Why are you posting this in Unbounded? I like goal-relevant criticism.
Do you want unbounded criticism? (A criticism is a reason that an idea decisively fails at a goal. Criticism can be about anything relevant to goal success, including methods, meta, context or tangents. If you think a line of discussion isn’t worth focusing attention on, that is a disagreement with the person who posted it, which can be discussed.) Yes.
The ““supply chain crisis”” is a clever rebrand. It makes it seem like there are grand exogenous forces at work rather than the unions holding ports for ransom while dozens of ships pile up, working just 2 shifts with a 2 hour break in between, the country at their mercy.
Before any changes this coming week, the longshore routine at the ports involve two shifts: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 3 a.m. An overnight shift of five hours is available, but it is up to 50% more expensive and rarely used, say liner and terminal operators who foot the bill. Cargo pickups on Saturday are also rare, being charged as premium shifts, and there is no work on Sundays.
The International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which represents the dockworkers, said its members would work a third shift or on weekends, but the pileup of containers must first be fetched out of the port, so there is space to unload more from ships.
The International Longshore and Warehouse
Union, which represents the dockworkers, said
its members would work a third shift or on
weekends, but the pileup of containers must
first be fetched out of the port, so there is
space to unload more from ships.
So the tweeter is blaming the unions and saying they’re “holding ports for ransom” and have “the country at their mercy”, but it seems like the union is actually willing to work extra if the logistical problem of the piled up containers is resolved.
The ““supply chain crisis”” is a clever rebrand. It makes it seem like there are grand exogenous forces at work rather than the unions holding ports for ransom while dozens of ships pile up, working just 2 shifts with a 2 hour break in between, the country at their mercy.
Other text shown in the tweet sez:
Before any changes this coming week, the longshore routine at the ports involve two shifts: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 3 a.m.
This sounds like their working patterns haven’t changed from what they were like before the supply chain issues started. If they’re just working the same way as before, then why shouldn’t they renegotiate if their employers want a change? Maybe there are reasons why they don’t want to change: working in the dark might be more dangerous.
I don’t think you read closely? There is no need to renegotiate. The information in the tweet already mentions pre-existing options specified in the contract due to past negotiation. Can you find that if you look again?
Probably googlable but I didn’t try because I thought it was notable that the information the tweeter provided as evidence refuted his own position.
I don’t think you read closely? There is no need to renegotiate. The information in the tweet already mentions pre-existing options specified in the contract due to past negotiation. Can you find that if you look again?
The material quoted in the tweet mentions an overnight shift.
They might want more pay cuz of inflation. There might be some other change of conditions, like if lots of stuff is building up on the dock that might make their work more dangerous.
If they work an additional shift they will have more time to move stuff but more stuff might come in. The workers could prioritise moving stuff off the dock more on the extra shift to make their work safer until the situation was improved. So I don’t see how refusing to work the extra shift makes the situation worse and it could make the situation better. So their stated reason doesn’t make sense.
I don’t think the dock workers move the stuff out of the way to enable unloading more. I think they unload it but have limited places to put it, e.g. dock warehouses or areas of ground. Then other people, e.g. truckers, have to do the next step and take it away from the port.
If there is a truck shortage and the trucks are needed to unload the dock, then the trucks are the bottleneck not the dockers, so their stated reason for not working the extra shift makes sense.
The stuff on the ship doesn’t go onto the dock until the dockers put it there. I thought that if there was something the dockers could do to reduce the amount of stuff on the dock they could choose to prioritise that over unloading the ships.
I think the bias is in presuming that the presence of extra ships to be unloaded obligates the union members to work extra without any further agreement from the people who pay them, and them failing to unilaterally do so amounts to “holding ports for ransom”.
So in your original statement did you mean that the original tweet was saying that the union members should be working extra shifts despite their employers not allowing them to work extra shifts?
So the bias of the original tweeter is that he thinks that the union members are obligated to show up to work shifts that they aren’t supposed to be working (according to their employers), and that since they aren’t showing up and working (without the permission of their employers), then they are holding ports for ransom?