The International Longshoremen’s Association returned to the bargaining table on Jan. 15, 2025 to discuss automation and other issues. What’s the probability of a strike in Q1 2025?
Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today, 15%, down from Friday’s 20%. Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources. Based on the provided news articles, here’s a summary of the US port workers strike situation in early 2025:
Around 47,000 cargo handlers represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) at major Eastern US and Gulf Coast ports had threatened to strike on January 15-16, 2025. This would have been the second major strike in just four months. The main point of contention was automation at ports, which had been described as the “thorniest issue” in labor negotiations between the workers and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX).
However, on January 9, 2025, a crisis was averted when the ILA and port terminal operators reached a tentative labor deal. The agreement included a resolution on the automation issue, though specific details of the deal were not disclosed in the articles. This development helped prevent what could have been a significant disruption to supply chains affecting various goods from cars to coffee, which would have impacted both the broader economy and consumer prices.
The averted strike is particularly noteworthy because of its potential economic implications and the fact that the US president has the authority to end such strikes under the Taft-Hartley Act, though such intervention is politically sensitive. The successful negotiation represents a significant victory for both labor and management in maintaining the stability of crucial US port operations.
Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“In early 2025, a potential strike by approximately 47,000 cargo handlers represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association at major Eastern US and Gulf Coast ports was narrowly avoided. The planned strike, set for January 15-16, was centered on disputes over automation at ports, a significant issue in labor negotiations with the United States Maritime Alliance. On January 9, a tentative agreement was reached, resolving the automation concern, though details were not disclosed. This agreement averted a disruption that could have affected supply chains and consumer prices nationwide. The resolution is significant given the potential economic impact and the US president’s authority to intervene in such labor disputes under the Taft-Hartley Act, underscoring a critical win for both labor and management in maintaining port operations’ stability.”
Fact-checking news summary:
Here is a list of specific facts from the summary, along with their verification status, importance level, and relevance:
1. **Fact:** Approximately 47,000 cargo handlers represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association at major Eastern US and Gulf Coast ports were involved in the potential strike.
– **True/False:** True. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) represents a large number of dock workers at ports along the Eastern and Gulf Coasts.
– **Importance:** Important. The size of the workforce involved is relevant to the scale and impact of the potential strike.
– **Relevance:** True. This fact is crucial to understanding the potential scale of the strike and its implications.
2. **Fact:** The strike was set for January 15-16, 2025.
– **True/False:** True. The dates for the planned strike align with the timeline given for labor negotiations.
– **Importance:** Important. The timing of the strike is significant for assessing the risk in Q1 2025.
– **Relevance:** True. The dates are directly relevant to the question of the probability of a strike in Q1 2025.
3. **Fact:** The strike was centered on disputes over automation at ports.
– **True/False:** True. Automation is a common and contentious issue in labor negotiations within the shipping industry.
– **Importance:** Critical. The core issue of automation is central to the negotiation outcome and influences the likelihood of a strike.
– **Relevance:** True. Understanding the negotiation issues is key to assessing the probability of a strike.
4. **Fact:** A tentative agreement was reached on January 9, 2025, resolving the automation concern.
– **True/False:** True. Consistent with typical negotiation timelines and processes.
– **Importance:** Critical. The resolution of the automation concern directly impacts the likelihood of a strike.
– **Relevance:** True. A tentative agreement significantly reduces the immediate probability of a strike.
5. **Fact:** Details of the agreement were not disclosed.
– **True/False:** True. It is common practice for specific terms of labor agreements to remain confidential initially.
– **Importance:** Lesser importance. While details could affect future negotiations or sentiment, they are not immediately necessary for the outcome determination.
– **Relevance:** True. The lack of detail does not directly affect the immediate strike probability but can have future implications.
6. **Fact:** The resolution averted a disruption that could have affected supply chains and consumer prices nationwide.
– **True/False:** True. A strike at major ports would likely impact national supply chains and prices.
– **Importance:** Important. The potential impact underscores the significance of avoiding a strike.
– **Relevance:** True. The economic implications are relevant to the context and importance of the agreement.
7. **Fact:** The US president has authority to intervene in such labor disputes under the Taft-Hartley Act.
– **True/False:** True. The Taft-Hartley Act allows the president to intervene in labor disputes that may affect national health or safety.
– **Importance:** Lesser importance. While presidential intervention could affect outcomes, it was not necessary in this specific resolution.
– **Relevance:** True. This fact provides context on potential mechanisms to prevent a strike but is not directly linked to this resolution.
Based on these facts, the tentative agreement reached on January 9, 2025, significantly reduces the probability of a strike occurring in Q1 2025.
Fact-checked summary:
A tentative agreement reached on January 9, 2025, resolving concerns over automation, significantly reduces the probability of a strike occurring in Q1 2025 involving the approximately 47,000 cargo handlers represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association at major Eastern US and Gulf Coast ports. The planned strike, which was set for January 15-16, 2025, was centered on disputes over automation, a critical issue in labor negotiations. The resolution of this core issue is crucial, as it directly impacts the likelihood of a strike and helps avert disruptions that could affect national supply chains and consumer prices. While details of the agreement were not disclosed initially, which is common practice, the successful negotiation underscores the importance of addressing key labor concerns to prevent economic consequences.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.1. The following were considered in order to produce this base rate:
Given that a tentative agreement addressing the core issue of automation has been reached, the probability of a strike occurring in Q1 2025 is significantly reduced. Historical occurrences of strikes after reaching such agreements are rare. Typically, similar situations have led to the successful ratification of agreements and the avoidance of strikes. Other important factors include the importance of this issue for national supply chains and likely pressure to avoid strikes.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate:
If union members were to reject the tentative agreement due to dissatisfaction or disagreements on other unresolved issues, this could lead to a renewed threat of strike. Additionally, if external events or pressure (such as political or economic changes) affect the negotiations or the implementation of the agreement, these could influence the outcome towards a greater likelihood of a strike.
The following chain of events is necessary for the question to resolve positively:
-The tentative agreement must fail to be ratified by union members. Unlikely
– A key portion of the agreement must be found unsatisfactory or unenforceable, leading to renewed disputes. Unlikely
– No alternative conflict resolution or negotiation succeeds before January 15-16, 2025. Unlikely
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.15 – confidence: 7)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.15 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.05 – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.15
Base rate: 0.1 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.05
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.07
Reverse Mellers: 0.24
Theory of Mind: 0.1 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.14
Close Type: A (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value: 0.15
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The likelihood of a strike in Q1 2025 is considered low due to a tentative agreement reached on January 9, 2025, addressing significant concerns, particularly automation, which originally prompted the strike planned for mid-January. Historical precedents suggest low incidences of strikes following similar agreements, and the substantial number of workers (47,000) involved makes organizing a new strike challenging. Moreover, the critical role of ports in national supply chains adds to the pressure to maintain operations. However, potential variables like rejection of the agreement by union members, or unforeseen economic and political influences, could still incite a strike if they become significant. Contentious issues, if undisclosed in the agreement, could arise, though the current assessment reflects a low probability of disruptions in Q1 based on historical and contextual factors.
How many seats will the Conservative Party win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election?
Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today:
* less than 172: 45%
* between 172 and 205: 35%
* between 206 and 240: 15%
* more than 240: 5%
Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources. Based on the most recent news articles, here’s a summary of the key developments in Canadian politics:
Most Recent Developments:
Donald Trump’s recent comments about tariffs and Canada becoming the “51st state” have created divisions among Conservative politicians in Canada. While some Conservative politicians advocate for working cooperatively with Trump, others oppose this stance, highlighting a growing rift within Canadian conservative circles over how to handle U.S. relations.
Leadership Changes: The Liberal Party is in the midst of a leadership race to replace Justin Trudeau, who announced his resignation. This is part of what’s being described as the most significant transformation in Canadian politics in 30 years. The outcome remains uncertain, but this change in leadership represents a major shift in Canada’s political landscape.
Regional Developments: In Alberta, NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi has been acclaimed as the party’s candidate for Edmonton-Strathcona, marking a significant development in provincial politics. This comes as part of broader changes occurring across Canada’s political spectrum, with various regions experiencing shifts in political leadership and representation.
These developments collectively point to a period of significant political transition in Canada, with changes occurring at both federal and provincial levels, and external pressures (particularly from the U.S.) influencing domestic political discourse.
Summarizing outside newsfeed:
“Recent developments in Canadian politics suggest a significant period of transition and change. A potential rift is emerging within Canadian Conservative circles following divisive comments from Donald Trump about tariffs and Canada potentially becoming a “51st state,” highlighting differing approaches to handling relations with the U.S. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party is undergoing a major leadership race to replace outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, marking what some describe as the most significant transformation in Canadian politics in decades. Regionally, notable changes are also occurring, such as Naheed Nenshi being named the NDP candidate for Edmonton-Strathcona in Alberta. Collectively, these events underscore a dynamic and evolving political landscape at both federal and provincial levels in Canada, influenced by both domestic shifts and external pressures.”
Fact-checking news summary:
Here is a list of specific facts from the provided summary, along with their assessments:
1. **Fact:** A potential rift is emerging within Canadian Conservative circles following divisive comments from Donald Trump about tariffs and Canada potentially becoming a “51st state.”
– **Validity:** True. There have been past tensions between Canadian politicians and Donald Trump over various issues, including tariffs. However, the specific claim about Canada becoming a “51st state” may be more speculative or metaphorical.
– **Importance:** Important. Internal unity is crucial for political parties, and a rift could impact the Conservative Party’s performance in elections.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. A divided party could affect the number of seats won by the Conservative Party.
2. **Fact:** The Liberal Party is undergoing a major leadership race to replace outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
– **Validity:** As of the last available information, this statement is False. Justin Trudeau remains the leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister of Canada.
– **Importance:** Important. A leadership change in the Liberal Party could significantly impact the political landscape.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. Leadership dynamics in rival parties can influence election outcomes for the Conservative Party.
3. **Fact:** This leadership race is described as the most significant transformation in Canadian politics in decades.
– **Validity:** False. Given that the leadership race is not currently occurring, this statement does not apply.
– **Importance:** Important, if true. It could indicate a major political shift.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. Political transformations can alter electoral calculus.
4. **Fact:** Naheed Nenshi is named the NDP candidate for Edmonton-Strathcona in Alberta.
– **Validity:** False. Naheed Nenshi, a former mayor of Calgary, has not been announced as an NDP candidate for Edmonton-Strathcona.
– **Importance:** Lesser. While candidates do matter, this specific candidacy is not critical for the overall seat count for the Conservative Party.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** False. This fact would not directly impact the Conservative Party’s seat count.
5. **Fact:** There are significant changes at both federal and provincial levels in Canada due to domestic shifts and external pressures.
– **Validity:** True. The political landscape in Canada is continually influenced by various factors.
– **Importance:** Important. Changes at both levels could impact federal election outcomes.
– **Relevance to Outcome:** True. These dynamics may influence the Conservative Party’s performance in the election.
Overall, while several facts relate to the broader political environment in Canada, the specifics provided do not directly predict the number of seats the Conservative Party will win.
Fact-checked summary:
In answering the question about how many seats the Conservative Party will win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election, several true and relevant factors should be considered. A potential rift within Canadian Conservative circles due to past tensions over tariffs and divisive comments by Donald Trump is a notable concern, as internal unity is crucial for a political party’s success, which could affect their performance in elections. Additionally, significant changes at both federal and provincial levels in Canada, influenced by domestic shifts and external pressures, are important because they could alter the dynamics affecting the Conservative Party’s seat count. These factors highlight the complexities influencing election outcomes, but do not provide a definitive prediction of the number of seats the Conservative Party will win.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.45, “between 172 and 205”: 0.35, “between 206 and 240”: 0.15, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 4)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.55, “between 172 and 205”: 0.25, “between 206 and 240”: 0.15, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.2, “between 172 and 205”: 0.35, “between 206 and 240”: 0.35, “more than 240”: 0.1] – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Multiple Choice
Confidence: 6
# LLM responses: 3
Model value:
* less than 172: 0.45
* between 172 and 205: 0.35
* between 206 and 240: 0.15
* more than 240: 0.05
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The prediction regarding the Conservative Party’s performance in upcoming Canadian federal elections is based on several key considerations. Historically, the Conservatives have secured a seat range between 120 and 170, with current polling and past election performances suggesting limited potential for dramatic seat gains. Internal rifts, particularly those fueled by Trump-related issues and past tensions like tariffs, could undermine party unity, affecting their results negatively. Additionally, political volatility at federal and provincial levels, alongside economic and regional dynamics, introduces uncertainty that could influence outcomes in either direction. However, these predictions could be challenged if polling shifts occur during campaigns, if unforeseen political scandals emerge, or if the party resolves internal divisions and effectively capitalizes on changing domestic and international circumstances. There is also the potential for unexpected support due to strong campaigns or opponents’ missteps, and regional shifts might boost Conservative performance more than anticipated.
Runtime for both questions on this page: 149 seconds.
Past Multi-AI Oracle Forecasts
Guide to our Multi-AI Oracle’s Reports
Median: We collect the output values from the LLMs in an array. We then take the median value. This is between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0.15 = 15%).
Base rate: Currently we take OpenAI’s value as the base rate. We are working on a better value using a different prompt that takes into account process. The base rate helps to determine if the median makes sense.
SD: The standard deviation between the median and the base rate.
Confidence: We query each of the LLMs on how confident they are of their predictions (between 0 and 10) and take a median. Because the LLMs tend to be overconfident, we take anything lower than 6 as being low confidence. This factors into the overall model.
Conf Mode: Based on the confidence value. >=9 is high confidence. Below 6 is low confidence (this is also triggered by an exceptionally high SD).
Mellers: This refers to Barbara Mellers, specifically a paper she wrote that includes a formula for moving values towards an extreme (i.e. 0 or 1).
Reverse Mellers: This uses the formula from above, but with a sub-1 coefficient to move the values closer to 50%.
Theory of Mind: We ask the LLMs what they think other LLMs would predict. We hope that this makes them consider the questions more deeply.
Beta Distribution: Currently unused, but possibly of interest. This is based on the median, the base rate and the SD.
Close Type: We noticed that the appropriate base case for some questions is closer to the extremes, while others are closer to 50%. When we have a low confidence value, this helps us to determine whether to extremize or de-extremize the value. ‘A’ implies closer to zero. ‘B’ implies closer to 50%. ‘C’ implies closer to 100%.
# LLM Responses: The count of LLMs that responded. We query 5 currently, but they have a relatively high API failure rate.
Model value: For normal confidence mode, this is the median. For high confidence, this is the Mellers value. For low confidence, this is either the Mellers or Reverse Mellers (depending on the Close Type).