Recent headlines have highlighted the dock workers’ strike, initially portrayed as a potential economic crisis for the United States. While swiftly resolved, the core issues driving this labor action remain crucial to understanding the evolving landscape of work, technology, and worker rights. This article delves into the heart of the matter: Why Are Dock Workers Striking? It examines the motivations, the context, and the broader implications of this pivotal labor dispute, moving beyond initial media narratives to uncover the deeper struggle at play.
The longshoremen’s strike wasn’t simply about wages, although that was a significant component. At its core, this strike was a powerful stance against port automation, a move that resonated deeply with historical labor movements and sparked intense debate across the political spectrum. From conservative commentators to liberal pundits, the dockworkers faced immediate criticism, often labeled as outdated or resistant to progress. A common accusation was that they were “Luddites,” blindly opposing technological advancement.
However, understanding the true essence of the Luddite movement provides a crucial lens through which to view the dockworkers’ actions. The historical Luddites were not simply technology-haters. They were skilled workers engaged in a sophisticated and organized resistance against employers who were using new machinery to undermine labor laws, exploit workers, and drive down wages. Their fight was not against technology itself, but against the unjust application of technology that prioritized profit over people.
And this is precisely where the dockworkers’ strike finds its resonance. They were, in effect, acting as modern-day Luddites, staging a direct and determined resistance against shipping companies seeking to automate their jobs. Crucially, and perhaps surprisingly to many critics, they won.
After a brief but impactful strike, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), representing shipping companies, reached a tentative agreement. This included a substantial 62% pay increase over six years and a commitment to further negotiations on crucial issues like automation within three months. This victory, achieved despite widespread initial disapproval, sends a powerful message about the enduring relevance of worker solidarity and direct action in the face of technological change.
ILA Picket Line: Dock workers stand strong on the picket line during their recent strike, demonstrating their collective power and determination to protect their jobs and livelihoods.
The media reaction to the strike often framed the dockworkers as obstructing inevitable progress. An Axios headline declared striking port workers were “trying to fend off the inevitable,” quoting a shipping industry consultant’s perspective that automation was unstoppable. The New York Post’s editorial board went even further, questioning “why do ‘progressives’ like the dockworkers, climate weirdos and Calif. leftists all hate the future?” Even economics blogger Noah Smith argued that “make-work is not the future of work,” suggesting dockworkers should embrace automation and upskilling rather than “luddism.”
However, this narrative of technological inevitability overlooks a fundamental truth: technology is not a force of nature but a product of human decisions. To oppose a technology that threatens livelihoods is not to “hate the future,” but to advocate for a future shaped by broader input, particularly from those whose work is directly affected. The question of what the “future of work” should be is not solely for corporations or technologists to decide; it must involve the workers themselves.
Furthermore, history demonstrates that the working class benefits from technological advancements not passively, but through active resistance and advocacy, much like the Luddites. By challenging bosses who used machinery to exploit workers, the Luddites fostered class consciousness and paved the way for labor reforms. They helped establish the modern labor movement, fight for collective bargaining rights, and combat child labor, ensuring that the benefits of new technologies were not exclusively captured by industrialists, but were eventually shared with the working class. The improved living standards we enjoy today, often attributed solely to technological progress, are in fact a testament to the historical struggles of workers who fought to ensure technology served the common good.
Noah Smith, for example, pointed to the Port of Rotterdam as a model, highlighting its high level of automation and suggesting that American dockworkers should emulate this approach rather than resist change. However, the reality is more complex. Rotterdam dockworkers have a long history of strikes, precisely to safeguard their jobs and ensure fair wages in the face of automation. These gains were not freely given but were won through collective action and the willingness to strike.
It’s also crucial to recognize that automation doesn’t automatically translate to greater efficiency or financial gains. A 2018 McKinsey study revealed that port automation has had mixed results. While operating expenses may decrease, productivity can also decline, and the return on investment is not always superior to traditional ports. The corporate narrative often equates “progress” with automation, but this doesn’t always align with reality. Automated systems can sometimes be less effective than human workers in performing complex tasks.
Acknowledging the complexities also requires considering figures like Harold J. Daggett, the ILA chief, who may be seen as a controversial figure due to his leadership style and political affiliations. And while the initial demand for a complete ban on automation might appear extreme, it’s important to understand it within the context of negotiation. Unions often start from a strong position to maximize their leverage. By initially demanding a ban, the ILA could negotiate for better wages and greater control over the implementation of automation, ensuring it happens on their terms and that workers share in the benefits. These dockworkers have contributed significantly to the shipping industry’s profitability for decades, and their demands are not about “rent-seeking” but about securing a fair share of the value they create.
The core reason why are dock workers striking boils down to this: history teaches us that employers rarely willingly share the benefits of new technologies with their workers. Whether it’s a shipping magnate or an AI company CEO, the primary driver of automation is often cost reduction through labor displacement. The dockworkers, like unions in the entertainment industry such as SAG-AFTRA and the WGA, recognized automation as a direct threat to their jobs and livelihoods. Their resistance was a rejection of the notion that employers should unilaterally decide when and how technology replaces human labor. This stance resonated with the public and proved effective, at least in the short term, resulting in tangible gains for the striking workers.
This form of resistance represents a modern iteration of Luddism. Instead of passively accepting automation dictated solely by corporate interests, workers are asserting their right to reject technologies that harm them. This doesn’t necessarily mean halting technological progress altogether, but rather gaining influence over its implementation, ensuring concessions, and shaping how technology integrates into their working lives.
Encouragingly, some media outlets recognized the validity of the dockworkers’ concerns. Publications like the Washington Post, CNN, and Inc. Magazine published pieces sympathetic to the longshoremen’s fight against automation, advising workers in other sectors facing similar threats from AI to take note. A CNN headline succinctly captured this sentiment: “Dockworkers are waging a battle against automation. The rest of us may want to take notes.” The growing awareness of AI’s potential to automate a wide range of jobs may be fostering new solidarity and alliances across different sectors of the workforce.
The ultimate goal is to make the process of automation, whether in ports or in AI-driven industries, more democratic and equitable. As economist Kyla Scanlon, dubbed “Gen Z’s favorite economist” by Fortune, aptly stated, drawing from insights about labor and technology:
We can automate. But workers should be a part of it. As many others have written about we should consider labor force retraining, transition assistance, skills diversification, union-management involved with automation decisions, sharing of productivity gains and broader profit sharing, running the ports as co-ops, and new job creation within automation—these are all things that really matter as we zoom ahead with technology. We can’t just pay these people off because it’s a problem much, much bigger than just money. It’s people’s lives.
The 2024 longshoremen strike represents more than just a labor dispute; it’s a microcosm of the larger societal challenges we face as we navigate the future of work in an increasingly automated world. There is a growing tension between efficiency, job security, corporate interests, and worker rights.
The path forward is not clear, but what is clear is that we need a more democratic, inclusive approach to implementing new technologies. It’s all uncertain, creating ripples that can be harmful in the long run. Nothing can be smooth sailing, but the key is to support workers through changes, not just replace them with machines.
Achieving this democratic and equitable automation will likely require sustained and assertive labor action, stronger worker organizing, and robust legal frameworks governing the implementation of technology in the workplace. Contrary to the advice that unions should never oppose automation, the dockworkers’ strike demonstrates that workers must always be prepared to challenge their employers over automation, especially when their jobs and livelihoods are at stake. Automation, driven by the desire to reduce labor costs, inherently poses a risk to workers unless actively contested and shaped through collective bargaining and worker empowerment.
Luddism, in its truest sense, is not about hindering progress. It’s about empowering working people to shape how technology enters and transforms their working lives. It’s about ensuring they have a voice, and when that voice expresses concerns or resistance, it’s crucial to listen, understand, and act. In an era defined by rapid automation, AI advancements, and the proliferation of potentially disruptive technologies, the lessons of the dockworkers’ strike and the historical Luddites are more relevant than ever.
The WGA and the longshoremen acted as modern Luddites – and they achieved victories, securing better wages and greater influence over the technologies shaping their professions. Their success serves as a powerful example: the new Luddites can win, and their fight for a more equitable and human-centered future of work is one we should all be paying attention to.
Footnotes:
[1] This dynamic of public criticism towards striking workers is a recurring pattern whenever workers protest or demand better conditions, reflecting a deeply ingrained societal narrative that often prioritizes employer interests over worker rights.
[2] Smith’s perspective raises a critical question about the balance of power in labor relations: Is it equitable that the economic stability of millions can be influenced by the decisions of a relatively small number of corporate executives, yet collective action by workers to protect their livelihoods is often viewed with alarm and calls for restrictions?
[3] The declining emphasis on universal basic income among technology proponents may indicate a shift in narrative as the immediate societal impacts of widespread automation and AI-driven job displacement become more apparent and potentially destabilizing.
