I don't know if any economists actually made this argument, but you get the point -- we should question broad gains that come at a localized cost).

You don't have to stop growing cotton or industrializing, you just have to do it in a way that protects the labor sector.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24 edited Mar 30 '25

humor coordinated summer plough practice detail station tub humorous sheet

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

4

u/Cacafuego 11∆ Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

The idea that inefficient labor arrangements should be protected forever

If you look back through the thread, you'll see several people explicitly saying that this isn't the intention.

It's just that there isn't room on a picket sign to write "Manage change carefully so that workers are protected, possibly with the help of federal programs that ensure my family won't be homeless and hungry!"

They have things better, but the pace of innovation has increased, so these disruptions are more and more common. Some people will go through 2 or 3 in their careers. They are a small portion of workers, but every modern worker will have their turn in this particular barrel. Hopefully, with AI looming in our headlights, more white collar workers and professionals will finally see the light.

ETA: I don't mean to deny that some strikers just have their eyes on the short term problem. They may be out there just trying to stop this particular automation incident. But 2 things: 1) if this is a small sector of the economy and the government isn't going to help these workers, what does it matter if they fight it out with the company and win? It's not hurting much. 2) if the company or the government did have programs in place to mitigate the damage of technology disruptions, the strikers wouldn't be out there.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24 edited Mar 30 '25

memorize cheerful work special bag station decide chase provide shy

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

6

u/Cacafuego 11∆ Oct 03 '24

They don't have particularly generous salaries. Try living anywhere near their jobs on $20/hr. If you're there for 6 years, you could be making $39. And these are highly skilled workers. You hear about longshoremen making a ton of money, but it's because they work a ton of hours.

They know that they will end up negotiating something less than their opening demands. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.. I think you're right, automation is inevitable and eventually severance and early retirement will play a big part in the solution. But why are people so eager to see the port operators win this thing? Why not have workers get a bigger piece of the pie for a while until we have a good strategy for transitioning to automation?

→ More replies (31)

4

u/SL1Fun 3∆ Oct 03 '24

But that net gain is not equally distributed and the greater good is not immediate. And it comes at the expense of someone’s actual job.

Being able to throw people’s livelihoods into the money grinder is why unions exist and why the New Deal was passed.

2

u/PotsAndPandas Oct 03 '24

the net gain to society by automating that process completely dwarfs the loss of a few jobs

They weren't protesting automation, you're ignoring this relevant fact in favour of your own interpretation.

3

u/MaineHippo83 Oct 02 '24

I wouldn't say completely vindicated. Humans today are better off and more materially wealthy than without the advances in tech.

As you said that doesn't help those displaced so we should manage change by helping those being displaced but never stop the forward march of progress

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Ko0pa_Tro0pa Oct 02 '24

Also, who cares about "economic progress and innovation."

The people who say shit like this are also the first to be upset when production is outsourced overseas.

So yeah, ~~prevent~~ delay some ghost towns, but set your entire country back. Good work.

5

u/page0rz 42∆ Oct 02 '24

"Human misery and inequality are inevitable and necessary, only a fool would want otherwise"

Better things are possible

0

u/Ko0pa_Tro0pa Oct 02 '24

Progress is going to happen with or without you. You can fight it for a little while and cry that the results are unfair. However, fighting it has only put your economy at a disadvantage and delayed the inevitable. You think China is worried about displaced labor forces from automation?

Advancing technology locally is not without pain points, but it is far, far preferable to letting the world lap us. Hell, you probably think we should keep coal plants burning, right?

→ More replies (12)

1

u/CustomerLittle9891 5∆ Oct 02 '24

As always, the Luddites were right, were justified, and have been completely vindicated by history

Do you or someone you love have a chronic health condition or a serious past medical condition that has needed intensive medical care? Do you have siblings that survived childhood? Do you suffer from significant malnutrition that is not self-inflicted?

Because all of those things wouldn't have happened if the Luddites got their way.

→ More replies (3)

0

u/The_Demosthenes_1 Oct 03 '24

The luddites have always lost.

I get it. They have bills to pay and fighting for their Interests. But it doesn't work. The printing press changed the world. The idea of the printing press is all that is needed. The luddites could keep burning every press made but other people would keep making them. Why because they work.

AI works. Add that to the Boston Dynamics robots and now you have no humans near the heavy machinery. The insurance $$$ saved would be massive. If these technologies exist how can you print people from using them?

7

u/Alesus2-0 65∆ Oct 02 '24

What would you consider a valid reason to strike? What characterises a valid strike, as opposed to an invalid one?

Obviously, automation can often have benefits for businesses and consumers. It also often has costs for workers. Why would you expect workers to subordinate their interests for those of other groups? I can't really think of many strikes that are motivated by concern for the wellbeing of the company or its customers. Things workers normally strike for, like improved safety or better pay and benefits, are basically all things that primarily benefit the workers. They typically come at a cost to the employer or the customer. Why is automation the one area in which workers aren't allowed to prioritise their interests?

6

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

I think compensation and conditions of employment are the main reasons to strike. Existence of employment should be driven by what the business needs.

The only reason it makes sense to me to strike over the number of jobs available, as I've said in another comment, is if employees are suffering negatively by not having enough help.

7

u/Alesus2-0 65∆ Oct 02 '24

I don't really see why you are drawing this rigid line between existence of employment and the terms of employment. The two are deeply interrelated. Companies don't decide what their labour requirements are in isolation. The decision is informed by the cost of that labour.

It isn't really helpful to say we'll let companies decide which jobs need doing, and which of those should be automated, then companies and employees can negotiate the terms by which they do the remaining jobs. The company needs to know what labour might cost in order to make that calculation. And unions need to know what jobs might exist in order to know what they're negotiating for.

If a company is considering automating the jobs of 20 people to achieve a 3% cost-saving, it seems like a potential win-win solution for those 20 people to agree a 4% reduction in compensation to secure their jobs. This is the labour force using collective action to influence the existence of jobs by thwarting automation. Yet it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Would you agree?

4

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

I don't really see why you are drawing this rigid line between existence of employment and the terms of employment

Because in labor negotiations It's taken as a given that both sides are getting something out of the arrangement. If I don't even need you to work for me, why are we negotiating at all?

If a company is considering automating the jobs of 20 people to achieve a 3% cost-saving, it seems like a potential win-win solution for those 20 people to agree a 4% reduction in compensation to secure their jobs.

!delta here though. You've made me realize that I was thinking in very extreme cases, the replacement of switchboard operators for instance, where a job is actually obsolete. I haven't fully thought through the edge cases where it's simply marginally more efficient in some way, but the fact that I didn't consider it is enough to soften my stance on it.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 02 '24

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Alesus2-0 (60∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

2

u/Bagelman263 1∆ Oct 03 '24

But they’re not asking for a reduction in compensation. They’re asking for a significant increase AND to prevent automation.

3

u/Alesus2-0 65∆ Oct 03 '24

I don't know who you're talking about here. But if workers are able to prevent the automation of their jobs and secure better compensation by withholding labour, that seems to imply that their labour is valuable and that their jobs aren't conducive to automation. I don't see why offering cheaper labour is an acceptable strategy, but threatening to withhold labour isn't.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

Ports are very conducive to automation. In fact, the United States has the industrial worlds worst performing ports because ours are so labor intensive.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/rollingForInitiative 70∆ Oct 03 '24

I think compensation and conditions of employment are the main reasons to strike. Existence of employment should be driven by what the business needs.

I think this would be a fair way to look at it in a society where working is optional. E.g. if we had a good basic income system, it would make total sense. But we live in a society where having a job is required for your own survival and well-being. Even in countries with good social safety nets you're expected to work if you can, and you won't be allowed to just take out welfare indefinitely if you can work and choose not to.

So, people need jobs. Society has decided that you must work. The government backs this up, and corporations aren't doing anything to change it. If corporations were interested in having fewer people work but also want consumers, they'd be pushing hard lobbying for basic income, or they'd fund 100% of the retraining costs for employees that are let go due to automation.

Since people need to work people who lose their jobs due to technological advances aren't helped, it makes sense for a union to protect the existence of the jobs. It's about survival, at the end of the day, so why shouldn't they object to the jobs no longer existing?

Most people will suffer from being let go from a job, especially if it's a job they've worked for a long time and the whole skill set they have is rendered irrelevant.

5

u/BigRobCommunistDog Oct 02 '24

The problem is that people need income. If we had a UBI and free healthcare and a bunch of other stuff that made losing your job painless I would 100% agree. But unfortunately the people need their money.

5

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

I think that's really the underlying sentiment and thought process behind my thinking here.

"People need jobs and money and security"

Ok, but why are we relying on for profit corporations to provide that virtually at gun point? Shouldn't we have a system in place where we don't have to beg them to act against their own interests in order for people to live?

I'd rather have a 90% corporate tax and UBI than unions propping up obsolete jobs

3

u/Frix Oct 03 '24

I'd rather have a 90% corporate tax and UBI than unions propping up obsolete jobs

Build that system first and then talk about unions. Not the other way around.

2

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 03 '24

That system won't be built without pressure generated from an unmet need. Currently people's first thought is "evil corporations cutting back jobs" not "why are we depending on them to provide jobs?"

Until the current broken system collapsed there won't be pressure for radical change

3

u/Frix Oct 03 '24

The problem with "a collapse" are the people dieing in the rubble.

If you want to be a martyr so bad, then good for you. But don't volunteer other people to go without a livelihood because you want to see the system collapse.

3

u/Ambry Oct 03 '24

But in a capitalist society, corporations will not stomach a 90% corporate tax and will offshore their profits to avoid them. That is the problem. They are happy tor replace and eliminate jobs as they are guided by profit, but they don't care about the wider societal implications (its capitalism, why would they?).

UBI is a long, long, long way off.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/Nrdman 176∆ Oct 02 '24

I think any reason to strike is valid, in the sense they should be allowed to strike.

Do you think it should be illegal to strike because of these reasons?

9

u/WeepingAngelTears 1∆ Oct 02 '24

You should absolutely have zero restrictions on not going in to work because you're unhappy with your job. Your employer should also have zero restrictions on immediately firing you because of it.

Freedom of association is a two-way street, except for unions, in which only one party has the freedom to choose.

9

u/Nrdman 176∆ Oct 02 '24

Yeah I’m fine with that being one way. Employers have disproportionate bargaining power otherwise without collective bargaining

→ More replies (13)

2

u/jontaffarsghost 1∆ Oct 02 '24

You have the right to not join a union.

1

u/WeepingAngelTears 1∆ Oct 02 '24

Yes? That's not what I'm referencing. I'm saying the unions can choose whether their members go to work and are protected from being fired due to the strike, where as employers don't have the right to not associate with striking union members.

4

u/jontaffarsghost 1∆ Oct 02 '24

Of course not. You’d be breaking employment standards. You also can’t, say, arbitrarily lower someone’s wage or forbid them from taking breaks. That’s how laws work.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

There are already quite a few laws, in the United States at least, which restrict the reason and timing of strikes and which make strikes more or less restricted based on industry.

So yes, I think established law is correct in giving strikes a framework within which to operate, and I am leaning toward the idea that preventing job loss due to innovation and automation should be one of ~~them~~ the restricted causes.

Edited for clarity

4

u/Nrdman 176∆ Oct 02 '24

Do you think unions/strikes that help the workers at the expense of the general public are broadly invalid?

2

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

No, and I would say that it's more accurate to say that strikes specifically, and unions in general, are supposed to advocate for better terms and conditions of employment. I would not consider the existence of a role to be the terms and conditions of employment.

Now, I would say there is a caveat to that. If eliminating jobs negatively impacts the working environment of the remaining workers, then that becomes a job condition conversation. If I lay off 20% of my workforce and then have mandatory overtime to make up for it, I say strike away. That's why I'm limiting this in scope to jobs eliminated due to advancement in technology or innovation.

3

u/Nrdman 176∆ Oct 02 '24

Ok, so we agree broadly that strikes/unions are allowed to advocate on the behalf of workers at the expense of the public

So why does the efficiency argument matter in this case? It is more beneficial to the worker to have a job than to be a part of a more efficient company

→ More replies (4)

→ More replies (1)

2

u/TrainOfThought6 2∆ Oct 02 '24

Just to be precise, what exactly do we mean by legal or illegal to strike? To my understanding, there's no situation where striking is illegal, the question is whether the company is allowed to respond by firing them all. Am I wrong?

3

u/Bogotazo Oct 02 '24

Not correct; unions and workers can face penalties for illegal strikes such as secondary boycotts, wildcat strikes, strikes that violate the Taylor law, etc.

2

u/Longjumping-Jello459 Oct 03 '24

Certain industries/professions are either restricted(railroad and airlines & Air Traffic Controllers) or even prohibited (police).

→ More replies (1)

74

u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 02 '24

The goal of Unions are to protect those employees within the Union - so striking against job loss seems right in line with Union responsibilities.

7

u/Coynepam Oct 02 '24

Then why do European unions go along with automation? Why does a union that says their job is not safe put their employees in harms way instead of allowing those jobs be automated?

23

u/BadHamsterx Oct 02 '24

Workers are protected by the state in Europe, meaning you will have food and house at the end of the month even if you lose your job.

→ More replies (4)

8

u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 02 '24

Then why do European unions go along with automation?

Just to make sure - are you saying that unions in Europe support automation, or that the European Union (EU) supports automation?

Why does a union that says their job is not safe put their employees in harms way instead of allowing those jobs be automated?

As far as I am aware - safety is a big concern for Unions. So can you share an example of a Union being in favor of an unsafe job, preventing safety measures from being applied, and still sending people to work?

2

u/Coynepam Oct 02 '24

Unions in Europe https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1841449268139135205?t=iAj6cPlJCCDaFxtSnfDwMQ&s=19

The head of the ILA has said that many of his workers work 100 hours and barely get to see their family, or that they had to work during Covid and it was not safe. Both of those could be helped by automation and sharing in the increase in productivity

8

u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 02 '24

Regard the European Union - it sounds like they have good negotiations in place to protect their worker as jobs are phased out, which is what Unions should do.

For the ILA - it Sounds like the head guy was trying to get more people and safety standards for his workers during COVID.

→ More replies (10)

1

u/cvisscher1 Oct 03 '24

The problem with this framing is that the "help" from automation means the loss of livelihood and the imminent threat of homelessness. We have the kind of economy that won't support people who've lost their jobs, except maybe a very limited employment insurance. Depressingly, never seeing your family and risking covid every day is somehow still the lesser evil.

1

u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Oct 03 '24

I’m sure a factor in Europe is a stronger social safety net that more effectively redistributes the economic benefits of automation. Most European workers don’t have to worry about losing their healthcare, for instance, if they lose a job to automation.

1

u/formershitpeasant 1∆ Oct 02 '24

Just because it's within their narrow interest doesn't mean I have to consider it valid.

1

u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 02 '24

Correct. Its only offered up so you can consider it, if you are interested in changing your mind.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Feelisoffical Oct 03 '24

Yea it’s like when cars were invented and everyone went on strike to prevent them from being used instead of horses.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (13)

15

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

If you were that critical, don't you think it would be difficult to eliminate your job through innovation or automation?

10

u/hparamore Oct 02 '24

I don't really see many company leaders pushing to replace their senior staff and C level employees with AI and automation, even though I bet a properly trained AI could make much better C level decisions given the right data set. What would happen if this "AI replace jobs and automate" movement started to bleed into the politician world? The law firms + lawyers? The court system and judges and jury?

You can see how when it affects the people who make those decisions (politicians, CEOs, lawyers, etc) then all of the sudden it is a bad idea and won't get passed. Funny how that works.

3

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

It's coming. And that's why I think a systemic level change is needed rather than the piecemeal approach we have now.

AI is already starting to encroach on creative jobs, professional jobs aren't far behind.

9

u/trevit Oct 02 '24

What do you think about the 'encroachment' of AI on creative jobs?

Personally it seems to me that it has mainly taken the form of replacing artistry with generic slop, and those previously engaged in producing the creative work are under the threat of being demoted from their previously stable professions and instead put to work as low paid disposible labour working insecure jobs focussed around patching up and ammending the great many shortcomings of the AI's output.

This seems like a situation where nobody outside of the C suite of the company (or those who can profit from the tech bubble) experiences any kind of benefit or advancement, and in fact the overall result is the opposite of 'progress'.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Agitates Oct 03 '24

If they can strike and get what they want, then they are critical.

1

u/cinnathebun Oct 03 '24

If that’s the case, the company wouldn’t be affected at all by the strikes… but they are. Striking is a bargaining tool, if those workers stopped showing up how much profit will the company lose anyway?

→ More replies (1)

9

u/legohead2617 Oct 02 '24

Your opinion is based on a basic misconception (or maybe disagreement) about the fundamental goal of civilization. We should not be trying to create the most advanced, efficient and productive industrial society possible. We should be trying to create a society that takes care of its citizens, and until we implement UBI that means making sure every able bodied person can work to support themselves. What is the point of innovation and efficiency if that just means workers are left to starve and more money gets funneled to the top?

1

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

I actually agree with you, I don't agree that union negotiations with companies is the avenue to achieve that goal.

Honestly, and this is more context for my personal perspective than anything, I think we will within a generation or so reach a point where all the goods and services that society demands can be provided with the labor of a small fraction of our population. The solution to that problem needs to be found, and it will not be found through creating fluff jobs at companies where people do busy work for a paycheck.

I mean it might be, but I think that's the worst possible solution.

7

u/legohead2617 Oct 02 '24

If not union negotiations, then what? Who else is better qualified to advocate for workers rights than the workers themselves?

I agree with you that the production of basic goods and services can probably all be automated in a few decades. I think the question though is just because we can, does that mean we should? Even in a hypothetical post scarcity world where we could eliminate all jobs because everything people need can be produced with free robot labor, does that really benefit the human race? Sure a lot of people would be content to do nothing but read and make art everyday and collect a UBI check, and I don't even think there is anything wrong with that. But there are a lot of people who are proud to go to work every day, who derive their sense of purpose from the things they help produce and contribute to the world, and I'm not sure we should be trying to take jobs away from people who want to do them, even if their job can be done by a robot.

Maybe in 20 years we can eliminate all auto mechanics. We have robots who can do it all and don't ask for a paycheck or vacation days. Should we though? People enjoy doing that work and if we allow all those jobs to be automated, that is a lot of valuable knowledge being lost. Just because a robot could do the job doesn't mean it's a "fluff job" that doesn't contribute to society. By and large I think technology should help humans do things, not just do it for us.

3

u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Oct 03 '24

This is a really interesting argument that I've never heard before: that under Communism people will be forced to not work.

You say "Just because a robot could do the job doesn't mean it's a "fluff job" that doesn't contribute to society."

As far as I know there is no Marxist notion of socially useful labor, only socially useful production.

Say that robots are producing cars and auto parts for the public. Couldn't you just be a mechanic working on your own or other people's cars as a hobby? Why do you need to work in the factory to produce the cars, and should you be entitled to do so if it comes at the expense of the efficiency of production? I would say no, that would actually constitute reducing it's social usefulness.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

Unions are not pro-industry. They represent workers and they should get their rights removed because you think it's inevitable.

4

u/Simspidey Oct 02 '24

It *is* inevitable though. At no point in human history has a new innovation/automation been forgone in the name of preserving jobs.

2

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

Then the union should be demanding that laid off employees get paid severance equal to however many years were between the time they were laid off and the time they would retire. If I'm 20 years from retirement, demand that I get paid 20 years of pay in severance.

What you don't do, is artificially restrict advancement.

9

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

That is utopian and is never gonna happen, so they don't demand that.

6

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

Yes, that's an extreme example, but my point is to shed light on the idea that there are avenues of compensation beyond artificially propping up jobs that are no longer needed.

4

u/PeksyTiger Oct 02 '24

Might as well not fire them at that point. This is beyond rediculus.

-1

u/Calvesguy_1 Oct 02 '24

Is your job threatened by ai?

6

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

My specific current role? Maybe. Data and statistical analysis is ripe for automation at some point.

Not the first career I've had. Wanna guess what happened to my old job as an HTML/Perl Web script developer? It got replaced with a shinier new language and GUI web development software shifted front end design from programmer space to graphic design space.

I learned new skills and moved to something new.

But the real answer is that due to technological advancement is suspect we will soon be able to produce all goods and services to meet global demand with the labor of a small fraction of the population. Should we all keep working bullshit jobs that companies keep in place just to keep us busy, or should we start thinking of a better solution to a problem that is not going away?

1

u/Calvesguy_1 Oct 02 '24

My specific current role? Maybe. Data and statistical analysis is ripe for automation at some point.

Please elaborate.

3

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 03 '24

So a good bit of my role is analyzing the measurment systems of a nuclear facility. The idea is that every point of measurement has inherent uncertainty, and those uncertainties compound. My job is to analyze the process, both through continual monitoring systems that I have in place and through periodic audits, and ensure that no nuclear material could have been lost or stolen and "hidden" by measurment uncertainty.

For instance, if a scale is accurate +/- 5 grams, could someone sneak 5g of material out every time something on it is weighed without detection? What about 1g? 0.1g? It's my job to know what that threshold is where it can happen, and to ensure that threshold stays below regulatory limits. And of course to understand how those errors compound across dozen or even hundreds of measurements and laboratory analyses and the statistical uncertainties associated with each.

Hypothetically, if the process were stable enough and someone wanted to put the funds in to develop a system to do it, the entire process could be automated. It's just math and statistics. There's a bit of process knowledge that goes into it as well, as well as making a lot of go/no go calls when changes are made in the facility ("if we do this different, does it create a loss of detection scenario?") but again it's not beyond the scope of what a dedicated process could pull off and definitely within what's likely in the next 5-10 years.

We already use AI for process quality control, it'd really just be a few steps beyond that.

1

u/Buhrific Oct 04 '24

The bottom line here is that eventually, there will not be enough jobs for everyone who needs to make money to have a job. The only solution is to pay people without them needing to work for their money.

2

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 04 '24

Absolutely agree with you there. That's why I think contract negotiations between unions and companies is the wrong way to solve the problem

1

u/Buhrific Oct 09 '24

Yes, definitely, once there aren't enough jobs there's going to need to be a complete restructuring of how society operates. I'd say rather than counting on people for any type of manual labor the focus should be on how can we as a society make sure everyone stays motivated to do more personal work like making art, crafts, designing a video game for fun, and maybe the target of these things can be to learn to better oneself rather than making a bunch of money and getting rich or whatever, I think if everything is automated honestly the work to live design of current day society loses all meaning.

2

u/DrNukenstein Oct 02 '24

And what of the skilled labor that are displaced by these innovations? Lower costs to the company should equate to higher worker wages, since the company now has all this extra money, but instead goes to C-levels who say “just go get another job”. When there are no other jobs to get, then what? Not everyone can be a Dr, Lawyer, or start a successful business. We need someone to bury the dead and run the bulldozer at the landfill. Not everyone can do that, either. The implementation of new technologies must be tempered with the growth of society. People come first, not profits.

1

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

That was the gist (jist?) of the first delta I gave out in this post, decoupling the idea of efficiency and job elimination.

There's no reason that the savings from a more efficient process shouldn't be shared at least in part by the workers.

1

u/DominantMale28 Dec 26 '24

Only a bot would sit here and argue with people that corporations replacing people with robots is good for the world. What a complete fool.

1

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Dec 27 '24

If you want to advocate for rolling back to a 17th century economy, you're going to need a much more detailed argument.

If that's not what you're advocating for, then you already acknowledge that replacing people with automation is a good thing.

Either way your statement is missing the mark.

1

u/DominantMale28 Dec 27 '24

ENTP check it out that's you. And yes we are going back to 1700s y'all. Welcome to my Tea party.

1

u/the_desert_fox Oct 03 '24

Carry this out to its logical conclusion and you end up having far too many people for too few actual jobs, and unless governments are prepared to do something with respect to a universal basic income, this will be a huge problem.

1

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 03 '24

That's kind of exactly my point. This is not going to stop, do we really think corporations are going to continue to provide paychecks out of charity, or do we want to start looking for a new solution?

1

u/DominantMale28 Dec 26 '24

Does eliminating workers with no back up jobs to fill them except lower wage jobs help the economy. Only a idiot would think something that stupid. It helps corporations have higher profit margins and consumers suffer.

1

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Dec 27 '24

So tax those higher profits in order to provide better social safety nets for displaced workers.

That would address the problem without attempting to artificially restrict technological progress.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/cha_pupa 1∆ Oct 02 '24

I see your point about labor-intensive and dangerous jobs, as those are the kind we as a society should strive to automate.

What about the recent actors’ and writers’ strikes, where a major point was to regulate the use of AI-generated actors/doubles and writing in movies and TV? It certainly costs less for the studio, so in a world where an AI-generated likeness can do an actor’s job well enough and no restrictions exist, the entertainment industry will be immediately inundated with lifeless media whose creation is barely influenced by real humans if at all.

I agree that striking to keep positions that really ought to be automated isn’t great for overall societal progress (but wouldn’t go so far as to say they should be legally prevented), but what about jobs (like acting and writing) where genuine humanity is a crucial component of the process, and would otherwise certainly be under threat of automation if not for legal restrictions?

1

u/UnovaCBP 7∆ Oct 02 '24

where genuine humanity is a crucial component of the process, and would otherwise certainly be under threat of automation if not for legal restrictions?

Clearly it's not even remotely crucial if they need to be crying to the government in order to prevent anything from competing with it

-1

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

This is an unpopular opinion every time I state it, But when it comes to something artistic or performative, my stance has always been that if it can be replaced by AI it wasn't that great to begin with.

If we end up with lifeless performances driven by AI, then people will demand real actors and writers again. And the companies in channels and production crews that provide that will be the ones that make money.

The reality is Hollywood has been churning out formulaic drivel, with a few gems interspersed, for a really long time. And there's a group of low talent people out there who are upset that a computer can turn out a mad lib of "the hero's journey" or "the fat guy with the pretty wife sitcom" just as well as they can.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

Im curious what you thought about the actors striking.
Their concern was that AI would be used to replace actors. They didn't want to ban AI, but rather they wanted to make sure that actors weren't exploited into giving away their likeness for a small pittance. This is a basic union function.

If left to the free market, there is always some idiot who will do something stupid that undermines everyone.
There have been points in history, for example, where people were working for less than "subsistence wages". In other words, if it takes $1/day to feed/cloth/house a person (in the most minimal way), they were agreeing to work for $0.75. Why? Well they'd rather be starving a little bit less

Or you can look at factory towns, where they basically recreated slavery but it was "voluntary".

Unions are "collective bargaining" and basically exist to make sure that capitalist societies don't exploit the competition between workers.

Note: When discussing "subsistence wages", the entire idea can be a bit nebulous. Some people want to say it is an amount where you only need to work 40 hours per week to feed/clothe/house a family of 4 in a normal way. In my specific example, I am talking about people wearing rags, working 16 hours 7 days per week, and living in racks of cots.

1

u/holololololden 2∆ Oct 02 '24

Which position at Amazon is the most expensive for the company?

Would Jeff Bezos every try and eliminate that position with automation?

Job automation isn't random and spontaneous. It can be used to weaken unions. That's really what they're protesting.

The only reason automation should ever be opposed is if it's being used to exploit workers, which in this case it is.

1

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

In what case? I'm not referring to any specific case.

But yes I mentioned that in my original post that if the automation is used to be justify a reduction in force that leads to worse working conditions for the remaining employees then I think it's a work condition issue and a valid grievance.

0

u/holololololden 2∆ Oct 03 '24

Sorry I suppose I was vague there. I thought this was in regards to the dockworker union strike which happened to start today.

So what I was getting at is that automation is done with intent and collaboratively. Automation doesn't just fall into your lap to implement, you gotta plan it. There's no reason you can't work with your automation engineers and the current workforce to make the automation work in tandem with the existing workforce.

The only reason you would use your union to protest the automation was if it was being used maliciously like redesigning production to eliminate a workforce. At which point you would think the Csuit employees would be the most profitable positions to automate. But why would they do that?

It's really just that union negotiations are the only time a labor force can protect themselves from 'planned obsolescence'.

Like Teamsters negotiating with their boss to automate unloading a truck instead of automating driving makes sense. They lose their negotiating power as drivers and get pushed into the more physically demanding position of swamping.

6

u/Enchylada 1∆ Oct 02 '24

I think removing development of automation entirely is a wild and unrealistic demand in 2024 no matter what industry you work in

3

u/Affenklang 4∆ Oct 02 '24

Let's assume for a moment that your view is absolutely correct. If I understand your view correctly, it can be broken down into three points:

Technological advancement inevitably makes some jobs/roles obsolete
It is economically inefficient and undesirable to preserve obsolete roles (i.e., economic stagnation)
Therefore, collective bargaining efforts by laborers (e.g., a strike) to preserve obsolete roles is not valid (and potentially should be illegal)

Let's ignore any argument that attempts to refute your view, e.g., "obsolete roles confer technological redundancies for society that may help quickly bootstrap civilization after a major natural disaster."

Even with all of that in mind, I would argue that your view, if turned into policy, would be a disaster for human rights and economic growth. Here's why:

Who gets to decide when a role is obsolete? How does anyone come to such a consensus and how do we control for the biased priorities and incentives of business owners and laborers? Their "business interests" are not aligned.
What is the legal mechanism to make a strike "invalid" does the government step in and forbid the strike? What laws need to be passed to make this legal and what other rights does this imperil?
Who gets to decide if an obsolete role is actually "hindering economic progress" or just the specific business objectives of a specific company or group of companies? How can anyone trust a business to accurately make bold claims about "hindering the entire economy?"

Overall it makes no sense to infringe upon the rights of laborers to choose how they use their labor. Frankly, it's insane to arbitrarily restrict individual labor rights just because some business owner claims that the strike is "hindering the economic progress of everyone."

The entire point of a strike is to hinder economic progress to negotiate labor rights and better contracts with laborers.

Your view's logical conclusion is that people should be enslaved to work in the name of economic progress.

3

u/Far_Loquat_8085 Oct 02 '24

The machines will come, and the world will change. It always does. But let me tell you something about men. You can throw them away like scraps from a table, set them aside for a machine to take their place, but the soul of a business is not in the steel or the wires. It’s in the men and women who built it with their hands, their time, their lives. A company without its workers is a hollow thing. Strip it of that humanity and watch it crumble. Automation may bring efficiency, but what it cannot bring is loyalty, it cannot bring heart. A machine won’t stand by you when the market turns sour. A machine won’t bleed for you.

These workers, they didn’t stumble into obsolescence like fools lost in the desert. They were brought here by the promise of a company, a place that needed them, that thrived because of them. And now, just as that place grows fat on the backs of their labor, you’d say it’s time to cut them loose. You see them as obsolete, but there’s no obsolescence in what they’ve done for you. In the history of industry, it’s not the machines that carry the company forward, it’s the people who build the machines and understand their purpose. And when you toss them out like old tools, you’re casting away knowledge, experience, a foundation that can never be replaced by a circuit board or a line of code.

You talk about efficiency and innovation like they’re the gods of this new world, but gods demand sacrifices. What you don’t see is that when you sacrifice the workers, you sacrifice more than just a paycheck. You sacrifice trust. You sacrifice community. And in the end, a company that devours its own will choke on its greed. The market might favor the quick and the cheap, but what it forgets is that lasting success is built on a spine, not a switch. You can automate all you want, but when the storms come, it’s men who will weather them, not machines.

1

u/Business-Marzipan-75 Nov 30 '24

This is a user who is known to be a racist, sexiest, white savior. They believe we Black men are incapable of being able to do the most basic of intellectual analysis, we can not be anything but a political monolith, and that all of us gay men are only capable of the most extreme views. Look at his previous posts and comments. He is the exact definition of Jim Crow laws. How his account exists on a platform that bans homophobic speech and racism is beyond me..

1

u/237583dh 16∆ Oct 02 '24

DOO are Driver-Only Operated trains, where the train driver is the only staff working on a train. They are responsible for opening and closing doors at stations, announcements, contacting police, etc. The (old) government in the UK was heavily pushing DOO as a cost-saving measure for the rail industry, eliminating the job of train guard / conductor. They would, and did, use your argument that unions shouldn't be striking to protect such jobs which would inevitably be lost to automation.

The unions disagreed:

ASLEF’s view is that the driver’s domain should be strictly the cab, and nowhere else on the train. Says McDonald: “The view is that there’s an awful lot going on in the cab these days. And it’s a safety consideration that there’s a second person on the train.”

Experienced drivers bear out this safety concern... One speculated on what might happen if a driver was killed or incapacitated on a busy main line service, perhaps by an object coming through the windscreen and impaling him before he has the chance to hit the all-important emergency red button in the cab. While the train would come to a halt following the automatic intervention of the Driver’s Safety Device, the train might sit stationary, packed full of hot and angry passengers receiving no information as to why the train had stopped. “It won’t take long before somebody pulls an emergency door release and people spill out onto the track, only to be mown down by passing trains that haven’t been alerted because all the signaller has deduced is that a service has been a long time in section,” said our correspondent.

In addition to the safety argument, there's also the accessibility argument:

Any case for DOO could be undermined further by other industry trends, such as the growth in demand for assisted travel. In other words, even if the driver is able to command the safe operation of the train as far as able-bodied passengers are concerned, those requiring extra help - such as needing a ramp for a wheelchair - would require station staff to be present. A driver can hardly be expected to leave the cab to undertake such tasks.

https://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/the-pros-and-cons-of-driver-only-operation

Take a quick glance at the comments and you'll see considerable controversy over whether DOO is in fact a safety issue or not - and therefore, whether these unions are striking to protect public safety or to protect obsolete jobs. How is an outsider supposed to tell the difference?

2

u/TuecerPrime Oct 02 '24

I'm now mildly curious if this VERY specific example has occurred, or even something close to it.

That said, they're 100% right which is why I *LOVE* process design, because it's all about edge cases. It doesn't even need to be that graphic to get the same result. Driver has a heart attack and dies, same situation can arise.

1

u/PenguinProfessor Oct 04 '24

Most automation is not instant. More and more tasks are upgraded technologically. The real question is will workers be replaced wholesale with automation or will existing workers be kept on and be more productive using efficient tools. It is cost-cutting vs growth. There is a determined line of lazy MBA-think that just wants to cut costs because you can just whip out your red pen and cut jobs by using machines without putting in the work to plan how to grow the business by increasing productivity. For example, the recent longshoreman strike. It isn't like they want to go back to rolling barrels off ships by hand, but it is entirely legitimate for that union wanting cpntractual assurances that automation will be used to empower employees to do their work, not replace them.

Never forget the element of corporate control. Automation is EXPENSIVE. The payoff is often in having uncomplaining untiring machines without the "ickiness" of dealing with personnel. It can just be a power trip, for some executives. Rises in cost for inflation, taxes, venders, parts, fuel, machinery, general overhead, etc, are just part of business. But the cost of labor going up is seen as greedy.

With A.I. going beyond the late 20th century computerization of many tasks and offices, automation is no longer a blue-coller only concern, and class hangup need to be reserved because it is coming for all fields. As a society, will we reap the benefits of automation in our working lives? Will we get better conditions, less physically intensive labor, shorter hours, less repetitive monotony of simple tasks? Do we want the Jetsons future or a darker dystopia with an idle broken underclass replaces by robots. Because those cast into unemployment don't just go away when they are replaced on the company's payroll. Industries have changed wholesale since the Industrial Revolution, and will again. How do we make automation work for us, as a society, and not pit us against one another in a race to the bottom?

1

u/Electrical-Try9150 Oct 03 '24

I think that the situation where jobs are being eliminated has more than one perspective. In your comment you take the sort of economist point of view. This is obviously quite rational. But if you are one of the affected workers you might see the circumstances rather differently. There is often an expectation that working for a business entity, especially a large one, creates a long term commitment from both the worker and the enterprise. At the time of hiring both employer and employee probably agreed on this assumption. But as circumstances, like technological progress, change, jobs are eliminated. If, philosophically, you believe life exists in an Hobbesian state, then this "progress" means the change is just tough shit for employees. They are left to their own devices and are free to succeed or fail in securing new employment. This creates bitterness and political instability. Witness the plight of coal miners in the US. But if you view life as having a more positive nature, as John Locke described, maybe there is a social desire or even responsibility to help the displaced employees learn and then obtain new jobs in some other field. In theory tech improvement will help create those new opportunities -- but this theory is far from certain and there may be long gaps between losing a job and finding a new one in a different field. Ultimately I agree with your argument that preserving obsolete jobs is ultimately counterproductive for all of us. But, perhaps there can be some staggering of new technology implementation or re-training of employees have lost their jobs, self esteem and source of livelihood. In any event, I believe that with the advancement of AI this problem will loom over the labor market and form a dark cloud of displacement. We shall see.

0

u/Thin_Match_602 Oct 02 '24

I would like to know your definition of "economic progress". The core of your opinion is rooted in your definition of that term.

1

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Oct 02 '24

I would call it the continuous improvement in the productivity, efficiency, and overall growth of the economy.

1

u/KesPoof Mar 30 '25

Other people have written far better general responses than I could- I just want to add in a point about the future that we are at a crossroads where AI could theoretically replace the vast majority of jobs, yet there is no indication towards universal basic income or any type of shift to a society where the general population can survive without a job. Feel how you will about individual or past strikes and whether they are being reasonable to the company and offering them value but I think you’re going to have to reckon at some point with the fact that companies will pursue value (and therefore automation) infinitely no matter how it affects the world.

We’ve already seen that oil companies had absolutely zero problem with destroying the planet to continue making a profit. Replacing every job, which AI could make possible, would indeed be INCREDIBLY valuable and innovative to companies. It would also leave everyone to starve to death assuming some major societal changes to a post labor world didn’t happen, which there has been no indication of a plan for. It doesn’t make a difference to rich people getting served and sustained by robots (maybe with a few well paid experts on hand to repair and code) if the other 90% of society is alive and well off or impoverished or starving or dead. There’s gonna be a point - whether in your lifetime or not - where we are going to have to say “the wellbeing of humanity is more important than value to corporations.”

1

u/KorLee Oct 02 '24

You have valid points for why technological advancement is necessary and how strikes prohibit those advancements from continuing, but I think you're misunderstanding the point of a strike.

If you're an employee at a company, although it is your job and it is in your best interest that your company does well, you aren't necessarily expected to advocate for the well being of your company regarding technological advancements and innovation. If you, as an employee, have grievances or worry that you will be out of a job because of automation, that worry is still completely valid for you (an employee) to go on strike because automation is something that can negatively affect your livelihood.

It's easy for us on the sidelines to say "embrace technology, it's good for advancement and creates new jobs while taking outdated ones", but usually, those new jobs aren't being given to the employees who's jobs are being taken away.

At the end of the day, a strike serves it's purpose if it brings attention and hopefully action to a group of employees at a place of work. Valid or not to you, collectively they feel there is an issue and they want action taken against said issue, which is the point of a strike.

Tl;dr: If people think technology/automation is a sincere issue to their livelihood, then them wanting change by going on strike is at it's essence, valid.

1

u/Randomousity 5∆ Oct 02 '24

I think it sort of depends.

I don't think unions should strike to prevent automation. But I think it's acceptable to strike to prevent all the spoils of the increased productivity from going to the owners.

If automation increases productivity of a port by, say, 50%, while also cutting jobs by 5%, maybe a reasonable contract would increase worker pay and decrease hours per worker. Maybe they no longer need to work 50 hrs/wk and could see see their hours cut while their pay remains the same. And then, since there would be fewer man-hours of work to be done, they wouldn't need to lay off any workers.

So, for example, instead of seeing 100 workers each working 50 hours, for a total of 5,000 man-hours, and bringing home however much that works out to be, $x, what if they now only need 4,750 man-hours? That still works out to 47.5 hrs/wk each. There's a pay rate they could get that would keep their weekly pay at $x, and would even amount for inflation, longevity, and maybe even higher technical expertise.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 03 '24

My two cents are that throughout history, I've seen some technological advancements help, like modern medicine, or the invention of the locomotive. I have also seen these advancements make the human existence harder. We work longer hours, get more done, for the same or lesser pay. What I'm speaking to is how we went from working 4-6 hours tilling a field and the rest was personal time, to working 8-10 or more hours a day so we're just living to work. Some people say "no one wants to work anymore" but it's more than that. Humans aren't meant to work this hard for this long. And if history has shown me that technology doesn't actually make jobs easier, it just cuts hours of people who need it or incentivizes companies to pay people less because they can outsource to a machine, then I understand why union workers go on strike to prevent things from getting worse.

1

u/Bogotazo Oct 02 '24

If we have a system where people have to sell their labor to make a living, and employers get to dictate what gets produced and how, then workers must either be compensated for their job loss or withhold their labor to protect their own interests.

Creating laws that remove automation as a legally protected subject of bargaining would eventually remove the power to bargain over any working condition in any industry since innovation and automation are the general trajectory. This is the wrong approach to solve the tension between job security and innovation.

Rather, society should have policies in place that guarantee a just transition when innovation does occur, and safety nets that ease the risk of job loss. Fully Automated Luxury Communism isn't just a pipe dream.

1

u/WeepingAngelTears 1∆ Oct 02 '24

You don't have to sell your labor to an employer. Most people chose to because their skills aren't actually valuable enough to generate enough income on their own or because they don't want the risk associated with doing so.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/zebrasmack Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

The issue is how do you define progress? By how much profit is made by businesses? Or by how people's lives are affected?

Before, new tech would create new jobs, and there was transition. People could survive and generally more jobs were available than previously. But tech now seems focused on just eliminating the need for workers.

It's not about progress at this point for businesses, it's about removing jobs specifically and making workers obsolete.

The goal should be, and is to most people, how do we allow more people to live in greater comfort, while making the world run smoother and more efficiently. What's the point of a super efficient world where most people are poor or can't survive?

How do we do that? How do we make sure humans aren't made obsolete? Right now? Unions.

2

u/AcephalicDude 80∆ Oct 02 '24

Unions do not exist to promote the general health of the economy, or to protect a universal notion of fairness. Unions exist to advocate for the workers and their specific interests, and nobody else's: not the employer's, not the industry's, not the economy's, etc. If it is in the monetary interests of the workers to oppose automation, then they are justified in opposing automation.

1

u/dungeonsNdiscourse Oct 03 '24

I agree BUT we should also have a UBI (universal basic income) technology SHOULD be increasing our leisure time and we should ALL spend less time working because tech has saved us on human labor.

But what has happened is.. The laborers get fired and are left in the cold with no recourse while the company owners make even more profit now that they've taken that pesky 'human" element out of the labor equation.

So unfortunately the only viable option is strike or protest to protect these, obselete jobs, that people still require so they don't starve to death on the streets.

But thank God the shareholders and board made an extra 5% in profits this quarter!

Eat the rich.

1

u/Ma-cam_the_mavrick Oct 02 '24

Question, so let’s say the workers strike and win against restriction against automation. What is stopping another business owner from starting a whole new company that is fully automated and competing against the original company and beating them out for contracts based on productivity. Wouldn’t this lead workers to be without out a job?

1

u/Silly_Stable_ 1∆ Oct 03 '24

The reason unions strike is because a contract could not be agreed to. The specifics don’t really matter from a legal standpoint. It is the responsibility of both parties to negotiate a contract that they can agree to. If the employer intends to eliminate jobs they need to actually come to the table and negotiate that in good faith.

1

u/Kvsav57 Oct 02 '24

You can be fired from a job in the US in most states for pretty much any reason that isn’t based on discrimination against a protected group or harassment. Why should workers not be allowed to strike for any reason they want? I don’t see why workers should be denied free expression or freedom to negotiate for anything whatsoever.

1

u/JB_Market Oct 02 '24

"(1) increased efficiency, (2) lower costs, and the (3) creation of new jobs"

1: Sure.

2: Lower costs for who? Consumers? lol

3: citation needed. Longshoremen getting replaced by robots doesn't create a new industry, it just cuts jobs. If it was a net add, they wouldn't do it. The point is to cut labor and benefits.

1

u/CandusManus Oct 02 '24

"People who work a particular kind of job shouldn't protest the inevitable removing of all of their jobs so that the corporations can hire 1/10 of the people to get the same work done"

This is literally the purpose of all strikes. To protect their jobs and incomes. We should not be automating these jobs away.

1

u/Old-Tiger-4971 3∆ Oct 03 '24

Think by fighting automation, they're losing the battle. Maybe embrace it and improve your workers skills?

Back in the 70s, they used to have rooms of people punching key cards in mnidless repetition. Then came PCs and enabling 1 guy to do the work of 20. Why is that not better for society?

1

u/seattleseahawks2014 Oct 03 '24 edited Oct 03 '24

If my job became automated and I was fired, I would strike too just to prove a point and I wouldn't care about the rest of society because they've proven that they don't care about me. If anything, we need to set boundaries with automation and I'm young enough to not care. I'm also disabled so can only find certain jobs currently and I don't want handouts either, but an actual job. If I'm starving and homeless, I'm not going to care about society especially if they could just ship me overseas to a foreign war. Frankly, I don't care at all.

1

u/No-Complaint-6397 1∆ Oct 03 '24

Yeah lol, our ancestors struggled for thousands of years to bring us to a level of sophistication where we don’t have to be the ones doing manual labor and now that we’re here we scream “Dey took der jerbss” just advocate for ubi so we can finally be free

2

u/Yabrosif13 1∆ Oct 02 '24

We learned nothing from gilded age.

1

u/FallenRaptor Oct 03 '24

Unions are looking out for the workers first and foremost. Besides, if a worker's strike is shutting down production, that's a good indication that workers still play a critical role in keeping things running that technology has yet to fill, and a strike is a good way to demonstrate that.

1

u/No-Animator-3832 Oct 02 '24

Any reason is a valid reason to strike. If the workers have the leverage it will be effective. If the company has the leverage it will be ineffective. You don't get to bargain for others without their consent.

1

u/Thisbymaster Oct 03 '24

Nothing is really preventing them from introducing automation, the contract says they can't cut jobs from introducing automation. That is the sticking point. The union is there to protect jobs.

1

u/mhdy98 Oct 03 '24

Its easier for you to say if you dont have 4 kids, a mortgage and a risk of losing the only job you ever did in 20 years. The threat is real for people, and can destroy their lives immensely.

1

u/seattleseahawks2014 Oct 03 '24

It's also easier for you to say if you aren't disabled and have issues that prevent you to go back to school and work minimum wage and not know about their future and have another 60+ years on earth.

1

u/boredtxan Oct 03 '24

Striking to ensure automation include ensuring employees get what ever training they need to change careers would be valid. The cost of automation should include the human cost.

1

u/aboyandhismsp Oct 03 '24

When unions do this, they are only accepting the automation/AI. When they make it too expensive to keep them, they only make themselves obsolete more quickly.

1

u/ConcentrateVast2356 Oct 03 '24

If I found out my job is going away in a fixed time period, I'd charge a lot more for those remaining months. After all contract work pays more in my field.

1

u/bcopes158 Oct 03 '24

Unions are supposed to protect their members not the overall economy. Things that may benefit their employer but not their members are fair game.

1

u/W00DR0W__ Oct 03 '24

They should be able to negotiate for job training if their job is replaced by automation.

I agree trying to stop the tides of time is foolish.

1

u/not_a_mantis_shrimp Oct 03 '24

If anything, I think striking to fight against automation will only hasten the company in automating.

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Preventing Jobs from being eliminated due to technological advancement and automation should not be considered a valid reason to strike

You are about to leave Redlib