The dockworkers’ strike is suspended, but automation remains a sticking point for unions

From Maine to Texas, 45,000 dockworkers went on strike Tuesday after the International Longshoremen’s Association’s (ILA) contract with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) expired. The two sides had reached a stalemate over pay, but also the union wanted a guarantee that technology would not be used to replace them.

On Thursday, the parties reached an agreement to suspend the strike, increase wages 62% wage over six years, and to extend the existing contract until Jan. 15, 2025. However, they did not come to a final agreement on automation.

Now the ILA and the USMX will return to the bargaining table to negotiate dockworkers’ demands for a ban on all automation at the ports.

In a Facebook post prior to the tentative deal, Jack Pennington, president of the ILA’s local 28 chapter, emphasized how important this guarantee is for dockworkers. 

The ILA is “taking a hard stand on the never ending threat of automation that is infiltrating our industry, and I have heard the remarks from those that say we need to learn how to deal with it!” wrote Pennington. “Well I have a message for those people ‘kiss my fat A$$’!”

Pennington and the ILA aren’t the first to see automation as an existential threat. From autoworkers to screenwriters, there is a decades-long history of workers fighting to limit automation. But now, as advancements in technologies like generative AI, machine learning, and robotics accelerate, experts say we are witnessing a make-or-break moment for workers. Many see AI as the defining labor issue of our time. 

Douglas Calidas, senior vice president of government affairs for the nonprofit Americans for Responsible Innovation, says we are currently at “an inflection point.”

“Right now, we’re in a period of such rapid technological change, particularly with regard to AI and, to some extent, robotics,” says Calidas. “It seems that more jobs are at risk of automation than at any time in recent history. And it seems like the scope of the risk is only going to accelerate.”

Organizing against automation

At the beginning of negotiations in May, the ILA demanded a 77% pay raise for its members over the six years of their new contract—as well as a ban on the use of automation in the use of cranes, gates, and moving shipping containers. The USMX issued a counteroffer promising a 50% pay raise over six years, but only agreed to keep the existing limits on automation that the old contract covered.

In June, the ILA discovered that two of the biggest companies in the industry, APM Terminals and Maersk Line, had been using an “Auto Gate” system, which autonomously processes trucks without ILA labor. Organizers argued that this technology breached previous agreements about the use of automation.

Many ports have adopted new data-driven tools over the past several decades. For instance, some workers now use hardware and software tools to autonomously coordinate the arrival of trucks with shipping containers. However, ILA has drawn a clear line in the sand around technology that replaces, rather than augments, workers. 

“The ILA is steadfastly against any form of automation—full or semi—that replaces jobs or historical work functions. We will not accept the loss of work and livelihood for our members due to automation,” reads the ILA’s message on Oct. 1. “Our position is clear: the preservation of jobs and historical work functions is non-negotiable.”

Automation and safety

The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently analyzed the adoption of automotive technologies in the country’s biggest ports and found that automation can improve worker safety by “separating humans from machines.” However, the GAO report also found that automation had “mixed effects on the workforce, security, and performance.”

“I guess the argument is there are fewer people to be hurt,” says Greg Regan, president of the AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Department.

Some have suggested that reducing worker injuries and worker mistakes could improve shipping company’s bottom lines. “Apart from accidents, mislabeling or misdirecting cargo at a port could also hit businesses’ revenue. Replacing fallible human workers could thus save port operators a lot of money,” wrote Kit Eaton, a news writer for Inc. 

Stephen Edwards, the Port of Virginia’s chief executive, recently touted that automation helped his port perform well when cargo shipments surged in 2021 and 2022—and again in 2024 when a container ship crashed into the Baltimore Key Bridge, diverting shipments to Virginia. 

Worker safety has been a common argument used by companies dating back to the invention of the assembly line. For instance, when Amazon announced that it would adopt new robotic arms and sorting machines fueled by artificial intelligence into its warehouses in 2023, the retail giant promised that the new tech would also help address safety issues for its workers.

At the time, Chris Smalls, president of the Amazon Labor Union, told Fast Company that it seems inevitable that Amazon may eventually use the new technology to cut jobs, even if it didn’t happen overnight. “I just hope to see that these jobs are unionized and they have some say in how the AI and technology is being incorporated,” he said. 

Amanda Ballantyne, director of the AFL-CIO’s Technology Institute, stresses that automation does not inherently increase worker safety. 

“It is a myth that automating technologies automatically makes everything safer,” she says. “The labor movement is not anti-technology. We are pro-worker and we are totally in favor of technologies that make our jobs better and safer and more efficient. But it is not the case that technology in general just does that. There are good technologies and bad technologies for workers.”

And many, including Regan, don’t buy the argument that employers’ investments in autonomous technology is an altruistic attempt to help workers. “Historically, when our employers try to use any sort of new technological advancement in their operations, it’s never done with a mindset toward improving operations, improving safety, or using it as a tool to make workers better able to do their jobs effectively and safely,” says Regan. “Instead, it’s almost always used as a way to reduce headcount.” 

Historical precedent

Bruce Kogut is a professor of economic sociology and director of the Sanford C. Bernstein Center for Leadership and Ethics at Columbia Business School. His grandfather and father both worked as dockworkers at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. But as the shipping industry evolved, Kogut’s father was retrained to be a doctor, right down at the Navy Yard.

He suggests there may be opportunities for AI to augment dockworkers’ work, rather than replace them—similar to how a pilot might use technology. “It’s one of those stories of generational change, but I don’t want to be too [much of a] Pollyanna,” says Kogut.

But what he hopes people learn from his family’s story is that “it’s good when workers have negotiating power.” 

Kogut explains that from New York to New Orleans to Long Beach, dockworkers have historically wielded a particularly high level of political power because they often employ a large volume of workers and because their work impacts a large swath of the economy. Analysts estimate that shipping industry profits have topped $400 billion from 2020 to 2023.

It appears automation is the final sticking point of negotiations today, and it was back in 1977, too. “The final hurdle, a dispute over job security, was cleared yesterday,” wrote The Washington Post when the 1977 strike officially ended. “The ILA, whose ranks have [shrunk] in the growing automation of the waterfront, had been demanding new income and benefit guarantees.”

And though dockworkers were given a 30% pay increase, then-ILA President Thomas W. Gleason said that the deal would not increase shipping costs because “productivity has gone up 1,500%” thanks to automation.”

Since then, automation—and by association, job security—has been a primary concern for many major labor actions, says Kogut, pointing to the 2007 autoworkers’ strike at GM.

During negotiations, GM pushed hard to offload $51 billion in unfunded retiree health costs for the company’s 339,000 retirees and surviving spouses into a health care trust called a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA. Workers were still more concerned about job security.

“This strike is not about the VEBA in any way shape or form,” said Ron Gettelfinger, then-president of United Auto Workers. “The No. 1 issue here is job security.”

A more recent example is of the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and SAG-AFTRA‘s 2023 strikes. The WGA’s 150-day-long walkout notched wins for union members, including compensation increases and minimum staffing requirements for writers rooms, better residual payments for streaming, and protections against AI being used to replace writers or being trained on their work. (Editor’s note: Fast Company is unionized through WGA East.)

The SAG-AFTRA strike lasted 118 days and established rules that studios must give workers notice, consent, and compensation regarding the use of AI-created digital replicas of actors. In 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom also signed a bill prohibiting studios from making AI replicas of deceased actors without their consent—a victory that SAG-AFTRA fought for. 

The rise of automation

While pay, benefits, and working conditions remain significant priorities for workers across all industries, Ballantyne says many labor unions are focused on limiting AI, fearing it will eliminate jobs, make workers less autonomous, and reduce transparency.

“All of the recent big bargaining that’s happened has included elements of data-driven technology and AI,” says Ballantyne. “What you see consistently is that workers want transparency. They want to know what technology is operating in their shop. They want a say in how that technology can and can’t be used. They want a say in whether and when they use that technology. And they want a share in the benefits that that technology creates.”

A wide range of industries have introduced additional automation in recent years. In 2023, the World Economic Forum reported that automation will lead to 26 million fewer jobs by 2027. And the International Monetary Fund predicts that 40% of jobs worldwide and 60% of jobs in “advanced economies” such as the U.S. are exposed to AI-driven disruption. 

The use of robotic technologies is also increasing dramatically. The International Federation of Robotics estimates that the use of robots increased by 10% last year and that a record-breaking 4,281,585 robots are currently automating production around the world.

Going forward, Calidas says he expects automation to be a major sticking point of labor negotiations because of how far-ranging the impacts are. 

“The risks of automation are, all of a sudden, metastasizing, and hitting all swaths of the economy. And a lot of people [who] never really thought that their jobs were vulnerable will probably start feeling more and more insecure over the coming years,” he says. “That has all kinds of effects on [politics], on the way that people train for new jobs, and on how they consider their careers.”