On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 at 20:43:03 (-0700) michael perelman writes: >Here is a nice succint explanation from Chuck Grimes on LBO: > >Okay, the more realistic issue is that shipping clerks who run the >computers for automated inventories and FOB manifests port-side, are >at the moment, unionized under the ILWU. The PMA and shippers want to >de-link these jobs from their unionization, and out-source the computer >procedures to third party contractors. This outsourcing is >technologically feasible since there is no concrete reason a computer >monitor and database program have to be located inside the port of >entry. Both can be exported anywhere in the world and the job can be >performed by anybody, through remote links (with video feed). The >union wants these jobs unionized no matter were they are located, and >the shippers don't---for very obvious reasons. It is a whole lot >cheaper to patch a live link to somewhere else and outsource the >routine database entry jobs, than it is to pay ILWU wages to have >these jobs done in the Port of Oakland.
I've had some experience with this sort of technology, to use a poor term (it has more to do with organization of work). The problem with this explanation is that it assumes "remote links" do not degrade the efficiency of the job. Direct and spontaneous face-to-face human contact is the very best way to exchange information known to the universe. Put it through a "video feed" or conference call, and a lot gets lost. I don't know the details, but when you start placing workers in remote locations from other pieces of their work, the work will usually suffer, not to mention (perhaps) the workers (though the Indians employed to run the database might be better off). Bill
