California ports among world’s least efficient, ranking shows(reuters.com)
reuters.com
California ports among world’s least efficient, ranking shows
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/california-ports-key-us-supply-chain-among-worlds-least-efficient-2021-10-20/
234 comments
I know some companies are pretty angry at the large shippers for sharp price increases (and IDK at what point that really becomes 'gouging'). But I wonder if there's a sort of 3rd order effect going on here, where shipping companies have made the problems which they then tripped over (and clogged the ports in the process):
- Shipping companies realize that they can make more money by sailing empty back to pick stuff up in China, rather than wait to load up with goods leaving American ports
- American warehouses get unusually full with stuff that can no longer get onto an out-going ship
- Firms who have goods arriving at the port don't have warehouse space to receive them (or trucks to move them), so they linger in the yards at the port
- Shipping companies are then slowed down waiting at the ports
... and perhaps there's also a whiff of tragedy of the commons between shipping companies, in that even if they realize that this is the impact of leaving goods piled up unable to leave the US, any one firm doesn't benefit from choosing to wait to load up before sailing back?
- Shipping companies realize that they can make more money by sailing empty back to pick stuff up in China, rather than wait to load up with goods leaving American ports
- American warehouses get unusually full with stuff that can no longer get onto an out-going ship
- Firms who have goods arriving at the port don't have warehouse space to receive them (or trucks to move them), so they linger in the yards at the port
- Shipping companies are then slowed down waiting at the ports
... and perhaps there's also a whiff of tragedy of the commons between shipping companies, in that even if they realize that this is the impact of leaving goods piled up unable to leave the US, any one firm doesn't benefit from choosing to wait to load up before sailing back?
It sounds like the feedback loop can only occur because there is a shortage of space at the warehouse. If warehouses responded to being full by raising prices until they are not full, would companies with goods in the warehouse start paying shippers more to take their goods from the warehouse? At some price, it will be worth the ship’s time to wait for the goods to be loaded.
Oh that Tweet is pure gold.
“We went to the Port to ask the workers why there was a backlog and learned it’s other people that are the problem.”
Great PR by Flexport though and smart to placate the Union. No way you can get anything done without greasing the right skids.
“We went to the Port to ask the workers why there was a backlog and learned it’s other people that are the problem.”
Great PR by Flexport though and smart to placate the Union. No way you can get anything done without greasing the right skids.
>“We went to the Port to ask the workers why there was a backlog and learned it’s other people that are the problem.”
1000+ likes! I need to hire this guy to explain to my boss why our prod deployment failed!
1000+ likes! I need to hire this guy to explain to my boss why our prod deployment failed!
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?
Would love to know more about that. Appointments are full but no one is showing up for them? Companies just can't get drivers?
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.
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.
Only anecdotal of course but my aunt is a cross country truck driver that stopped delivering/picking up in CA because of those regulations.
Well that’s weird because one came about in 2008 and the other specifically exempts truckers.
From the summaries I’ve seen, AB5 provides a new temporary exemption (through 2022) for construction truckers from the ABC test that did not exist under the Dynamex ruling, but not for truckers generally.
>and the other specifically exempts truckers
Are you talking about AB 5? Because if so, it's nowhere near that simple.
"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, after hearing the case, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing AB5 .....The court noted that carriers likely would have to reclassify all independent-contractor drivers as employees for all purposes to comply with the California labor law.... California officials and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. The appeals court reversed the district court's order...."
I'm not a lawyer, but to a layman it looks like a legal fustercluck.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
Are you talking about AB 5? Because if so, it's nowhere near that simple.
"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, after hearing the case, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing AB5 .....The court noted that carriers likely would have to reclassify all independent-contractor drivers as employees for all purposes to comply with the California labor law.... California officials and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. The appeals court reversed the district court's order...."
I'm not a lawyer, but to a layman it looks like a legal fustercluck.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...
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...
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-p...
The very fact-check you link to says:
> industry experts said that some owner-operators sought work elsewhere. Some fleets, too, chose to stop doing business with owner-operators in California.
where "stop doing business" is a link to an article about people doing just that.
And the "exemption" you mention is a temporary injunction that may be lifted at any time, which is not conducive to a stable business relationship.
> industry experts said that some owner-operators sought work elsewhere. Some fleets, too, chose to stop doing business with owner-operators in California.
where "stop doing business" is a link to an article about people doing just that.
And the "exemption" you mention is a temporary injunction that may be lifted at any time, which is not conducive to a stable business relationship.
It seems that if Congress et al wanted to overstep the Interstate Commerce Clause here would be a perfect place to do it.
[deleted]
You want to know why trucks are less available?
https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forc...
All the immigrants that were abused for the job are gone due to covid.
https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forc...
All the immigrants that were abused for the job are gone due to covid.
thaumaturgy(5)
gotoeleven(3)
I can offer one anecdote, having only yesterday finally received a shipment that had been mired at long beach for over a month. My truck driver went to 3 appointments a week for the last 4 weeks, only to be told every time that there were no trailer frames to load the container onto for him to haul away.
i posted a sister comment with a possible explanation
https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forc...
Lets pretend we don't have a deep dark issue with port trucking
Lets pretend we don't have a deep dark issue with port trucking
I didn't have anything to do with what Ryan is talking about in that Tweet thread, but it's representative of the positive attitude, competence, fairness, and energy that he brings to Flexport and culture that we are all trying to build.
Flexport is a great place to work and this makes me proud to work here.
Flexport is a great place to work and this makes me proud to work here.
This is exactly what I heard on The Daily. Everyone is buying stuff to get ready for the holidays but had nowhere to store it so they use the port. So normally when there would be zero container ships anchored there are now plenty. It’s a good listen but it all pretty much ties back to just in time manufacturing plus a lot of other complications. (Containers being all over the world because of shipping PPE and other pandemic items when normally those containers are filled back up and sent with other goods.)
Sending a taco truck to the port is a great marketing move.
It does provide marketing value, but I take Ryan at his word when he says it was to show appreciation to the workers at the port. Flexport's customers around the world are effected by the LA/LB port slowdowns, so any small thing we can do to help pays off for us.
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.
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.
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-...
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-...
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?).
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?).
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.
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.
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.
Add another vote here. Are shipping containers in the top ten list of innovations for the 20th century? My vote is yes.
ur-whale(2)
> 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?
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?
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
> 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.
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.
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.
US history before the last 50 years was rather a shitshow with regards to human rights, uprisings, and state violence itself! So let's not pretend it's any more civlizied than the countries that its founders came from.
In many ways it ended up less civilized than its northern neighbor, which seems to fight rather fewer wars of aggression.
In many ways it ended up less civilized than its northern neighbor, which seems to fight rather fewer wars of aggression.
Canada has no need to fight wars of aggression. It has only one neighbor, the united states, a nation with which it essentially shares most culture and language (Canadian English and American English is almost 100% identical). It never will need to fight a war because the United States will never let anyone near Canada.
This is like claiming the isle of mann never fought a war while ignorning it's protectorate status with the UK.
For all intents and purposes, Canada is a protectorate of the united states, we just don't call it that to avoid diplomatic incident.
This is like claiming the isle of mann never fought a war while ignorning it's protectorate status with the UK.
For all intents and purposes, Canada is a protectorate of the united states, we just don't call it that to avoid diplomatic incident.
That may all be the case, but from my point of view this is swinging back in strange ways. All those religious fundamentalism, the 'evangelicals' or however the crazies want to be addressed comes over here, to breed back into more or less laizistic societies. IMO they can go back to where they came from, the same applies to islamists and other orthodoxies.
Your world view of american exceptionalism. Let's have a look at that, exceptional robber barony, bullying, conning and cunning, sold by such sweet cheer leeding and really empowering the countless masses into mindless consumerism until the urgent need to numb it down, be it by psycho pills, weed, opiates, whatever. Food stamps, fuck yeah!
Personally I think that big bully needs to be gagged with petrodollars, and having beaten its teeth out so sensibly with a baseball bat, that it shits them out at the lower end. And then smashed its skull to pulp so that it follows the way of the teeth, fashioned into fantastically flavourful fish fodder.
Because any exception needs to be caught, and treated accordingly. Error correction, so to speak. Otherwise crash.
For reasons of transtemporal hygienics true hyperbolic excess is disallowed. Deal with it.
Cordially condoned by the clandestine committee for cognitive corruption.
Your world view of american exceptionalism. Let's have a look at that, exceptional robber barony, bullying, conning and cunning, sold by such sweet cheer leeding and really empowering the countless masses into mindless consumerism until the urgent need to numb it down, be it by psycho pills, weed, opiates, whatever. Food stamps, fuck yeah!
Personally I think that big bully needs to be gagged with petrodollars, and having beaten its teeth out so sensibly with a baseball bat, that it shits them out at the lower end. And then smashed its skull to pulp so that it follows the way of the teeth, fashioned into fantastically flavourful fish fodder.
Because any exception needs to be caught, and treated accordingly. Error correction, so to speak. Otherwise crash.
For reasons of transtemporal hygienics true hyperbolic excess is disallowed. Deal with it.
Cordially condoned by the clandestine committee for cognitive corruption.
> 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.
That's a pretty strong take, do you have any evidence for said take?
That's a pretty strong take, do you have any evidence for said take?
Thank you for pointing out European backwardness.
America is extremely stable compared to Europe.
The time between the founding of the eu and now is the longest Europe has ever been without two major powers at war. Europe was basically the middle east version 0.5.
America is extremely stable compared to Europe.
The time between the founding of the eu and now is the longest Europe has ever been without two major powers at war. Europe was basically the middle east version 0.5.
I'm assuming you caught the bit about "millions cast into slavery in North and South America". A legacy which still lives on.
Much of the stability of North America is built on that slavery (and the 100-million or so lives it cost), genocide of the original inhabitants (another mass killing of as many as 100 million), and of course, the protective moat of thousands of miles of ocean east and west.
Europe's own most stable polities are also shielded by water (Britain) and/or terrain (Scandinavia).
Much of the stability of North America is built on that slavery (and the 100-million or so lives it cost), genocide of the original inhabitants (another mass killing of as many as 100 million), and of course, the protective moat of thousands of miles of ocean east and west.
Europe's own most stable polities are also shielded by water (Britain) and/or terrain (Scandinavia).
What? This point made sense until the tangental snark after 'because'. Should've stopped there.
Uh...labor representatives are inherently in an adversarial relationship with management.
Further, I’m not sure this xenophobia toward US labor relations has any basis in reality.
Further, I’m not sure this xenophobia toward US labor relations has any basis in reality.
Yes, but they are in a forced cooperation. Especially in the short term. Labor laws have extra protection for union leaders, and unions obviously can't strike forever, and the employer can't let go of too many people to decrease labor expenses (otherwise they can't operate the firm). Both parties have tools to try to assert their interests, but those are all blunt instruments that only have a certain useful range.
It looks like there is a long history of "slow work" racketeering at California/West Coast ports. From 2002, "The Fine Art of the Slowdown" (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-sep-21-fi-slow2...). From 2015, "How 14,000 Workers Managed to Slow Down the Entire Economy" (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/how-onl...).
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?
"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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Unless of course more workers belonged to unions, in which case more people would be sympathetic to the plight of the worker. These people are facing devastating job losses that will upend their families’ lives. Can you really blame them for putting up a fight? I’m ok with it, even if it means I need to wait a few weeks to import my forced-labor cotton shirts from Xinjiang.
You don’t need to be a union member to be sympathetic to workers’ issues - after all, nearly everyone is a worker. But nearly everyone is a stakeholder in the economy too, and solidarity has a limit, which can be breached when an action is widely perceived as unreasonable.
I guess I shouldn't negotiate raises anymore at my job, wouldn't want to hurt the rest of society.
Demanding higher pay in exchange for increased efficiency is a negotiation.
Demanding higher pay in exchange for nothing is rent-seeking.
Demanding higher pay in exchange for nothing is rent-seeking.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There's no milk monopoly. That's ridiculous. Farmer Joe is free to sell his milk at whatever price he wants.
Not exactly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_Price_Support_Program
Worked on a project a while back for pricing different qualities of milk and the amount of federal programs, guidelines, and laws regulating dairy markets is extremely substantial.
Worked on a project a while back for pricing different qualities of milk and the amount of federal programs, guidelines, and laws regulating dairy markets is extremely substantial.
~22% of the market if I understand correctly. Hardly a monopsony.
There's nothing wrong with wishing for a cozy dream rentier position, the problem is that ports are not really a healthy market. It's hard to open a new port, there are only a few ones that dominate the market, and they are all operated by the local government. There's no real incentive to do better, no profit motive to enter this market, to be more efficient, etc.
So naturally this should be regulated like a public service.
That said, just as regular public service jobs pay shit it's not surprising that there are regular conflicts due to disagreements about compensation.
So naturally this should be regulated like a public service.
That said, just as regular public service jobs pay shit it's not surprising that there are regular conflicts due to disagreements about compensation.
> 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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
Managers are better thought of as "agents of capital or ownership" under this distinction. Manager compensation would typically be at least partially tied to overall company performance, even without equity (e.g. cash bonuses for a strong P+L). Employees, as a group distinct from the Managers, earn a flat wage regardless of performance.
Of course, this is industry/location/company dependent, but I believe that is the reasoning for the distinction.
Of course, this is industry/location/company dependent, but I believe that is the reasoning for the distinction.
"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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's the residual steam from 1980-2000's tremendous liberatarian spirit of SV. Today, it is mostly debating about which pronoun to use.
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.
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.
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
Mean time from docking to last container being outside of port property
Mean cost per TEU
> 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.
What's the point of naming those other ports? Like "oh we're so bad we're worse than freaking Kenya!". It's ironic.
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.
Yeah but as it stands, those ports are better than California's so none of those factors matter, no?
That is the point of the comparison, that they do matter and somehow California is worse...
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.
The point of naming those ports is to put the inefficiency of US ports into context for the lay-reader.
> 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 [1] 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.
[1] edit: actually, quarter deck, maybe? It wasn't the enclosed part. I don't know ship terms.
Indeed. I had the pleasure of standing on the bridge [1] 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.
[1] edit: actually, quarter deck, maybe? It wasn't the enclosed part. I don't know ship terms.
With all the infrastructure, institutions, knowledge, and processes, shouldn’t the US ports function better than “freaking Kenya”?
China tops efficiency ratings.
Chinese ports also exhibit occasional recent issues affecting both cargo and neighbouring districts (headphone wearers, turn down volume):
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=993wlZ6XFSs
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=hUtrkfLKyFE (language, first videographer did not survive)
https://yewtube/watch?v=Ikm1CXgOTLo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Tianjin_explosions
It's been a considerable time since any comparable event in a US port. Galveston (1947) and Port Chicago (1944) come to mind, both military cargos, during wartime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Chicago_disaster
Chinese ports also exhibit occasional recent issues affecting both cargo and neighbouring districts (headphone wearers, turn down volume):
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=993wlZ6XFSs
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=hUtrkfLKyFE (language, first videographer did not survive)
https://yewtube/watch?v=Ikm1CXgOTLo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Tianjin_explosions
It's been a considerable time since any comparable event in a US port. Galveston (1947) and Port Chicago (1944) come to mind, both military cargos, during wartime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Chicago_disaster
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.
The top ranked port is Yokohama. Do you think Japan is worse in the regards that you listed than the United States?
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.
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.
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.
I don't think nationalization is going to solve the problem here.
The port of long beach is actually the port of Los Angeles. It's in la city. There's a weird finger that reaches out from downtown.
Ports are complex beasts. The current issues are being tied back to truckers which the entire country is lacking due to miserable lifestyle, and unstable pay. Long haul truckers have it even worse than short haul. Good luck fixing that unless we are going to nationalize and offer $100k+ wages for a miserable job.
Let's also not ignore this shitshow: https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forc...
Let's also not ignore this shitshow: https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forc...
Biden has been in the pockets of big unions from the beginning. Not a chance of any of that happening.
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.
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.
Yes, the three big problems: environmental regulations, worker rights, and public health. Without those, industry would be booming.
Factorium(1)
At least the unions make sure everyone is paid 300k and all automation is blocked.
It's the busiest port on earth.
I suppose they should be getting minimum wage?
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.
I've yet to hear anybody argue that corporate corruption means that corporations no longer serve a purpose.
Corporations serve a purpose beyond just fighting with unions.
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.
There might be some other reasonably fair salary that exists between minimum wage and $300k/year.
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.
"Fair" is whatever they can negotiate. Who are you or I to say what's "fair" for someone else haggling over prices?
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.
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?
When companies exploit their market power it's good business yet when workers do the same thing it's not really fair any more?
When any groups of self interest, companies or otherwise, exploit their market power, it is simply "exploiting their market power" and not good business. A labor union that negotiates sweet deals yet locks out other people from working is abusing their power, like a company could.
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.
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.
> 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.
Corporations do exactly this, so sounds very fair actually.
They should be getting $0 because their jobs can be automated
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.
"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
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
What's the end of this line of thinking, 12 trillionaires that own all the automation and a vast mass of unemployed people?
Yes, of course. Why should this not be the goal? If machines can replace all work, you say it’s a better option to keep work around?
Yes with heavy taxation used to fund a basic income for everyone. I doubt it'll ever be that simple; services still occupy the majority of the US economy. But there's no point keeping work alive just to have people work.
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...
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...
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...*
"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...*
> ... 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.
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.
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.
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...)
(Though I do see why you might be concerned that a casual reader though I was attributing it to you...)
Source on the 300k salary? Or you just parroting someone's opinion?
Source circa 2015: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/dock-workers-u...
"In fact, according to the union's own material, the average dockworker makes $147,000 in annual salary and pulls in $35,000 a year in employer-paid health care benefits. Pensions pay $80,000 a year."
Also,
"The ILWU is demanding 3% annual raises over five years well beyond the average American's personal income — which the shippers have agreed to — and some changes in the arbitration system."
I can't find 2021 data but if they did indeed get their 3% raises then the average total compensation by now is 182*(1.03^5)=211k.
---
Another source, also circa 2015: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dockworker-pay-201503...
"About half of West Coast union longshoremen make more than $100,000 a year — some much more, according to shipping industry data. More than half of foremen and managers earn more than $200,000 each year. A few bosses make more than $300,000. All get free healthcare."
"In fact, according to the union's own material, the average dockworker makes $147,000 in annual salary and pulls in $35,000 a year in employer-paid health care benefits. Pensions pay $80,000 a year."
Also,
"The ILWU is demanding 3% annual raises over five years well beyond the average American's personal income — which the shippers have agreed to — and some changes in the arbitration system."
I can't find 2021 data but if they did indeed get their 3% raises then the average total compensation by now is 182*(1.03^5)=211k.
---
Another source, also circa 2015: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dockworker-pay-201503...
"About half of West Coast union longshoremen make more than $100,000 a year — some much more, according to shipping industry data. More than half of foremen and managers earn more than $200,000 each year. A few bosses make more than $300,000. All get free healthcare."
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.
[deleted]
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.
The most efficient port in the world is in Yokohama, Japan. Are you are implying that Japan has negligent safety and compensation practices?
How about comparing it to the busiest ports in Eurpoe, Rotterdam and Antwerp, which scored much higher on the list.
I wouldn't think the Netherlands or Belgians achieve high efficiency by cutting safety
I wouldn't think the Netherlands or Belgians achieve high efficiency by cutting safety
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...
https://www.practicaladultinsights.com/how-do-i-become-a-lon...
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dockworker-pay-201503...
> 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.
They work incredibly socially necessary jobs and they are able to bargain collectively to increase negotiation power, so they seem to be compensated fairly.
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.
> "...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
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
> 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.
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.
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).
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.
In a fully free market, a group of employees is able to come together and bargain with a company. This bargaining can include saying "unless from now on you only hire people from our organization, you'll immediately lose all of your current employees." This is how labor unions that are the only people allowed to work for a given company come to be.
Of course, agreements between two groups of people can still be harmful to society. But in the above situation, you would have to get the government to interfere to make those sorts of exclusivity arrangements illegal if you have an issue with them. It's not surprising that in a free market, sometimes employees realize that if they band together they have enough power to negotiate terms that make them near-impossible to fire.
Of course, agreements between two groups of people can still be harmful to society. But in the above situation, you would have to get the government to interfere to make those sorts of exclusivity arrangements illegal if you have an issue with them. It's not surprising that in a free market, sometimes employees realize that if they band together they have enough power to negotiate terms that make them near-impossible to fire.
> In a fully free market, a group of employees is able to come together and bargain with a company. This bargaining can include saying "unless from now on you only hire people from our organization, you'll immediately lose all of your current employees."
I agree with this. The problem is that today, it's illegal for a company to go with the "lose all of your current employees" approach.
> But in the above situation, you would have to get the government to interfere to make those sorts of exclusivity arrangements illegal if you have an issue with them.
I don't want making deals with unions to become illegal. I just don't want companies to be forced to make deals with them. For example, just because 51% of the employees want to be in a union doesn't mean that they should get to force the other 49% to join, or to force the company to only hire union workers going forward.
I agree with this. The problem is that today, it's illegal for a company to go with the "lose all of your current employees" approach.
> But in the above situation, you would have to get the government to interfere to make those sorts of exclusivity arrangements illegal if you have an issue with them.
I don't want making deals with unions to become illegal. I just don't want companies to be forced to make deals with them. For example, just because 51% of the employees want to be in a union doesn't mean that they should get to force the other 49% to join, or to force the company to only hire union workers going forward.
> 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.
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.
'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.
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?
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.
There is really only one more deepwater capable port left that is undeveloped on the west coast of the US. Coos Bay, OR. They are pushing hard to bring in larger ships, but need to dredge the channel to make it deeper and wider for larger ships. That is planned for a few years from now. But this port also only has one rail line, now owned by the port, that connects to Eugene, OR, where the other large railroads are. There is also only 2 lane highways out of town, in the mountain ranges, so really rail is the only way out of the port.
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.
Even if you did, what would prevent all the workers from joining the exact same ILWU union you were fleeing in the first place?
Start your own port then. It's not as if there's a shortage of coastline.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That wouldn't be legal in CA
> 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.
Good for them.
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.
Yes and no. Total compensation went up, even discretionary income did too on average, but compared to the rest of the world the "purchasing power" seems to have fallen behind. Especially in certain service sectors (healthcare, education, social services).
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.
Median comp of $100k in LA for a skilled job isn't "incredibly overcompensated" to operate the busiest container port in the western hemisphere.
Comp != salary, and union jobs tend to have more benefits.
“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.)
Full ranking here:
https://www.maritimes.gr/images/PORTS/Container-Port-Perform...
Dominated by East Asia (mostly China) at the top.
https://www.maritimes.gr/images/PORTS/Container-Port-Perform...
Dominated by East Asia (mostly China) at the top.
There's like 4 subthreads in here that are all fixated on unions and how they might be evil or dysfunctional or actually just fine, even though:
- nothing in the Reuter's article says what's causing the slow downs
- the twitter thread from the Flexport CEO seems to be giving 2nd hand info that the main cause of delays currently is stuff not getting picked up _from_ the port, which may be more about the situation with trucking, and specifically he says there isn't a work slowdown at the port.
- and we _know_ that the rest of the supply chain, including warehouses and trucks are also under a lot of pressure.
So even if your people and equipment can unload ships quickly, you quickly run out of space unless customers come pick up their stuff. And that doesn't happen unless customer have both (a) trucks/drivers to pick stuff up and (b) warehouses to receive. And crap, what if they have too little warehouse space because they can't ship stuff out bc container ships are sailing back across the Pacific empty? Or because they're full of A which would ordinarily be consumed to produce C, except production has stalled because everyone's missing B because of the messed up supply chain.
The rush to blame stuff on the unions seems to distract from the actual complexities of the current situation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ports-supply-chain-fix-c...
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/14/1046140284/among-the-countrys...
- nothing in the Reuter's article says what's causing the slow downs
- the twitter thread from the Flexport CEO seems to be giving 2nd hand info that the main cause of delays currently is stuff not getting picked up _from_ the port, which may be more about the situation with trucking, and specifically he says there isn't a work slowdown at the port.
- and we _know_ that the rest of the supply chain, including warehouses and trucks are also under a lot of pressure.
So even if your people and equipment can unload ships quickly, you quickly run out of space unless customers come pick up their stuff. And that doesn't happen unless customer have both (a) trucks/drivers to pick stuff up and (b) warehouses to receive. And crap, what if they have too little warehouse space because they can't ship stuff out bc container ships are sailing back across the Pacific empty? Or because they're full of A which would ordinarily be consumed to produce C, except production has stalled because everyone's missing B because of the messed up supply chain.
The rush to blame stuff on the unions seems to distract from the actual complexities of the current situation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ports-supply-chain-fix-c...
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/14/1046140284/among-the-countrys...
If you poke around on TikTok you'll see videos from both truckers and longshoremen from both sides; for my money, it looks like it is the port, not the truckers.
I saw the Flexport thread and that didn't gel with the countless videos I've seen of traffic jams of trucks, with truckers comparing timestamps on their receipts to see who's spent longer waiting for a box. Just popped in and this was among the first videos: https://www.tiktok.com/@juanolivares05/video/702129087728481...
Maybe it is the truckers, maybe its the port. What I see in any video I've seen, is lines of trucks and boxes not being put on them, haven't seen the opposite.
I saw the Flexport thread and that didn't gel with the countless videos I've seen of traffic jams of trucks, with truckers comparing timestamps on their receipts to see who's spent longer waiting for a box. Just popped in and this was among the first videos: https://www.tiktok.com/@juanolivares05/video/702129087728481...
Maybe it is the truckers, maybe its the port. What I see in any video I've seen, is lines of trucks and boxes not being put on them, haven't seen the opposite.
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...
Possibly some truth to it, but also worth noting the source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner
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.
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.
Not when the viewpoint is a transparent, blame-shifting hit piece.
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.
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.
There seems to be something going wrong in the Anglo countries to be facing such ongoing shortages.
“California” didn’t decide that. Bentonville, Arkansas did. This isn’t about Republican vs. Democrat, it’s about billionaires vs. everyone else.
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.
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.
I was thinking Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, birthplace of the Washington Consensus.
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.
This is the result of illberalism.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
No California and Californians generally don't. They didn't even at the height of their opposition to the Trump Administration. Perhaps unsurprisingly, since advocacy for California separatism was backed by the same foreign interests who intervened in US politics in favor of Trump.
> At least in principle they’re more pro-China than pro-US
This is likewise false.
> Tells you a lot
That you would say it tells me a lot, sure.
No California and Californians generally don't. They didn't even at the height of their opposition to the Trump Administration. Perhaps unsurprisingly, since advocacy for California separatism was backed by the same foreign interests who intervened in US politics in favor of Trump.
> At least in principle they’re more pro-China than pro-US
This is likewise false.
> Tells you a lot
That you would say it tells me a lot, sure.
>> At least in principle they’re more pro-China than pro-US
> This is likewise false.
Not the above commenter, but there are many, many people in SF that I've personally met who prefer China to the US. They have a disgust towards half of their own country who votes unlike the way they vote, towards anyone religious, towards anyone from a lower-class non-urban background.
I've met plenty of these people in LA and Santa Barbara as well, but in SF it easily feels like a majority.
> This is likewise false.
Not the above commenter, but there are many, many people in SF that I've personally met who prefer China to the US. They have a disgust towards half of their own country who votes unlike the way they vote, towards anyone religious, towards anyone from a lower-class non-urban background.
I've met plenty of these people in LA and Santa Barbara as well, but in SF it easily feels like a majority.
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?
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?
I recommend you read this: https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forc...
How abusive port trucking operations are. To the point I dare say some of the current shitshow could be the lack of immigrant drivers due to covid to bait into driving.
How abusive port trucking operations are. To the point I dare say some of the current shitshow could be the lack of immigrant drivers due to covid to bait into driving.
They're not Federal workers. How do you plan to force them to do their jobs?
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.
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.
> simply allow non-union workers
I have a hunch that if it was "simple" the port owners would have done that a long time ago.
I have a hunch that if it was "simple" the port owners would have done that a long time ago.
The government would have to allow that, not the port owners.
This seems like it's going to crash the economy.
never thought or heard about California having a port at all. kind of weird because in hindsight that seems rather obvious.
California has 11 major ports: http://www.seecalifornia.com/california/california-ports.htm...
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.