[HN Gopher] California ports among world's least efficient, rank...
___________________________________________________________________
California ports among world's least efficient, ranking shows
Author : hhs
Score : 143 points
Date : 2021-10-20 19:16 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| curiousgal wrote:
| > _In a review of 351 container ports around the globe, Los
| Angeles was ranked 328, behind Tanzania 's Dar es Salaam and
| Alaska's Dutch Harbor. The adjacent port of Long Beach came in
| even lower, at 333, behind Turkey's Nemrut Bay and Kenya's
| Mombasa_
|
| What's the point of naming those other ports? Like "oh we're so
| bad we're worse than freaking Kenya!". It's ironic.
| missedthecue wrote:
| I would expect the wealthiest nation on earth to naturally have
| some advantages over a third world country like Kenya. More
| resources, education, infrastructure, etc...
|
| The point of naming those ports is to put the inefficiency of
| US ports into context for the lay-reader.
| scottlamb wrote:
| > I would expect the wealthiest nation on earth to naturally
| have some advantages over a third world country like Kenya.
| More resources, education, infrastructure, etc...
|
| Indeed. I had the pleasure of standing on the bridge of a
| freighter in Tanga once as cement was loaded. (Tanga is a
| port roughly halfway between Mombasa and Dar es Salaam.) They
| didn't have containers or cranes. They loaded the cement by
| sliding bags down a ramp, covering their mouths with shirts
| to reduce dust inhalation.
|
| Mombasa and Dar must be more modern than Tanga, as they are
| on a list of container ports. Still, I would expect them to
| be far behind California in terms of infrastructure.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| With all the infrastructure, institutions, knowledge, and
| processes, shouldn't the US ports function better than
| _"freaking Kenya"_?
| InitialLastName wrote:
| I'll bet the efficiency ratings look a lot better if you
| account for environmental damage, workers' safety and other
| externalities of running a port.
| kaesar14 wrote:
| The top ranked port is Yokohama. Do you think Japan is
| worse in the regards that you listed than the United
| States?
| chmod775 wrote:
| Considering a port is really useful for exploitation, I
| wouldn't be surprised if the ports in some of those countries
| are working quite efficiently.
| bumbledraven wrote:
| Those are poorer countries, especially Kenya. It would be
| expected that they would have a harder time financing the
| infrastructure spending necessary to create and maintain highly
| efficient ports. I find it instructive to compare their ports
| with those of a wealthier country like the US.
| curiousgal wrote:
| Yeah but as it stands, those ports are better than
| California's so none of those factors matter, no?
| google234123 wrote:
| At least the unions make sure everyone is paid 300k and all
| automation is blocked.
| ChrisClark wrote:
| Source on the 300k salary? Or you just parroting someone's
| opinion?
| [deleted]
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I think you're being purposefully absurd but there is a
| legitimate question as to whether this article is comparing LA
| ports to ports with negligent safety (and compensation)
| practices.
| julienb_sea wrote:
| The most efficient port in the world is in Yokohama, Japan.
| Are you are implying that Japan has negligent safety and
| compensation practices?
| soperj wrote:
| It's the busiest port on earth. I suppose they should be
| getting minimum wage?
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| It's not even close to the busiest port on earth. Singapore,
| Rotterdam, Dubai, Antwerp, Hong Kong, and so many Chinese
| ports are busier.
|
| Notably, all of those are more automated.
|
| Edit: It's not even close to the busiest port in the US:
| https://www.bts.gov/content/tonnage-top-50-us-water-ports-
| ra...
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| There might be some other reasonably fair salary that exists
| between minimum wage and $300k/year.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| This is not exactly the same as a union bus driver.. I
| think its fair to say, that this is not a supply-and-demand
| wage negotiation, rather it is high-stakes negotiation
| between guilds, over decades. The aisles of the ports are
| intensely profitable, but operate under heavy pressures.
| Frondo wrote:
| "Fair" is whatever they can negotiate. Who are you or I to
| say what's "fair" for someone else haggling over prices?
| myfavoritedog wrote:
| Fairness can only be achieved in a competitive
| environment without unnecessary and contrived leverage.
| It's really hard to find something fair when unions elect
| politicians who write laws for unions that allow
| strangling negotiations that give unions more money to
| elect politicians who write laws for unions... and on and
| on.
|
| What happens with that high leverage, low competition
| environment is you end up with the richest country on
| earth having huge supply chain bottlenecks and rated as
| having some of the worst ports in the world.
| soperj wrote:
| > Fairness can only be achieved in a competitive
| environment without unnecessary and contrived leverage.
| It's really hard to find something fair when unions elect
| politicians who write laws for unions that allow
| strangling negotiations that give unions more money to
| elect politicians who write laws for unions... and on and
| on.
|
| Corporations do exactly this, so sounds very fair
| actually.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Right, as long as the market is free, fair is whatever
| they can negotiate. If they artificially restrict labor
| competition or anything like that, then it isn't really
| fair anymore, like any monopoly.
| pydry wrote:
| Unlike a container port which just anyone can start?
|
| When companies exploit their market power it's good
| business yet when workers do the same thing it's not
| really fair any more?
| vernie wrote:
| You dunderhead. You utter clod.
| fdsfds76543 wrote:
| They should be getting $0 because their jobs can be automated
| makotech222 wrote:
| They're human beings who need to support themselves and
| their families in a capitalist hellhole society. But who
| cares right? As long as you get your Amazon treats in 1 day
| right?
| ihumanable wrote:
| What's the end of this line of thinking, 12 trillionaires
| that own all the automation and a vast mass of unemployed
| people?
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Do you really believe port automation is at the stage where
| it can be fully automated with no port workers? Even at
| "automated" ports, I assure you there are still port
| workers to deal with anomalies. And yeah they should be
| paid more than $0.
| fdsfds76543 wrote:
| "Not as enthusiastic over automated terminals like LBCT
| have been the 15,000 longshore workers, including part-
| time casuals, who man the docks in the Ports of Los
| Angeles and Long Beach, the busiest and second busiest in
| the nation, respectively.
|
| Terminal automation poses big changes -- and likely some
| job losses -- in those dockworker ranks.
|
| LBCT, for example, features remotely run electric cranes
| gliding back and forth and a computer-controlled stacking
| system. Multiple containers can be handled by the cranes
| at one time."
|
| https://www.presstelegram.com/2021/08/20/completion-of-
| long-...
|
| EDIT: Apparently my factual post about saying crane
| operator jobs can be automated was flagged. Incredible
| dirtyid wrote:
| It's not even top 10 on earth with around quarter to half
| capacity of modern automated Asian ports that operate 24/7.
| Considering supply chain and economic knock on affects,
| everyone that can be automated should be ASAP.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| When someone is running a horse and buggy taxi service in
| 2021, the issue isn't whether the guy shoveling the manure is
| being paid a fair wage for working hard, or whether their job
| is easy, but rather why their job exists in the first place.
| Major ports have automated long ago.
|
| _" Biden's Build Back Better bill, Section 30102, expressly
| prohibits the use of funds provided there to be used for
| automation."_[1]
|
| The union is clear it opposes automation:
|
| _" TTI would become the fourth automated container terminal
| in Southern California. Total Terminals International's
| (TTI's) decision this week to automate its 385-acre Pier T
| terminal in Long Beach sets up a classic struggle between
| terminal operator employers and the International Longshore
| and Warehouse Union (ILWU).
|
| The union opposes the project on the grounds it will
| eliminate some dockworker jobs, but employers say automation
| is needed to increase capacity and keep the ports of Long
| Beach and Los Angeles competitive."_[3]
|
| And this results in outdated infrastructure and lower
| productivity:
|
| _" Cranes in automated ports operate at least twice as fast
| as cranes in outdated US ports. Biden's port czar, John
| Porcari, let the truth out when he said last week it's "your
| grandfather's infrastructure that we're dealing with."_[1]
|
| _" The International Longshoremen's Association contract,
| which extends to 2024, blocks the use of automation
| technology. Willie Adams, president of the International
| Longshore and Warehouse Union, which represents West Coast
| workers, says automated cargo handling equipment will not be
| tolerated."_[1]
|
| _" In a July 7 letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom,
| International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) president
| Willie Adams cited the pandemic and the US-China trade war as
| reason why terminal automation, mostly recently seen at APM
| Terminals' Los Angeles terminal, would hurt the ports, its
| workers, and surrounding communities._
|
| _"This is simply not the time to allow further job losses to
| automation. Losing jobs to automation not only undermines the
| long term capacity of our ports, but it does lasting damage
| on our families," Adams wrote [.. seen as] further evidence
| of the union's single-minded focus on automation. That was
| seen most clearly in its surprisingly vocal opposition last
| year to a limited automation project at the APM Terminals
| Pier 400 facility in Los Angeles despite having agreed years
| earlier to a collective bargaining agreement that allowed
| terminals to automate in return for $800 million in
| additional wages and benefits. "_[2]
|
| When Tanzania's port is more productive than yours, then it's
| time to finally move into the 21st century.
|
| [1] https://nypost.com/2021/10/18/to-please-unions-biden-
| wont-au...
|
| [2] https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/ilwu's-anti-
| automatio...
|
| [3] https://ilaunion.org/2021/05/latest-long-beach-terminal-
| auto...*
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > ... cited the pandemic and the US-China trade war as
| reason why terminal automation, mostly recently seen at APM
| Terminals' Los Angeles terminal, would hurt the ports, its
| workers, and surrounding communities.
|
| Covid and trade war are reasons why _automation_ would hurt
| the ports? Covid is why automation would hurt the
| communities? Non-sequitur much?
|
| Covid is why automation would hurt the workers? Not even
| that. _Automation would hurt the workers_ , maybe, but not
| because of Covid.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| I am citing some irrational union comments to explain the
| irrationality of our government policies and the current
| situation in the ports, and you are attributing the
| beliefs in the comments to me. Please re-read.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I am quoting from your post, but I am _not_ attributing
| the comments to you. Please re-think.
|
| (Though I do see why you might be concerned that a casual
| reader though I was attributing it to you...)
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Clearly there's a middle ground here. It doesn't have to be
| all one way or the other. Unions and corporations can both be
| corrupt and fall into malaise. There are examples enough to
| give anyone ammunition to make whatever point they want.
| pydry wrote:
| I've yet to hear anybody argue that corporate corruption
| means that corporations no longer serve a purpose.
| Frondo wrote:
| Good. I applaud all workers who successfully negotiate for as
| high a salary as possible. After all, _I 'm_ not in the room
| with them when they negotiate their pay, just like they're not
| in the room with me when it's my turn -- if they're making six
| figs, good on them.
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Probably also the world's most costly port to operate. Every
| decade or so the workers organize a slowdown in order to increase
| their salary and benefits. They are already incredibly
| overcompensated workers, which is why the jobs are so coveted.
|
| https://www.practicaladultinsights.com/how-do-i-become-a-lon...
|
| https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dockworker-pay-201503...
| mistrial9 wrote:
| prior to containerization, there were 100x more jobs in the
| port system
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Were there? Port volume was much smaller. The reduction in
| port jobs per ton of goods moved must be somewhat compensated
| by significantly increased volume.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| "Overcompensated"? I'm skeptical of unions, but that they tend
| to increase wages (therefore allowing workers to reap the
| benefits of productivity improvements) is a GOOD thing. The bad
| thing is when they reduce efficiency, like go on strike,
| organize a slowdown, cause friction with management (although
| this can sometimes be a good thing if what management is doing
| is counterproductive), or fight automation/technology. I want
| the wage benefits of unions without the productivity penalty.
| (This is partly why I'm in favor of minimum wage increases tied
| to economy-wide productivity and consumer/worker cooperatives.)
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| You only here this rhetoric when referring to blue collar and
| service jobs, which is weird because the most objectively
| useless, lazy and overpaid people in our economy are landlords
| & shareholders.
| notJim wrote:
| The tremendous scandal here is that the median salary of a
| union longshoremen is $100k? I'm not sure why this is such a
| huge problem. Other skilled blue collar work pays in the same
| ballpark.
| [deleted]
| AdamN wrote:
| Median comp of $100k in LA for a skilled job isn't "incredibly
| overcompensated" to operate the busiest container port in the
| western hemisphere.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Comp != salary, and union jobs tend to have more benefits.
| ianleeclark wrote:
| > They are already incredibly overcompensated workers
|
| They work incredibly socially necessary jobs and they are able
| to bargain collectively to increase negotiation power, so they
| seem to be compensated fairly.
| phillipcarter wrote:
| Yeah, and I'd also applaud the effort to have wages rise more
| proportionally to overall productivity gains. The big story
| of the US is that wages are stagnant but productivity has
| only gone up over that same time. If they have leverage, they
| should absolutely use it.
| emaginniss wrote:
| Honestly, they are essentially using regulatory capture. They
| require that anyone who works there has to be a member of the
| union and if they don't like what's going on the entire union
| refuses to work and to allow anyone else to work.
| ianleeclark wrote:
| > They require that anyone who works there has to be a
| member of the union and if they don't like what's going on
| the entire union refuses to work and to allow anyone else
| to work.
|
| Good for them.
| kfprt wrote:
| Start your own port then. It's not as if there's a shortage
| of coastline.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| That wouldn't be legal in CA
| kfprt wrote:
| How about OR or WA, or even Mexico. You could unload onto
| trains to cross the boarder.
| maccolgan wrote:
| That's what has been happening. California hasn't seen a
| new port since Port of San Diego in 1962 iirc.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| There are very few places along the Pacific Coast of the
| US that are reasonable as ports.
|
| Puget Sound, the San Francisco Bay, and southern
| California are pretty much _it_. Portland is 100 miles
| from the ocean; only smaller ships can reach it. Astoria
| and Eureka have terrible connections on the land side.
|
| You could think about starting a new port at, say, Santa
| Monica or San Clemente. It could be done. You'd have to
| build a breakwater, a bunch of piers, and you'd have to
| buy a huge amount of land for facilities.
|
| How much would it cost to buy, say, 10,000 acres and 20
| miles of waterfront in Santa Monica? Yeah, that's why
| nobody has done it.
|
| Expanding San Diego is about the only workable option.
| kfprt wrote:
| It was mostly sarcasm. I just don't like the argument
| that it's regulatory capture because it's fallacious to
| blame capture when you refuse to compete. This also
| ignores the fact that there is competition between
| existing ports. Outlawing unions would just be another
| form of regulatory capture anyways.
| Retric wrote:
| There's plenty of options. Southern CA is actually a
| longer trip from China than Seattle Washington so
| basically any west coast port can be expanded. It's
| really the infrastructure outside the port that makes
| Southern California ports appealing.
| clairity wrote:
| > "...essentially using regulatory capture."
|
| no, it's not even remotely close to regulatory capture[0].
| it's closer to cornering a (labor) market, which has
| nothing to do with the complicity of regulators here.
| california labor laws aren't being explicitly and
| specifically written to favor the longshoremen's union--
| _that_ would be regulatory capture.
|
| the main reason labor unions came into being is because
| companies, as they grew beyond human scale, began exerting
| highly coercive leverage on labor markets, sometimes via
| _regulatory capture_. some unions can sometimes exert
| political power, but that 's not a regulatory capture
| mechanism, that's just regular politics.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _california labor laws aren 't being explicitly and
| specifically written to favor the longshoremen's union--
| that would be regulatory capture_
|
| Yes, they are. There should be different unions
| representing each port. The law won't allow that, giving
| the ILWU a monopoly on legal port labor.
| clairity wrote:
| that isn't special to the ilwu, or labor in general.
| labor can organize as they see fit. that's a
| constitutionally recognized freedom, not a special
| privilege (aka regulatory capture).
| GaryTang wrote:
| Why doesn't anyone build a competing port? Is it just too
| expensive for someone to build? Or are there actual laws
| prohibiting the creation of another port?
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| One cannot build a port just anywhere; you need to meet
| certain conditions in shore configuration, depth of
| water, you need road and electrical power connections on
| the land. A port is no longer a safe harbor from storms,
| they are huge investments with major ecological impact.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Both. Construction of ports is a massive endeavor and
| requires a suitable geographic location. On the
| regulatory side, the costal commission would never allow
| the construction of a new one due to the environmental
| impacts.
| josephcsible wrote:
| How is it anything but regulatory capture? In a free
| market, if employees wouldn't do their jobs, they'd all
| be fired and replaced with ones who would.
| ianleeclark wrote:
| > In a free market, if employees wouldn't do their jobs,
| they'd all be fired and replaced with ones who would.
|
| We live in a market economy with farm and oil subsidies.
| People can point to the free market all they like as some
| arbiter of truth, but it ignores the political realities
| of our world.
| clairity wrote:
| 'free market' is a ideologically-loaded term. in a _fair_
| market, we 'd have much less distortion all around, much
| more competition, and a more equitable split of surplus
| value to constituents, to the point that labor unions
| wouldn't need to exist.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| No to be critical of America. I love Hawaii. Not that its really
| American. But the declining Standards are kind of alarming.
| Starting to remind me of South America, which is at least mostly
| heading in the improve direction. Its kind of ironic that the
| decline of middle America has so much to do with California
| deciding its cheaper to trade and do business with China than
| with Chicago and Detroit and rest of the rust belt. And even
| then, California cheaps out on the ports.
| Factorium wrote:
| I live in Ukraine and Bulgaria and throughout the entire
| pandemic, everything has been... available, and cheap.
| Including imported goods. In many cases, electronics are
| cheaper here than in the USA, despite 20% VAT.
|
| There seems to be something going wrong in the Anglo countries
| to be facing such ongoing shortages.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Notice how Apple boasts "Designed in California" but never
| "Designed in the USA". Their midyear keynote had an intro about
| how amazing California is.
|
| This is the result of illberalism.
| lowkey_ wrote:
| Part of the beauty of the USA is all its distinct regions and
| cultures.
|
| Interestingly, studies have found that goods sell for more
| when they say, for example, "Made in Detroit," as opposed to
| "Made in the USA."
|
| That keynote is perfectly in line with American principles.
| It's frightening how homogenous our states have become, and
| how much power has been taken away from them.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I like what you said and it is colliding with my pessimism
| that Californians and California (I live here) want to
| secede from the rest of the US. At least in principle
| they're more pro-China than pro-US. Tells you a lot.
| iammisc wrote:
| Why are you being downvoted?
| [deleted]
| notJim wrote:
| The comment is difficult to read, and makes a bunch of vague
| and unsupported arguments that are unrelated to the topic at
| hand.
| swiley wrote:
| Because pointing out reality now makes you part of the
| "dangerous alt right."
| kwertyoowiyop wrote:
| "California" didn't decide that. Bentonville, Arkansas did.
| This isn't about Republican vs. Democrat, it's about
| billionaires vs. everyone else.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| I am no fan of Walmart but you can't pin this on just them by
| the time they were pushing suppliers the damage had already
| been done.
|
| It wasn't always this way. Walmart used to proudly display
| banners with 'Made in America' on them.
|
| But as companies left the county, the poor and then the
| middle class downsized as well.
|
| Companies left looking to lower costs, the public was wooed
| with lower prices and the idea that you could get more now
| and the politicians made promises that the affected sectors
| would be retrained, first we would have a service economy
| then it became knowledge workers.
|
| It turns out that the service economy is fickle and doesn't
| pay well for the most part. Not everyone can be a knowledge
| worker and that is not outsource proof either.
|
| Now we are in a trap where companies can not return because
| they would have to raise their prices and reduce profits and
| the people who used to work for them can't afford to buy
| their products now.
| standardUser wrote:
| I was thinking Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, birthplace of
| the Washington Consensus.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Ran across this recently (the view of the port backlog crisis
| from the POV of a trucker): https://news.yahoo.com/lazy-crane-
| operators-making-250-20010...
| davidw wrote:
| Possibly some truth to it, but also worth noting the source:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner
| throwawaysea wrote:
| What are we supposed to take away from that? I realize they
| are right-leaning but every news source has its own biases
| and every news source has examples of
| good/bad/truthful/misleading journalism. I feel like the best
| we can do is to read a diversity of viewpoints and form an
| opinion.
| DrewRWx wrote:
| Not when the viewpoint is a transparent, blame-shifting hit
| piece.
| davidw wrote:
| There are outlets that try for 'as objective as possible'
| (albeit sometimes failing), and others that skew pretty
| hard one way or the other. From my observations, this one
| is more in the 'skew' category. The skew folks often cherry
| pick things, don't do fact checking and are otherwise
| sloppy. I'm wary of them - including the ones that agree
| with my point of view.
| ars wrote:
| When people say they hate unions this is why. This port is not
| automated, and it's entirely because the unions want their money:
| https://www.presstelegram.com/2021/05/20/automation-war-expe...
|
| "But the International Longshore and Warehouse Union was quick to
| issue a response following the meeting, saying the proposal
| threatens U.S. jobs and local economies." i.e. we want to make
| things worse, so we get more money.
|
| When you read stuff like this, is it any wonder that Amazon and
| WalMart are so opposed to unions?
|
| Are there any unions that advocate for good working conditions,
| without also opposing efficiency gains in the name of jobs?
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Not a single union prospectus has anything remotely related to
| work-ethics, efficiency, how to handle mistakes and bad
| performance, etc.
|
| I have never supported unions and will never in the future. I
| can understand the point of Unions in a brutal regime, USA has
| one of the most vibrant economies in the world with a rich job
| market.
|
| California is digging a hole for itself it doesn't do something
| drastic.
| ihumanable wrote:
| It's a wonder that according to free market fundamentalists
| California is constantly a mismanaged hell hole, and yet it
| continues to be one of the largest and most dynamic economies
| on Earth.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| "In the name of jobs" seems pretty darn critical to the purpose
| of unions. What would be the point of a union that didn't
| protect the jobs of their workers?
|
| It's pretty clear why Amazon and WalMart dislike unions. Unions
| make things more expensive (and less efficient) for the owners.
| The converse is that unions can make things better for the
| employees. There are a lot more people who work at Amazon and
| WalMart than there are who meaningfully own those companies.
|
| I think there's an ideal balance and unions can be a part of
| that. On one end, inefficiency kills the company and costs
| everyone jobs and money. On the other companies are brutally
| efficient, like Amazon, and most workers live and work in poor
| conditions. We should try to find something in the middle
| rather than optimize for efficiency.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| It's possible to protect the jobs of your members while
| looking down the road and not making decisions that cause
| those jobs to be eliminated entirely because you refuse to
| adapt.
| standardUser wrote:
| "Are there any unions that advocate for good working
| conditions, without also opposing efficiency gains in the name
| of jobs?"
|
| It's the job of the union to advocate for workers, not for
| management. Workers want more pay, job security, benefits,
| safety, and so on. What employers want is entirely different
| and often directly opposed to what the workers want. And there
| is already a strong advocate for the employers interests - the
| employer. In most employment situation there is no advocate for
| the workers to begin with.
|
| What you are suggesting is that in the rare cases that workers
| do have an advocate, that advocate should also be acting for
| the benefit of the employer. I don't think that adds up.
| 10000truths wrote:
| I don't think this dichotomy is necessary. Management _are_
| workers - they have the same goal as everyone else, making
| money. The distinction you intend to make is people who have
| a stake in the company vs. people who do not. If all
| employees held equity /stocks or had substantial
| participation in company decisions (be it through a vote, or
| through an elected representative), then collective
| bargaining would organically arise as part of the
| organizational structure.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| In Germany you have a very different relationship between
| unions and management, with unions sitting on corporate
| boards and management being in the union as well.
|
| But American unions are legendary in the Western world for
| corruption and pugnaciousness which continues up to the
| present[1,2], which is unfortunate, and long term hurts
| workers.
|
| [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/10/15/head-of-
| californias-l...
|
| [2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/11-union-
| officials-char...
| missedthecue wrote:
| Demanding higher pay in exchange for increased efficiency is
| a negotiation.
|
| Demanding higher pay in exchange for nothing is rent-seeking.
| kfprt wrote:
| I will remember that the next time I'm at the grocery store
| and prices go up without negotiation. Afterall I could just
| not buy food.
| missedthecue wrote:
| I don't think this is useful analogy. If Kroger raises
| prices for milk, you can cross the street and buy your
| milk from Walmart or Aldi or Costco or any of the other
| hundreds of places that sell groceries.
|
| If the ILWU goes on a slowdown strike, the port authority
| cannot simply fire them all and hire replacements.
| Firstly, that is outright illegal in America and
| secondly, there is no competition anyway. The ILWU has a
| monopoly on the supply of longshoremen. If all the
| grocers were entered into a cartel agreement to not sell
| milk below a certain price, then you'd have a point.
| There's no evidence that this is the case.
|
| But all longshoremen _are_ entered into an agreement not
| to sell labor below a given price. This agreement is
| their union membership with the ILWU.
| kfprt wrote:
| Setting aside the fact that stores only sell milk and all
| get it from the same set of farms which usually have
| their own trade group, monopoly if you will, why should
| regulatory capture favor your preference over theirs?
| merpnderp wrote:
| There's no milk monopoly. That's ridiculous. Farmer Joe
| is free to sell his milk at whatever price he wants.
| julienb_sea wrote:
| > In most employment situation there is no advocate for the
| workers to begin with.
|
| This is only true in employment situations with little to no
| scarcity in labor supply. That is not actually the case in
| most skilled jobs, certainly not at present. In skilled work,
| the employer has a clear need to keep their employees
| satisfied otherwise they cannot sustain their labor needs.
| Labor scarcity by definition creates substantial alignment
| between the desires of workers and the needs of the business.
| jl6 wrote:
| I guess the issue is that if a union _solely_ acts for the
| benefit of the workers, then it sets itself not only against
| the interests of the employer, but also against the interests
| of the whole of the rest of society, who would benefit from
| the service being more efficient.
|
| Hence the current situation where unions have an image
| problem.
|
| Nobody likes seeing an abuse of power, whether the abuse is
| coming from the direction of the employer, or from the
| employee's union.
|
| Game-theoretically, a smart union should refrain from
| unreasonable demands, because their long-term survival (and
| that of its members) is imperilled by public opinion turning
| against them.
| makotech222 wrote:
| Maybe if capitalist society didn't create the main
| contradiction between making the economy more productive and
| starving and killing the citizens that rely on selling their
| labor to survive.
| pydry wrote:
| >This port is not automated, and it's entirely because the
| unions want their money.
|
| And ports cost money because ports want their money. People
| need money. To live.
|
| If automation is set up with the express purpose of reducing
| worker leverage (and it often is for infrastructure projects)
| then it doesnt make sense to clutch pearls if workers then
| strike.
|
| If a few days of strikes are so expensive that the automation
| gets called off... well, maybe it wasnt about reducing costs.
| Maybe it was about power.
|
| Driverless trains are similar. They don't save passengers
| money.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| > Driverless trains are similar. They don't save passengers
| money.
|
| Gonna have to disagree with you there. If BART was
| driverless, we could have 2-car trains every 4 minutes
| instead of a 10-car train every 20 minutes. Staff shortages
| are main reason for lower transit frequency, especially on
| weekends.
|
| Vancouver's SkyTrain is a great example of driverless trains
| enabling higher frequencies.
| 5etho wrote:
| yes deutschland unions are very good for economy and workers
| ars wrote:
| European unions and American unions are both called "unions",
| but they are not the same thing.
|
| One huge difference is the employee picks the union, it's not
| a single union per employer.
| filereaper wrote:
| Tweet from Flexport CEO about what's currently happening at Long
| Beach ports.
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/typesfast/status/1450904056365404...
|
| Seems there's a bottleneck because trucks aren't picking up
| containers from the port. They're running out of room in the yard
| to unload the container ships.
|
| The tweet explicitly says that the Port is not slowing anything
| down and that they want more shifts.
|
| Rail deliveries are on schedule.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1448051858698907649.html
| retbull wrote:
| That story is so incredibly narrow and misleading its absurd.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| That's an empty dismissal. If you have a substantive
| counterargument, then make it.
| legitster wrote:
| https://mobile.twitter.com/typesfast/status/1450904060253540...
|
| Would love to know more about that. Appointments are full but
| no one is showing up for them? Companies just can't get
| drivers?
| dmitrygr wrote:
| i posted a sister comment with a possible explanation
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I'm not on the scene. I don't work in that business. So take
| this with some salt. But I have heard that two things are
| causing issues.
|
| 1. California passed a law that all trucks older than 10
| years old had to have expensive modifications (I believe for
| pollution control). Well, the average age of trucks is 14
| years. Surprisingly (not), trucks became in short supply in
| California.
|
| 2. They passed this law that Uber drivers were employees, not
| contractors. Surprisingly (until you think about it), this
| same law hit owner-operators of trucks. That confuses the
| legalities of hiring owner-operators, which is a fair number
| of trucks.
|
| From what I heard, for both of these reasons, trucks and
| drivers are less available than they used to be in
| California.
| bombcar wrote:
| It seems that if Congress et al wanted to overstep the
| Interstate Commerce Clause here would be a perfect place to
| do it.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| It helps to think of the CA government as a natural
| disaster. It's the natural product of affluent, well-
| intentioned know-nothings without the humility to stop and
| think that maybe, just maybe, they don't know what they're
| doing when it comes to meddling with the economy.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Should CA be split up?
| leet_thow wrote:
| Plus they'd like to think they are the bellwether state
| for progressive policy, but really the whole Left Coast
| is just a petri dish for experiments that usually don't
| work and serve more as a warning than an example to be
| emulated.
| computermagic wrote:
| I don't think those have as much affect. Because point 1
| went into affect in 2008 and point 2 truckers are exempt.
|
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-
| p...
| unnamed76ri wrote:
| Only anecdotal of course but my aunt is a cross country
| truck driver that stopped delivering/picking up in CA
| because of those regulations.
| 1cvmask wrote:
| The report:
|
| https://cdn.ihsmarkit.com/www/prot/pdf/0521/Container-Port-P...
| acwan93 wrote:
| I remember visiting a port in Cartagena (Colombia) well before
| the pandemic where they gave us a presentation highlighting that
| due to the inefficiencies of American ports, ports nearby the
| Panama Canal can do business simply by transporting containers
| from Panamax ships to smaller ships simply because American ports
| can't process as many containers. The presenter seemed proud that
| Cartagena was able to unload and reload more ships as Miami or
| LA/Long Beach in a given day.
|
| The reason they said was due to automation and "forward looking
| technologies", and said that American ports were riddled with
| unions and refusals to automate. It seems like this has been a
| long time coming.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Ports are national infrastructure. The current mess is one of the
| few times I'd actually be in favor of nationalizing them until
| the current crisis blows over. Hell, I'd be ok with us building
| 21st century 'mulberry harbors' if it got things under control.
| The president should go off on them like Reagan did with the air
| traffic controllers.
| julienb_sea wrote:
| Ports are already operated by local government. This is
| standard practice in basically all countries. The most
| efficient port in the world, Yokohama, is operated by the local
| harbor district, in exactly the same manner as Long Beach
| operated by the local city council.
|
| I don't think nationalization is going to solve the problem
| here.
| Factorium wrote:
| The current political regime in Washington is totally crooked.
| Look at what they're doing to push COVID vaccine products onto
| children (Pfizer and JnJ are the #6 and #7 stocks owned by
| congress), and their selection of someone with massive conflict
| of interest for NHTSHA safety advisor.
|
| Anything that the federal Government touches right now is going
| to get a lot worse.
|
| America just needs to limp on until they can be thrown out in
| 2022 and 2024. Hopefully those years will have real elections.
| cr__ wrote:
| Which elections weren't "real"?
| myfavoritedog wrote:
| The withdrawal from Afghanistan should be instructive of why we
| should not be eager to see a big power-grab from the current
| administration.
|
| The main three causes of this shipping kerfuffle are: 1.
| Environmental regulations on trucking. 2. Anti-independent
| operator laws in CA. 3. Government subservience to the
| longshoremen union. 4. Overly-aggressive stay-at-home policies
| and subsidies from COVID.
|
| The current administration would go in the wrong direction on
| every one of those causes.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| I recommend reading this article titled "Lazy crane operators
| making $250,000 a year exacerbating port crisis, truckers say"
| (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/lazy-
| crane...), for examples for the kind of games port workers are
| playing.
|
| It's remarkable how brazen the actions of the longshoreman's
| union can be. There are truckers who are retaliated against if
| they complain, so they are forced to simply endure "slow work"
| and abusive practices without any way to help correct the
| situation. This is of course impacting our supply chain and
| economy at a crucial time when we need to act quickly and bounce
| back from the pandemic. Given how broadly-scoped and aggressive
| state and federal mandates have been, why isn't there a mandate
| to force labor at ports to work like they are supposed to, just
| like emergency workers?
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| They're not Federal workers. How do you plan to force them to
| do their jobs?
| julienb_sea wrote:
| This is the clear result of an overbearingly powerful
| entrenched union allowing absurd inefficiency. Tough to
| imagine a legal recourse. Ideally you allow local ports to
| outlaw the unions, but that would be a legal nightmare and be
| extraordinarily difficult to pull off, since the entire
| port's unionized staff would likely quit.
| merpnderp wrote:
| You could simply allow non-union workers, or allow other
| unions to bid the job. Just some modicum of competition.
| But right now it is them or no-one.
| t8e56vd4ih wrote:
| never thought or heard about California having a port at all.
| kind of weird because in hindsight that seems rather obvious.
| p1mrx wrote:
| California has 11 major ports:
| http://www.seecalifornia.com/california/california-ports.htm...
| proudfoot wrote:
| Full ranking here:
|
| https://www.maritimes.gr/images/PORTS/Container-Port-Perform...
|
| Dominated by East Asia (mostly China) at the top.
| k0stas wrote:
| I was wondering how efficiency is defined for a port.
|
| I found what I think is a more original post related to the list:
| https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/new-global-container...
|
| Inferring from the description in the link, it seems like the
| overall ranking is based on a combined metric. They do mention
| "minutes per container move" as a key metric ranging from
| Yokohama's 1.1 minutes to Africa's average 3.6 minutes.
|
| From a high-level perspective, and in analogy with computer
| systems, it makes sense that time efficiency is the most critical
| metric.
| AdamN wrote:
| Seems to me like the two numbers that matter are:
|
| Mean time from docking to last container being outside of port
| property
|
| Mean cost per TEU
| thedigitalone wrote:
| https://archive.md/mxw93
| thepasswordis wrote:
| This seems like it's going to crash the economy.
| legitster wrote:
| In Portland OR, the longshoreman's union (ILWU) organized a
| slowdown at the port. Things ended with the only customer of the
| port pulling out because they were losing money on parked ships.
| The port shut down completely, but the operator of the port
| managed to successfully sue the union for over $90 million
| dollars in damages.
|
| Here's the kicker, they were sued for unlawful labor practices.
|
| The entire slowdown was organized over _two jobs_. That they
| wanted _taken away from the electrician 's union_.
|
| There are other such stories you can find about dealing with the
| ILWU. They regularly attack other workers and unions. They even
| pulled out of the AFL-CIO so they could be free to beef over turf
| with its' members.
|
| Don't buy into any of their media BS - they are not a union, they
| are a racket.
|
| https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-11-29/longshore-...
| wahern wrote:
| The book The Box explains that the ILWU, which represents West
| Coast dock workers, handled containerization much better than
| its East Coast counterpart. The ILWU was more flexible and
| proactive, partnering with ports for the upgrades that would in
| time substantially reduce labor requirements, but saving and
| prolonging many more jobs than if they had been as intransigent
| as East Coast workers.
|
| It really comes down to leadership. The ILWU had great
| leadership that was able to manage relationships better. It's
| difficult to find that kind of leadership today, especially
| because people are so quick to cry "corruption" when a leader
| does anything except be a zealous, loud, and inflexible
| advocate for their group. (And when they inevitably fail,
| that's "corruption", too.) Compromise is a dirty word, and no
| one can maintain the necessary reputational capital amidst
| relentless character assassinations on social media.
| hangonhn wrote:
| Another vote for "The Box". That book was so eye opening and
| touches on standards, globalization, efficiency, and
| stevedore unions. You can even read about an early instance
| of a submarine patent.
| cletus wrote:
| This is history all over: the pendulum ends up swinging too far
| and it has to correct.
|
| Unions came about to bring about workers rights in the
| industrial revolution to correct terrible working conditions.
| This is something that needed to happen.
|
| Fast forward to the 1970s and the problems weren't anywhere
| near as severe. But power not used is power lost. If your
| members begin to view you as unnecessary, it's an existential
| threat to not only the union but those who had built their
| careers (political and otherwise) on the backs of that. So what
| happens? Any remote sleight is blown out of proportion to
| create controversy and fan the flames of fear among members.
|
| In the US this dovetailed into the Reagan years. Americans had
| started to view unions as unnecessary and corrupt and union
| membership and power waned.
|
| It also didn't help that there have been many ties between
| unions and organized crime.
|
| Your story about the Portland ports comes as no surprise to me.
| There are countless stories like this and the "go to" defense
| used in making a mountain out of a mole hill is the slippery
| slope fallacy ("well if this electrician can be fired for
| coming to work drunk and killing two people then you'll be
| next").
|
| It should come as no surprise that worker wages in real terms
| stagnated from 1980 until now.
|
| What I hope is that the pandemic is a catalyst for this
| pendulum to start swinging back. I think we've had enough of
| Reagonomics (trickle-down economics anyone?).
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| Police Unions are the ultimate example of unions that have
| gone too far and should not exist.
|
| Sadly, right-wingers love police and police violence. Few
| things make a right-winger hornier than high incarceration
| rates, and blacks being beaten by cops.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > they are not a union, they are a racket.
|
| There's a difference?
| serf wrote:
| >There's a difference?
|
| the difference occurs when the primary shift from 'employee-
| empowerment' to 'organization-for-profit' occurs.
|
| This is sooner rather than later for certain unions.
| roenxi wrote:
| > they are not a union, they are a racket.
|
| The core leverage of a union is a mafia-style "wouldn't it be a
| shame if your business burned down?". How are you drawing the
| line between union and racket? Is there something more nuanced
| than what you find socially acceptable?
| diordiderot wrote:
| In civilized societies, like the ones across the Atlantic,
| labor representatives work cooperatively with management in
| non adversarial manner because children aren't indoctrinated
| into thinking they're the star of there own Hollywood film
| batch12 wrote:
| What? This point made sense until the tangental snark after
| 'because'. Should've stopped there.
| adventured wrote:
| > In civilized societies, like the ones across the
| Atlantic, labor representatives work cooperatively with
| management in non adversarial manner because children
| aren't indoctrinated into thinking they're the star of
| there own Hollywood film
|
| Yeah right. The unions in Europe have always been more
| violent and dangerous than the ones in the US. The French
| labor unions would like a word with you about being
| civilized (they're anything but).
|
| And which societies would those be? The forever
| dictatorships in Eastern Europe? The regressive monarchies
| all over Western Europe? Look up how many constitutions the
| French have had, because they can't get anything right.
| Most of Europe was a backwards, primitive disaster until
| the last 40-50 years. Mass genocide, tens of millions
| butchered in wars, millions cast into slavery in North and
| South America, monarchy, dictatorship, totalitarianism,
| Communism, Socialism, Colonialism. Oh yes, those glorious
| enlightened Europeans, we have so much to learn from their
| ... wisdom. Europe largely are constitutional and
| democratic infants compared to the US, crawling from behind
| by more than a century. It'll take a miracle for Europe to
| not be back to killing itself before another few decades is
| up. The sole reason they didn't spend the post WW2 era
| slaughtering each other is thanks to the US occupation of
| Europe, which prevented war with Russia and largely kept
| the major powers from being allowed to attack other weaker
| nations.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| You're likely to be flagged and have a dead comment soon,
| but I want to let you know I appreciate this harsh (but
| honest) take. I find it endlessly fascinating how much
| "young buck" brow-beating the US gets from Europe (and so
| too their respective citizens and representatives), in
| both political/media rhetoric and in interpersonal fora
| like this. As a proud and naturalized US Citizen myself,
| thanks for standing up for me.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-20 23:01 UTC)