Plus, what exactly is going on with Tangle donations and podcast subscriptions?
I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”
Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.
Today's read: 13 minutes.
Ad-free podcasts are here!
Quick hits.
- President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris toured South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia to survey the impacts of Hurricane Helene. Biden also ordered 1,000 active-duty troops to assist in the recovery efforts. (The latest) Separately, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the Federal Emergency Management Agency does not have enough funding to make it through the remainder of this year’s hurricane season. (The comments)
- U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed a filing from special counsel Jack Smith that alleges former President Donald Trump was acting in a private — not presidential — capacity in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The filing comes in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in July that presidents have immunity for official acts. (The filing)
- Israel carried out an airstrike in central Beirut that killed at least six people, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. (The strike) Separately, eight Israeli soldiers were killed in fighting with Hezbollah forces, the first fatalities of Israel’s ground operation in Lebanon. (The deaths)
- President Biden said he would not support an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites in response to Tuesday’s missile attack. (The comments)
- Former President Trump said he would veto a federal abortion ban. (The statement)
Today's topic.
The dockworkers’ strike. On Tuesday, thousands of longshoremen and port operators along the East Coast and Gulf Coast went on strike after their union, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), failed to reach an agreement with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) on a new contract. The ILA, which represents over 45,000 workers, is asking for higher wages for its members and protections against port automation projects. The strike is the first large-scale work stoppage for dockworkers in nearly 50 years and has halted nearly all activity at some of the busiest ports in the United States.
Negotiations between the ILA and USMX have been stalled since June, when the ILA pulled out of talks over the use of automation technology at a port in Mobile, Alabama. The two parties are at an impasse over the issue, as the ILA views automation technologies like driverless vehicles to move cargo, cranes to stack boxes, and “auto gates” to process trucks as a threat to workers’ jobs. The previous contract allowed for “semi-automated” machinery at ports, but port operators now want to incorporate greater levels of automation.
Additionally, the ILA has been pushing for a $5-an-hour raise each year of the new six-year contract, amounting to a 77% wage increase by the contract’s end. On Tuesday, ILA President Harold J. Daggett told CNBC that he had revised their goal to a 61.5% increase over six years. Daggett argues that workers’ wages have not kept up with the pace of inflation, while major ocean shipping companies have made billions in recent years without sharing the profits. The USMX said its latest offer is an almost 50% wage increase over the life of the contract.
Analysts at Oxford Economics say the strike could cost the U.S. economy $4.5 billion to $7.5 billion per week, with further ramifications for workers at businesses serving the ports. If the strike ends within a week, experts suggest its impact on the economy will be absorbable, as ports are regularly forced to close for days at a time due to extreme weather events. However, a strike longer than a week could have a significant effect on freight volumes, the availability of goods, and the broader economy.
Furthermore, even a short pause could impact the availability of perishable goods that are typically routed through the East and Gulf Coast ports. Still, overall food supplies should not be affected right away, and the White House said it expects the initial effects of the strike on consumers to be limited.
The strike poses a political challenge for President Joe Biden, who is attempting to keep the economy on solid footing while maintaining his relationship with the union and its president. Daggett, 78, was elected head of the ILA in 2011 and is largely popular with its members (the union erected a statue of him outside its headquarters last year), having risen through the ILA ranks after starting as a dockworker in 1967. He has also faced allegations of associating with organized crime, standing trial in 2005 alongside an alleged mobster on charges of wire and mail fraud charges (he denied all the charges and was acquitted).
As the strike approached, Daggett made several forceful remarks directed at President Biden, suggesting he would “cripple” the U.S. economy should the president invoke the Taft-Hartley Act to force dockworkers back to work.
Biden has said he has no plans to use the 1947 law, which allows the president to temporarily halt a strike if it imperils national health or safety. He has publicly backed the striking workers, urging the USMX to present a contract offer “in line with [dockworkers’] invaluable contributions.” Vice President Kamala Harris also voiced support for the union, while former President Donald Trump called the strike “a direct result” of policies that contributed to inflation during the Biden administration.
Today, we’ll consider arguments about the strike from the right and left, followed by my take.
What the right is saying.
- The right criticizes Biden for supporting the union’s wide-ranging demands.
- Some say Democrats will own any political blowback from the strike.
- Others suggest the strike is unlikely to last long.
The Wall Street Journal editorial wrote about “Biden’s longshoreman strike.”
“As the South works to recover from Hurricane Helene, a strike by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) at East and Gulf Coast ports is about to add to the economic damage. President Biden wants unions to have extortionary bargaining power, and he’s getting a demonstration of it on election eve,” the board said. “Many businesses have stockpiled inventory in recent months and made plans to divert shipments to West Coast ports. But some perishable products can’t be diverted, and West Coast ports are overwhelmed. Businesses last week urged the Administration to intervene to head off a strike, but Biden officials took the side of the longshoremen.”
“American ports are less efficient than most in the world owing to union work rules and restrictions on automation. Unlike other private unions, longshoremen don’t have to worry that their demands will bankrupt employers or cause them to lose business,” the board wrote. “Mr. Biden could invoke the Taft-Hartley Act to force a cooling-off period for more negotiations, as George W. Bush did in 2002 to end an 11-day walkout at West Coast ports. But Mr. Biden said Sunday ‘I don’t believe in Taft-Hartley.’ He won’t upset his union allies and their voter turnout operation.”
In RedState, Ward Clark said Harris “owns any resulting economic damage” from the strike.
“This strike, the first by these unions in 50 years, comes a month before a general election — and Democratic Party presidential candidate Kamala Harris has embraced the strikers, which places the Democrat Party in the position of owning the economic fallout,” Clark wrote. “All of the rising prices, all of the empty store shelves, all of the layoffs due to supply chain disruptions; she owns it all. She has chosen this.”
“We can, and do, hope this mess resolves quickly, and that the economic impact will be minimal. Elections aside, there is nothing about this strike that is good for the American people or the American economy. But if this drags on into November, the Trump/Vance campaign will no doubt hang the strike, and the vice president's support for the strikers, around the neck of the Harris/Walz campaign like an albatross. This may well be the October Surprise the Trump team has been hoping for.”
In The Washington Examiner, James Rogan argued “the port strike will cause limited harm and won’t last.”
“The union wants guarantees of job security. Management wants to bring U.S. ports into the modern economy. It is noteworthy that U.S. ports are among the most inefficient in the global economy,” Rogan said. “Think about that. The world’s largest, most productive economy is hobbled by the world’s most inefficient port facilities. What is equally disturbing is that the dock workers are already well compensated. The typical longshoreman makes over $200,000 in wage compensation and receives benefits with a value approaching $100,000 a year.”
“Fortunately, there are many reasons to believe that the economic fallout of this strike will be minimal. Importers and exporters knew that a strike could happen. Companies such as Costco had already taken action in anticipation of the strike. Retailers built inventories,” Rogan wrote. “If the strike were to drag on for more than a week, damage would be done to the economy. Democrats know that ‘the buck stops in the Oval Office.’ If the strike were to bring the economy down, then Biden would be forced to use his power under the Taft-Hartley Act.”
What the left is saying.
- The left is mixed on the implications of the strike, but many say it’s indicative of more battles over automation to come.
- Some argue the union’s demands are economically sound.
- Others say the ILA is overlooking the opportunities automation could provide.
In The Washington Post, Heather Long called the strike “one of the first great battles against advanced automation.”
“News stories have focused on how the strike will affect consumers. Will there be enough toys for Christmas? Which grocery prices will rise? It doesn’t require a PhD in economics to understand that, the longer this goes on, the more Americans will notice. But the bigger reason everyone should pay attention is that this is an early battle of well-paid workers against advanced automation. There will be many more to come,” Long wrote. “The dockworkers’ last strike in the 1970s was also over technology. Back then, the shipping industry was beginning to use big containers, because they are much easier to handle than individual boxes.”
“Today, the shipping industry is at the forefront of a second revolution. It is now possible to run a dockyard with almost no humans present. The two key jobs — operating cranes and moving containers around — can be automated,” Long said. “The East Coast dockworkers understand what’s happening around the world. They know about shipping companies’ hefty profits in recent years. And they know President Joe Biden is unlikely to force them back… For now, the workers feel emboldened.”
In The American Prospect, Harold Meyerson wrote “the longshore workers strike is economically justified.”
“Today’s longshore workers aren’t the highest paid SOBs in the world, but the current ILWU contract will have its members making an hourly wage of $60.85 in 2027. The ILA’s contracts historically lag the ILWU’s, so this time it is demanding roughly comparable pay, which would require an increase of 77 percent over their current wage by 2030, the final year of the new contract,” Meyerson said. “Crazy, right? Well, no. For one thing, since the just-expired contract came into effect in 2018, the shipping companies have made ‘record profits totaling hundreds of billions of dollars,’ according to a report in today’s Wall Street Journal.”
“More fundamentally, however, the contracts for longshore workers basically mirror those of many American workers during the period when the tax and labor policies of the New Deal were still in place,” Meyerson wrote. “So, there’s nothing remotely crazy in the economic proposals that the ILA has put forth. That doesn’t mean that its members, given their pay scales, will win the kind of public sympathy that other striking workers may sometimes elicit. Indeed, if the strike goes on for more than a week, it may cause supply chain backups that could increase some prices, which would become a huge political problem for the Harris campaign.”
In Noahpinion, Noah Smith said “make-work is not the future of work.”
“Is it right that the livelihoods of millions of Americans should hang on the whims of 50,000 dockworkers? Is it smart to give a single union the power to shut down a large portion of America’s critical infrastructure? Collective bargaining is important, but there should be limits on how destructive we allow that bargaining process to be,” Smith wrote. “But the worst thing about this strike is the nature of the ILA’s demands. Usually we think of strikes as being about higher wages, and maybe about better working conditions. The ILA’s wage demands are actually pretty close to being met. But the union is also demanding a complete ban on automation at the ports it controls.”
“First of all, the work that the ILA wants to preserve from automation is difficult and dangerous… Also, the ILA is thinking only about one potential effect of automation — the replacement of human labor with machines. They’re neglecting the possibility that automation will raise capacity at America’s ports,” Smith said. “All else equal, moving more cargo means more jobs for longshoremen. If automation boosts the number of containers that move through a port, that can outweigh the reduction in demand for labor per container.”
My take.
Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.
- I’m mixed on unions in general, but in this case I think the ILA is overreaching.
- Port operators are raking in record profits, and dockworkers are well within their rights to fight for a piece of that pie.
- However, I don’t support their stance against technological evolution that I think will hurt U.S. consumers, the shipping industry, and even their own livelihoods over time.
I don't have any particular overarching perspective on unions. I know a lot of Americans who have benefited greatly from being members of a union. I also know a lot of Americans who have been harmed by union actions. Sometimes, I am supportive of strikes or collective bargaining and rooting for unions to achieve their goals because they seem reasonable and just. Sometimes, unions seem like they are overreaching or wielding too much power or acting immorally and I root against them.
In the case of the longshoremen, my sentiment is much closer to the latter position.
I've seen the videos of union boss Harold J. Daggett threatening millions of Americans — potentially upending the entire U.S. economy — and I do not find him a particularly sympathetic character. Promising to take action that will hurt car salesmen, construction workers, cashiers at malls, and bring down the U.S. economy does not make me root for you. It’s belligerent and off-putting. While Daggett has his own personal story that is easy to focus on (some have tried tying him to Donald Trump, others note his proximity to organized crime), this story is about negotiating a deal — and we should keep our focus there.
The longshoremen are rejecting a contract that would give them a 50% pay raise and instead, reportedly, holding out for a 61.5% increase. This would exceed the take home for well paid West Coast longshoremen — who earn about $233,000 a year in wages and overtime (on top of nearly $100,000 in benefits).
That is a pretty significant demand, but I understand why they’re making it. Port operators, like many big corporations, raked in record profits during the pandemic and have extended those profits into the post-pandemic world. That wouldn’t be possible without the workers, who are well within their rights to fight for a piece of that pie. And they seem to have done pretty well at the negotiating table so far: A 50% pay bump over the life of a six-year contract is a great offer; but they aren’t taking it.
Why?
The crux of the current dispute is centered on automation. This is where things get interesting. A few points to consider:
- The longshoremen worry that automated docks will cost them their jobs
- They want a contract that prevents automation from handling the picking up, dropping off, and moving of containers; they want a human operator present
- U.S. ports are already inefficient; overseas docks are more automated and a lot more productive
This strike is, as other writers pointed out, one of the first major worker vs. automation battles of our era. Many more will come. On the contours of that issue alone, I'd usually be sympathetic toward the workers. For instance, I wrote in support of striking actors and writers who were worried about artificial intelligence stealing their likenesses. I’ve also expressed general skepticism about the “AI revolution” and how disruptive many of these emerging technologies will be.
But the contours of this debate are much different.
That is, in part, because we aren’t talking about hypothetical future technology. American ports are already less efficient than most in the world thanks to the existing union rules and restrictions on currently available automations. There is, to me, a difference between fighting for workers and fighting against the tide. I happily support unions when they’re pushing for better benefits, higher wages and worker protections, but not when they’re fighting to prevent economic evolutions and actively undermining their own industries.
This isn't meant to be some ruthless capitalistic take where I argue it's better if all our jobs are done by machines so long as it's cheaper. I don’t believe that. Robot-run call centers are far inferior to humans doing customer service, and I much prefer the latter. But in the shipping industry, U.S consumers are already footing the bill for higher port labor costs and reduced inefficiency, which drives up the prices of our goods. On top of that, there is a good argument that allowing these technological evolutions to flourish could actually create more jobs, even if they’re not the same jobs. In heavily automated ports like those in China, human workers are there to oversee what's happening, and many human operators are still needed to operate machinery — as are engineers, mechanics, and so on.
National Review's Dominic Pino framed the situation in simple terms: Imagine if an "elevator operators" union prevented elevator buttons from being adopted and forced every elevator in the country to have a human operator. It might sound far-fetched, but that’s essentially what the ILA is fighting for in their industry.
At the end of the day, it's clear to me these workers have a good deal on the table. I don't think the port operators should sign any contract that impedes their own industry and prevents us from keeping up with our competitors in the long term, nor do I think it’s reasonable to ask these companies to stay stuck in the 1990s.
The future is here. The longshoremen should take this deal — for their own good, and for the good of the U.S. economy.
Take the survey: What do you think of the dockworkers’ strike? Let us know!
Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.
Help share Tangle.
I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!
- Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
- Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.
Your questions, answered.
Q: Sorry, but still not clear (or maybe it's clear, but I just don't like the answer): do the tax-deductible donations only go to YouTube and podcasts? Why is that? I read newsletters; I am rarely in a position to watch or listen to them. So, I don't really like (someone taking a cut) to give you money for something that I'm not going to use.
— Anonymous from Houston, TX
Tangle: I can give you a little peek behind the curtain for a couple of recent developments here at Tangle: First, we recently launched a new donations page. Second, we just announced (today!) that we’re offering ad-free premium subscriptions for our podcasts.
Those two projects were initially supposed to be interconnected, but we learned that our fiscal sponsor discourages donations to subscriber-supported content, so now they aren’t. Any donations are now being used to fully support our YouTube channel — which is aimed at getting us in front of a younger audience and is not monetized. Our fiscal sponsor takes a 7% fee out of every donation we get (which is standard practice among fiscal sponsors).
What we’ve learned is that our audience is splitting. Some people exclusively read the newsletter, watch the YouTube channel, or listen to the podcast. Some do all three, or a mix. We want to make it so people can support each of these initiatives separately or together, and we are trying to bundle things where we can — for instance, paying newsletter subscribers get a 50% discount on podcast subscriptions for life.
For now, every dollar we get to support the YouTube initiative is a dollar that isn’t paid for by our newsletter or podcast revenue — meaning it all helps us retain readers, grow our staff, and expand our reach. So we thank you again for your support, however you enjoy our work.
Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.
Under the radar.
t’s been a busy week for California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who vetoed several high-profile bills — including one that would have regulated A.I. — while signing a measure banning legacy admissions at state schools. But a bill on another issue could have the biggest impact of them all: protecting brain data. On Saturday, the governor signed into law a bill amending the state’s personal privacy law to include “neural data” — data generated by a person’s brain activity and the network of nerves that extends to the rest of the body — making it protected “personal sensitive information” along with facial images, DNA, and fingerprints. Under the law, California residents will be able to request, delete, correct, and limit what data a neurotech company collects on them, as well as opt out from companies selling or sharing their brain data. The measure comes as U.S. tech startups and major players like Meta and Apple develop technologies to collect neural data from users. The New York Times has the story.
Numbers.
- 14%. The percentage of agricultural exports shipped through U.S. ports involved in the strike, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
- $318 million. The estimated value of those exports over a one-week period.
- 73%. The percentage of shipped agricultural imports received through U.S. ports involved in the strike.
- $1.1 billion. The potential economic impact of a pause in those imports over a one-week period.
- $81,000. The approximate annual salary for East and Gulf Coast port workers earning the top-tier hourly wage.
- $116,000. The approximate annual salary for West Coast port workers.
- $190 billion. The approximate profits of the global shipping industry in 2021.
- 35% and 19%. The percentage of U.S. adults who support the ILA and USMX, respectively, in the strike, according to a YouGov poll released on Wednesday.
- 59%. The percentage of Americans who have a favorable view of labor unions, according to a September 2024 YouGov poll.
The extras.
- One year ago today we covered the death of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
- The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was our YouTube video of Isaac’s take on the Hurricane Helene recovery effort.
- Nothing to do with politics: Today begins a streak of 55 consecutive days with at least one NFL or college football game.
- Yesterday’s survey: 1,482 readers responded to our survey asking who won the vice presidential debate with 60% saying JD Vance. “I want wholeheartedly to say otherwise, and I do think it could be close to a toss-up, but Vance seemed to come out slightly ahead,” one respondent said.
Have a nice day.
As of September 24, Richmond, Virginia became home to the first scalable, vertical strawberry farm in the United States. Agricultural start-up Plenty Unlimited plans to use the farm to grow more than 30 million pounds of strawberries each year on 30-foot-tall towers. While traditional farming grows food in horizontal rows, vertical farming is designed to maximize space and allow for year-round production. Good Good Good has the story.
Don't forget...
📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.
🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here
💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.
🎉 Want to reach 135,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.
📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).
🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!