The demand, given the inflation push -- on the money side -- is fairly ridiculous.  Note that they turned down a 50% increase.

But..... that's not the problem.

The problem is the demand for no automation on a contractual basis.

This could be justified, maybe, if the ports in the US were leading those internationally that have automated.  If you can do it better and faster with humans than machines then I'm ok with protecting the jobs.

Problem: The US ports where said longshoremen work are nowhere near the top of the global list for efficiency and volume so the demand is to pay more and get less.  The correct answer to such a demand is always "No."

Since the decision has been made to strike obviously the efficiency is zero during that period of time.  This is probably charged to said labor as well.

My answer is simple: Automate it all and give them a permanent 100% decrease in their salaries.

Oh, I know, there will be much complaining and I'm sure lawsuits.  But the sort of mob mentality that is being displayed right now by the union isn't a good look when you can't argue you're better than the other alternative; rather, you simply argue "I can screw you therefore I will."

Well, no you won't.  Robots are, by the data, more efficient than your humans and they don't engage in economic hostage-taking.

I've seen multiple labor unions do this sort of thing in the past -- they're almost all gone today.

This one's next and its well-deserved.