In a Facebook post December 2, Dennis A. Daggett, executive vice president of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), laid out the union’s argument for pushing back against port automation technology, the issue at the heart of stalled negotiations between the union and port operator’s alliance U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX).

The ILA went on strike for three days in early October, before reaching an agreement with the USMX to increase the union's wages and extend its master contract through January 15, 2025. If they can't reach a permanent long-term labor deal by that date, the ILA could go on strike again.

In the post, entitled :The ILA’s Fight Against Automation: Preserving Jobs, Securing National Security, and Defending the Future of Work” Daggett, who is also president of ILA Local 1804-1 and General Coordinator of the International Dockworkers Council, said:

“The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) is at a crossroads in our Master Contract negotiations with ocean carriers and employers. At the center of this impasse is the employers’ push to expand the use of semi-automated rail-mounted gantry cranes (RMGs). The ILA is not against progress, innovation, or modernization — but we cannot support technology that jeopardizes jobs, threatens national security, and puts the future of the workforce at risk.

“To understand where we stand today, it’s important to look at how we got here.

"A History of Hard Lessons

“In the early 2000s, under a different ILA administration, the employers introduced semi-automated RMGs at a greenfield terminal on the East Coast. They sold the ILA a vision that this new terminal would create thousands of jobs. It sounded like an opportunity, but hindsight reveals a much different picture. What seemed like a win for one port turned out to be the project that is becoming the model for automation that could potentially chip away at many jobs at almost every other terminal along the East and Gulf Coasts.

“At that time, the New Technology clause in our Master Contract required employers to file a letter of intent 120 days before implementing new equipment. However, after that notice was filed, employers essentially had free rein to unilaterally introduce whatever they wanted, without protecting the job functions or the roles of the workforce. It was a loophole that came at a cost to ILA members and their families.

“By the 2012-2013 Master Contract negotiations, we had learned from these mistakes. Under new leadership, the ILA secured workforce protections and guarantees, ensuring that automation would no longer be implemented without consideration of its impact on jobs. This progress continued in 2018, when we negotiated a prohibition on full automation.

“These agreements set clear limits on how far technology could go in replacing human labor.

“The Reality of “Semi-Automation”

"Today, employers are pushing to expand RMGs, claiming they are only “semi-automated” and necessary for safety and productivity. But let’s break this down.

“The reality is that 95% of the work performed by RMGs is fully automated. From the moment a container is dropped off by a shuttle carrier, the RMG operates on its own lifting, stacking, and moving containers, including gantry and hoisting, without any human intervention. This includes the auto-stacking of containers in the container stack, which is also fully automated. Only in the last six feet of the container’s journey on the landside, when it is placed on a truck chassis, does an operator step in. But how long until employers automate those final six feet as well?

“This isn’t about safety or productivity — it’s about job elimination. The ILA has proven through data and real-world operations that RMGs are not more productive than traditional equipment operated by human workers. Faced with this evidence, employers have shifted their argument. Now, they claim that RMGs are needed to densify terminals and push out more volume, emphasizing their ability to stack nine containers across compared to six with traditional rubber-tired gantry cranes (RTGs). But this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny either. With all the advancements in technology, why can’t manufacturers design human-operated equipment capable of achieving the same density? This isn’t about meeting operational needs — it’s about replacing workers under the guise of progress while maximizing corporate profits at the expense of good-paying, family-sustaining U.S. jobs.

“The Bigger Picture: National Security and Economic Risks

“The automation agenda isn’t just a threat to jobs — it’s a risk to our national security and economy. Ports rely on interconnected systems that are highly vulnerable to cyberattacks. A single “glitch” can halt operations, as we’ve already seen with recent shutdowns at major ports. Just last week, a gate system glitch at a major South Atlantic port shut down the terminal entirely, preventing trucks from being processed for hours.“Imagine if a foreign adversary, like China, exploited these vulnerabilities and hacked our port systems. With ports increasingly dependent on automation and green energy technologies, an attack could cripple the U.S. economy overnight. This isn’t hypothetical — it’s a new form of warfare that we are not prepared to defend against.

“Our International President recently raised this concern in an interview, but his comments were edited to misrepresent his message. His remarks were a hypothetical scenario, illustrating what could happen if employers refused to come to the table and bargain a fair contract. Instead of addressing these legitimate concerns, the media and employers continue to defend foreign-owned companies profiting on American soil while trying to cut good-paying, family-sustaining U.S. jobs.

“Learning from the Past, Fighting for the Future

“The ILA has been here before. In the 1960s and 1970s, containerization revolutionized the industry, and we saw our workforce shrink from 50,000 to just 4,500 in the Port of New York and New Jersey. Now, employers are coming for the last remaining jobs under the shiny banner of semi-automation. If we allow this to continue, what will the workforce look like in another 10 to 15 years — 450 workers?

“The ILA has proven time and again that we can adapt to change. Since 2020, we’ve moved more cargo than ever in our history, shattering volume records while adapting to advanced gate systems and terminal operating technologies. Yet, the employers argue that we are holding back modernization. The facts prove otherwise — it’s the hard work and dedication of ILA members that keep America’s commerce moving, not the machines alone.

“This fight isn’t just about the ILA — it’s about all workers. Automation isn’t just coming for dockworkers; it’s coming for everyone. Blue-collar or white-collar, no one is safe from the corporate drive to cut labor costs and fatten bottom lines through automation and artificial intelligence. A shrinking workforce means fewer taxpayers, weaker communities, and an economy that depends on government handouts instead of good-paying jobs.

“A Message to the Public

“To those who think the ILA is the one threatening to cripple the nation, let me ask you this: is it the 78-year-old labor leader fighting to protect his members who poses the real risk? Or is it the corporations and foreign-owned companies, making billions while systematically eliminating American jobs, that will bear the responsibility for crippling this country?

“This is a pivotal moment in our history. The decisions we make today will determine the future for generations to come. The ILA will continue to be at the forefront of this fight — not for ourselves, but for every worker and every community that depends on us.

“We call on all workers, communities, and policymakers to stand with us. Together, we can fight for a future where technology serves people, not profits. Because in the end, protecting jobs, national security, and the dignity of work isn’t just the ILA’s fight — it’s everyone’s fight.”