The union has made it clear that they're not willing to entertain such discussions. They don't want any robot to perform any work which a human being has historically done. (https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/longshore...)

>The union has made it clear that they're not willing to entertain such discussions.

That's not the same discussion. I am sure they are more than willing to turn docks into worker co-ops, then automate so it's a benefit to them not a threat. But I am sure the shareholders and dock owners wouldn't want that.

Right. I was discussing positions the union has actually taken and what their advocates have actually said. If you're looking to discuss wild hypotheticals about what you think they might support in some scenario that doesn't exist, more power to you, but I don't find such conversations productive.

I find it productive. And I find it maddening that negotiations haven't seemingly entertained the idea of talks like "yes automation will come but we'll make sure you can pay your bills and transition". That would be the first topic in eastern countries.

The west treating labor as a dog eat dog world is what lead to this in the first place.

This leaves me scratching my head:

> Daggett contends, though, that higher-paid longshoremen work up to 100 hours a week, most of it overtime, and sacrifice much of their family time in doing so.

> “We do not believe that robotics should take over a human being’s job,” he said. “Especially a human being that’s historically performed that job.”

You might be looking at the 100 hours thinking that’s grueling work. Meanwhile workers could be looking at that thinking it’s their AWS auto scaling for their family income.

I have a friend doing electrical line work. He’s gone back and forth between IC work and management. ICs trend to get paid better, because of strong overtime compensation rules and there’s a queue of overtime work. Those overtime weeks sound rough though. 12+ hour work days working with heavy machinery and 10 Kv power lines.