Fox, the first to announce revisions to its prime-time schedule because of the strike, said it would indefinitely postpone the start of the seventh season of “24,” which had been scheduled for January, to ensure an uninterrupted 24-episode season.
I didn’t really have a dog in this fight before, but now they’ve messed with my ability to see Jack Bauer kill terrorists!
[Update 11/9/07: For actual strike commentary, simply consult Glen’s blog.]
Wow — my position on illegal immigration is in today’s Times and my position on presidential candidates’ abortion views is in today’s Post. This is turning into controversial position weekend on my blog!
Becker and Posner share their thoughts on the decreasing relevance of unions, and here’s a perspective (via Tyler) on why strikes occur.
GM and the UAW have reached a tentative deal already? Back when I lived in a factory town the strikes went on for years and destoyed the livelihoods of thousands. I guess things work faster in the 21st century.
Courtesy of Slate, my thoughts summed up nicely:
[I]n the grand scheme of things, the latest installment of the UAW-GM battle has the makings of this fall’s Army-Navy football game—a match between two ancient powers whose rivalry once dominated the headlines but who now play a largely symbolic role.
You can read what’s actually going on — at least from a public relations perspective — from the Times.
Is it a great market for laborers? Nope, just a bad economy. I vote for subsidies to business owners, an increase in the minimum wage, and tighter restrictions on legal immigration.
From Radley at Hit & Run, apparently some of the YearlyKos bloggers want to unionize. Radley rightly asks them a bunch of perfectly logical questions that most people who want to sign away their individual bargaining rights forget to think about. Of course, maybe the point is just to be pro-union, not to have reasons why that stand up against any sort of rational or empirical test?
I just hope that all the bloggers who unionize against the spectre of [insert anti-leftist something] find a way to trademark the slogan “proud member of the reality-based community” so nobody new can decide it’s clever enough to repeat without paying a stupidity tax to the local blogging collective.
Seriously though, the activity surrounding the now-withdrawn immigration bill is a pretty comprehensive representation of everything I dislike about politics. I haven’t read the bill itself — I understand it’s very long and wasn’t available to the public until just recently — but based on third party reports I’ve read the one thing all sides can agree on is it’s horrendous. However, it was supported by party leaders (and the major newspapers) as a necessary evil despite widespread opposition, on the grounds that [insert pet policy here] won’t get passed without ignoring the idiocy of the rest of the bill.
Some people claim to like gridlock government (separate parties controlling Congress and the president) because it slows the pace of new legislation and helps curb tyranny of the majority. While this may be true, I think gridlock creates a problem that may be worse than either of these things: really really terrible compromises. The best ideas on one side tend to be the ones most forcefully opposed by the other side, because they want to prevent the opposition from scoring an ideological or political victory. As a result, compromise legislation tends to be about buying off small voting coalitions with a bunch of policies that by themselves would only be supported by superminorities.
And, in case you were wondering, here’s my position on immigration. I’m sympathetic to concerns about security given the current state of foreign affairs, so I do think we should be screening entries into the U.S. using some sensible process. However, I am fully in support of raising our immigration quotas to allow entry for pretty much any immigrant who legally clears security. Illegal immigration occurs because, despite risk of deportation, foreign workers believe they can outcompete competitors for a job. If they’re right, we now have workers whose growth and education were paid for by some other country, receive the benefit of their tax revenues and the money they spend in our economy, and only cost public schooling for their children (assuming the children weren’t born in America and therefore entitled to it) and emergency medical care. If they’re wrong, word will eventually get out and demand for entry will subside. Moreover, immigrants are no less likely to assimilate into “American” culture than at any point in our history.
This is an ultra-condensed form of my argument, but I believe the evidence clearly shows that non-violent immigrants represent a net benefit to society, and I encourage those who believe otherwise to present their arguments for consideration.
First, some economic humor. Well, the tragic kind anyway.
There are about a zillion reasons why the minimum wage is a bad idea. And in case you were wondering, at the top of the list is that doesn’t actually help the people that proponents claim it helps — and in fact, it typically hurts them! Economics is so completely clear on this issue, that the only argument I’ve heard not completely disproven by basic economic reasoning is “I don’t believe in economics on this issue.” (The qualifier is important: few people who have read a book don’t believe in economics, but some choose to apply economics selectively beause they don’t want to be perceived as inhumane when what we want for society conflicts with pesky logic.)
My rant was inspired by this post. I don’t see a real need right now to further elaborate on the economic implications of the minimum wage beyond this link, but I’m happy to debate in the comments if somebody wants to disagree.
[Update 6/1/07: I should have added that I’ve already written on the minimum wage, the most recent example being commentary on living wages which are a particularly radical perversion of the minimum wage wrapped in slightly better packaging.]
I’ve done quite a bit of reading on the living wage as an interested party, albeit not as an economist or a sociologist. My interest comes at least partially from watching the arguments that have played out (and continue to play out) over the past few years on the battlefield that is Vanderbilt.
Generally speaking, the main argument in favor of a living wage is that every employed worker deserves to receive a wage that is sufficient to afford basic necessities. Opponents argue that employers would be forced to pay a wage higher than the economic value of the employee to the firm, and might have to compensate by reducing employees or raising prices. (There is, alternatively, a moral argument against government intervention in the actions of private employers, but I’m conducting a policy thought experiment here and leaving that discussion for another day.)
So, here’s my proposed compromise: present the employed worker with a choice. The worker can either continue to work at the original wage or accept a living wage. However, workers who opt for the living wage agree to allow a period of open competition for their positions, or for restructured versions of their positions, advertised at the new wage (if the employer chooses to do so). For example, let’s say an employer now has to pay his employee $10 per hour instead of $7 per hour, or 43% more. It seems reasonable that to offset the cost, the employer should be allowed to restructure the responsibilities of the position to make it at least 43% more efficient, or to attempt to fill the position with an employee who’s at least 43% more efficient at the position.
The argument in support of my plan is simple. Presumably the important concern for a living wage advocate is not that people have jobs they don’t deserve or can’t actually perform, but that those who do have jobs actually earn enough money to provide for basic necessities. And presumably the important concern for the living wage opponent is making sure the employer is getting the economic value of the higher wage to offset the increase in costs. This plan addresses both those concerns. Naturally current employees could compete for their roles, and they’d even have a clear advantage due to experience and to the employer’s reluctance to incur turnover costs. And, of course, the employer is still subject to all existing fair employment and anti-discrimination laws. Basically the only person who loses is the employee who isn’t able to justify his or her wage increase in a straight-up competition against a better qualified job seeker who’s also willing to work for the new wage.
So, that’s my basic proposal, open for discussion and revision. How respond the policy critics?
Yesterday I got angry at a Times editorial and wrote about it, then proceeded to get into further debate in the comments.
Today I note that Tyler has spent the last several days writing about unions more broadly. He seems to have stirred up his readers by proposing a deal: he’ll support large wage increases for union workers as a “natural experiment” in exchange for the concession from union backers that unionization slows the rate of economic growth. He then adds to his line of reasoning in subsequent posts.
Pretty interesting stuff. Personally I’m completely persuaded by the economic evidence that unions are worse for the rate of economic growth. As for the opposing side, I’m least persuaded by the disbelievers, and most sympathetic to those who concede the economics and argue that the better use of unions is to protect job security and safety.
Since I do believe security and safety are important, I’m inclined to support whatever the most effective measure is to ensure them at optimal levels. For me, this probably means that security and safety protections should emerge either through legislation or as the product of employer-employee relations, but not both. And, as part of determining which method produces a more optimal set of policies, one would have to ask whether there’s a difference between employer-employee relations conducted by unions vs. by individual workers (or a mix, as in a “right to work” state), just as one would ask whether legislation is better optimized at the local, state, or federal level.
The Times today has it absolutely dead wrong in its rationale for supporting legislation strengthening the ability of employees to unionize.
There’s simply no way to arrive at the positions of the editors without presupposing that businesses generally harm their workers and that employees are generally better off unionized. One has to assume that wages and benefits always improve in a union environment, which evidence shows to be untrue (even before mandatory union dues are sliced off the top). One also has to believe it’s the union’s right, once it has claimed exclusive rights of negotiation for a set of employees, to use the existing contract rather than a blank slate as a base point for contract talks.
Here’s the second most disturbing paragraph for me:
The most significant change in the bill is known as a majority signup, which would allow employees at a company to unionize if a majority signed cards expressing their desire to do so. Under current law, an employer can reject the majority’s signatures and insist on a secret ballot. But in a disturbingly high number of cases, the employer uses the time before the vote to pressure employees to rethink their decision to unionize.
And the most disturbing one:
The bill’s opponents charge that replacing secret ballots with the majority signup would be undemocratic. But the current system is by no means fair. The law prohibits union advocacy by employees during work hours and allows employers to ban organizers from the work place. But employers can require workers to attend anti-union presentations, and can discipline or fire those who refuse to attend.
The Times apparently doesn’t think the federal laws prohibiting any member of management from threatening, interrogating, persecuting, or spying on workers during a union campaign are strong enough. Conversely, it apparently doesn’t think a similar threat exists from union representatives, who are not prohibited from any of these actions. And it apparently doesn’t think there’s any danger of peer pressure when a group of workers goes around the to their coworkers asking each of them face-to-face to sign their union petition.
Anyone familiar with the process for submitting a ballot in a union election knows that it’s impossible to know who voted for what. It’s carefully designed that way to prevent both the company and union advocates from retaliating against the individual. Employees who want to form unions typically feel passionately about it — passionately enough that coworkers opposed to a union already face the threat of persecution (or worse) by their peers. If anything, the employer’s ability to reject a petition protects the employees, and it could be claimed that those who would do away with it are more anti-worker. But more importantly, this editorial, and this bill, insults workers everywhere by presupposing they are not strong enough or smart enough to make an informed decision on a secret ballot!
The Times and supporting legislators must believe that workers having a union is more important than workers having the right to a vote free of peer pressure from either side. Wait, I don’t have to guess, because the Times says it outright:
Labor unions have a role to play in helping to fix today’s economic ills — most notably, worsening income inequality, a problem that’s caused in part by unions’ decline and the workers’ resulting lack of bargaining power. What’s needed is a Congressional drive to help Mr. Bush see this obvious connection.
A bill designed around the idea that unions are good for workers regardless of potential worker opposition is a faith-based initiative. Is this not obvious? Somebody who believes the opposite, please tell me why my concerns are mistaken, because short of sheer politics, lobbying, or blind ideology, I don’t understand why someone would support making the votes transparent.
Not all sides of course, and not as in-depth an analysis as I would like. Nonetheless, in the wake of the House passing a minimum wage increase, there are a couple of articles worth reading if you’d like to explore further. (And for the record, the one I just linked to is NOT one of them — it’s got the facts, but is about as biased as a non-opinion editorialist in a major paper dare be).
This intriguing piece interviews store owners on the Washington-Idaho border, two states with significantly different minimum wages. Competition for labor across state lines has forced wages up in Idaho, and price increases for businesses in both states. Ironically, the business owners interviewed in both states support a minimum wage increase, on the grounds that they already have to pay so far above it that it doesn’t matter anyway.
In stark contrast, John Stossel weighs in with his opinion, which he might give away with the title of his article “Sticking It to Low-Skilled Workers”.
Finally, this is one of the most balanced articles I’ve seen in a while on the minimum wage. The focus of the piece is a young man who barely scrapes by on minimum wage, but the writer intermingles his story with others such as the owners of the store where he works, his grocery store, and his gas station. Among the more interesting side issues is commentary suggesting that a minimum wage hike is simply a lobbying tactic by Wal-Mart to destroy small businesses.
Is it just me, or does planning an illegal immigrant mass walkout sound like a monumentally stupid idea?
Maybe I don’t know enough about the issue or something, but here’s my understanding. Illegal immigrants are “illegal” and are therefore “hiding” (this example assumes local law enforcement is at least pursuing flagrant violations). In order to earn a living, illegal immigrants are working and being paid by employers who have chosen not to require documentation. This employer-employee relationship thus depends on trust.
So, if you schedule an illegal immigrant walkout and you publicize it, are you not basically telling local law enforcement where to find a large group of illegal immigrants? Moreover, are you not doing what basically amounts to a strike without a union or any other kind of employee protection? And wouldn’t your benevolent employer who was willing to skirt the rules for you retaliate by firing you and hiring the next of the 11 million people who are supposedly ready and willing to work for less than minimum wage?
Projected consequences of mass retaliation by illegal immigrants: lots of unemployed, identified, deported illegal immigrants. Am I missing something?
