Post

It seems to me that automating transit vehicles is likely to be seen as a threat by all of a transit agency's workers, because it reduces their ability to immediately shut down service by going on strike. That reduces the bargaining power of all its members (station agents, cleaners, etc.)

None has been made jobless at RATP as a result of conversion to driverless operation of Ⓜ️ 1 + 4 in Paris. 2 reasons: . Employment Law applicable to RATP is derogatory and disallows collective redundancies . The conversion pace is VERY slow (8 years for each line). So slow that conversion of Ⓜ️11 🔜

That of course depends on the timeline. For accelerationists that timeline cannot be short enough so as to make for maximal suffering. Of course it goes without saying that AV tech is not ready for prime time. As implemented it exists as a marketing gimmick supported by operators abroad.

I’m not asking about hypotheticals, I’m asking about the real world. Are you aware of any agency, anywhere on earth, that has laid transit workers off due to automation?

Presumably every time an internal automated airport train system opens, the 30 shuttle bus drivers are fired. But they're probably contractors so not tracked in any meaningful way.

I thought you were being facetious by citing the CTA. That's literally what they did. They converted the conductors to "platform attendants" when it turned out OPTO didn't quite work like they thought, then effectively fired them once cameras were installed. www.chicagotribune.com/1997/10/23/r...

So why do they resist it, even when it involves pay raises for workers who haven’t yet retired (as the MTA pays for OPTO)? My theory is that the union is screwing its members and looking out for its employees – they spread conspiracy theories to preserve total dues to preserve their own jobs

Few things Americans love more than to pull up the ladder behind them and be told that It’s Good to do so. But here, it’s actually good on the merits!

What's could be more a case of pulling the ladder up behind you than using overseas labor to claim you've created an "automated vehicle" which lets you fire workers en masse? This isn't automation, it's offshoring.

What's the way that I can put this... If you're a conductor that loves their job at Canarsie, OPTO on the L means you're now forced to pick another terminal which may be less convenient and pay less. If you're a train operator, your job is now worse, especially if you hated OPTO.

If you work on another line, you're now fearing OPTO coming to your line, or more senior crews bumping you from your run. And the raises promised wouldn't equate to "railroad" (or NYPD) money which the employees feel that they're entitled to in order to feel middle class.

Or maybe it’s about keeping contributions from current members up for pensions/healthcare in retirement? If so, yet another reason why backloaded public sector compensation is so fucked up