Automation Processes in the Port Industry and Union Strategies: The Case of Antwerp

1 Introduction

The transport of goods is one of the crucial industries of the global economy. The extant health crisis determined by the spread of COVID-19 has increased the awareness of the interdependencies between economies and of the need for companies to reflect on the configuration of their business models. The 2021 blockage of the Suez Canal by a container ship has further highlighted the role of the maritime-logistics industry which, while playing a key role in sustaining economic globalization through the development of intermodality, has also experienced a paradigm shift. In contrast to the past when competition took place between shipping companies, today’s market competition occurs along the entire global logistics chain connecting the origin to the destination of goods. As links of broader global supply chains and of global production networks, shipping companies seek to control the whole value chain to leverage economies of scale and obtain greater labor flexibility (Bottalico 2018).

The port industry has been strongly influenced by radical innovation initiatives in the last decades such as automation processes, affecting employment relations and work organization. Different strategies have been implemented by supply chain workers and trade unions to face these processes. Within this context ports have become the epicenters of labor mobilization against the combination of economic, structural, and organizational changes; and of choices concerning political economy, with dockworkers at the center of action. This article assumes a particular role for a better understanding of the innovation initiatives that have an impact on work organization and employment relations, focusing on the main forms of worker organizing. While several writings investigate specific case studies of innovation or investment patterns with a focus on technical advancements, few studies focus on understanding the interaction among innovation initiatives and worker actions, resistance, and organizing. This article therefore tries to fill this gap by answering the following research question: How do trade unions and dockworkers respond to automation, and what are the strategies implemented in the bargaining processes?

One of the common peculiarities of port labor is related to the uncertain dynamics of maritime traffic. This means that the lead firm of the maritime-logistics chain, the Dominus inside a port, is the shipping company. Typically, dockworkers work “on call.” The demand for dock labor by a port employer is based on the average level of trade and, in moments of peak workloads, the use of temporary work, which represents the element of flexibility part that is required to handle goods. The temporary work, in turn, is often framed within a peculiar regulation in Europe, obtained by the workers after decades of conflicts and mobilizations. Given its irregularity, port labor is a traditional form of waterfront work related with militancy, casualism, and close-knit communities (Mah 2014). These characteristics allow us to underline the complex and conflictual nature of the port industry. Casual by definition, port labor has hence a long history of labor struggles and constantly fluctuating processes of casualization and de-casualization (Davies et al. 2000; Levinson 2006).

Port labor market regulation has been contested frequently around the world. Conflicts in ports have shaped the historical development of the port labor force, resulting in transnational solidarity mechanisms and high rates of unionization among workers. Technological innovations also radically transformed labor organization and power relations over time, as well as union strategies, occupational competencies, and the composition of the workforce itself (El-Sahli and Upward 2017).

Labor conflicts in ports remain the order of the day, despite port management’s attempts to minimize them to avoid disruption in a key segment of the global economy that pays dearly for any blockage of operations. In the era of the logistics revolution, ports remain chokepoints (Alimahomed-Wilson and Ness 2018). The structural power of workers has fostered the achievement of high labor standards, continually under attack (Silver 2003). In port chokepoints, a strike can have disruptive effects that reverberate along global supply chains. In light of this bargaining power, the port workforce faces many challenges that tend to threaten their very existence, to erode its conditions and regulation, increasing precarity. However, the strategic position of the port workforce within the global supply chains alone might be not sufficient, in the long run, to counter these general trends.

Dockworkers usually handle global cargo, but at the same time they are locally situated and socially embedded. This is one of the reasons why ports are places of conflicting interests, providing a relevant field of study for observing how labor dynamics change in light of capitalist globalization. The study of port labor conflicts can tell us something more general about the impact of global production networks on local employment conditions.

Employment and industrial relation analyses have concentrated on unions’ mobilization strategies and practices to seek and contain the dismantling of long-established employment conditions (Alimahomed-Wilson and Ness 2018; Fox-Hodess 2017; Turnbull 2006, 2010). While under attack everywhere, port labor systems appear to have a diverse capacity to respond to challenges such as automation trends, as the outcome of power relationships, worker resistance, tactics and strategies of unions, but also in light of the historical heritage of each port.

This article answers the above-mentioned research questions by providing an analysis of the case of Antwerp (Belgium). Based on qualitative fieldwork carried out between 2016 and 2019, the article focuses on the resistance of dockworkers and their trade unions against automation trends in the logistics hub of Antwerp, among the most performative and efficient ports worldwide, integrated with a distinctive institutional context, a specific port regulation, a peculiar system of employment relations and work organization.

Section 2 of this article presents a review of the debate on automation processes in the port industry. Section 3 provides an empirical analysis of the case study. Finally, Section 4 summarizes the key arguments and discuss the findings, by stressing the need for further research in this direction.

2 Automation Processes in the Port Industry

Recent research in the maritime-logistics industry has mainly focused on the challenges brought about by globalization (Alimahomed-Wilson and Ness 2018; Turnbull 2006). Great emphasis has been paid to the new repertoire of coordinated strategies that unions have adopted to counteract globalization tendencies in the industry (Fox-Hodess 2017; Lillie 2006).

The reconfiguration of global supply chains, technological innovation as well as the affirmation of liberalization principles have all impacted the organization and composition of the workforce and employment relationships by triggering a wave of conflicts. In Europe, during the years of the “war on the waterfront” (Turnbull 2006, 310) the European Union’s (EU) directives were aimed at liberalizing port services. Traditional bureaucratic forms of collective representation have successfully merged with international strategies of conflict hinging upon transnational networks, capable of creating greater coordination between the dockworkers of different European countries against EU directives. Scholars have pointed to the balance between local, national, and transnational dimensions of trade union action as the main challenge posed by international coordination and have sought to explain cases of success and failure. Turnbull observed a generalized loss of bargaining power by dockworkers. However workers’ struggles against EU directives to protect the existing employment conditions suggest that the efforts of trade unions to rely on the force of logic” to persuade EU officials was successful only when it was supported by the “logic of force” of dockers in the workplace (Fox-Hodess 2017; Turnbull 2006, 7).

Through a comparison of international solidarity of the Portuguese, Greek, and English affiliates of the International Dockworkers’ Council (IDC) at the European level, Fox-Hodess (2017) adds that successful internationalism occurred when political conditions and ideological traditions allowed for the construction of direct and concrete links between workers in different employment contexts. This work calls attention to the central role played by the local-to-local shop-floor coordination in transnational campaigns and by key local activists. Such international solidarity can however fail when national bureaucratic issues affect local level organizing. National and transnational union structures have themselves become a source of hindrance of grassroots initiatives when reproducing bureaucratic models of international coordination (Waterman 2001).

The focus on the organization of labor agency in ports and on its mobilization in the context of globalization pressures has led to neglecting precisely those pressures and especially the scrutiny of the changing capitalistic structure in the maritime-logistics chain leading, inter alia, to changing power relationships. These reflect local organizational specificities as well as path dependent social and institutional regulatory dynamics rooted in time and space. Thus, while acknowledging that solid trade union organizations at the local level represent a crucial element for effective coordination at transnational level, the exploration of that local dimension remains atrophic. Power relationships in the port of Genoa (Italy), for example, are different from the greenfield port of Gioia Tauro (Italy) or Koper (Slovenia), or from the ancient Hanseatic ports of Rotterdam (Netherlands) and Hamburg (Germany).

History matters in these cases. The differences come mainly from the way in which labor is organized, on the strength of the unions at local level, on the workers composition, and in the sedimented history of a port city. Moreover, these differences rely on the port labor regulations still in place to protect working conditions from the market requirements, despite the attempts of the European Union to liberalize the port industry. Beyond common traits, European ports differ in the way in which labor is regulated and organized by trade unions, and not all of them are exactly like “chokepoints.” Thus ports differ also in the way radical innovation initiatives such as automation processes are negotiated and faced by workers’ struggles. The strategic position of the port workforce alone is not sufficient to counter these general trends that affect other economic and productive sectors.

A number of individual innovation initiatives have been documented in the port industry. Examples can be found in container terminal optimization (e.g. Kaveshgar and Huynh 2015), environmental management in seaports (Klopott 2013), ICT (Keceli 2011), hinterland chain planning, and maritime-logistics hub development (Yang, Liang, and Ding 2013).

Concerning the maritime and port sector, innovation is a strategy that promotes competitiveness (Jenssen 2003), especially with the impact of COVID-19 on the maritime-logistics chains. The notion of a “Smart Port,” for example, identifies a port that uses automation and innovative technologies to improve its performance. As technological innovations develop, ports might become a “digital node” within the global supply chain (Port 2019).

The literature often focuses more on the assessment of investments (Zheng and Negenborn 2017) than on the evaluation of innovative processes and the impact on employment. Nevertheless, while all these studies focus on specific characteristics related to a particular innovation goal (or process), only few other scholars analyze the resistance of workers in these dynamics and the elements affecting labor.

It should be underlined, however, that the future development of the port industry and the challenges of change driven by the advancement of new technical and operational models cannot ignore the aspect of port labor systems and employment relations. This, in turn, highlights the role of the trade unions and the workers’ disruptive strategies capable of counteracting these processes along the global supply chains.

Work organization in ports has been strongly affected by radical innovation initiatives in recent decades, whereas automation processes have produced an unavoidable contraction of the number of dockworkers. Trade unions are particularly watchful and sensitive about the topics related to innovation initiatives and automation processes. Automation seems to be a strategic option for every port but is not the standard for an efficient terminal. It refers to the application of “automatic control” and the use of programmable logic controllers in machinery (PLC), such as Automated Stacking Cranes. It is further acknowledged by the unions that automation reduces human intervention but not necessarily employment, and that it is a very slow, gradual process.

At the moment, automation has not reduced operating expenses or increased productivity as much as expected. The impact of automation on labor is substantial in the conventional port sector which involves a workforce with a considerable share of field labor (Dynamar 2019). According to the European Transport Workers Federation (2017), the purpose of automation is to achieve higher throughput or productivity, lesser direct human labor costs and expenses. The risks of automation concern the reduction of operational flexibility, the reduction of financial flexibility (fixed costs), high initial costs, security, and vulnerability. In addition, some tasks cannot be automated, or only at high costs. The risk of operational control produces an additional automation paradox: the more efficient the automated system, the more crucial the human contribution of the operators. Humans are less involved, but their involvement becomes more critical.

In container terminal operations the potential impact on dockworkers depends on the terminal concept (greenfield/expansion/brownfield), increase of volume and terminal capacity in relevant ranges, current job structure and collective labor agreements, labor market, job content, and working conditions. However, the job and qualification structures are affected. Automation impacts labor by producing a shift from direct to indirect jobs and in terms of skills and job losses. It may result in changes to health risks and demands for flexibility which may increase (such as with more peaks, tight schedules, etc.). According to the trade unions, the impact on total employment in the next few decades is uncertain, while the impact on unskilled/lower skilled workers is expected to be high (Esser et al. 2019; European Transport Workers Federation 2017).

According to a recent study by Dynamar (2019), employee training continues to be a source of competitive advantage for the terminal operators in Europe. Nevertheless, the current organization of port labor on conventional terminals is expected to be impacted by changing requirements of port worker’s skills and competencies, which are focused on the need for multi-functionality, training, skills and career path, and need for lower labor costs, high productivity, and flexibility.

Analyzing the main differences in labor intensity and automation of container terminals of Antwerp and Rotterdam (where a fully automated terminal is running), Van Den Driessche, van der Lugt, and Streng (2019) discussed the port value added for container traffic, arguing that labor and capital intensity vary based on terminal history, absorptive capacity, and strategic priorities. The authors underlined, among the benefits of automated ports, the operational performance, increased safety and security, environmental sustainability, and operational expenses. Among the potential drawbacks of automation are the cost of implementation, the availability of skills and resources, and the labor cost. According to these authors, the relationships between automated terminals and increased labor costs may be affected by the power of trade unions, which are stronger in countries with expensive labor.

The prevailing logistics chain configuration has led to the intensification of the pace of work, the reduction of handling time, and the co-existence of peak workloads together with labor shortages and requests for greater flexibility. The automation of terminal processes has emerged as an option for increasing efficiency at the expense of labor. Moreover, in contrast to the past, dockworkers and their unions are now asked to negotiate their conditions not only with the terminal operating companies, but also with their customers, i.e. the shipping companies. The case study of Antwerp, as we shall see in the next section, precisely displays these structural tendencies, as well as the response of the organized labor.

3 The Antwerp Case

4 Conclusions

In the case of Antwerp, the action of trade unions appears to have had an impact on automation initiatives and labor conditions. The port workers in Belgium – among the most productive in Europe – are protected against any distortions deriving from the casual nature of their work by a compensation fund created in 1946, financed exclusively by contributions from terminal operators, and jointly managed by the public and private sectors. Trade unions in the port of Antwerp have been strong and cohesive enough to force the employers to negotiate automation-related changes and decisions without having to disrupt the operations. In the case analyzed, unions have demanded and found a dialog in order to avert the choice undertaken in the neighboring port of Rotterdam, where a model based on a fully automated terminal has influenced the bargaining processes in Antwerp as well.

Trade unions have found a constructive ground to negotiate both productivity and wage issues as well as labor conditions, flexibility and therefore work organization, including training and the introduction of radical innovations. Through this kind of “cold war” strategy, they avoided the introduction of automation processes in the new port terminals.

The port industry, conceived as a segment of the maritime-logistics chain, has been strongly influenced by radical innovation initiatives in recent decades affecting labor organization and employment relations. Nevertheless, the impact of these ongoing processes on labor is mostly neglected in the scientific and sectorial literature. While several studies investigate specific innovation case studies or investment patterns, few studies focus on understanding the interaction among innovation initiatives and labor (El-Sahli and Upward 2017; Esser et al. 2019).

Despite the differing pace of change among European ports, port labor systems in Europe are undergoing a slow but gradual process of automation. These tendencies imply structural changes in terms of number of jobs, health issues, professional profiles, and knowledge issues, etc., and should be constantly monitored by workers and trade unions. In the Belgian case, trade unions negotiated innovation initiatives and automated systems in the bargaining processes, adopting a strategy aimed at counterbalancing the changed power relationships with the threat of disrupting the port operations. The structural power of workers has fostered the achievement of high labor standards which are continually under attack (Silver 2003). In port chokepoints, a strike can have disruptive effects that reverberate along global supply chains. In light of this bargaining power, the port workforce faces many challenges that tend to threaten their very existence, erode conditions and regulations, and increase precarity and flexibility. However, the strategic position of the port workforce alone is not sufficient, in the long run, to counter these general trends that affect other economic and productive sectors.

In recent decades, innovation initiatives and automation processes produced an unavoidable contraction of the number of dockworkers in the port sector. Port labor systems are confronted with specific labor challenges not commonly found in many other industries. Despite the discourses about imminent and inexorable robotization carried out by supply chain operators and their gurus, we rather see a transformation in working conditions not in terms of replacing people with robots as some analysts wish, but rather of robotization of workers to obtain the maximum productive exploitation at the minimum wage allowed.

It should be underlined that these dynamics have been detected before the pandemic. There is room for further empirical studies in the various chokepoints and across the global supply chains able to explore the variety of responses implemented by the workers against their post-COVID condition. The impact of automation processes on labor raise questions about the workers ability to organize across the different segments of global supply chains. The process of robotization of the port cycles, for example, may reduce the contribution of human labor at workplace, but at the same time implies the contribution of software developers. Different supply chain workers with different skills and bargaining power are emerging in the digital transition era. In light of the robotization processes and market integration, rather than excluding labor due to an increase in automation, the most acute risk in the future concerns the potential trivialization of human action and its marginalization. Only the coordinated and transversal mobilization of workers can counter these dynamics.