[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)