Containers have been more important for globalisation than freer trade
economist.com
economist.com
There are some interesting things I can say about containers after working with them up close:
• Half of the containers we export are empties. The way the process works is we get a majority of full containers from the East (China, Japan, etc.), unload them, and send them empty boxes. Quartz covered this recently: http://qz.com/64779/america-exports-a-lot-of-air/
• A refrigerated container is called a "reefer". We call the mechanics that work on these reefer mechanics. A 40 foot chasis is called a 40. So yeah, chatter on the radio channels talks about reefers, 40's, and (work) gangs.
• Here is a pic I took one night of the cranes before they started to "pump" (work). http://imgur.com/oxGNz9b
• I have a draft of a post almost done about what it is that Longshoremen do now a days. It's obviously changed a lot from unloading shit by hand. I met an old timer that would use a hook to stab a giant ice block to pick out the fish. This was before reefers. (I actually just published the post. It's not complete, but it has more general info about longshoremen and containers: http://raymondduke.com/who-are-longshoremen-what-do-they-do-...)
• I can't find the link, but the process that bananas go through as they get shipped here is very interesting. There is a special and very intricate cooling and ripening process with an exact temperature change at the right moment in order to make sure the bananas are the right ripeness when they arrive here.
• The worst thing I've encountered is cowhides. Cowhides are a common export from the USA to China (I imagine there is not a lot of room for cattle there). The reason why they are bad is because of the smell. They are coated with some sort of chemical so they don't get dry, but instead of keeping them in a bag, they just toss them in a container and drench them with this foul liquid that drips out of the box as it gets moved around the yard. Luckily, I've only encountered this a few times.
I'll be happy to answer any questions. I might not like a lot of things about my job (the politics and the schedule), but I am in love with the culture of the port.
Pay starts off in the lower 20's and get get as high as 40-45 depending on the job you get and what shift you work; nights are 1.3 and weekends are 1.5, and some jobs have a 15% or 25% bonus. This sounds like a decent amount of $, but 3/4ths of the longshoremen work only 1 day a week on average. In 2008, we (Casuals) worked about 1 day every 4 months. I've heard of casuals making 90k in the 1990's, but I don't think that'll ever happen again.
Regulars, on the other hand, make a good amount of money. On average, the probably make 100k, and if you are a boss or a crane driver, close to 150k. Being a boss, regular, or crane driver takes a lot of time; especially the way things have been going with our economy lately. Before it would take maybe 15-20 years, and now, it's more like 20-30.
When I write this, it makes me want to give up on the job because its long term potential is dwindling. But like I mentioned, I love the culture and what it feels like working at the port; it also allows me a lot of freedom to work on my personal projects (shameless plug: I am working on a commenting platform that'll let you use audio comments). The pay right now is decent; I can earn 200-300 for working one day a week, and have the rest of the week for myself. However, getting a job for the week is sometimes annoying; I have to stand around at a hiring hall for hours - or sometimes, days - to work a shift.
It sounds like a fascinating job, those cranes look really cool.
Main improvements would be a better implementation, obviously, but also a better line of communication between companies and workers. I wrote a piece of Medium (https://medium.com/labor-related/188796b758d) about how they hired 18,000 new workers in the late 90's; which would normally be a very good thing but 80% of those workers are still on temp status (including me). Temp status (i.e., a Casual) doesn't earn a pension, get benefits, or have any of the other perks of a regular worker. I might be getting off-topic a little here, but an improvement to the ports would include a better line of communication between workers and companies instead of trying to turn the port into a giant conveyor belt. I'm not so skeptical to think that a good paying blue collar job will exist forever, but there is an extreme level of efficiency that happens when you put human minds behind big tasks instead of leaving it up to computers.
Here is another panoramic pic of when I worked rails: http://i.imgur.com/V1Sficm.jpg. Those giant four legged things move back and forth over the wells. The machine I was in moves along side the tracks and allows you to hop on and off the containers to take cones on or off.
My impression is that unions in this industry are a combination of the bad (artificially restricting the supply of labor, to the benefit of union members, and the detriment of non members) and good (giving workers to power to maintain safety standards, and making sure that workers feel they can trust their fellow workers).
What limits communication? Is it the fact that a lot of the workers are temp workers, or is it unrelated?
Unions are a combination of bad and good, just like corporations, franchises, and any other organization. One of the major flaws of the union for me is that you can't get promoted on the job based on merit. The only way to get a raise and to get more work is to work more, not harder or smarter. When I work on the docks, I work steady and safe. Maybe this is actually a good thing because it is a dangerous place to work and they don't want anyone trying to be a hotshot.
As for the good, there is a sense of organization and community beyond anything I've experienced before in my life. There are about 5,000 Casuals and we all know that we are part time temp labor, so we all do what we can to help one another. Things like powerball pools, buying and selling or services or other part time hustles (plumbing, towing, hanging tvs', etc.), and various other community related things are common.
Things that limit communication: The ones that make the decisions that affect us all, are doing so in their best interest and not the interest of the port or for the economy. For example, fully automated ports move cargo at only around 30% of what we do, but since they don't have to pay pensions for the machine or give them benefits, it's worth the slower move time. As for the union, there is not a long term strategy for the future of its workers at the port. A majority of casuals don't even know what the union President's name is.
It's kind of ironic that the actual job is the most organized thing I've seen (for example, we can unload over 3,000 cars from a ship in about 6 hours), but the organization process for the port itself, is awful.
These are just my opinions as of this moment. It's possible I could just simply be completely in the dark or not doing a good enough job of finding out the answers.
It's still a dangerous job though. Someone gets badly hurt or killed at the port here once every year or two.
Ever heard of Euromax in the Netherlands? Not a single human on the docks there most of the time. The entire terminal is robotic now. Just a few engineers up in a control tower, to make sure the computers keep running. That won't happen in the US for a long time, though. The ILA and ILWU have a lot of political power.
I suppose the ILWU and ILA do have a lot of political power when you compare them to other ports. But from my perspective, we are losing more and more ground each day. Since a majority of the workers are temps who can't get involved with meetings and other "official bidness", then I don't know who will take the reigns 10-20 years from now.
Did you keep up to date with what happened in Hong Kong?
I feel bad for longshoremen in Asia, they have more dangerous conditions and weaker unions, so it's much harder for them to get reasonable pay and benefits. And the rate of inflation/cost of living is getting crazy in China and Hong Kong.
As simple as putting boxes in bigger boxes is, it was fascinating stuff, more so figuring out how to minimize the packaging of large hollow objects like bbq grills. In one case we were able to more than double the number of smokers we could fit into a container (which helped our margins big time.) That being said, shipping containers of tiny ipods has to be the most boring logistics task ever!
Finally, it's pretty interesting that you can look at a container ship and have no idea what is in every single container. It can be filled with clothes, bikes, food, electronics, toys, you name it.
Also, smaller packet size (ship vs container) means there is less theoretical efficiency (more wasted space, plus the space and weight of the containers themselves). However, since ships weren't didn't have homogeneous cargo, the practical efficiency is much better for containers.
But shifting the burden to the manufacturer is clearly advantageous, because, as the post also shows, the manufacturer knows more about their product and how to pack it.
Also, because neither origin or the final destination of the container are the port, there is less loading/unloading of the individual objects. The container is packed and unpacked exactly once, and apart from that only the whole container need be moved
Renting containers and keeping them on your property (vs. at the other extreme Singapore) is cheap, so you can do whatever makes sense, pack one in hours, days or weeks. No need for fine grained rush, rush efforts at a crowded port (the need for high utilization of expensive cargo ships and terminals does ensure that all moves quickly, and e.g. killed off some historic ports that were somewhat inland on a river, the cargo ships didn't want to take the extra time to transit it).
And a lot less pilferage. Scotch whisky distillers were some of the earliest adopters of the container system according to The Box.
In a nutshell, it was messy. It's not easy in the physical/infrastructure world to create a standard and then impose it world-wide. (ie, competing standards, etc.)
Then the container literally created and destroyed neighborhoods & cities, but as the article notes revolutionized world trade. I can HIGHLY recommend the book.
What we hope to do at IFTTT is develop a containerization of information; a common interface for moving data from point a to point b. Now, I realize we run the risk of creating the 15th competing standard [2], but we have some big ideas on the horizon of how we can make this work in a really general (and beautiful) way.
BTW, if these types of problems interest you, we're hiring :)
What you're developing is a containerized standard for moving understanding around, manipulating data in a relatively standard way while still maintaining its context.
The way to make money off a standard is to sell it's complements ( think Cisco or SUN selling equipment that works with TCP/IP and ethernet ) not to attempt to charge for use of the standard.
That seems to be how things went. Tantlinger created over 70 patents related to transportation in his lifetime. Sea-Land, his employer, sold containerized shipping services.
I doubt there were any regrets about dropping the patent. Malcom McLean, owner of Sea-Land, did pretty well for himself:
[R.J.] Reynolds agreed in January 1969 to buy Sea-Land for $530 million in cash and stock. McLean made $160 million personally and got a seat on the company’s board.
"In 1978, McLean purchased United States Lines. There, he built a fleet of 4,400-TEU container ships that were the largest afloat at the time. The ships, operating in round-the-world service, were designed in the aftermath of the 1970s oil shortages and were fuel-efficient but slow, and therefore not well-adapted to compete in the subsequent period of cheap oil. USL went bankrupt in 1987. McLean took very personally the criticism directed against him after the collapse of USL and the resulting loss of many jobs associated with and dependent on USL."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/business/2008/the_box/de...
But the also had a more traditional documentary called "The box that changed Britain":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00scpzn
You can watch the first five minutes here:
It chronicles competing standards, proprietary efforts, attempts at sea-rail-road integration, with some lively characters thrown in. It captures the entrepreneurial vibe of the heady postwar decades. I loved it.
Absolutely fascinating.
If interested: http://outsidethebowl.org/?page_id=61
Also, I wonder how good it is for local cultures to have religious organizations parachute food and foreign religion into their communities. That whole "teach a person to fish..." thing.
1) I think they buy used (not decommissioned) containers for the reasons you specified. So it is more like an alternative building material rather than true recycling. The biggest advantage is standardization and speed to launch so they can replicate in many places that don't have local materials available (i.e. Haiti) or where a local construction project from scratch would be nearly impossible to get off the ground.
2) The kitchens actually resell their food for very cheap to local ministries and non profits and is run by locals. (Volume/standardization = much cheaper food). So, self sustainability is built into their model. The South African kitchen is run and supported 100% by the community at this point.
We create products and services for the shipping industry (usually bulk cargo, but sometimes containers).
Why did you editorialize the title?
The Economist article doesn't say that. It does state "In fact, new research suggests that the container has been more of a driver of globalisation than all trade agreements in the past 50 years taken together."
Although they do also state it's difficult to quantify & that "containerisation" seems to, in turn, drive freer trade.
(Container missile system)