Illegal immigrants form a costly artificial labor market…

Whether it’s farm labor or motel maids or fry cooks or construction workers or whatever, depending upon an illegal labor force, that is undocumented workers, is a bad practice.

It deprives United States citizens of jobs, keeps wages down, and probably encourages a large portion of our own population to be idle and yet we end up paying for the social services of both the undocumented workers and our own non-workers.

And the old adage or truism (that is not really true) that our own citizens will not do manual labor is nonsense. When the handouts end or are sharply reduced people get more eager to work, although they may still demand a higher standard of working conditions than may be the norm.

This came to my mind after reading a story about mixed reviews on tougher immigration standards in places such as Alabama and Arizona.

I think it said that in Alabama unemployment rates had come down, but it may have been because there is a smaller workforce now that many of the illegals have fled.

This is a subject of which I have blogged about many times previous — probably not too many people interested, but it really gets me that the powers that be seem to tacitly accept the fact of the illegal workforce, even when they pander to racial prejudice and say kick out all the illegals.

Also it really gets me that everyone says most citizens won’t or cannot do manual labor, such as work in the fields or cleaning restrooms or whatever.

Now it is true that the people, no matter who they are — brown, black, white, yellow — who are stuck in these low-level jobs form an underclass in society. Others occasionally have ventured into their world but escaped and others began in that world and escaped.

The solution is to raise the standards of pay and working conditions in that world, partly by governmental regulations on health and safety (and this has been done over the years, thankfully), and partly by the free marketplace of labor itself. Of course those who hire illegals — and they know they are doing it; they can’t truthfully, except in some limited cases, claim, gee, we didn’t know — would say that is what they are doing, taking advantage of the marketplace of labor. But it is an artificial one. People who come into the United States illegally have to take what they can get and are not in a position to go to the authorities if regulations are broken. Meanwhile because they may earn only low wages, they must depend upon various forms of government support, which they get no matter their immigration status (new state laws notwithstanding).

If there were no illegals to hire, employers would have to do what they can to attract the existing citizen work force.

I have also written this before. In much of the farm harvest labor if employers had to pay hire wages and improve working conditions (and I am not saying necessarily the pay and the working conditions are all bad; it’s a matter of perspective or comparison) to attract our native population, they might find it a bit costly. But what has happened in the past is that mechanization has taken over. And mark my words, it would again. There are few things that cannot be mechanized (although there are some). In some cases, I suppose, some crops would not be raised if the labor force was not available.

I’d rather see it where no one has to resign him or herself to being in the underclass, so it would suit me find if a lot of those jobs disappeared or became so well paying that those who did them were no longer in the underclass. I mean in some places garbage men (and no offense to garbage men) are quite well paid.

I don’t think government controls on wages are a good idea, though. Health and safety, yes.

The market place of labor could solve the problem, but having the artificial element of an illegal workforce subsidized by our government (read taxpayers) and intimidated by its own immigration status, is not a natural labor market.

P.s.

In a story I read an Alabama farmer was concerned that he could not get his crops in without illegals. He apparently sees no personal responsibility towards his own society.

And what will we all do when due to technology we have nothing to do?

Some time ago I did a post on the fact that no job is safe from mechanization or, better put these days, from technological advancements.

It isn’t just mechanized ditch digger machines — my dad once told me they took the bread out of the mouths of thousands of Irishmen, and he was not Irish, just an old saying — but all kinds of office jobs. I mean you don’t see a typing pool anymore and you don’t even see nearly as many secretaries — everyone has their own computer keyboard at their desk and can do all those letters and memos themselves, even if they can’t spell correctly or punctuate (and computers don’t know if you used the correct word or what the syntax of your sentence was supposed to be, but I digress; I‘m getting off point).

I’m a truck driver and drivers often joke about how easy dispatchers have it (even though they know that is not necessarily so) and there is that joke that an empty trailer is as light as a load of dispatcher brains. But drivers know they need them, dispatchers that is, nonetheless.

A few years ago I read in a story about careers that the job of dispatcher was going the way of the buggy whip salesman, that automated phone systems and computers and so on would replace them. At the time, I was skeptical.

Now subsequently I did work for a time for a trucking company that did have a type of automated dispatch, but even there the whole system was still dependent upon the input of human dispatchers, very much so.

But I got an email from a trade journal, unsolicited, advertising some automated dispatch system, bragging that dispatchers were replaced by automation at 30 terminals at a major trucking company for a savings of more than a million dollars to that company.

As a truck driver that does not give me comfort. I can argue with a dispatcher (although not a good idea), but I can’t argue with a phone message. I can get help from a dispatcher (I have to admit, they can and do help at times), but the automated phone things just take you around on a continuous loop, as anyone who has ever badly needed to talk to someone at a commercial outfit knows.

The point here is not that it won’t work, the automation, the point is that no one is safe from being out of a job — like I said in the previous post, they’re experimenting with driverless trucks (one driver told me that is a train, but that is not what I meant, and even a train has an engineer, although that position could probably be more easily automated — and do you want a driverless train going through your town? While I am going off on a tangent here, I understand the Bay Area Rapid Transit trains are equipped to run themselves but due to safety concerns and politics they have operators).

And I ask once again, what will we all do when we really do have nothing to do? We can’t just all go out and play. I mean how do we distribute the tokens we call money?

ADD 1:

Just read a story in the LA Times online that the Pentagon wants FAA clearance to fly drones (pilotless aircraft) inside the United States. Seems it has more than 7,000 of them in the Middle East and with things winding down there somewhat it sees uses for them here — sounds quite George Orwellian to me! And I know I have heard there has been discussion about crewless aircraft to transport passengers. In our economic system the ultimate goal is to not have to pay people to do anything. At one time it was thought that machines and technology could do the heavy lifting and we as humans would reserve the efforts that require thinking for ourselves, but with artificial intelligence we have passed that threshold.

NAFTA (and other such programs) could mean the outsourcing of my job and yours too…

I’m an American citizen born and raised and I make my living driving a truck on interstate routes. And here I thought maybe I had the one job safe from outsourcing. Wrong. Very few jobs are.

Now before I go any further, I have not lost my job, but if things go as planned American truck drivers will lose jobs.

The reason is a little publicized, although not altogether unreported, part of the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA. It is a program to allow Mexican trucks into the U.S., and not just to let them deliver to spots on the border but well into the interior.

There had been a pilot program or programs previously, but then due to opposition within the United States it was shut down or at least postponed.

In retaliation, Mexico raised tariffs on various goods coming into that country.

But now it is reported the program is set to begin again.

But here is the deal, as far as I can see it:

Customers who pay for freight see this as a way to bring down freight rates and major over-the-road trucking companies would like to be able to recruit drivers right in Mexico. They would not even have to worry whether they are American citizens. Then they could pay substandard wages or at least reduce the pressure on themselves to keep wages in line with a decent standard of living under U.S. standards.

I read an editorial in the Dallas Morning News lauding the agreement. That editorial tried to make it sound as if the Mexican truck agreement would make things more efficient — goods would not have to transfer at the border and such. It also made it sound as if it was just organized labor against it.

Well I am not a Teamster and neither are most or all over-the-road truckers. But I do haul a lot of loads to and from the border. I like having my American job and do not want to give it up to those from without my country — I’m sure there are plenty of loads to haul in their own country.

Another laughable part of this whole arrangement, if it were not so serious, is that American trucks could go into Mexico. Oh sure, like I want to go into a completely lawless nation that not only has highway thieves, but corrupt law enforcement.

I talked to a Mexican truck driver once. He said that sometimes you drive down the highway in that country and the police pull you over and demand money (for no violation whatsoever). And we all know about the ongoing violence down there caused by the drug cartels — no one is safe.

Besides, I don’t want to even drive into peaceful Canada. I just want to stay right here in my own country and make a living.

Somehow I think there would still be the usual bureaucracy at the border for inspections and such. And while there may or may not be any increase in efficiency of hauling freight from a point in Mexico to within the U.S., any savings would be offset by the loss of American  jobs.

There is nothing wrong with dropping trade barriers in and of itself, but when we start outsourcing American jobs, that is another thing.

In addition, I have seen Mexican trucks on the border. They are not often in the best of shape. While supposedly these trucks will be inspected this side of the border, I am not sure the politics that allowed them to come in in the first place will not get in the way of thorough inspections.

In addition, allowing Mexican trucks to cross the border and proceed into the interior offers another way for drug cartels to smuggle their contraband into the U.S.

Our nation’s trade policies have made it so most everything is no longer made here; it is made elsewhere and shipped back in. Millions have lost their jobs that way.

Now they even want to outsource the American transportation system that brings those goods to us.

There is plenty of blame to go around; The history of NAFTA began with Republican president George H.W. Bush, and then I believe was eventually signed by Democrat Bill Clinton, carried on by Republican George W. Bush, and now Democrat Barrack Obama.

Thanks for doing what you can to keep me employed I say to all of these gentlemen and all of the legislators who had a hand in NAFTA,  but with friends like you I don‘t need enemies.

There is a current effort to delay and/or rescind the Mexican trucking program. I have contacted my congressman and U.S. senators to let them know my feelings.

But even if you are not a trucker, you can see how the powers that be care not whether you have a means to make a living or not.

P.s.

And once Mexican trucks are allowed into the interior they won’t just haul loads from a point in Mexico to a point in the U.S. and straight back. The reality of this business is that they will crisscross the nation in search of loads, just as all or most interstate trucking does.

Free trade done right would enrich the economies of both nations, creating jobs for the respective workers in those nations. This is not the way to do it.

P.s. P.s.

I have to admit that Canadian truckers have long run our roads. But Canada is more compatible with us due to its peaceful culture and rule of law and its stability, and we don’t need to add to the competition for American jobs now anyway.

P.s. P.s. P.s.

And I am not anti-Mexican. In fact I get along with Spanish speakers whom I deal with fine, especially the ones on the border. A lot of people have jobs now on both sides of the border thanks to our continued trade that pre-dated NAFTA. Why try to fix (or ruin) something that works for us in the U.S. (and Mexico).

And while I don’t think this story in the link I provide adequately covers things, it does give some points of view, not all of which I share: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/worldbusiness/first-mexican-truck-to-enter-us-in-coming-days-congressmen-say-program-puts-safety-at-risk/2011/10/19/gIQApnw3xL_story_1.html

Employers would pay more if cheap labor was not available, but then mechanization also becomes more attractive too…

BLOGGER’S NOTE:

The following is both a re-posting and a kind of hybrid post of one I did on this site and one I did on another site a day or so ago, but I am interested in the subject of whether there are jobs out there for people to do and whether some of those jobs are being taken by illegal aliens and whether anyone really wants those jobs, and what is practical in the job department:

I think when or if relatively cheap labor is not available employers will pay more for labor, but mechanization also becomes more attractive then too.

Watching the Mexican laborers (citizens some or all, immigration status, I don’t know and don’t care) hard at work the other day as my truck trailer full of potatoes to be processed was being unloaded, I was talking to another driver and we both agreed that unemployed people drawing assistance ought to have to check out these jobs.

Actually I have been there, done that myself once upon a time, or maybe more than once — not at the potato processing plant, but in the strawberry plant harvesting business, and elsewhere, to include harvesting worms out of ponds for tropical fish feed — and these were minimum wage or slightly above jobs.

Just a thought.

This scenario occurs to me: so there are no workers from south of the border to do low-paid or relatively low-paid labor. The government has now severely restricted various programs for the out of work. So out-of-work non-south-of-the-border people go to work at these jobs. Since they are so low paid and since many of them are seasonal, the government may well begin subsidizing them. But at least U.S. citizens will have some work. Also, mark my words, where it becomes impractical to find cheap labor, plants will turn to even more mechanization.

I have watched first hand a robot machine that stacks pallets of potato boxes quite nicely.

Okay, I originally posted this with the headline “There are jobs out there”, and maybe just by itself that was a bit misleading. There’s really a lot more to all of that, and of course low-end jobs that I was referring to don’t offer much hope and may not even be practical.

The key to getting jobs, as anyone would know, is having skill or skills at something or preferably many things. Young people need to know this and plan their lives accordingly. They don’t necessarily need to go to conventional college, but they need to do something. For the rest of us, we just have to do what we can do (I mean I attended the conventional four years of college, not all at once, and I drive a truck and am happy as can be to have a job at 62).

I do not think it has turned out to be practical to have the government through its various social programs be the guarantor of a certain standard of living for us all, that is not to say the government should not be there to help. Of course it should — otherwise what is it for? But we all have to take on personal responsibility.

Once upon a time, labor unions went with the attitude that labor is labor and management is management and it was solely up to management to makes things work economically so businesses could stay in business, but labor had to be guaranteed a certain standard of living. While I do think that employers do have a certain social responsibility, in the practical world they have to do what they have to do to stay in business. Labor has to do what it can to make itself worthy the cost. In this world of rapidly changing technology that can be a real challenge.

I could see in the not-to-distant future a situation in which the majority of people in the world have nothing to do thanks to technology. Now that will be a problem. We will have no practical way of distributing the tokens we call money. But that day has not come — even though it seems like it almost.

Right now the major economies of the West subsidize their low-end labor to some degree. They also subsidize or support many of those who do no work at all.

This is starting to bankrupt these economies.

One of the big problems in the United States is that not only do we not have enough jobs to go around (well that is debatable if we have illegal aliens filling many jobs), we have for decades now been encouraging young people to just take it easy, don’t make any decisions too soon, maybe go to college and find yourself, and so on (the smart and/or motivated ones don’t take this path). Well that doesn’t work so well. But this has led to what at times seems like a food stamp/welfare nation.

But even with all this, the fact is we need more jobs. That should be the number-one effort of the president and congress. Forget foreign wars and intrigue and forget prohibiting homosexuals from getting married, and mind your own business about women’s reproductive rights.

P.s.

But when I say forget foreign wars, I do no mean forget about defense and things happening around the globe that could affect our defense. The development of nuclear weapons by outlaw nations, such as Iran, cannot be ignored. But it is not practical, especially in the economic sense, either that the U.S. be in a perpetual state of war.

If the supply of illegal farm labor dries up, go to Plan B…

Well here we go again: farmers worried their source of cheap harvest labor might be drying up due to what is said to be the toughest state immigration law yet in Georgia, due to go into effect in July.

It seems that berry farmers there are having a hard time finding enough pickers and they think the reason may be that the new immigration law is scaring off some would-be Mexican or Latino workers, who may not be in the U.S. legally.

I’m getting this from a story to which I will provide a link in a second here. But first some observations:

It is difficult to impossible to get legal domestic labor (and read that white people — and no racism intended here, truly) for harvest work because the pay is relatively low, it is hard work that many are not used to or acclimated to (although they could get that way with  a little effort), it is only temporary and not a career (generally), and existing social welfare programs provide a disincentive to do this kind of work — although, paradoxically, existing social programs and laws subsidize the work to some extent too for those who do it, to include illegal aliens (they get medical treatment and education for themselves and  their children through tax dollars).

As I have often noted before, there was a time when non-Hispanics and people other than black people (often referred to as “white people” — again I am only describing, not trying to be racist) did back-breaking and low paying manual labor field work (and a few still do). But I think the Great Society programs of the 60s largely spelled an end to that.

I could go on and on about this subject, but I would rather not, really.

As long as there is a supply of relatively cheap labor, you cannot blame farmers, really, for using it. It makes good business sense. But if that source of labor was to dry up I don’t think the world would end. The farmers would go to Plan B.

In fact, in the afore-mentioned story, to which I still am going to provide a link, it notes that one type of berries can be picked mechanically, but some (much) of the product is lost in the process.

But that is the way things go. Where manual labor has become too expensive or impractical or impossible to find, mechanization tends to take over and it will continue to do that.

For those things that just cannot be done mechanically then hand labor will be found — if the price is right. Labor does and should have value.

The threat from the agriculture community, its form of blackmail, is that if they have to pay more, things will cost more for the consumer. Well, what else is new? Anyway, we can survive without blackberries or we can go to one of those pick-it-yourself fruit stands or we can go to a farmers market where a small-time grower has harvested it him- (or her) self — and this goes for almost all food commodities.

(I should note too that in some cases crops may not be raised anymore in certain areas if labor cannot be found, but if there is a demand for them, they will be grown somewhere else — yes where the labor is cheaper, no doubt.)

I’m really getting tired of hearing the whining about the shortage of cheap labor.

I do realize, though, that even if the wages were upped, it would still be hard to find people to do manual labor, often paid by the piece rate (out of understandable practicality). That is where you have to face reality and look at that Plan B (or perhaps Plan C, just quit) .

Maybe if we were not so liberal in our social welfare programs (and I am referring to everything from Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Social Security Disability — sometimes/often granted for questionable disabilities –such as an allergic reaction to work — just kidding, kind of — to extended unemployment and so on) we would have a larger pool of labor for the less desirable jobs.

But do we want to encourage or force whole groups of people to make a career out of nowhere employment that requires government subsidy in order for the people to have shelter and medical care?

It seems to me that in agriculture the real small farmers can do a lot of their own work — employ family members — and in the larger outfits, they just have to face the reality of the supply and demand of the domestic labor market. I do not think we should have to rely on the illegal alien labor market that eats up tax dollars with the social service demands (even though some amount of tax money may be derived from it), and the pull down of wages it creates for potential domestic workers (and yes, the domestic labor force will work if that is the only way to make a living), along with the criminals that sneak in with legitimate, albeit illegal workers.

Sometimes people looking for extra money, to include young people, have done harvest work and will do it.

Yes, please read the story I mentioned and view the accompanying video (if I do this correctly), I found it interesting.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-newlatinosouth-farmworkers-story,0,3768292.htmlstory

P.s.

And my contention continues to be that almost all harvest labor could be near totally or totally mechanized and will be once the supply of hand labor disappears.

P.s. P.s.

Associations representing farmers (or purporting to do so, such as Farm Bureau) spend a lot of time lobbying for cheap labor and for federal officials to look the other way when it comes to hiring illegal aliens. They would do better to come up with a way to devise some type of program that would make farm labor available, such as temporary guest workers and so on. They could tax themselves for this. They might even do it essentially outside of government (of course with legal permission).

Remember or learn what happened a hundred years ago at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory before you turn your back on labor…

A lot of times people, including me, will describe public broadcasting as being a little left leaning and therefore slanted a little toward the point of view of, say, labor in labor versus management.

Well sometimes when you tell a story, even if you try to balance it out, the facts just lean that way by themselves — but the story is still essentially balanced.

I mention this in relation to the ongoing push by some on the right to curb public funding for public broadcasting and more importantly because a hundred years ago this March 25 there was a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City in which 146 workers, primarily woman and young girls, toiling in abysmal working conditions, perished in a fire in a building in which doors were locked, cutting off an escape route.

PBS provides a good documentary on the story (see link at bottom of blog post).

There had been labor unrest in the garment industry and at that factory. There had been a walkout, but the Triangle owners held out.

The union gained public sympathy and support after the fire. The owners escaped criminal convictions on manslaughter charges and faded off into the background with their insurance money. The workers’ families got little to nothing.

I watched the PBS documentary video on the incident just before posting this. Actually I believe I have seen it previously and certainly I have known of the famous incident, but watching the video refreshed my memory and this time I picked up on what you might say is the other side of the story.

While most of the workers were poor recent immigrants to America, so were the owners when they started the business. They sacrificed so they could better their lot in life and in so doing provided jobs for hundreds more. The owners resented efforts by workers and third parties, and even socialists, to interfere with their business and tell them how to run their factory. They were also contending with being undercut in their production costs from competition — right here in America, in New York City. So there is your balance. I got that from the PBS video. Also, I don’t think anyone is for sure what caused the fire. It was supposedly set by a discarded match — there was supposed to be no smoking in the workplace, but some workers snuck smokes in — got that from the video too. It was suggested the doors were locked in part to keep people from smuggling merchandise or supplies out (not really a good reason to block safety exits).

The women were not even allowed restroom breaks. I’m not sure how you balance or explain that one.

Today in the U.S. we have strict safety regulations and things like the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (much maligned by the right wing, and perhaps on occasion a little unreasonably bureaucratic). But we have moved away from the industrial base and in so doing away from unionization, except in public employment where unions still rule and up until now have seemed quite strong. And with the bleak job market and the heightened competition for the few jobs that remain, the labor movement has been weakened and the sympathy for those who labor has seemingly waned. Besides a lot of people, even me included, hate to think of themselves being in an adversarial relationship with their employers.

In addition, I think, a lot of people, including myself, do not necessarily think that pay ought to be an issue decided by a group of workers or a third party calling itself the union, but rather essentially a deal between the employer and employee. We may think we ought to get paid more on the basis or our own merits rather than a group. And, as pointed out in the video I referred to, even if you have sympathy for the plight of workers, you may see robust capitalism, only lightly restricted, as the best means of innovation in and invigoration of the economy.

But let us learn and/or never forget from the past.

It is worth your while to watch a video or read about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, whether it is for the first time or to refresh your memory.

While I personally think that in at least some cases unions, especially in, but not only in, the public sector are responsible for what I would call economic abuse or outright greed, I also know full well that forces representing business interests use our present economic ills and the fears of the working public scared that they will lose their jobs or never get their old ones back as a device to turn back the clock to a time we never want to see again.

Watch the video: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/triangle/player/

P.s.

As an added bonus, you find out what a shirtwaist is.

Unions pitted against each other; doing a good job can be security in itself, but not always…

Sometimes I just have to turn the radio off. You know, when someone says something so contradictory or outlandish or infuriating, as when I was listening to a local radio station commentator (out of Sacramento) doing a brief obligatory right-wing (local-yokel these days is all right wing all Clear Channel Radio) hit piece on unions.

I’m not a union member, but what infuriated me is that he took the line so many regular citizens even seem to take: Unions once served a purpose but they have gotten out of hand.  Actually that may or may not be true, but I think it is too often just a non-thinking short-hand that turns a blind eye to history. Whether you are union or not, you probably would not want to go back to the non-union world of the first half of the 20^th Century or earlier — but history is not a popular subject, it seems. Even baby boomers don’t really know first hand what is was like. People these days take so much for granted.

It is true there are a lot of protections for workers in law these days (law pushed long ago by unions and others), but those protections can be repealed by way of blaming all our ills on “costly” protections for workers and so on.

(Civil rights leaders and older minorities lament the younger crowd is unmoved or ignorant of history too.)

But even more infuriating is the common theme I have been hearing: unions are bad, except my union.

Yes, unions are now pitted against each other — well that certainly works into the hands of the anti-union crowd.

The radio guy admitted at the end of his piece that he was a member of a union (actually I think he said two unions), but allowed as he was not really happy with it (them), but also admitted he got good benefits though them.

I also heard a policeman call into a talk show and suggest that police should be made an exception to any move to de-unionize or take away collective bargaining from public employees.

People are like that. They always seem to be against something, except in their own case.

Now here’s something else on the current union debate (started in Wisconsin where the governor wants to do away with public employee collective bargaining rights in the name of fiscal austerity, but as most realize also for the purpose of the Republican Party preference to do away with unions altogether):

Talk Show host Tom Sullivan (not the un-named guy previously mentioned) claims that unions are not really needed to protect workers because anyone who does a good job is automatically protected by the fact that he or she does a good job. Really, I would think — as a matter of fact, I almost know — that he is smarter than that, but saying such a thing sides with his ideological-driven take on reality.

I mean certainly in theory and in a perfect world that would be the case. I’ll even admit that is the way I like to see things. But then there is the real, not always fair and certainly not always logical or reasonable world. Good workers get fired, pushed out, harassed, or otherwise discouraged all the time.

I think Mr. Sullivan’s problem is that most of his working background (not all) has been in the financial world and tied to sales. You keep your numbers up and, yes, more than likely your job is secure, or if not, someone else wants you.

Someone near and dear to me once advised that the higher-paying jobs are closer to the money, such as in sales (too bad I did not take that advice to heart). People who work in support capacities often do not make as much.

At the small newspapers I once worked at, even though we were newspapers, most of the owners (not all) saw the news staff as at best a necessary evil, but at the same time almost unnecessary. You see, the money is made (was made?) by selling advertising space. Folks do not pay directly for news (the copy cost for a newspaper, I was always told, just helps pay the cost of printing and delivering it). A good ad salesperson directly brings in the revenue and gets a cut — a commission — as well as a salary (in most cases).

A good journalist might help make the product being sold (and I hate to use the word “product” in that context, but that is business talk) more attractive and thus contribute to a higher circulation and in turn create a situation for higher advertising rates, but that is all intangible.

(The upper echelons of broadcast news pay astronomical salaries because it is show business not real journalism.)

I’m really getting off the subject here, but this makes me think of the time I worked for a newspaper and the chain that ran it came in and supposedly did a salary study. I left before it was completed, but my old boss told me they concluded they were paying too much. Let’s see it was 1978 and I was taking home about $600 per month and trying to support a family. Yep, overpaid. (The starting wage for a clerk typist over at the county courthouse at the time was $1,000 per month — no wonder people like government jobs.)

But I got way off the track here. But what I was really trying to say is that while I like the theory that simply doing a good job, or even an excellent job or going along with the attitude that take care of your job and your job will take care of you is one that I like, it may not always work that way. There are a lot of variables. If your pay structure is not directly tied to your performance the theory might not hold true. And not all work can be tied directly to performance, especially since performance in many things is hard to accurately measure.

I do believe that taking pride in one‘s work is a moral responsibility and makes good sense and is in the best interests of the individual. Being good at what you do has to be a good thing.

Unions certainly have their drawbacks, especially when they promote silly work rules and protect mediocrity, and even more when they get too greedy and kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Unfortunately, many in the business and management category when left to their own devices will not always do what is in the best interests of employees or even the company (go figure). To make things worse, many in that category seem to be of the opinion that workers are lower class and deserve to be treated as such.

But you know? We can’t all be the boss.

But we all want to look out for our own interests.

 P.s.

I’m not schooled in the field of business or economics, but I think to advance my argument that things don’t always work the way they should in a Tom Sullivan perfect world I will say this: That small newspaper I once worked for that did the salary study still exists today, although under a different ownership. But I think it was and is in a kind of protected situation. I know under the previous chain it was called a “cash cow”. It was not necessary to pay people particularly well and quality was not so important because it had no direct competition. Everyone who worked there had their own story: just helping his or her spouse pay the bills, going to move on some day, couldn’t do better, no opportunity somewhere else, and so on. But  a lot of people in a lot of different jobs all over the country are in this situation, and employers take advantage.

In the past, sometimes people stuck working for low pay outfits got on with the government, a lot of  times a job for the city or country. You know?  Civil Service protections and unions.

And now the powers that be want to screw that up.

Looks like a race to the bottom for the working class.

P.s. P.s.

And yet I am more comfortable as a non-union worker. I tend to want to work and satisfy the one who signs my check and in my type of work (over-the-road truck driver) I basically work independently and don’t need any union bosses or fellow union brothers looking over my shoulder and telling me how hard to work or not to work. I stand by my own work and don’t need a union to speak for me. But that’s just me. And in a different time and different place, I might see things differently.

Mixed emotions on unions, but union or not, most of us are workers and receive at least indirect benefits from unions; A segment of society wants to kill unions…

At the rate technology is advancing the whole battle between labor and management might in the not-so-distant future be over a moot point, because there may be little to no need for workers — only a slight exaggeration or maybe not.

I don’t watch television anymore, but I hear a computer was able to out-think contestants on Jeopardy, and I have read about robotic computers that do everything from wait on tables in China to teach school In Japan. And I know that in Asia there was an experiment with a driverless truck run over the roads by remote control (that hits home; I’m a truck driver).

But until this all comes to pass for real — and when it does civilization is over — the fact is that most people are workers.

It seems that many of the people who run businesses, be they the owners or CEOs, and others who live off of their investments and don’t report to a regular job have great disdain for lowly workers and think they should have no rights and take what their masters hand them out of benevolence.

(Remember that the old line on the plantation was that the masters took good care of their workers — black slaves — and they really had things better off than if they were on their own — oh sure the masters occasionally had to whip them into shape, but…)

I don’t know, maybe none of us should work for anyone else. Maybe each and every one of us should be independent contractors. Would we have rights in the eyes of business people then? (And I know they like to pretend some hourly employees are independent contractors to get out of paying regular wages and benefits, but I’m talking about real independent contractors — not working for anyone else as a mere employee).

In my last post I mentioned that public workers have had clout because the politicians tend to cater to them to take advantage of their voting block.

And currently the issue of unions and collective bargaining is in the news because the governor of Wisconsin and the state’s Republican lawmakers want to strip state workers of their collective bargaining rights, ostensibly to make it easier for the state to balance its budget. Several other states are considering such a move and even more may well follow — it’s a trend.

And I just read that a bill to eliminate the requirement that federal construction jobs pay the so-called prevailing wage (actually the higher union wage) was introduced but defeated in Congress. The argument for repeal of the current law was that it favored larger union contractors because smaller contractors could not compete and that inflates the costs of public projects. That may be essentially true (but then again, some small-time operators do not always do quality work and many skimp on safety, especially when they don‘t have the union looking over their shoulder).

But the battle in Wisconsin is over collective bargaining. Workers in the United States in private industry have a right to collective bargaining through a 1935 law, the National Labor Relations Act.

I’m not sure that all states allow their government employees the right to collective bargaining — and we are talking union representation here really — but many do. President Kennedy signed an executive order giving federal employees a right to collective bargaining.　

I do recall how President Ronald Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers after they went out on strike (that‘s a public safety issue, I think, that I address a  paragraph down).

I’m of mixed minds on labor unions in general and public employee unions.

I don’t think public safety employees should be allowed to strike, because that would endanger the public, and I am not even sure I think any public employee should be allowed to strike (and the threat of a strike is part of collective bargaining). My rationale is that it is the citizens’ government, so if you strike and disrupt the work of the government you are going against the best interests of the citizens as a whole.

For that matter I am not too hot on mandatory union membership, or the “closed shop”. Some states have so-called right-to-work laws that prohibit a worker from being required to join a union. But then one wonders, would a non-union member turn down higher wages bargained through a union?

But it does seem to me that no one should have to give part of his or her pay to a union. And I don’t like the idea of a union as a third party in the employee-employer relationship if an individual has not asked for it.

And I don’t like the idea of unions interfering with the conduct of a business. I don’t think that those who run a business, be they small or huge enterprises, should have to go through a union to tell them how to conduct their own business. Taking the hard line, I would say if you as a worker don’t like what you are getting the best option is to move on — easier said that done, I know, in many cases. And that may be a reason why young people should get as much education and wide-ranging skills as they can so that they can take advantage of the best that is being offered.

(Sometimes employees band together and buy a business. Well how does that work? If they do not do a good enough job do they fire themselves? Just wondering.)

There is a paradox here of sorts, though. Even if you as a worker are not a union member, it may well be that whatever wage and benefits you earn, they would be far lower if unions did not exist.

In the past at least, some industries or individual factories or firms have kept wages and benefits up just to discourage their employees from unionizing.

Currently I work as an over-the-road or long-haul truck driver as a company driver. Contrary to popular belief most or all long-haul drivers are not members of the Teamsters or any other union. But a few years back I worked for a trucking company that had both union and non-union terminals. I worked for a non-union terminal. We non-union drivers were paid as much or more than the union drivers (although they had some different work rules) and our benefits were as good or better, and we did not have to pay the dues. I can only think what was going on there was that the company was glad we were not unionized and that they were not hamstrung by unnecessary work rules and wanted to keep us happy — and as far as I am concerned, they did, keep us happy (and of course it is easier to cut wages when times are not so good when you don‘t have to deal with a union).　

But then the Great Recession hit. There was a lot less work and some of the older drivers got nervous and they did the card check thing (I was no longer with the company then, but another driver told me). The union was able to get enough drivers to sign union cards, thus forcing even the ones who did not want to unionize to be dues-paying members of the union. Ironically, the former non-union drivers who were paying nothing for their health insurance now have to pay for it through the union.

On the other hand, those union drivers make a lot more than I do now. If I had to support a family on what I make, well, I could not do it (and now I qualify or amend what I just wrote in this sentence in Add 2 at the bottom of this post — you can read it if you get that far; I do go on at times).

And that is really what it is all about. There is a certain segment of the society that wants to destroy the rights of workers to make a decent living and along with it they will destroy the middle class (and once the middle class is gone we are a third-world country without a real democracy). There is another segment of society that goes along with them because they are ignorant of the fact that the so-called conservatives whom they support really have no concern for the workers.

In some cases it might be argued or even proven that unions have run companies into the ground. But if a private company fails, some other business will come along to fill the gap.

If the government comes to a standstill over union pressure, no one can fill the gap.

Government employee unions have too much clout. In California where I live the most egregious example is the prison guard union (on one radio talk show I listened to a prison guard called in and complained that it was false that guards made $100,000 per year. He actually stated point blank: “no guard is making $100,000 per year“. Strangely he went on and contradicted his own statement, admitting, or at least claiming he made $100,000 per year via overtime, and admitted that many or most of the guards work overtime. Why the state does not hire more guards if so much overtime is required is a question (I think it is true, though, that the prison guard union supported the three-strikes law that has swelled the prison population).

But all government employees are not necessarily overpaid and it is too bad that they have to all be lumped together.

I think the concern among reasonable people is that in some sectors salaries and benefits have far surpassed the private sector and at a time of tight budgets the taxpayers (and that is all of us) need some relief.

—————–

ADD 1:

Just scanned over some stories on the web that suggest that what is going on in Wisconsin and elsewhere is more about scapegoating on who’s at fault for the respective budget crises (I’m sure it is a shared blame among the politicians, government workers, and don’t forget the voting public who demands everything but fails to see the need for higher taxes, always attributing increased costs to waste).

Also I read about a poll that shows the majority of Americans think that the government spends too much overall, but start listing specific programs and they don’t want them cut. Same with unions. In the abstract they are bad. But begin listing ones people belong to or their neighbors belong to, they are not anti-union.

Public school system teacher salaries are wide ranging depending upon the different localities and states and time in service, but I think it is safe to say that they probably range from as low as $36,000 (lower?) to into the 90s, but with most probably in the 40s to $50,000. And a California prison guard — no college required — can pull down $100,000 per. I don’t know, but I think something is wrong here. I don’t think most beat cops make that much.

ADD 2:

Somewhere above I wrote that at my current rate of pay I could not support a family (those days are in the past for me anyway). But you know? a lot of people say things like that. The reality today, unlike when I grew up, is that mom has to work too — except that so many children grow up in single-parent households these days, and that puts extra pressure on those households because everything is based on the mom and dad both working model. But what I really want to say here is that people can do a lot with a lot less if they live within their means, but as a society we have grown accustom to living beyond our means and were ill-prepared for the Great Recession. We are so many generations into living beyond our means now that few people seem to have any concept of how to economize, except that maybe they learn when it is forced upon them — no actually they don’t, they go squawking to government while simultaneously showing disdain for government — and I realize these are not always the same people, but then again sometimes they are. It’s all very complicated and yet all quite simple at the same time: if we as a nation started living within our means and taking personal responsibility we would all be a lot better off and a lot stronger, and gee don’t I sound like a true right-wing nut? No, I’m middle of the road. I believe in free enterprise, social programs for the public good, environmental protection with practical but not excessive rules, and as much personal freedom as possible while maintaining civility.

We might not have to work in the future, but who would give us the tokens?

Labor Day is over and it’s back to work — well actually I worked a few hours on Labor Day and I certainly worked the Labor Day weekend. But then again I’m an over-the-road truck driver, so that is not unusual — it comes with the territory.

But my comment on Labor Day is that there really is no future in labor.

I would advise any young person not yet in the work world or at least not stuck in anything yet to stay far away from the idea of classifying yourself as a “worker” or as a member of the societal group called “labor”.

As a worker you are valuable to your employer. Right up until the time it is found that you can be replaced by automation.

And really, few fields are immune. And in the future perhaps none will be.

I just read an article in a trade magazine for transportation company owners and management that in Italy they’re experimenting with driverless trucks. The article concludes it’s still about 20 years off.

And you probably read something several weeks ago about robot teachers in Japan.

We actually may fast be approaching a world in which there is little to no need for human labor.

I suppose there may always be a need for some type of craftsmanship and there may be a need for technicians to operate and maintain the machinery, but it seems there is going to be a lot less demand for workers in general.

The right wing political types always seem to be preaching something that sounds like they think everyone ought to be a self-sufficient entity, needing no help nor support from anyone or anything (government especially). In the world that seems to be forming around us they may have something there — I don’t know how this all works (pardon the expression) though.

Call me crazy, but I have actually enjoyed working, for the most part, although I did not like every job I ever had and certainly did not enjoy every work day.

Something that occurs to me is that even though we have and are expanding our technology that is making work as we have known it unnecessary, that does not mean we actually have to use it.

Also, I think I touched on this before, but if no one really needed to work, we would have to come up with a different economic system. Currently, with most people being workers (still), we have this system where we share limited resources by earning tokens (money) based on our work. These tokens allow us to get things we need, such as food and shelter, and luxuries beyond the basics. But if we did not work, who would give us the tokens?

Unemployment insurance is needed, but it can be a drag too…

As I post this, I see that it looks like the Democrats are going to be able to overcome Republican resistance to an extension in unemployment benefits — and yes I know, the conservatives claim they are not against the extension, they just want it paid for — that is what they say.

There was a time when you were out of work, when your usual occupation dried up, you went to doing something else — most anything. Of course, most anything did not necessarily pay enough to keep you and yours in the lifestyle to which you had grown accustomed — but that was the way it was. Then federal and state-run unemployment insurance came into being. You still did not make the money you made at your regular job but you did not have the expense and trouble of trying to work at something that did not pay enough and kept you from getting back into your regular line of work — and sometimes there really was, or in the present tense, really is no work.

Most of the time, a requirement to draw unemployment insurance is that you actively conduct a search for work. There are exceptions to this. Over the years it became a practice by seasonal workers to apply for unemployment benefits out of season. That, on the face of it, seems kind of strange in that one knows from the get go whether an occupation is seasonal and so should not expect to get paid for being out of work when he or she knew that would be the case.

(I need to insert here that a lot of people I have heard justify being on unemployment with the comment “I paid into it.” As far as I understand it, though, such is not the case. Employees do not pay into the government unemployment programs, but employers do.)

But in any case, unemployment officials have accepted the practice of paying out benefits to seasonal workers and not requiring them to seek employment, but instead wait till the season starts up again. This is of course amounts to a government subsidy for seasonal employment.

I don’t know all the details of unemployment insurance, but from time to time, over the years, congress has voted to give the program extensions so people on unemployment can receive payments beyond the normal time limit.

Republicans, possibly more out of politics than real concern, or maybe not, are balking at an unemployment extension, with some being so bold as to charge that it simply discourages people from looking for work. Others say they would be willing to vote for the extension if corresponding cuts can be made in other programs to offset the increased cost to avoid piling on to the already astronomical national debt with more borrowing. And that’s not a bad argument. However, one wonders if those same people thought about cutting government programs in order to justify the Bush tax cuts for the rich. A well known political tactic of the neo-conservative movement is to fight social programs by simply “starving the beast” via tax cuts, rather than risk political capital by opposing popular programs, socialist though they may be.

Personally, I wonder why we do not have a slightly less arcane system of unemployment insurance that simply pays you decent compensation, albeit not your normal salary, for a long period of time, but with the requirement that you conduct an active work search in everything and anything you may be qualified or capable of doing. In addition, it might be appropriate to allow, but not require, an employee contribution to unemployment insurance that would qualify the unemployed worker for additional coverage.

And those who insist that cuts in other areas of spending are needed for extending jobless benefits may well be correct, but they ought to have the guts to suggest where they would cut.

Unemployment insurance is needed for stability in society and the economy. I’m not at all sure that having the government subsidize seasonal employment via unemployment insurance is such a great idea, though. Seasonal workers should plan to work at something else in the off season. Many long years ago I worked for a time in a wood re- manufacturing plant and in the winter some of the log truck drivers would work in the mill. I don’t know if they were required to by the employer and/or unemployment officials.

There is a segment in the business community that has nothing but disdain for unemployment insurance, and don’t even mention minimum wage. They want to see workers have to accept whatever they are given and be happy with it. I don’t agree with that hard approach, but it does seem that it would be somewhat more practical for people to accept that there is a certain supply and demand rule going in labor and sometimes there is an over supply and an under demand and that can mean lower wages for a time. And sometimes one has to move on to something new. To some extent unemployment payments create an artificial system that seems to encourage people to be idle rather than to move on. Eventually most have to move on and the delay does not help them.

In addition it is not fair for part of society to constantly have to carry the other part, and a large idle population puts a crimp on the overall economy.

Mixed in with all of this is the supply of illegal foreign labor that depresses wages and working conditions and competes with citizens in need of work.

I don’t know if I have ever brought this up, but one of my bright ideas has been to create a government labor pool made up of those who cannot find work in the private sector. This labor pool would be available for various public works projects, such as litter cleanup, park projects, and various things that do not usually get done due to budget constraints or priorities. A labor pool would provide the unemployed with something productive to do and at the same time might be an encouragement to go out and find a better job or become an entrepreneur. Okay, I admit, that is probably basically what FDR did — maybe I just mean an updated version of something like the 1930s  CCC that might be a permanent part of the system.

To those who do not need unemployment insurance because they are skillful in something that is in demand and because they have made wise life decisions, I say go ahead and pat yourself on the back and encourage a young person to do the same, that is get skillful and make wise life decisions. At the same time, don’t be too smug — financial calamities can happen to anyone (can you say CANCER?).