How to settle the automation issue

After a brief, just-for-show strike, Atlantic and Gulf coast longshoremen returned to work, having agreed to an almost 62% pay hike(!) over 6 years, but leaving unresolved their real fears about automation. These will be discussed in January.

Dock workers on strike (Photo: NPR)

Their fears are not unfounded.

This is way more than you need to know.

In real terms, automation means using machines for tasks that used to be performed by humans.

In theory, it increases efficiency and lowers costs.

Example: In ancient newspaper print shops, a printer would have to select a piece of type, a letter A for example, and place it in a small metal device in his hand. Then select the next, say letter D.

It was extraordinarily time-consuming. And then came the Line-O-Type, a machine that allowed an operator at a keyboard to generate perhaps 10 lines of type a minute. 

That reduced the number of printers needed, and because less labor was needed, the cost was less, too. But many printers could have lost their jobs.

I deliberately chose the printing industry because I know what happened. 

The then-owner of the Daily New and the Inquirer, was a well-run, humanistic company.

Rather than fire the unnecessary printers outright, they were given choices. Some chose to take a buyout and leave. As I recall this was about $25,000 (depending on seniority) and many chose to leave. It was a lot of money 40 years ago.

Others chose to stay, and were retrained into jobs required by the new cold type, computer technology, that replaced the hot type, Line-O-Type  technology.

Auto manufacturing accounted for almost 20 million jobs in 1979, now down to 585,000, although foreign competition probably had more to do with the drop than automation.

Ethel and Lucy on the chocolate candy assembly line (Courtesy: DesiLu)

Old-fashioned assembly lines where workers did simple, repetitive tasks — think Lucy and Ethel on the chocolate candy production line — are largely a thing of the past. Robots help human workers, relieving them of tedious repetition.

I’m pretty sure dock workers didn’t bitch when fork lifts were introduced, saving their busting backs.

Shipping containers made their jobs simple and easier. I believe it was Scott Galloway who called shipping containers one of the most important inventions of mankind. I think he’s right, because it sped cargo, and lowered costs.

So what do about the dilemma of dock workers who push back against progress (and costs) for the understandable desire to save their livelihoods?

Well, as in my industry, guarantee them their jobs.

Do not guarantee the jobs or salary of future workers.

When the worker is given a guarantee of his/her job, he/she will be hard-put to reject that to protect some future worker who may never arrive. Yes, the owners will have to be a little patient, but they are not going broke.

As current workers quit, die, take buyouts or retire, the issue will be resolved in less than a generation, with no hard feelings on any side.

6 thoughts on “How to settle the automation issue”

  1. Good common sense right there, Stu. I am, of course, very familiar with how things went down in the printing business. I worked as a typographer and at one point owned a Compugraphic 8400 digital typesetting machine and ran a small business out of my home. When desktop publishing and the Mac took over the entire industry, that $17k machine became an expensive paperweight in about four years. But I learned the new technology and continue to use it in my job to this very day. Time marches on, technology changes, and there isn’t anything we can do about it but adjust and go with the flow. There is going to be a time, after I’m gone certainly, when there simply are not enough jobs for everyone. This will be a challenging and interesting dilemma for mankind to manage. Thankfully, not my worry!

    1. I did not know you were a (not) ink stained wretch.
      Per jobs… Yes, there will NOT be jobs for everyone AND that will mean government (to avoid a revolution) will provide a guaranteed income for ALL. Hel-lo, socialism.

  2. The same longshoremen that called a strike and got a 62% pay raise and at the same time don’t want automation. A dock worker gets payed 100k a year and a crane operator gets paid 300k a year before this new raise. The one who suffers from this is the family because they are the one who will be paying the higher prices for all the items shipped in. The union wants their cake and eat it to. I’m pro union but the line has to be drawn.

  3. There’s no trick to doing things less efficiently. Why use shovels? Digging by hand would require much more labor (and be much less efficient).

    There is always more work to be done. For every job lost to the longshoremen because of automation, another job opens somewhere else. Do we pine for all the blacksmiths who no longer shoe horses since autos replaced them?

    1. I think the only problem with automation is that it doesn’t have a good song, like “The Ballad of John Henry”– the “steel-driving man” who beat the steam-powered drill, then laid down his hammer and died.

      Should be easy enough. “When the X-Loader was a little prototype, sitting on the testing floor, it picked up a container and a big load of steel and said, ‘beep…beep…caution, caution…beep'” Practically writes itself.

      Just generate an AI version of Pete Seeger’s or Woody Guthrie’s voice, add some synthesized music, and I’m sure it would be a big hit.

  4. There were six million horses in New York City around 1900. The invention of the automobile cost manure shovelers their livelihood. (Actually, many of them went into speechwriting for politicians.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *