That would raise average wages to about $63 an hour from $39 an hour over the life of the contract.

The union and the port operators said in a statement that they would extend their master contract until Jan. 15, 2025 to return to the bargaining table to negotiate all outstanding issues.

https://xcancel.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1841973125996585431

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ship-queue-grows-us-ports-dockworker-strike-enters-third-day-2024-10-03/

  • boonhet@lemm.ee
    ·
    2 months ago

    This seems like a huge win for the companies considering what else would have been possible.

    To them it's a huge loss compared to what would've happened without the union - max 5% annual raises, if that.

    has no single payment to cover the past inflation

    That's like Netflix telling you "hey we didn't raise our prices enough to keep up with inflation, we'll now charge you for last 5 year's inflation in a single payment"

    It won't fly because it wasn't in the original contract.

    has no hours-reduction

    Normally I'd agree with you that this sucks, but aren't they hourly? Hours reduction means pay reduction. If I was hourly, I'd want the ability to work more hours (AND obviously a higher hourly rate to begin with)

    You're talking about this like this isn't a huge win for these workers, but that's just not true. Yeah there's been bad inflation, but minimum, mean and median wages have NOT increased nearly as fast as they should. Hell the minimum in the US has been unchanged for decades. And plenty of people still make minimum (or less in tipped jobs).

    Now we just need more sectors to form unions, and strike successfully. In more countries than just the US. Here in EU we make less in tech than longshoremen do in the US whereas in the US, tech salaries are nearly uncapped. Unions could help. And obviously unions in the less well-paid industries are even more important.

    • communism@lemmy.ml
      ·
      2 months ago

      To them it’s a huge loss compared to what would’ve happened without the union - max 5% annual raises, if that.

      This is a ridiculous and liberal lesser-evilism. A pay rise below inflation is a pay cut. This is such an important point which trade unionists have been pushing since forever. We consistently see trade union leaders accepting pay cuts of this nature, against the will of rank and file unionised workers, when there is plenty of momentum for escalated strike action and an actual pay rise, with inflation, is entirely achievable. We absolutely need to be criticising the labour movement shooting itself in the foot.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        ·
        2 months ago

        The labor movement here is probably getting a 10x bigger raise than your average worker in the same timeframe. I can damn near guarantee Walmart isn't going to raise its wages more than 1 or 2 dollars per hour in the timeframe these guys are getting 24 extra dollars per hour. Hell, they might not give ANY raises since there are mass layoffs happening and unemployment is on the rise.

        Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

        • communism@lemmy.ml
          ·
          2 months ago

          Accepting pay cuts only serves to aid the capitalist class and dampen working class militancy. Please stop spinning losses as wins. It helps nobody.

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            ·
            2 months ago

            It's not a pay cut if you're getting an 8% raise YoY when the historic average inflation is closer to 3% and 2024 is shaping up to be lower than that, with 2025 forecast to be lower than 2024.

            If they repeat this 6 years from now, they could be making $200k+ annually soon enough, that's a huge amount of money for your average person.

    • ComradeLeonie [she/her]
      ·
      2 months ago

      That's like Netflix telling you "hey we didn't raise our prices enough to keep up with inflation, we'll now charge you for last 5 year's inflation in a single payment"

      Who cares what these companies think is and isn't fair? They created this inflation for the past years, they pay for it. And besides that, why do workers need to adhere to a past contract in their current demands? Continuing the strike for a one-time inflation-payment would have been the right choice for the workers, so the union should have done so.

      Normally I'd agree with you that this sucks, but aren't they hourly? Hours reduction means pay reduction. If I was hourly, I'd want the ability to work more hours (AND obviously a higher hourly rate to begin with)

      Why does it need to be one or the other? That's what capitalists want you to think. Why can't it be an hour reduction and a pay increase together? That's something that would be great for everyone. Only increasing pay or only decreasing hours is always going to split workers based on their current economic standing. Doing both not only strengthens all the workers, it also positively affects their companionship.

      Yeah there's been bad inflation, but minimum, mean and median wages have NOT increased nearly as fast as they should. Hell the minimum in the US has been unchanged for decades. And plenty of people still make minimum (or less in tipped jobs).

      So because the minimum, mean and median wages have NOT increased nearly as fast as they should, we should… checks notes… not fight for better pay?