In the United States, the big-labor movement is reminiscent of the early 19th-century British Luddites with their protests against industrial advancements, which ultimately harm the economy and lead to job losses.

The International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA) is a prime example of these outdated methods. Recently, they threatened a strike that would shut down major American ports indefinitely, demanding excessive things like a 77 percent wage increase and a ban on any form of automation in American ports.

Despite being offered a substantial pay raise, ILA president Harrold Daggett rejected it and insisted on strict language in the contract to prohibit automation at U.S. ports. This reluctance to embrace modern technology not only hampers American capitalism but also threatens the livelihoods of dockworkers.

With the possibility of a strike looming, the ILA has agreed to a tentative agreement for a significant wage hike but still maintains its anti-automation stance. The delay in finalizing the demands until after the national election is driven by political motives to avoid public backlash and maintain control over the economy.

The case of the United Steelworkers (USW) union opposing Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel mirrors the ILA’s resistance to change. Despite the benefits this acquisition could bring to the struggling American steel industry, USW and its president David McCall remain steadfast in their opposition, endangering future jobs and economic growth.

The actions of such union leaders reflect a commitment to outdated practices at the expense of progress and prosperity. To truly advocate for the well-being of their members and the economy, union bosses must reconsider their strategies and adapt to the modern world.