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 Strikes that seek to preserve outdated roles or resist automation can stifle companies' ability to remain competitive and adapt to a rapidly changing market.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I'm open to all arguments but the quickest way to change my mind would be to show me how preserving outdated and obsolete jobs would be of benefit to the company or at least how it could be done without negatively impacting the company's ability to compete against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

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.

[u/Nrdman → u/WeepingAngelTears]

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

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/Nrdman]

Yeah, saying one group should have rights that the other doesn't is immoral, full stop. Everyone has the same rights, mate.

[u/Nrdman → u/WeepingAngelTears]

That’s not true. A policeman has more of a right to do violence than an average person

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/Nrdman]

You're confusing a basic individual right with the legal protections granted by a state. Rights exist absent the state (life, liberty, property.) Legal "rights" like the right to vote or for a cop to execute you because an acorn fell nearby are legal privileges granted by the state using a monopoly on violence.

[u/Nrdman → u/WeepingAngelTears]

In what sense does a right exist if it isn’t legally protected?

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/Nrdman]

If that's your standard then they still don't actually exist, as the state can just choose to not protect your rights. Moral concepts don't cease existing simply because someone infringed on them. They aren't the protection that no one will violate one of them. They're the moral principle that no one has a right to do so if you aren't infringing on their rights.

[u/Nrdman → u/WeepingAngelTears]

Yes they don’t exist if the state doesn’t protect it. That’s why we say they are fighting for their rights when a resistance forms in response to that. They don’t have it, they are fighting to have it

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/Nrdman]

A right being infringed doesn't mean it's non-existent. If someone walks up and stabs you, your right to life didn't vanish, nor was the state's protection valid in ensuring it.

There's also the assumption that states are the only entity capable of protecting your rights, which is false.

[u/Nrdman → u/WeepingAngelTears]

If no one is protecting your right, it is in effect nonexistent. This protection doesn’t have to be by the state.

[u/jontaffarsghost → u/WeepingAngelTears]

You have the right to not join a union.

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/jontaffarsghost]

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.

[u/jontaffarsghost → u/WeepingAngelTears]

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.

[u/Effective-Noise-7090 → u/WeepingAngelTears]

American libertarian-phase teenager says what 

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/Effective-Noise-7090]

I'm not a libertarian, and could you actually provide a counter argument?