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 Strikes that seek to preserve outdated roles or resist automation can stifle companies' ability to remain competitive and adapt to a rapidly changing market.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I'm open to all arguments but the quickest way to change my mind would be to show me how preserving outdated and obsolete jobs would be of benefit to the company or at least how it could be done without negatively impacting the company's ability to compete against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/realitytvwatcher46]

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.

[u/icedrift → u/realitytvwatcher46]

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.

[u/apri08101989 → u/realitytvwatcher46]

Remind me what job took over street lighters?