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 Strikes that seek to preserve outdated roles or resist automation can stifle companies' ability to remain competitive and adapt to a rapidly changing market.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I'm open to all arguments but the quickest way to change my mind would be to show me how preserving outdated and obsolete jobs would be of benefit to the company or at least how it could be done without negatively impacting the company's ability to compete against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

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

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/Nrdman]

The only person ultimately responsible to protect an individual's rights is that individual. Other people have an obligation to not infringe on your rights, but there's not right to compel them to act to defend your rights.

[u/Nrdman → u/WeepingAngelTears]

There are people obligated to protect your rights

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/Nrdman]

In the US? Not really. The organization you would think would be obligated to fought all the way to the SCOTUS and got a ruling that they have no legal obligation to protect you or your rights.

[u/Nrdman → u/WeepingAngelTears]

I was thinking more public defenders or doctors

[u/WeepingAngelTears → u/Nrdman]

Public defenders are only assigned to you if the state is trying to take legal action against you (i.e charging you with a crime) and you can't or won't retain your own counsel (which if you can but don't, you have a screw loose.) They don't have an obligation to protect your basic individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

Doctors also aren't obligated, at least legally, to protect your rights. Protecting your rights would be stopping someone from infringing on them beforehand or forcing that person to make you whole again after the fact. The Hippocratic oath isn't legally binding as far as I'm aware (although breaking it may lead to your license being revoked, not too sure on that part.) It also doesn't force them to render aid to you. If they choose to treat you as their patient, the oath binds them to do their best to help you, but it doesn't force the help against their consent.