Recently, I polled my economics students about how much money they needed annually for reasonable subsistence. The list included food, shelter, clothing, transportation, entertainment, insurance and similar items.
Recently, I polled my economics students about how much money they needed annually for reasonable subsistence. The list included food, shelter, clothing, transportation, entertainment, insurance and similar items.
They calculated $22,000. Knowing that the official federal poverty rate for a family of three is $17,600, I then had them calculate what someone would earn full time at minimum wage. That totaled less than $14,000, which included no sick days, no vacation and no benefits. In fact, since many at minimum wage work part time, the total is only about $11,000, or half of what my students felt was minimally necessary.
This classroom exercise pointed out an obvious reality, which is that many people in West Virginia are in a massive financial crisis. There are those who face foreclosure on old coal company homes that have loans worth more than the houses. Everyone faces more than 20 percent increases in the price of food. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is now what it was 60 years ago, while many prices have increased six times.
This was an election year. Candidates voiced concern about the economy and expressed compassion for the middle class. While it is true that new job openings have occurred in coal, gas, health services and technology, it is also the case that more and more West Virginians have drifted toward poverty wages. Thus, the plight of those in the bottom class who need to survive must be also addressed.
It might be helpful to reflect on what happened in the past. As the nation struggled with the Great Depression during the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt was elected on the basis of his Four Freedoms: Freedom of Speech and Expression, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear.
To deal with economic fear, FDR introduced to the nation the National Industrial Recovery Act and the National Labor Relations Act. His premise was simple: Workers needed labor organizations and collective bargaining to put more dollars in their pockets and stimulate the economy. Since that period, however, labor union membership has steadily declined, and Freedom from Want for bottom-class and working-class people is increasingly rare.
There are many obstacles to unionization. The primary obstacle is fear itself. The recognition process is so lengthy that opportunities abound for fear to become instilled. There are fears of job loss, shutdowns, discriminatory punishment and misuse of the corporate bankruptcy process. Millions of nonunion workers are interested in union representation, but few organizing efforts are successful.
The labor movement has proposed a modest step to help rectify the problem with the federal Employee Free Choice Act. This law would certify a union if the National Labor Relations Board finds that a majority of employees in a unit has signed authorizations designating the union as their bargaining representative. This procedure, similar to what occurs in Canada, was the intent of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. However, NLRB decisions and Taft-Hartley amendments changed the process to permit employers to request an election. During the interval prior to the election, workers are subjected to firings, intimidation, workplace television surveillance and campaigns by anti-union consultants.
Recently, I polled my economics students about how much money they needed annually for reasonable subsistence. The list included food, shelter, clothing, transportation, entertainment, insurance and similar items.
They calculated $22,000. Knowing that the official federal poverty rate for a family of three is $17,600, I then had them calculate what someone would earn full time at minimum wage. That totaled less than $14,000, which included no sick days, no vacation and no benefits. In fact, since many at minimum wage work part time, the total is only about $11,000, or half of what my students felt was minimally necessary.
This classroom exercise pointed out an obvious reality, which is that many people in West Virginia are in a massive financial crisis. There are those who face foreclosure on old coal company homes that have loans worth more than the houses. Everyone faces more than 20 percent increases in the price of food. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is now what it was 60 years ago, while many prices have increased six times.
This was an election year. Candidates voiced concern about the economy and expressed compassion for the middle class. While it is true that new job openings have occurred in coal, gas, health services and technology, it is also the case that more and more West Virginians have drifted toward poverty wages. Thus, the plight of those in the bottom class who need to survive must be also addressed.
It might be helpful to reflect on what happened in the past. As the nation struggled with the Great Depression during the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt was elected on the basis of his Four Freedoms: Freedom of Speech and Expression, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear.
To deal with economic fear, FDR introduced to the nation the National Industrial Recovery Act and the National Labor Relations Act. His premise was simple: Workers needed labor organizations and collective bargaining to put more dollars in their pockets and stimulate the economy. Since that period, however, labor union membership has steadily declined, and Freedom from Want for bottom-class and working-class people is increasingly rare.
There are many obstacles to unionization. The primary obstacle is fear itself. The recognition process is so lengthy that opportunities abound for fear to become instilled. There are fears of job loss, shutdowns, discriminatory punishment and misuse of the corporate bankruptcy process. Millions of nonunion workers are interested in union representation, but few organizing efforts are successful.
The labor movement has proposed a modest step to help rectify the problem with the federal Employee Free Choice Act. This law would certify a union if the National Labor Relations Board finds that a majority of employees in a unit has signed authorizations designating the union as their bargaining representative. This procedure, similar to what occurs in Canada, was the intent of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. However, NLRB decisions and Taft-Hartley amendments changed the process to permit employers to request an election. During the interval prior to the election, workers are subjected to firings, intimidation, workplace television surveillance and campaigns by anti-union consultants.
The act would also provide that if no agreement on a first contract between an employer and a newly certified union has been reached after 90 days of bargaining, either the employer or the union may request help by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. If the service is unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days, either party may refer the dispute to binding arbitration. Currently the policy is that employers must simply "bargain in good faith" after a union has been certified. However, consultants are hired to ensure that the process goes nowhere, since after a year the employer can seek to decertify the union.
During this time, labor turnover and employee dissatisfaction about results can take their toll.
Finally, the act would provide effective remedies - including injunctions and fines - for employer coercion. Specifically, the bill would increase damages to three times the amount of lost pay if an employee is illegally discharged for union activity.
This nation cannot sustain its existence by pushing harder on its citizens for cheaper wages, cheaper prices and a cheaper quality of life. Furthermore, we cannot survive on the quick fix of overseas borrowing for short-term economic stimulus packages.
Our society would benefit significantly from more equality, less poverty, higher wages, better health care, improved pensions and greater voter participation.
This adds up to a need for revisiting FDR's New Deal promise of Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear. Today, this could occur through passage of the Employee Free Choice Act and a revitalized and invigorated organized labor movement in this country.
Dr. David, a WVU-Tech professor, is a Gazette contributing columnist.
Post a comment
What I referenced RD70 is what happened at numerous GM plants in OH and MI. GM went to the union and stated that without some sort of labor concession, the plants would have to shut down. The UAW said their members would be better off drawing 95% of their pay in a job bank then to give labor concessions.
I agree, if one makes an agreement, live with it. The UAW made the agreement, that agreement is bankrupting the Big 3 so they should all live with those decisions.
And if those decisions lead to GM, Ford, or Chrysler going out of business, so be it. It is not up to tax payers to save those private companies.
One Citizen can cry about tariff’s all he wants, the bottom line is, the reason those companies are in danger of going out of business is because of the poor management decisions and the greed of the union.
I sit at present in the shadows of a GM plant (Doraville, GA), soon to be shut down, and the Ford Plant (Hapeville, GA) already shut down. I have the most recent CBA's from both plants in hand and what you have offered up is nowhere included in either document.
My point is and has always been this; the union can take no more from the Big 3 than the management is willing to concede in the CBA. Where I agree with you that govt monies should not toward the purchase of Viagra for retired workers, I am foresquare against forcing bankruptcy so that the CBA's can be willfully broken. Such would be dishonest, unethical, and reminiscent of the kind of union busting tactics that used to go on in Mingo County in the 1920's.
If you make an agreement, live up to it.
So did they shut down?
We ALL know that American cars are now mostly assembled from parts made outside the US. Implementing and enforcing trade tariffs (as we had for centuries) would make it possible for folks laid off using their job bank protections to go back to work.
"The government of the United States, at a very early period, when establishing its tariff on foreign importations, were very much guided in their selection of objects by a desire to encourage manufacturers within ourselves." Thomas Jefferson
We used to make all our parts here with steel forged from places like Pittsburgh and WV.
TELL ME - Why shouldn't we demand they put the brakes on the free market slide towards slave labor wages in the US?