Fear of automation at the heart of port strike

The massive port workers’ strike that has shut down all the major dockyards on the eastern seaboard of the United States and the Gulf Coast is highlighting a fear held by many workers: being replaced by machines.

The strike entered a third day on Thursday, with US President Joe Biden saying to reporters that he thought progress was being made in ending the strike. Asked how much, Biden said: “We’ll find out soon.”

The ports affected by the shutdown include Baltimore and Brunswick, Georgia, the top two busiest auto ports; Philadelphia, which gives priority to fruits and vegetables; and New Orleans, which handles coffee, mainly from South America and Southeast Asia, various chemicals from Mexico and North Europe, and wood products from Asia and South America.

Other major ports affected include Boston; New York/New Jersey; Norfolk, Virginia; Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; Tampa, Florida; Mobile, Alabama; and Houston.

The International Longshoremen’s Association, which represents the approximately 45,000 dock workers who walked off the job on Tuesday, is testing whether it’s possible to fight back against automation.

The union is demanding, along with hefty pay raises, a total ban on the automation of gates, cranes and container-moving trucks at 36 ports, which handle roughly half of the nation’s cargo from ships. But it’s unclear whether they’ll be able to stave off a trend that has seeped into virtually every workspace.

The growth of automation and technological advances have created tension between workers and management since the Industrial Revolution, when machines first began to manufacture goods that had previously been made by hand. And with the growing use of artificial intelligence, the group of jobs workers perceive as threatened with disruption is ever-widening.

“You cannot bet against the march of technology,” said Yossi Sheffi, director of the MIT Center for Transportation & Logistics. “You cannot ban automation, because it will creep up in other places.”

History of pushback

It’s not the first time that port workers have resisted automation. In 1960, as ports on the West Coast introduced machinery to move cargo once moved by hand, the union representing longshoremen negotiated protections for workers, including assurances that the current workforce would not be laid off, according to the International Longshore & Warehouse Union.

Harry Bridges, who led the union at the time, negotiated pay increases and job security arrangements for some of the workers, said Adam Seth Litwin, associate professor of industrial and labour relations at Cornell University.

“He saw that this was going to become potentially a real problem if he didn’t try to get ahead of it,” Litwin said. “Essentially, what he was saying was, ‘I recognise the reality of what’s happening here, and the way to best represent my members is to make sure that they are protected.’”

The downside was that as port machinery became more common, the size of the union eroded precipitously over the years.

The coal industry went through a similar reckoning as conveyor belts and other machines displaced labourers. Union leader John Lewis negotiated for job security and pay increases for existing workers, but the encroachment of machines led to fewer hires, and over time the workforce and union ranks shrunk.

“Amongst coal miners today, he isn’t necessarily a big hero, but he knew what he was doing. And I think he also recognised that fighting automation rarely makes a whole lot of economic sense, particularly if you’re talking about a market that’s at all competitive,” Litwin said.

Some dockyards outside the US are far more automated and efficient, especially ports in Dubai, Singapore and Rotterdam, Sheffi said. Mexico is building a highly automated port that could compete with US ports.

“They’re going to start running trains from the port to the heartland of the United States. And who is going to lose?” Sheffi asked. “There’ll be less work for these people.”

Protecting workers

Some unions have negotiated that employees must receive guaranteed employment protection if companies bring in technologies that could make their jobs obsolete. Others have bargained for employers to provide tuition reimbursement or retraining programmes, so workers can shift into other roles when machines come in.

“The trick is to make it over time, not to do it haphazardly,” Sheffi said.

In its current contract, the ILA has a provision that requires the union’s agreement if the ports add any automation, essentially giving the ILA veto power. But ILA President Harold Daggett has said the union wants a stronger ban.

When healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente switched from paper to digital medical records a decade ago, dozens of unions bargained together to ensure workers wouldn’t lose jobs or face wage reductions as a result of the technology deployment. Drivers who moved boxes of medical records to warehouses, and librarians who retrieved paper files who were trained and reassigned to roles such as medical librarians or coders, Litwin said.

“They ultimately all got pay increases because they ended up being in jobs that ended up being more highly skilled,” Litwin said.

– AP