The International Longshoremen’s Association’s head, Harold Daggett, apparently thought it was “Talk like a Gangster Day” when he said “I will cripple you,” with “you” meaning the economy of the United States. He added that his union can destroy the jobs of working Americans, including construction workers, unless his demands are met. The New York Post adds, “Fiery union boss Harold Daggett has long cast himself as a staunch advocate for blue-collar workers, even as he has lived in luxury, owning a yacht and driving a Bentley — and fought off alleged ties to the Mafia.”
Kamala Harris has backed Daggett’s shakedown of the entire U.S. economy. “This strike is about fairness. Foreign-owned shipping companies have made record profits and executive compensation has grown. The Longshoremen, who play a vital role transporting essential goods across America, deserve a fair share of these record profits.”
The Hill reference adds, “The union has demanded wage increases and a total ban on the automation of cranes, gates and container-moving trucks.” Intelligent people agree that labor deserves a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, along with a safe working environment that is in fact promoted by automation. We do not agree that they are entitled to intentionally limit their productivity to get a fair day’s pay for less than a fair day’s work. This raises costs and therefore drives inflation.
The Luddites Ride Again!
The ILA argues that machines will put workers out of jobs, which was the same deluded claim by the Luddites of the early nineteenth century. It might seem at first glance that a machine that can do the work of five people will put four out of work, but mechanization also reduces the cost of the product or service to increase the quantity demanded for it. This keeps the workers employed, and at much higher wages. Were it up to the Luddites, a construction firm would hire twenty people with shovels rather than one with a backhoe. I doubt that the contractor could afford to pay the former even minimum wage, and the customer would probably not be able to afford the project at all, so everybody would lose.
Automated cargo handling systems, as used in Mainland China, similarly allow longshore workers to do far more work, for which they can be paid accordingly. We have long thought of China as a low-wage country that makes up with human numbers what it lacks in technology, but the Chinese jobs are now superior to their corresponding American jobs. If there are any Luddites in China, they are not in positions of influence, nor are they in charge of unions.
If the union deliberately limits productivity, which drives up costs throughout the entire supply chain, it is likely to destroy its own jobs. Suppose I’m making widgets, or wickets, and I need parts from an offshore supplier to run my factory. In steps Harold Daggett to “cripple me” by refusing to handle the cargo I need. Daggett & Co. will be out of my supply chain, no second chances, as soon as I can find another way to get my parts. Air freight is expensive, but maybe I can persuade my supplier to build a factory next to mine to make them right next door to get rid of all the shipping costs and also delivery lead times. If not, maybe I can find another supplier in North America, or even figure out how to make the items myself. We Americans are very good at finding ways to get what we need, such as inventing synthetic rubber when the Japanese cut off our supplies of natural rubber during the Second World War. If the ILA declares war on our economy, I am pretty sure we can figure out how to do without it as well.
Regardless of the selected solution, the ILA will be out of my supply chain, and it will never come back. That’s the large-scale counterpart of dismissal for cause, said cause being intentional sabotage of an employer’s operations — and if the cost of loading or unloading cargo is built into my costs or those of my customers, I’m the employer. If enough employers come to the same conclusion, then a lot of longshoremen won’t be making the astronomical wages the ILA is demanding, or indeed any wages at all.
What Should Employers Do?
I cannot give legal advice, but it is apparently unlawful for a company to fire and replace strikers. “If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer under certain circumstances.” This does not mean the employer cannot bring in temporary workers, who are often derided as “scabs,” but the employer must give the strikers their jobs back when the strike ends.
The employers should offer both a carrot and a stick. If the workers remain on the job and do not resist efficiency improvements, nobody will be laid off. Workforce reductions will be achieved solely through retirements and voluntary resignations, assuming they are necessary at all. Next comes the stick. If the ILA continues to agitate against efficiency improvements, and workers walk off the job, their employers will bring in “scabs” to get the work done and keep them there as long as the ILA stays out. The union will, sooner or later, be unable to pay strike benefits, and it will simply not be permitted to shut down the economy. The question is how quickly the strike-breakers can be trained to do the strikers’ jobs. The employers should meanwhile bring in all the machines and A.I. they want to ensure that the jobs are done as efficiently as possible. If the union wants to return to work, it will simply have to do so under the new conditions.
What Should Voters Do?
Voters, and especially construction workers and other blue-collar workers, should again listen to Harold Daggett talk like a gangster and threaten to put them out of work. He says steel and lumber will not come in, and other blue-collar workers will lose their jobs. He adds that if the president invokes the Taft-Hartley Act to compel the longshoremen to return to work for ninety days, they will deliberately limit productivity while continuing to draw their wages (as I understand “do you think when I go back for 90 days those men are going to go back to work on that pier?”). If that is in fact what he means, he may be putting the jobs of his union members at risk. “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a ‘sitdown’ strike, when employees simply stay in the plant and refuse to work is not protected by the law.” In addition, “Work slowdowns are not protected by the NLRA. In a slowdown, workers intentionally lower productivity in an attempt to gain leverage on their employer. Unlike lawful strikers, the employees are still collecting a paycheck from the employer, all the while undermining its business.” When Daggett says something about going from 30 to 8 of something (I could not make out the whole statement), that is how this comes across to me.
To recap, labor is indeed entitled to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but it is not entitled to restrict productivity so as to do less than a fair day’s work. This is where voters — including millions of other workers who depend on reliable shipping to do their jobs — should part company with the International Longshoremens’ Association and Kamala Harris.
Civis Americanus is the pen name of an American Thinker contributor who remembers the lessons of history and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way.
Flickr, CC BY 2.0.
Comments are closed.