Government and Labor

by Andrew

As may come as a surprise to some readers, I have a soft spot in my heart for unions. While I am as suspicious of their tendency to aggregate power on behalf of their leadership as I am of any other large organization, I think that unions are a good means for workers to counteract one of the natural advantages businesses have: unity of command. This does not mean I'm necessarily in favor of laws that allow unions to extract dues from their members for political rather than union activities (although, conversely, I also see merit in the argument for union involvement in politics to protect their ability to organize; this isn't a simple issue) or that don't permit businesses to fire union workers (another complex issue), but it does mean that I think government should do its best to ensure a reasonably level playing field between workers and business.

As that last is basically a motherhood statement (it sounds great and draws broad support because it's vague), I will delve into a few details here to explain what I think that should mean. Although I should note that I am not well-versed in union politics and therefore will omit many fundamentals from the reveiw. Up front, it should mean that the government should use its police power to prevent violence, whether it is the violence of strikebreakers intended to force people back to work, or the violence of union organizers attacking 'scabs' for choosing to work during a strike, or anything else of that nature. If the workers are willing to unionize, business should not be permitted to use violence to intimidate them into choosing otherwise. If people are willing to cross a picket line to work, union members should not be permitted to use violence to prevent them from doing so. I have less strong-feelings about business being able to fire people simply for attempting to organize; on the one hand, business owners should have a right to hire whoever they choose to work for them. On the other, being able to fire someone just because they want to talk about organizing places the workers in an extremely difficult situation if they hope to organize, so we are left to deal with two conflicting principles and no really good answer. By that same token, I'm leery of closed shops, because I don't think someone should have to join a union just to get a job, but on the other hand there's a significant free rider problem if someone comes to the job after the union has done much of the heavy lifting to protect its membership from abuse.

One thing I certainly do not understand or support, however, is government having the power to decide who can or can not unionize (outside of government jobs). I saw from Harold Meyerson at TAPPED that the NLRB is still deliberating on whether or not to declare up to 8 million workers as management and therefore ineligible to unionize. Regardless of the relative merits of unions and where to draw the lines I noted above (and others, of course), the idea that the federal government has the power to decide who gets the right to organize strikes me as a pretty clear violation of one's First Amendment right to free assembly. If a group of people decide that they want to use collective bargaining to improve their bargaining power with their employer, the idea the government can tell them they can't do that is abhorrent. Any labor law gurus in the audience who can speak to this?

Comments

[Gary Farber]

"Not sure why I said that, but I'm not sure why you brought up Del Rio as if it were somehow relevant to anything at all, so I'm just filling in, here."

I would assume that Del Rio, Texas, was, in fact, "in this job market" in the U.S., but perhaps it's since been removed to Mars, or your use of "this job market" was referring to that of some other planet or country's, Slart.

If, however, you were referring to the job market in the United States, then probably the job market in a given location in that country is, in fact, relevant.

Perhaps we should specifify: not the job market for highly trained and qualified engineers for huge corporations, but the job market for people such as an unemployed Hispanic widow in her 50s with missing teeth and poor English. Or any of the millions of other people in this country with equal opportunities "in this job market."

Because it turns out they need jobs, too.

[Slartibartfast]

I would assume that Del Rio, Texas, was, in fact, "in this job market" in the U.S., but perhaps it's since been removed to Mars, or your use of "this job market" was referring to that of some other planet or country's, Slart.

But it is not, in fact, the US job market. Possibly not even representative of it, not that we'd know from anything tossed out by otto. Oh yes, of course, it's a step above anecdote, but it's even smaller than the town I grew up in, and I wouldn't dream of using that as a representative sample. Others may have different dreams, though.

And I am in fact all about depriving toothless widows of their employment choices, just to get that out in the open. Because it's all about me, isn't it?

[Gary Farber]

So, here is the friendly Republican way to help working people:

The Republican-dominated National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted along party lines to slash long-time federal labor laws protecting workers’ freedom to form unions and opened the door for employers to classify millions of workers as supervisors. Under federal labor law, supervisors are prohibited from forming unions.

The NLRB ruled on three cases, collectively known as “Kentucky River,” but it’s the lead case Oakwood Healthcare Inc. that creates a new definition of supervisor. Dozens of cases involving the definition of supervisor now before the NLRB will be sent back, with employers having the option to craft arguments that will meet the new definition of supervisor and limit the number of workers who can join a union.

Although the Oakwood decision covers only nurses, the expanded definition of superviors means up to 8 million workers, including nurses, building trades workers, newspaper and television employees and others may be barred from joining unions. In Oakwood, the board agreed with the employer that charge nurses are supervisors. But the ruling also sets broad definitions for determining who is a supervisor that invites employers to classify nurses and many low-level employees with minor authority as supervisors. The decision was issued Sept. 29 but not released until today.

The board’s new definition essentially enables employers to make a supervisor out of any worker who has the authority to assign or direct another and uses independent judgment. Amazingly, the board also ruled that a worker can be classified as a supervisor if he or she spends as little as 10 percent to 15 percent of his or her time overseeing the work of others.

Why should anyone in a union mind? Haven't they heard that their union is bad for them?

[Slartibartfast]

that we'd know from anything tossed out by otto

That sounded harsher on reread than I meant it to. The intention here was to prompt otto to say a little bit about why one small border town in Texas is interesting enough to point to.

[otto]

Slartibartfast,

Perhaps I misread your 3:45 comment.

"Job: you are prevented from leaving by...what? You mean to tell me there are no other jobs out there with the same or better benefits? In this job market?" etc.

I took this to mean that you think the job market is good and no one should have any trouble finding a new job. Based on this reading, I offered an example of a town where such is definitely not the case (e.g. If “Typical hourly wages in the Del Rio area are general office clerk, $5.28; assembly line worker, $5.54; warehouse worker, $5.41 and forklift operator, $5.90.” where are you going to go? Or, what if the answer to your first question in the quote is homelessness or hunger?). The relevance of this example lies in the fact that for many – not even close to all – across the country this is a reality that, in severely limiting freedom of choice, mobility, etc., narrows many distinctions between prison and job, and makes the conclusion that “one of these things is completely unlike the other” harder to justify. People do not live in abstract averages: If I live in Small Town, MS where the unemployment is 10% and the average service or industrial wage is $6/hr, what do I care what the labor market is in Los Angeles or for the nation as a whole? The poverty in such small towns and inner cities affects us all (e.g. crime, public health, etc.) even if one’s particular conditions afford them nominal immunity and freedom.

-“Not sure why I said that”

Neither can I, but I can guess. “Entirely typical of the rest of the country” (etc.) I neither stated nor implied. I am not arguing for the “Pink and Perfect,” and I am willing to concede, in real life and not just in theory or in an economic model, such unrealistic perfection, however personally appealing, in pursuit of practical goals and solutions. Where have I played a zero-sum game here?

[otto]

Slartibartfast,

Otto tosses this out:

"But it is not, in fact, the US job market. Possibly not even representative of it..." etc

Otto never made this point. :)

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Otto:

How is labor supposed to have any power if it does not unionize - to include the necessary measures to effectively challenge capital and benefit the customer? Is the right of the individual enough of a deterrent to check capital? Yes, an individual does have the right not to work at a job, but they may not have the ability. How powerful is such a right when you’ve got kids to feed?

I'm not completely against unions. You'll notice I've focused on what happens when you force someone to join.

I’m curious to know what your definition of “good quality” is, and does it take into account planned obsolescence?

Like Wal-Mart forcing the use of 10 year energy saving light bulbs? How awful. Planned obsolescence was a feature of the union-dominated car companies of the 1960s through the 1980s. That is why Japanese cars took over the market.

"Chain stores provide better service than mom and pops?!"

Actually, yes. They often do. And they almost always provide both better products and cheaper prices than mom and pops. That is why they do better.

"I agree that competition provides some benefits, but you seem to assume that competition takes place on a level playing field."

What does this even mean? Of course it isn't a level playing field when WalMart does almost everything better, cheaper and with more variety. Do you want to degrade quality and choice to create a level playing field?

If there is dramatically better customer service, quite a few people are willing to pay a premium for it. We see this in all sorts of areas (see Nordstroms for example). But it can't just be slightly better. And it can't have significantly worse products. Many smaller stores just were not better--especially once you get out of the very biggest cities.

The main issue for Wal-Mart revolves around an entirely economic rationale based on the rising costs of benefits in relation to the static quantitative extraction of labor for long-term employees.

Excuse me? Walmart has a company historic low of 45% turnover right now--which is the industry average. It typically ran at about 60%. Keeping employees has not historically been a focus for WalMart.

"Gaining job skills so that employees can move up in the world is not even on Wal-Mart's radar."

That is the beauty of capitalism, the employer doesn't have to intend good things for good things to happen. Capitalism harnesses greed to get good results.

SH, I do not say this to be rude or to question your life experience, but have you ever had to work at a place like Wal-Mart in order to eat, as is the case for many people? I suggest that your understanding of the dynamic here is off the mark.

I have already gone over the dynamic at length. To quote myself: Whether or not Wal-mart could exist with the higher prices that would come with higher labors costs is a completely different issue from whether or not those particular employees would be helped by some mechanism forcing Wal-mart to pay much higher wages. I strongly suspect they would not. A very large percentage of Wal-mart employees are marginally employable even at the current price. They often lack experience, have been out of the job market for long periods of time, or have other problems with employment. When more than a thousand people apply for jobs at the new Wal-Mart in Chicago for barely more than one hundred positions it strongly suggests that the wages offered are worth it to the applicants. The reason it is worth it is because for those prospective employees, Wal-Mart is a step up. Would someone fill the job at twice the wage? Of course. Would it be those people? Absolutely not.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Gary,

Perhaps we should specifify: not the job market for highly trained and qualified engineers for huge corporations, but the job market for people such as an unemployed Hispanic widow in her 50s with missing teeth and poor English. Or any of the millions of other people in this country with equal opportunities "in this job market."

Because it turns out they need jobs, too.

And because you desire that they have jobs at a particular rate that means that their work is automatically worth that rate? You could just as easily say that it would be nice if iPods cost only $5, but if the government mandated that iPods sell for $5 I promise you that not many would be manufactured.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Otto,

Based on this reading, I offered an example of a town where such is definitely not the case (e.g. If “Typical hourly wages in the Del Rio area are general office clerk, $5.28; assembly line worker, $5.54; warehouse worker, $5.41 and forklift operator, $5.90.” where are you going to go? Or, what if the answer to your first question in the quote is homelessness or hunger?).

For the entire history of the United States the answer to "what to do if you can't make a living in a dying town" has been "move".

[Gary Farber]

"Planned obsolescence was a feature of the union-dominated car companies of the 1960s through the 1980s."

Sorry, are you implying a causal relationship? Or are you just smearing by association?

Do, please, if you can, explain how unions caused planned obsolescence.

"Keeping employees has not historically been a focus for WalMart."

There's a nominee for understatement of the week. You do understand that that's bad for workers, right?

Current and former Wal-Mart workers say some managers have insisted that they make themselves available around the clock, and assert that the company is making changes with an eye to forcing out longtime higher-wage workers to make way for lower-wage part-time employees.

Investment analysts and store managers say Wal-Mart executives have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from 20 percent. Wal-Mart denies it has a goal of 40 percent part-time workers, although company officials say that part-timers now make up 25 percent to 30 percent of workers, up from 20 percent last October.

[...]

But Sally Wright, 67, an $11-an-hour greeter at the Wal-Mart in Ponca City, Okla., said she quit in August after 22 years with the company when managers pressed her to make herself available to work any time, day or night. She requested staying on the day shift, but her manager reduced her schedule from 32 hours a week to 8 and refused her pleas for more hours, she said.

“They were trying to get rid of me,” Ms. Wright said. “I think it was to save on health insurance and on the wages.”

That's precisely what their policy is.

Back to the story:

[...] These moves have been unfolding in the year since Wal-Mart’s top human resources official sent the company’s board a confidential memo stating, with evident concern, that experienced employees were paid considerably more than workers with just one year on the job, while being no more productive. The memo, disclosed by The New York Times in October 2005, also recommended hiring healthier workers and more part-time workers because they were less likely to enroll in Wal-Mart’s health plan.

[...]

But some workplace experts point to the downside of the policies. Susan J. Lambert, a professor of social sciences at the University of Chicago who has written several research papers on retail workers, called it a burden for employees to cope with constant schedule changes.

“You have to set up child care for every day just in case you have to work,” she said, “and this makes it hard to establish routines like reading to your kids at night or having dinner together as a family.”

The adoption of wage caps has also been difficult for many workers to swallow. Workers will never receive annual raises if their pay is at or above the cap, unless they move to a higher-paying job category. Wal-Mart says the caps will encourage workers to seek higher-paying jobs with more responsibility.

Yes, it's entirely out of concern for their workers: does anyone believe that? Do you expect us to believe this, Seb?

[...] Ramiro Gonzalez, who works in the produce department of a Wal-Mart in El Paso, said that many longtime workers were fuming about the caps.

No matter how hard people work, “we won’t get anything else out of it,” said Mr. Gonzalez, who earns $11.18 an hour, or about $23,000 a year, after six years with Wal-Mart. “The message is, if I don’t like it, there is the door. They are trying to hit people who have the most experience so they can leave.”

In the confidential memo sent to Wal-Mart’s board last year, M. Susan Chambers, who was recently promoted to be Wal-Mart’s executive vice president in charge of human resources, questioned whether it was cost-efficient to employ longtime workers. “Given the impact of tenure on wages and benefits,” she wrote, “the cost of an associate with 7 years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an associate with 1 year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity.”

The memo said, “the shift to more part-time associates will lower Wal-Mart’s health-care enrollment” even though Wal-Mart was reducing the amount of time to one year, from two, that part-time workers would have to wait to qualify for health insurance.

Workers say there is some evidence that the goals outlined in Ms. Chambers’ memo are being put into practice. At several stores in Florida, employees said, managers have suddenly barred older employees with back or leg problems from sitting on stools after using them for years while working as cashiers, store greeters or fitting-room attendants. Wal-Mart said it had no companywide policy on stool use and did not have enough information to comment.

But, y'know, there's no exploitation of the workers going on. And, hey, they can just find new jobs if they don't like it! That's freedom!

Incidentally, have you ever worked retail, Sebastian? I have, only 3 years ago, for a nation-wide chain. Would you like to hear about illegal practices?

[Gary Farber]

"Chain stores provide better service than mom and pops?!"

Actually, yes. They often do.

I'll actually agree with you that this is certainly sometimes the case. And sometimes not; it depends. Anyone who insists it's always one or the other is misinformed.

Speaking as someone with familiarity with the book busines, I'll say that, yes, Borders has generally given far better service, and availablity of books, than the overwhelming majority of non-chain book-stores, contrary to the legend of many. On the other hand, there are certain unique speciality stores that are also truly outstanding. So it just depends.

[Gary Farber]

SH, I do not say this to be rude or to question your life experience, but have you ever had to work at a place like Wal-Mart in order to eat, as is the case for many people? I suggest that your understanding of the dynamic here is off the mark.

I have already gone over the dynamic at length.

Unless you wish to offer a correction, I'll take that as a "no, I never have; I have no idea what it's like to be desperate for money for food, to not be able to buy food for weeks, at a time, to not be able to pay rent and to be evicted, to not have a university degree and limited options, to not be able to buy a car, and to have no other option than to keep the horrible job that's barely above minimum wage, while having no health insurance, and no savings, but major health problems, and to have this go on for year after year."

Hello.

[Gary Farber]

"And because you desire that they have jobs at a particular rate that means that their work is automatically worth that rate? You could just as easily say that it would be nice if iPods cost only $5, but if the government mandated that iPods sell for $5 I promise you that not many would be manufactured."

Except that there is actually a distinction between not being able to pay for rent or food, and wanting a cheap iPod; that you think they're comparable... says what it says.

Look, I'll be blunt, Sebastian: we're not talking about abstractions; that is, you are, and I'm talking about suffering people, with actual faces, and sometimes children.

Not statistics; not theories; not abstractions.

Unions help these people. That's pretty much all that matters. The rest is trivial.

[otto]

SH,

-“For the entire history of the United States the answer to "what to do if you can't make a living in a dying town" has been "move".”

Like the move from crop share to urban industrial center to ghetto to prison? I understand that moving is an option, and often a positive one. It just seems a little unimaginative to me, a little cruel when offered as an injunction, and a little myopic as a catch-all solution to poverty.

Or, looking south, moving as an answer to rural poverty in Latin America doesn’t seem to be working out so well if many burgeoning urban slums are any indication. Not to worry, RAND has been looking into military solutions for dealing with this potential terrorist/insurgent threat for some years now.

I will address one of your points because it involves a misunderstanding.

“Excuse me? Walmart has a company historic low of 45% turnover right now--which is the industry average. It typically ran at about 60%.”

The sentence I wrote following the quote is a paraphrase of what the Wal-Mart “SBD” itself said on this issue.

“Keeping employees has not historically been a focus for WalMart.”

Exactly. And therein lies their problem.

There are many other rebuttals to make, as you might imagine, but we have definitely reached the point where this discussion is doing no one else any good. I hear crickets.

Gary,

(2:27) Fair enough.

I remember a comment from a supporter of border vigilante groups on the issues I and others have been bringing up (a paraphrase here, but a close one): “Folks who are better off than we are look down on us and call us ignorant rednecks and racists. But if things keep going like they are, it will be more than just working class folks who are hurting.” Ah, the perennial middle class anxiety…

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Unless you wish to offer a correction, I'll take that as a "no, I never have; I have no idea what it's like to be desperate for money for food, to not be able to buy food for weeks, at a time, to not be able to pay rent and to be evicted, to not have a university degree and limited options, to not be able to buy a car, and to have no other option than to keep the horrible job that's barely above minimum wage, while having no health insurance, and no savings, but major health problems, and to have this go on for year after year."

I've been actually living in my car homeless when I found out unexpectedly that I couldn't get a loan for a year of college and I was afraid to go home because I wasn't willing to tell my family I was gay. Seems stupid now, but that is the fact.

Thanks for asking.

"Look, I'll be blunt, Sebastian: we're not talking about abstractions; that is, you are, and I'm talking about suffering people, with actual faces, and sometimes children. "

Actually, you're just emoting. And you are being a jerk while doing so. Just because I disagree with you about how to do things and the practical effects of certain policies doesn't mean that I'm cold and heartless while you are a pure caring saint.

[Phil]

I'm curious as to where Sebastian supposes Mom & Pop go to work when Wal-Mart drives their store out of business, or if he much cares.

[liberal japonicus]

Planned obsolescence was a feature of the union-dominated car companies of the 1960s through the 1980s. That is why Japanese cars took over the market.

I should point out that Toyota's domestic union is relatively strong, though not as strong as UAW, though I don't think that UAW drove the American car makers off a cliff, and it's certainly not doing it this time with the SUV bust. However, what Toyota does overseas in regards to unions has been a different matter. If this will be taken into account in the 'unions good' 'no, unions bad' discussion, I really can't say.

[liberal japonicus]

Otto, I don't think personal experiences dictate opinions, nor do they provide 'proof' that one side is right or wrong. However, Sebastian, can I note that there is a big difference between being homeless as a college student and a 50 something head of family? This is not to say you are cold and heartless and I am a saint, (and this comment should be taken as a plea to turn the temp down a bit), and I agree that otto is pushing your buttons at the moment and I would ask him to stop.

[Gary Farber]

"Just because I disagree with you about how to do things and the practical effects of certain policies doesn't mean that I'm cold and heartless while you are a pure caring saint."

No, I didn't mean to suggest that. I entirely agree that neither is the case; I don't doubt that you are compassionate towards individuals, and neither am I remotely any kind of saint.

But you write about policies without mention of how they affect people, and as if it were all about theoretical abstractions.

Ronald Reagan famously was warm towards individuals (though close to no one, including his own family, with the single possible exception of Nancy), and yet he railed against imaginary "welfare queens," and by his own biographer's account, was unable to make connections between his theories and real people.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"But you write about policies without mention of how they affect people, and as if it were all about theoretical abstractions."

Argh, I'm not.

I specifically pointed out that the currently favorable anti-Walmart policies would tend to put the least skilled Walmart workers out of a job in favor of other people who can get jobs elsewhere. That isn't a theoretical abstraction. That is dealing with the actual effects--as opposed to the intentions--of policies. If you dramatically increase the wages of Walmart workers through some government intervention, it is true that "Walmart workers" will be getting paid more. But there is no way that it will be the Walmart workers who are there now and it won't be people like them. The unseasoned, undisciplined, unskilled workers who get jobs at Walmart now will be unable to get jobs there at the new price because their labor is not worth the cost. There will be people whose labor is worth that cost. But it won't be the people you thought you were helping.

[otto]

LJ,

-"Otto, I don't think personal experiences dictate opinions, nor do they provide 'proof' that one side is right or wrong."

Conceded. (3:35)

-"I agree that otto is pushing your buttons at the moment and I would ask him to stop."

The heartless-saint thing was never my argument. Already conceded as well.

[otto]

LJ,

On this topic and others, I respect your opinion, make a point of reading your posts, and have appreciated your advice in the past. My interest in blogs is about learning, dialogue, and sharing info and ideas. I don’t attempt to push buttons, ask rhetorical questions (minus an odd one to make a point), or bait anyone, nor is my goal to win arguments (e.g. 3:35). I don’t sit on my side of the screen raving at other folks who comment, and don’t know that I can think of anyone who’s posted here that I think of as a heartless a**h*** or similar (misguided and ignorant, sure, but so am I), and I try to be careful in my comments so as not to imply as much. However, there’s always room for improvement. Apologies to all for any misunderstandings.

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks otto, and apologies if I sounded like the hall monitor.