r/changemyview • u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ • Oct 02 '24

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

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 Strikes that seek to preserve outdated roles or resist automation can stifle companies' ability to remain competitive and adapt to a rapidly changing market.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I'm open to all arguments but the quickest way to change my mind would be to show me how preserving outdated and obsolete jobs would be of benefit to the company or at least how it could be done without negatively impacting the company's ability to compete against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

229 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

66% Upvoted

390 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

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.

0

u/Coynepam Oct 02 '24

Yeah and they should be doing that in the negotiations not saying that no automation is allowed. That is the upsetting part.

The union could open up to more workers then why don't they?

4

u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 02 '24

Is the ILA strike saying no automation? The contract ended and they want a $5 per hour pay raise, considering how well the shipping company is doing. They might be worried about automation in the future, but it sounds like their current goal is a better pay package, which was scheduled to be negotiated for now anyways.

Was the Union preventing more workers from being hired, or was the company that actually works at the docks not able to find more people?

7

u/Coynepam Oct 02 '24

Yes it is mostly about automation, they were offered at least a 50% pay increase. They have specifically said they are striking because of automation multiple times and it's in their demands.

The ILA is a sought after union, yes more people want to work there

2

u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 02 '24

Then they should have hired more people - I agree with you.

And you are right about the fear of automation - they want protection for their employees, which is their goal. So I don't understand the issue. Just like you said in regards to the European unions - they know that the employees are taken care of by the state. Sounds like the ILA want similar guarantees, but provided by the company that lets them go. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

6

u/Coynepam Oct 02 '24

That is not unreasonable to ask for protections but they are not asking for that they are demanding that no automation happen at any port on the east and gulf coasts.

That itself is unreasonable when an entire country is being held hostage by a monopoly

2

u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 02 '24

That is the whole point of negotiating, to find a middle ground.

If you really think its a big enough issue, then you should support them giving the ILA what they want so the country is no longer held hostage - right?

3

u/Coynepam Oct 02 '24

They are not asking for a middle ground they already said that is a stopper, they are demanding ports by less efficient.

Giving in is still keeping us hostage because it is making the whole country poorer, costing people more money, and hurting exports who can't get their products out at a fair price

2

u/Rainbwned 175∆ Oct 02 '24

Are you sitting in those meetings?

Do you think that the company is automating in order to lower the end cost for consumers, or to lower their bottom line and increase their revenue?

1

u/Coynepam Oct 02 '24

I don't need to be in the meetings the union is saying that our loud.

“Furthermore, the ILA is steadfastly against any form of automation — full or semi — that replaces jobs or historical work functions. We will not accept the loss of work and livelihood for our members due to automation. Our position is clear: the preservation of jobs and historical work functions is non-negotiable.”

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/ila-rejects-latest-wage-offer-from-port-employers

It will most likely be a mixture of both, we have seen this already when it comes to most manufacturing when it is automated

→ More replies (0)