Labor Day: A Day for the American Worker

Labor Day was established in 1894 and signed into law by president Grover Cleveland  to make the first Monday of each September a federal day set aside to celebrate the efforts of organized labor and the gains---financial and social--- it has made on behalf of all workers, union and non-union.

I guess I've always tended to support unions, employee owned workplaces. and employee initiatives. From the time I got out of the Navy in 1979 to when I retired at the ripe old age of 55 in 2013, I've worked for several non-union companies. Most were decent, but some seriously "used and abused" their employees and left much to be desired. This resulted in a lot of employee turnovers, sloppy work, very low morale, hostile outbursts, and some unnecessary tense work conditions.

In every place I worked, I was asked by fellow employees to be the employee representative. I'm not sure why I was repeatedly chosen. Maybe they thought I'd be fair and balanced or perhaps it was because I wasn't bashful about challenging authority figures! Regardless, I was always honored by the trust and confidence my fellow employees had in me to take on the role of employee/management liaison.

My last position before retiring was that of "Special Coordinator to the President for Special Projects". Basically this was a assistant vice president position which functioned similar to my previous roles as a employee/management liaison. I was to provide a comprehensive report to the company president and the Regional Vice President along with recommendations for the improvement of company morale and productivity (in addition to my role as Senior Legal Manager, where I oversaw around 30 contract attorneys and managed a receivables portfolio of some $15 million dollars).

In addition to serving on several non-profit boards, I was appointed state chairperson of a national writers union (NWU 1918) where I served for 11 years. I handled state based issues and served on the local labor council. I was elected as the National Vice Chairperson of the At Large Chapter and served on several national committees. I also liaised with several worker oriented organizations.

Did you know organized labor has been chiefly responsible for establishing the 40 hour work week, health and other benefits, paid vacations and personal time, job safety (resulting in the creation of OSHA), an end to child labor (children as young as 8 years old were often working in mines),  fiscal accountability of hours worked and wages earned? They promoted Social Security, unemployment insurance and worker's compensation for work related injuries.

Equality and fairness in the workplace has always been a historically important union issue. Unions backed social causes like the Women's Suffrage Movement, Civil Rights, and the Chicano Movement of migrant farm workers and sharecroppers for fair wages, not to mention the Family Medical Leave Act,  and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) which guaranteed returning military personal their old job back or paid training for a similar job in the event their earlier job or place of employment was gone. But these gains didn't come easy. They opposed President Clinton's "NAFTA", which was a disaster for American industries and blue collar workers.

It's estimated that at least 1100 individuals died fighting for worker rights (many murdered by "enforcers" hired by company bosses). Thousands more were injured. Some badly. Others permanently. Companies used every form of intimidation imaginable, from reducing hours for hourly employees (or overloading them with hours and no breaks or rest time), ostracizing employees (and anyone who associated with them) to outright firing them. A lot of blood was spilled for these "concessions".

Since the advent of the modern Industrial Age, countless workers, mostly women, worked for low wages in the textile industry, often in hot and unsafe conditions. Many were maimed or killed. With no daycare, the women often brought their children with them, tucking infants and small children under chairs or beside their machines. Not surprisingly injuries or some other mishap wasn't uncommon among the children, such as lung disease, hearing loss, or the loss of a finger.

In 1911, some 600,individuals, mostly women, were working at the Triangle Garment Company, owned by Max Blanck and Isaac Harris, and located in the Greenwich Village district of Manhattan. The company occupied the top three floors of the ten storied Asch Building (now the "Brown Building"). For the time, the building was often billed as being "fireproof" (like the unsinkable Titanic in 1912 I guess).

The women, mostly young and recent Jewish and Italian immigrants, were engaged in manufacturing of women's blouses, an industry declining in popularity. The women worked 9 hours a day and earned between $7 and $12 a week conditions were stifling.  Windows were often kept shut and typically management required all doors to be closed and locked from the outside (a supervisor had the key).

On the late afternoon of March 25th, a fire mysteriously broke out in a rag bin and quickly spread. As all the doors were locked from the outside, the only options were burning alive, smoke inhalation, or jumping out the windows to certain death. Many chose the latter. 146 individuals---123 women and 23 men---perished in what was one of the worst disaster in the history of the garment industry.

Although sued by family members, with no safety regulations, the two owners were found innocent. Meanwhile, their insurance company paid Harris and Blanck $60,000 for the loss of their business. That equates to $75 per life lost, of which the families never saw a dime (it was never determined if the fire was accidental or not, but it's worth noting that the two owners had been found guilty on four occasions previously of insurance fraud by arson). OSHA would not be founded for another 60 years when, after intense union pressure, it was signed into law by then President Richard Nixon.

In company owned towns (which were common in and around mines and lumber mills) reprisals for union organizing may include refusal of service at company owned grocery stores (workers weren't paid in U.S. currency, but in company script which was worthless anywhere else), evictions from company owned housing, the rape of wives and daughters, expelling their children from company run schools, and verbal condemnation at company approved churches (attendance was often mandatory). If the "problem" couldn't be resolved "in-house", the company would often employ "other measures".

"Other measures" often took the form of militias or recruited vigilantes, private security companies (like the Pinkertons), hiring  (aka bribing) local cops to break up protests as brutally as possible. If that failed, company presidents would use their influence to get the governor (who was usually in their back pocket anyway) to call out the National Guard and "restore order" and detain ring leaders.

Since many of the workers were Black, German, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Jewish, Asian (predominantly Chinese) or Italian, there was no shortage of hate groups willing to inflict as much violence as possible and get paid for it! Arson or the use of dynamite were often employed as "tools of anti-union trade" and when those tactics didn't work, it sometimes came down to cold blooded murder.

The result was decades of bloody "wars" between companies and their employees from the steel mills of Pittsburgh, the docks of New York, the  coal mines and hollows of Appalachia, and the automobile factories of the Northeast. Ultimately, the workers won, at least in the short term.

Unions were finally officially recognized thanks to the passage of "National Labor Relations Act of 1935"  (aka "The Wagner Act") on the heels of the Great Depression and signed into by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  FDR was perhaps the most labor friendly president in our country's history.      

His long time friends and opponents, mainly on Wall Street, often called him a "traitor to his class", and perhaps he was. The aim of the "Wagner Act" was to mediate differences between labor and management in order to prevent strikes and work stoppages which weaken an already struggling economy. But the fighting between workers and owners needed to stop for the sake of the nation's economic health (ultimately is wasn't the recognition of unions which saved the economy, but World War II).  

Eventually Big Business was able to claw back many of their concessions. There was no way they were going to allow the political clout of organized labor to stand. In 1949, with bipartisan support, the 80th Congress went over President Harry Truman's head and enacted the "Taft-Hartley Act".  

The act restricted many of Labor's actions against employers, specifically  wildcat strikes, political strikes, solidarity strikes and secondary boycotts. It prohibited discrimination against  non-union members, and additional rights such the right to vote out a union and the right of companies to vote on a union's demands, but it didn't stop there.

In 1959, Congress enacted the Landrum-Griffith Act which was made law with President Dwight Eisenhower's signature.  Also known as the "Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act", the law was primarily geared to protect union members from any corrupt activities of union officials may be engaged in. This was the era of organized crime's takeover of a number of unions, notably the "big four",  the International Longshoremen, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Laborers International of North America, and Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International. 

It made union participation or involvement in racketeering, bribery, extortion, misuse of union funds, intimidation of workers illegal. Anyone found guilty could be removed from their union position and race fines or even jail time. It also created a "Bill of Rights" for union members (which was later extended to include non-union employees as well). 

It should bear mentioning that the Landrum-Griffith Act was passed during the era of "McCarthyism",  "the red Scare", and the "Cold War". The importance of this and how it relates to unions is that many of the early union leaders admitted to being socialist or Communist. Perhaps the best known of these was Robert Le Follett, A. Phillip Randolph, Mary Harris "Mother" Jones,  Eugene Debbs and Samuel Gompers.

Some of the unions which had a large socialist or Communist membership included the CIO and AFL, the UAW, International Union of Electrical Workers,  International Workers of the World ("Wobbles"), the Transport Workers Union, the Longshoremen, and the United Steelworkers.

In addition, many of the laws passed in the 1930's like Social Security, unemployment, the right to unionize and strike were all labeled as "anti-American", "socialist" and "Communist". Nevertheless, most of these laws are not just still with us, but have become institutionalized as a "national right".

Unions are said to have created the middle class, which may very well be true, but it's not been all wine and roses. I voluntarily joined the NWU. I wasn't coerced into joining. It offered me an advantage and I felt I had something I could offer the union. I was honored to have been the liaison on behalf of my fellow employees for 34 years. We accomplished a great deal for ourselves and the company's bottom line. Lastly, while I support unions and the right to organize and bargain for better pay and work conditions, I also believe in free choice and not being compelled into joining any organization.

However, those individuals who decline to join should not expect to receive all of the benefits that their fellow union employees do. That's the trade off. It's called personal responsibility. For me, it's just that "something" about being told I "must" do or participate in something without being given a choice that irks me to the core. I bet no one is surprised to read that! We also have to remember the years of corruption and crime which has smeared the reputation of organized labor, perhaps forever. 

Finally, unions refuse to think outside of the box, or to be more accurate, outside of the hip pocket of  the Democratic Party which, like the Republicans, greedily serves Wall Street. Union leadership has consistently failed to protect the best interests of its members by not making the major parties or candidates compete for its support. Labor must look elsewhere, even if it means forming it's own political party (we're the only industrial nation without a Labor party) or face eventual extinction.  

So, that's a brief history of Labor Day and why you get a three day weekend marking the last "official" holiday of the Summer, but remember the high price others paid for you to have that one extra day off.

 

 If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

The Haymarket Affair

Lists of worker deaths in United States labor disputes

No union mines left in Kentucky, where labor wars once waged

Union busting

History of union busting in the United States

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

USERRA: A Guide to the Uniformed Employment or ReemploymentAct

What Is The Taft-Hartley Act?

1959 Landrum-Griffin Act

Communist Party USA and the American labor movement (1919 -1937)

Communist Party USA and the American labor movement (1937 -1950)

 

 

 

Immigration and Outcomes

Everyone knows that the US has an illegal immigration problem. We've had one since at least the Ronald Reagan Presidency. Estimates range from 12 million all the way up to 20 million individuals living in this country illegally. However, no one in Washington seems to care, We used to get empty promises of a border fence; of more border patrol and ICE presence; of more severe penalties for businesses, churches and the like who willfully broke the law. Now, politicians in Washington don't even have the decency to look into the camera and openly lie to us. They simply don't care what you and I think or want. The simple matter is that their corporate masters want cheaper labor. That means that they need more workers willing to accepting low paying jobs with little or no benefits. The more potential workers, the lower wages (and benefits) go. It's basic economics 101: supply and demand.

Many labor unions support illegal immigration too, not because they necessarily care about the welfare of these individuals but because they hope these largely low or no skill workers will accept the menial low paying jobs which is mostly all the private sector unions have left to offer since many of the good paying jobs have been outsourced overseas where companies can pay employees less...much less. Nevertheless, these low skilled and often poorly educated employees with still have to pay union dues out of their meager salaries, which will bolster the faltering union treasuries. Again, basic economics.

Many low wage service jobs like those found in the fast food industry, have been demanding dramatic pay increase; from current wages just over minimum wage to new $15 dollar an hour wages. That's all well and good. I hope they get them. I really do, however, what most people tend to forget is that these jobs were created to be primarily part-time and never as jobs to solely support households, but with the exporting of the majority of manufacturing jobs overseas, these have become the "go to" jobs for the low skilled and/or low educated individual, especially for single parents.

Corporations have, of course, attempted to justify the exporting of jobs overseas as a means to compete in global markets. Corporations have long maintained that they're unable to compete against other businesses that pay employees a few dollars or even cents on the hour, and usually with no benefits (including vacations). Often employees are required to work in unsafe or unhealthy work conditions over long hours, few if any breaks, and with machinery that's unsafe. Thus it's not uncommon for employees to be injured at work due to the equipment failure and/or exhaustion. However, since many countries lack anything similar to an OSHEA and with few (if any) employee rights, they have little recourse. A few companies have even exported jobs to countries actually employ prison or child labor (which is not uncommon in the garment or shoe industries for instance).

Nevertheless, US corporations are able to ship foreign products goods back into the United States while paying little if any tariffs since they maintain a presence here in the States. As a result, not only are American companies able to reduce employee costs, as well as avoiding expenditures on proper equipment requirements or meeting proper health or safety guidelines, they can also avoid any importation penalties. As a result, many US corporations are reaping a financial windfall. Is it any wonder CEOs making on average up to 400% percent more than their average employee? The result is, as alluded to above, those seeking employment, especially those without a college or technical education, are forced to accept whatever job they can find. In addition, there are the tax breaks and taxpayer based incentives commonly known as "corporate welfare". Frankly, who can blame them for attempting to force employers to pay out more in wages? After all, it's not like you can export service jobs right? Well, perhaps.

What many haven't counted on is that low wage employers do have a few recourses available. They can cut back on the number of employees they hire and require existing employees to pick up the slack, including mandatory work on the holidays, longer hours and fewer benefits (especially healthcare). Another recourse is automation. Some fast food restaurants for instance have begun experimenting with automated ordering devises that eliminates order takers (purchases are made with debit or credit cards, so there's no cash transactions). So, instead of four or five employees working the counter, maybe only one or two will be needed. In addition, owners can and most likely will raise the costs of their products a few cents. Thus while they may pay their employees more, they will be paying fewer of them while the public will have to pay more for the same items.

As a result of all this, there will be an increase in competition for the decreasing availability of jobs, and with more demand than supply, wages and/or benefits will decrease. What happens to those unable to find jobs? Many will fall through the cracks into a economic netherworld. Some will eke out a living somewhere between the murky recesses of part time jobs, the black or gray marketplace of cash only transactions or barter, a loose public safety net or maybe low level crime, while for others, especially the young, they can be sure there will always be a war or conflict somewhere for the control of resources or markets to help eliminate any "excess" population.

So what can be done? Fortunately there are options available if we have enough political will. One solution would be to impose tariffs on any imports, be it foreign or domestic. We could also eliminate any types of "corporate welfare" or taxpayer based assistance available to companies with manufacturing centers overseas who use those to ship back completed products to the US. We could also reform our labor laws to permit employees in foreign nations hired overseas by US based companies to be eligible to join US labor unions. Thus, for instances, employees of Ford in, let's say, Mexico or China, would be allowed to join the UAW. This would put them on the same footing as their domestic counterparts and create a more balanced playing field when it comes time for negotiating labor contracts (wages would, of course, be adjusted based the local economy). In addition, US companies who relocate US facilities overseas would be barred for obtaining government contracts, including their subsidiaries.

There is also the matter of illegal immigration. It's obviously going to be difficult at best to remove 12 million illegal immigrants. Building a wall, while a good (and expensive) symbolic statement will, in fact, dissuade very few individuals from crossing illegally into America. Most will simply bypass the wall and enter through other means, including tunnels or boats or find other entry points. Yes, we need to increase the ICE and border patrols agents along with giving them full authority to stop the flow using whatever means at their disposal up to and including direct confrontation. However, the only real solution will be by eliminating demand and that means strict and severe enforcement of penalties for anyone---individual, business, or religious institution---who aid or hire illegal immigrants without exception. Penalties should not be limited to just significant financial fines but also include suspending business licenses or loss of tax exempt status as well as possible imprisonment of key officers or officials for repeated offenses. Only by eliminating demand will we encourage illegal immigrants to return home. Lastly, we need to refuse the use of taxpayer based services to illegals and make English not just the "official" language of America but the only language used on government forms or other legal documents, as well as taught in US classrooms.

We also need to address our current educational standards. For instance, does every job actually require a college education? Personally, I don't think so. In fact, I would say that only a small percentage of jobs should require an applicant having a four or six year degree. In most cases, a solid high school education would be enough while for other jobs, a one or two year technical or trade school degree is more than adequate, and let's face it, not everyone is college material.

Germany, one of the world's top manufactures and known for their outstanding educational system, has a two tier system based on students academic performance, aptitude, and interests. The first track takes applicants toward "real world" jobs such as manufacturing (which also utilizes a two prong approach of academics and apprenticeship programs), the trades, or business (such as accounting, bookkeeping or sales), while the second track encourages qualified students on to higher education where they may pursue careers in law, medicine, engineering, and so forth. I should also point out that there is absolutely no stigma associated with individuals pursing the first approach since the system recognizes that each student is different, with different skills, talents, and abilities. In addition, no student is "locked in" and may pursue whichever track they're most interested in.

Of course, this type of system requires students who are dedicated and disciplined. Something which are lacking in American schools, but is still within the realm of possibility. US schools did, at one time, produce high quality students, especially in the years before the 1970's when a number of ill conceived "reforms" where introduced. If you have any doubts, feel free to check out any school book used in the 1940's, 1950's or even the 1960's for example (and remember, they didn't have computers or calculators) and see for yourself. Also, the US school system made good use of technical and trade schools which provided students with business ready skills to take them from graduation straight into the workforce without any significance additional training (and certainly with no remedial reading, grammar or math courses).

We must understand and accept that the economy is now global. Not only do companies compete on a global scale, but for a significant number of individuals, they too compete with others for jobs on a global scale. Furthermore, the United States is no longer a democratic republic. It's now a oligarchy, controlled in large part by global corporations who view nations as mere marketplaces to be exploited for their bottom line. Some see employees as necessary liabilities instead of the assets they really are. Capitalism, by its very nature, must consume and expand to survive. That's simply the nature of the beast. It has an insatiable appetite. However, if it continues to reduce wages and benefits in its pursuit of market share, it will reach the point where it's unable to sell its products because there will be too few people able to afford them. Therefore, a balance will have to be reached, and soon, which allows economies and wages to grow and expand while satisfying shareholders and consumers alike. At present, only a tiny percentage controls the overwhelming majority of the wealth, both in the United States and abroad. That leaves an underclass which will grow more restless and more desperate. And that is an dangerous combination.


The Pros and Cons of Raising the Minimum Wage
http://wheniwork.com/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-minimum-wage/


Increasing the Minimum Wage: Pros & Cons
http://www.salary.com/increasing-the-minimum-wage-pros-cons/


These CEOs Make A Lot More Money Than Their Workers
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-13/these-ceos-make-the-most-money-compared-with-their-workers


How much more do CEOs make compared to their employees?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ceo-pay-preview-20150805-story.html