• ethbr1 a day ago

    >> The union says it has reached a tentative agreement on wages and will go back to work on Friday until 15 January, when they will return to the bargaining table to negotiate "all other outstanding issues".

    >> Under a tentative agreement workers’ wages would go up by 62% over the next six years, according to US media reports. The union had been calling for a 77% wage hike, while USMX had previously increased its pay rise offer to almost 50%.

    Hmm, if a +8.4% yearly wage increase was feasible, then it seems like workers were being underpaid relative to the profit their work generated.

    • dialup_sounds a day ago

      They were being paid according to the previous contract negotiated in 2018, which included a ~11% wage increase over the duration.

      https://www.usmx.com/assets/content/public-resources/2018-20...

      • johnnyanmac 7 hours ago

        11% over 6 years? that's basically a cost of living adjustment. No wonder they are so outraged.

        • killingtime74 a day ago

          For people who don't want to click the earlier duration was 6 years

        • xpl a day ago

          Most people are underpaid if we consider the global 'productivity-pay gap' phenomenon (since the 1970s, wages haven't been growing as much as productivity)...

          • johnnyanmac 7 hours ago

            more like 7.2% if it's compounding (important distinction. Especially if they are going to try to "layoff" people in the next 1-2 years).

            But yes, a large part of the argument was the wages not keeping up with the crazy inflation at all. inflation surged to 8.3% in 2022 so this isn't necessarily some crazy pay raise as opposed to getting back what they were making pre-pandemic.

            • ethbr1 5 hours ago

              1.072^6 would be an effective 51.8% total raise after six years, no?

              • johnnyanmac 5 hours ago

                Oh yeah, you're right. I was calculating off the original deal of 50% before they raised it to 62%. Apologies.

                • ethbr1 5 hours ago

                  Full disclosure: I originally eyeballed it, then felt bad about being imprecise, double checked my memory of the compounding formula, and calculated it out. ;)

          • h2odragon 16 hours ago

            The ports in Florida were being to be re-opened by FL National Guard troops. That likely would've ended the longshoreman's union.

            • ethbr1 11 hours ago

              From my reading, the troops were deployed to protect non-union scabs, not to actually do the work.

              Not sure how much of a modern port would be instantly runnable by reservists.

              • AnimalMuppet 11 hours ago

                How much of it would be instantly runnable by new-hire replacement workers?

                • ethbr1 5 hours ago

                  I expect they wouldn't be new hires.

                  They'd be "Have experience with ____ machinery" workers.

                  So probably retired union and/or folks from out of state.

              • hulitu 13 hours ago

                > The ports in Florida were being to be re-opened by FL National Guard troops. That likely would've ended the longshoreman's union.

                Rockefeller did set a precedent when he used mashine guns to end a strike.