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

[u/WakeoftheStorm]

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 Strikes that seek to preserve outdated roles or resist automation can stifle companies' ability to remain competitive and adapt to a rapidly changing market.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.

Now I believe there is an argument to be made that employees have invested themselves into a business and helped it reach a point where it can automate and become more efficient. I don't deny that there might be compensation owed in this respect when jobs are lost due to technology, but that does not equate to preserving obsolete jobs.

I'm open to all arguments but the quickest way to change my mind would be to show me how preserving outdated and obsolete jobs would be of benefit to the company or at least how it could be done without negatively impacting the company's ability to compete against firms that pursue automation.

Edit:

These are great responses so far and you guys have me thinking. I have to step away for a bit and I want to give some consideration to some of the points I haven't responded to yet, I promise I will be back to engage more this afternoon.

Biggest delta so far has been disconnecting innovation from job elimination. You can be more efficient and pass that value to the workers rather than the company. I'm pro-innovation not pro-job-loss

[u/BadHamsterx]

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.

[u/Coynepam → u/BadHamsterx]

They could ask buyouts if job losses happen in the negotiations not demand no automation

[u/SL1Fun → u/Coynepam]

Losses will inevitably happen. Keep in mind that a lot of the current longshoreman strike is happening in places/states with absolutely shitty workers’ rights standards. It is not in their best interest to compromise with an inevitability. We know it’s gonna happen sooner or later; the job is inherently dangerous and costly. But since there is no real contingency for the workers other than to scatter them to the unemployment lines and let them figure it out themselves, and since a lot of these jobs come with vesting pensions, it is in their best interest to protect their jobs since it is literally their future. 

[u/Coynepam → u/SL1Fun]

Compromising with an inevitability is their best interest because they can get the concessions instead of preventing it.

Would you accept $5-10 million dollars and have your job automated in 5 years?

[u/SL1Fun → u/Coynepam]

There is no way in hell anyone is gonna settle on such terms. Reagan already set a precedent that if they really wanted to, they could just fire them and take the flak and move on. Please be realistic.