Last Tuesday, thousands of longshoremen walked off the job at ports across the East and Gulf Coasts. These were members of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), the union that represents dockworkers in the eastern half of the United States. Strikes have become increasingly common over the last few years, but this was big. For one, it was the first full-scale ILA strike since 1977. More importantly, America imports trillions of dollars worth of goods every year, and much of that comes through ports. If those were to shutter for an extended period, it could help push the United States into a recession. The White House immediately got involved, pressuring both the ILA and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), which represents the employers, to settle the deal quickly. Part of this is political; panic buying, shortages, and a recession induced by a strike before the election could very well swing the election to Donald Trump. Part is undoubtedly President Biden recognizing the danger to the economy a long strike would have.
Happily, the two sides reached a tentative agreement, and by the end of the week, the strike had ended. The workers went on strike over two issues. The first was, as per usual, wages. The press has widely reported that the top wage a worker currently earns is $39 an hour. That could sound low or high, depending on whether you want to focus on the dangerous nature of the job or the fact that longshoremen are not high-skilled laborers. The job mainly consists of operating machinery and moving goods from ships to trucks (and vice-versa). The $39 maximum wage, however, is a fiction. According to this report by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, the median salary of a deep sea longshore worker is between $150,000-$200,000. A little less than a tenth of workers make over $300,000 per year. To make that much, one would have to work 7,692 hours a year, or an average of 148 hours a week, every week of the year. So $39 is not the highest wage being paid.
According to the president of the union, some do put in 100 hours a week. Additionally, one could point out that the New York Harbor, one of the largest in the country, may have higher wages. That’s all good and well. The point remains: $39 an hour is not the highest wage a worker gets paid for an hour of work. It’s probably closer to $100 for someone working overtime during a holiday. And yes, someone working overtime on Christmas Day should get paid more, it’s just that calling $39 a maximum wage when it’s clearly less than half the true maximum is dishonest. $39 is the standard wage. That standard wage ramps up quickly, and I’m sure experienced longshoremen know how to work the system to maximize the final hourly (as they should).
Regardless, the USMX and ILA agreed to a significant wage increase, from $39 to $63 per hour. That increase will be broken up annually for the next six years, so workers will earn around $43 an hour once the current contract expires. This is a nice win for the ILA. A 63 percent wage increase, while less than they were originally asking for, is significant. For workers who easily clear $100,000 a year, it’s a major win. I don’t begrudge the ILA in the slightest for choosing an election year to go on strike, knowing it was an opportune time to do so. I also don’t mind that they fought hard for a massive salary increase, as is their right. I don’t think it’s a huge deal that the head of the union, the straight-out-of-central-casting-named Harold Daggett, earns $901,000 from his union gig alone. It’s a little bit discouraging that his son is also a high-ranking union official who earns $700,000 a year, but not the end of the world. Daggett represents a union whose members make billions of dollars every year. $900,000 may be an eye-popping number for a union position, but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t seem out of line compared to CEO pay.
My issue with the ILA is with their second demand, about which they have yet to reach an agreement with the USMX. The ILA has demanded that all ports will not introduce any automated or semi-automated equipment over the period covered by the next contract. This is unconscionable. It’s looking progress square in the face and saying, “No.”
Daggett is a Luddite of the truest form. He rejects any technological advance that might replace workers with machines. In a recent interview, he voices his displeasure about all things mechanical. My personal favorite is his displeasure with E-ZPass, the electronic toll collection system that has replaced toll plazas around the United States with open-road, automatic tolling. Here’s Daggett:
The first time they come out with EZPass, one lane of cars were going through, and everybody's sitting in their car and go, 'What? What's that all about? I'm gonna get one of them. Today, all those union jobs are gone, and it's all EZPass. People don't realize it. Everybody's got three cars. Everybody got an easy pass on the window, and they go through like it's nothing, and they get billed in the mail. They didn't care about that union worker working in the booth.
A few things. First, I think everyone realized that workers had been replaced by cameras. Not only did we realize it, we cheered it on! As well we should have. Replacing toll plazas with open-road tolling is an unambiguous good for our society. Waiting at toll plazas used to be a major part of driving around a major American city. Going from the western to northern suburbs of Chicago in the 1990s necessitated long lines and real time wasted, all to pay a minuscule toll. Moving from toll plazas to open-road tolling was to society’s benefit, and it isn’t even close. Open-road tolling saves drivers millions of hours every year. It reduces the amount of gas consumed. It benefits the health of those who live near former toll plazas. It’s a slam dunk.
Does it mean jobs were destroyed? Of course. But jobs are constantly getting destroyed. Daggett is basically against all progress, saying in the same interview, “You go in a store today, it's self-checking — they don't need anybody to check out. Someone has to get into Congress and say, ‘Whoa. Time out. This world is going too fast for us. Machines got to stop.’” I hate self-checkout. I want to have a cashier check me out and a bagger bag my groceries with bags that are free. I want to have hundreds of plastic bags under my sink just like my parents had. Just like it was in the 90s. Instead I’m stuck buying special bags for kitty litter and scrambling to find something to put shoes in when I travel. But guess what, I don’t run the world. Supermarket companies tried putting in self-checkout lanes, and people started using them. Some people prefer them. It means fewer cashiers and baggers.
It also means progress. For every job destroyed, others are created. Daggett is understandably concerned that automation will drive the longshoreman to extinction. The solution isn’t to try and freeze time and relegate American ports to being the most inefficient in the world, with many ranked outside the top 200 already. It’s to figure out a new niche for longshoremen. I’m suggesting anything as specious as “teach miners to code” or anything like that. I don’t work in shipping, so I can’t speak to what the industry needs. I do know that the most successful unions continue to help teach their members new skills that complement technology, not pretending it doesn’t exist.
Even from a union perspective, automation can be a good thing. In the past three years, 17 ILA members were killed on the job. That’s a high death rate for a job that should rarely put someone in harm’s way. By increasing the amount of automation, humans won’t have to constantly be near heavy equipment and goods that will crush someone if something go wrong.
Arguing for higher wages and better working conditions is a union’s raison d'être. It often leads to inefficient outcomes and benefits union members at the expense of everyone else, but it is what unions are for. Arguing that technology should stop and jobs should stay dangerous is not only wrongheaded, it will ultimately fail.