I am disappointed by Trump’s recent post and his siding with the unions in their dispute over automation. You see, I am in logistics, and during COVID-19, I witnessed firsthand the devastating inefficiencies caused by outdated port operations. From unprecedented congestion to record delays, these inefficiencies disrupted the supply chain in ways that had real-life consequences. For example, delays at U.S. ports during this time led to critical shortages of medical supplies, including personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilators, which were stuck in containers waiting to be unloaded. These delays directly impacted hospitals and healthcare providers, highlighting the urgency of modernizing our port infrastructure.
Let me be clear: I am a huge Trump fan. I believe in his policies, his leadership, and his ability to lead this country out of the woods and back to being the world’s leading power. However, on this issue, I have to respectfully disagree. Trump does not “know everything there is to know about automation,” and his siding with the unions overlooks the urgent need to modernize our ports and make them safer, faster, and more efficient.
Unions have three main claims against automation, and I’ll take them apart one by one:
- Potential job losses
- Record profits by carriers
- Job safety
Potential Job Losses
Let’s talk about the potential loss of jobs to automation. This argument mirrors the fears expressed in the 1990s when President Clinton signed the trade agreement allowing China to join the WTO. At the time, critics were proven partially correct: between 1 million and 2 million workers lost their jobs as manufacturing shifted to China and other Asian countries. However, the other side of the story often gets overlooked. Wages increased, and jobs were added in sectors like retail and e-commerce, which benefited directly from cheaper goods.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that between 1990 and 1999, the U.S. economy added approximately 21 million nonfarm payroll jobs, with nearly 90% of this growth occurring in private service-producing industries, including retail and wholesale. The transportation and public utilities sector, which includes logistics, added approximately 1.2 million jobs during the decade. This growth was largely driven by the expanding demand for distribution and logistics services.
Wage growth also tells a compelling story. A study by the Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions found that trade with China boosted aggregate wage growth in the U.S. by approximately 4.9% annually from 2000 to 2007. However, these gains were not evenly distributed. College-educated workers experienced faster wage increases (7.2% annually), while non-college-educated workers faced a decline (-4.3% annually).
So, while trade and automation might lead to job losses in specific sectors, the larger question is what benefits the U.S. economy as a whole. Let’s put this into perspective: the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) represents approximately 65,000 workers, whereas the total U.S. workforce stands at 156 million. If automation creates better jobs and economic opportunities for the majority, the decision becomes clearer.
Moreover, job loss isn’t an inevitable consequence of automation. Look at the Port of Virginia, which maintained its workforce after investing in semi-automation by implementing programs like:
- Retraining Initiatives: Transitioning workers from manual roles to skilled operator positions.
- Job Transitioning: Offering technical training to operate and maintain automated systems.
- Apprenticeships: Introducing younger workers to automation technologies through structured learning programs.
Similarly, the Port of Antwerp in Belgium retained its workforce by investing heavily in training and collaborating with the University of Antwerp to create specialized courses on port automation and logistics technology.
By contrast, ports like Rotterdam and Los Angeles experienced job losses and reduced employment hours, respectively. This disparity suggests that whether jobs are lost depends largely on the involvement of port authorities and unions in employee development programs.
Record Profits by Carriers
Another union argument is the record profits made by ocean carriers, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here’s the thing: the unions are not partners with the carriers. If they were, they would share in both the profits and the losses. During years when carriers like Hanjin Shipping went bankrupt, unions did not absorb financial losses—only the carriers did. Yet now that profits are up, unions want a piece of the pie. This inconsistency needs to be addressed.
Secondly, carriers make record profits because they innovate. Think about the invention of containerization, which enabled carriers to systematically load thousands of containers onto a single vessel. Innovations like larger ships, optimized port calls, shorter transit times, and route consolidation have maximized efficiency and profitability. Are we seriously suggesting that carriers should stop innovating and return to manual labor with crates and sacks just because we’re uncomfortable with their profits?
If unions want to share in these profits, why not focus on innovation themselves? Faster loading schedules, better infrastructure for containerized freight, or improving smaller, lesser-known ports could all benefit the 65,000 workers the unions represent. The real issue isn’t the carriers’ profits—it’s the lack of innovation in the union and port infrastructure.
And let’s not forget the Jones Act, which prevents U.S. companies from competing globally and ensures that much of the profit goes to non-U.S. carriers. But that’s a topic for another day.
Job Safety
Finally, let’s talk about job safety. Automation isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about protecting workers’ lives. Take Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs): these self-driving vehicles use sensors, cameras, and GPS systems to transport goods without human intervention. Similarly, robotic cranes lift containers with precision, reducing the risk of accidents.
Consider these tragic examples:
- Robert Sanchez, Port of Los Angeles: Robert Sanchez, a 38-year-old longshoreman and father of two, lost his life in March 2024 when a forklift tipped over due to a mechanical failure. His co-workers tried desperately to save him, but the forklift’s weight made it impossible. AGVs could have eliminated the need for human-operated forklifts, preventing this tragedy.
- James Whitman, Port Everglades: In October 2022, James Whitman, a 45-year-old dockworker, was struck by a dislodged container while guiding crane operations. The accident resulted in a fatal blunt head injury. A robotic crane with precise automation and fail-safe mechanisms could have ensured the container’s safe placement, saving James’ life.
Do these workers deserve higher pay for the risks they face? Absolutely. But are we really going to subject them to these dangers just to preserve their salaries? Or should we prioritize their safety and push for automation that can save lives? The union’s primary responsibility should be protecting its members, not just their paychecks.
Conclusion
Automation is not the enemy. It’s an opportunity to create safer, more efficient ports and to position the U.S. as a global leader in logistics and trade. By investing in innovation and workforce development, we can address the unions’ concerns while ensuring the long-term competitiveness of our economy. The question isn’t whether we can afford automation—it’s whether we can afford to resist it.
