Tag: Labor

By on

The past few weeks businesses involved in meat packing, farming, travel and leisure are complaining that they are losing workers due to ICE raids. This would cause me to break out the handkerchief and shed a tear if it weren’t for the fact that these businesses are breaking the law and they don’t seem terribly worried about talking about it. Farm AID believes that 40% of farm laborers are undocumented. This means an awful lot of farmers aren’t checking their worker’s documents.

If immigrants illegally crossing the borders is about getting law breakers, then the same strategy should be used with the businesses breaking the laws regarding hiring undocumented employees. Both parties are breaking the law, why focus on the person looking for work and not the person hiring them? ICE agents in baklavas should be taking away business owners who, apparently quite openly, are flouting the law. They should be afraid to come into work each day instead they are complaining that they no longer have access to cheap labor because ICE is taking their employees.

The problem here is cheap labor. American Businesses want employees that are willing to do backbreaking labor for pennies. Americans refused to break their backs for pennies. They also want benefits for their work — like vacation pay, health benefits, and sick pay. Immigrants are willing to risk death to come here to do backbreaking labor for pennies and no benefits because it is still better than what they get at home.

So, round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows. But I am pretty sure it won’t be higher wages.

By on

So farmers and hotel companies are having trouble finding replacement for immigrants who, fearing for their safety, are leaving these jobs because they are vulnerable targets for ICE raids. Trump, being a hotelier and dependent on this same immigrant labor force, is now being forced to choose between cheap labor or cracking down on illegal immigration.

The whole point of Trump and the Republican’s campaign against illegal of immigrants, as Matt Walsh points out, is Americans now will take these jobs at a higher and more livable wage. Labor will become more dear and thus business will have to pay higher wages in order to fill those jobs.

And it was not some unintended consequence of their actions. Trump and his cronies said as much in their campaign. Immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. Get rid of the illegal immigrant and the Americans would take the jobs. The problem these economic wizards didn’t count on is that Americans would refuse to do these jobs at the immigrant low wage.

You can have low pay jobs with immigrant labor (more workers) or higher paying jobs with American labor (less workers) but you can’t have low wages with just American labor. It is all down to supply and demand.

Trump, being a Wharton School of Economics graduate, should know this. That he continues to have problems with understanding basic Capitalist theory is trouble particularly since he sees Capitalism as the solution to USA’s economic woes. He was wrong about tariffs and he is wrong about immigrant labor. He also gives an inordinate value to bullying people as a method of negotiating.

Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand would be appalled.

By on

I am finding all of this antagonism towards DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) irritating. First, let me preface this with no system organized by human beings is perfect. The system needs to be improved as you see how the system is working. DEI is no different from any other system. Let’s look at it and improve it. Make it better.

But tossing it out wholesale though is wrong. The United States has a long history of racial prejudice and this prejudice has had a deleterious effect on people of color. Racial prejudice is still with us and is still a problem.

I am White middle class man. Historically, this means I have had an advantage in my job search. Not necessarily because I am white but because people told me about jobs where they worked. When I went into apply I had a name that gives me a leg up. The hiring manager knew someone who knew me. I have been remarkably successful at getting jobs this way. I never have been out of work for long and generally have had allies already in the company showing me the ropes.

But it isn’t in the least bit fair and it works against people who don’t know someone working for the company.

The counter argument to this is that, of course, people are going to hire friends and family because someone they know is recommending them. It gives the hiring manager an additional element of confidence in this person they don’t know who is looking to work for them. But how is this getting the best person for the job? Why do recommendations from people you do know carry more weight than people you don’t know?

We all know why and we all accept it without question. The hiring manager knows the person recommending the applicant. He is a good guy and he is saying that Tom, this stranger to me, is also a good guy. Now, this other person I am looking at, is just as qualified for the job but I don’t know him and I don’t know the person recommending them. Who gets the job?

Without DEI, this type of unfairness goes unchecked. Friends and family get the jobs while qualified strangers are passed over because they are unfamiliar. The connected get hired while the unconnected don’t. Family and friends get the jobs. Now if they happen to be all White that is just a coincidence. Not all hiring managers who work this way are prejudiced but it does allow for hiring managers who are prejudiced to stack the odds against people of color. DEI allows for imperfect measurement of what your work force should look like and it forces businesses to consider this when making their hiring decisions.

Is it perfect? No, but neither was the system before. There is this notion that in the good old days, businesses only hired the best. Since, in the good old days, people legally could discriminate against people of color and women, it lead to a workforce dominated by White me until DEI added an element of fairness for people who did not have connections. If you remove DEI, it makes it easier for hiring managers to hire people they know over trying to be fair to those without connections. Attempting to create a more diverse work force that includes more people historically discriminated is still important and should not be abandoned because it is imperfect process.

Lastly, please stop harkening back to the good old days when people only hired the best because they didn’t. The game was rigged and the process was unfair. DEI was one way to right that particular wrong. Can it be improved? By all means, every process can be improved. DEI is no different. Eliminating it, however, will only call into question how people of color and women are being treated in a market that historically discriminated against them.

By on

Throughout my work life, I have been told numerous times that my wages were in line with industry standards. For some reason, this bullshit answer actually shuts down any follow up questions regarding increases in workers wages. How can you argue with wages that are in line with industry standards? Every one else is getting the same.

But we should. Start with why is keeping wages in line with the industry standard even the goal. Wouldn’t you want to have the best wages to attract the best workers? Keeping wages in line with a standard wage is unfair to the regular worker particularly if the company is a financial success.

I understand if a company is struggling and needed wage concessions to survive, the employees might agree to those cuts in order to keep the company going. People wouldn’t be saying you have to keep your wages in line with industry standards. The company needs saving, sacrifices have to be made.

Then why would you say that when the company is successful? Shouldn’t the workers share in the success of the company?

The concern is that if one company gives their low wage workers a pay rise, that other companies, within that industry, will have to pay higher wages in order to compete. Yes, exactly, after all isn’t that what market capitalism is all about. The best workers should get best wages. But, no, this isn’t the case. Wage increases at the low end of the scale causes inflation.

This same philosophy, however, does not apply to wages at the high end of the scale. Large increases at the high end of the scale doesn’t cause inflation to the broader economy because fewer people receive them. It does, however, cause wage inflation for those few people who get them. This is why there has been such a dramatic rise in wages for upper management.

This isn’t, however, capitalism because the low wages are artificially low to control inflation which everyone agrees is important except when it comes to prices and executive wages. There is an industry standard for low wage workers and companies want to adhere to this standard to keep wages low across the industry. Inflation, you know.

So whenever I hear people moan about how bad employees are today, I ask — are you paying above market wages in order to get the very best people. If you want good workers, you have to pay for it. Right? Isn’t that the whole spirit of market capitalism. If not, then why exactly do you think your industry standard wages will get you the employees you want? It makes no sense in a capitalist economy. You should expect mediocre employees with little interest in putting in their full effort into the job because they could lose their jobs today and find a comparable job tomorrow.

By on

Mar-Jac Poultry has been caught again using child labor. Again. Last year, a 16 year old boy was killed at this company.

Clearly Mar-Jac Poultry is more afraid of losing money if they don’t have enough workers than they are of hiring child labor. The fines need to be a little more frightening in order to make Mar-Jac Poultry do the right thing. Criminals won’t behave until they are afraid of the punishment for their crime.

Law and Order, if you know what I mean.

By on

Charlie Kirk, conservative commentator, is suggesting cuts in Social Security because those no good seniors are just playing golf and watching television. They should be doing something constructive like helping people.

WTF. I thought that the whole underlying idea of the conservative movement was freedom. Freedom to do what ever the Hell you wanted to do, whenever the Hell you wanted to do it. Now Kirk wants me to give up my retirement fun in order to help people. Help people, no less, what kind of conservative is he. Oh, yes, a cheap one because he both proposes cutting social security payments and then wants these very same seniors to volunteer at schools and hospitals. That’s right less money and more work. What an asshole.

And, how exactly is that going to happen? If I get less money, I won’t have enough to retire comfortably and all of my free time will have to go to my part-time shift as a Wall Mart greeter. Of course, this is just another advantage to proposal. More cheap labor.

More grating and more dangerous is this frequent misconception that conservatives love to throw around about Social Security. They make it sound like a government handout. It isn’t. It is a government sponsored retirement plan. People pay into it until they retire, then they receive a monthly payment from the government. It is owed to you because you worked for it. You never should feel bad about taking this money. You deserve it.

So, in case Kirk has misunderstood me. Fuck you Charlie Kirk. You can pry my social security check from my cold dead hands.

By on

Three 16 year old boys died in the past 5 weeks while working with big machinery.

One company explained that “the child ‘should not have been hired’ and that his age and identity were misrepresented on his hiring paperwork with an outside staffing company.” You don’t say. How innocent the company is acting? We were lied to and this poor unfortunate 16 year shouldn’t have been hired, we wouldn’t have hired him if only we had known his correct age.

For some reason I don’t believe it. Every employee has to provide proper documentation in order to work. The company has a responsibility to examine this documentation for validity. This is standard practice in place for some years. I used to do it in the 1980’s. HR departments should have this down. But OK, mistakes happen, perhaps a 16 year old was able to get a hold of a convincing fake document but a quick glance at the prospective employee might have set off some alarms. Somehow these boys with peach fuzz as beards were able to pass themselves off as older. Even if you accept that they are telling the truth, there is a frightening level of incompetence within the management of the company.

But I think this more than just an accident. One of the more illuminating giveaways that this is something more nefarious, is that it happened 3 teenagers at different companies and in different parts of the company met the same fate. This also might explain why Republican governors and legislatures, those champions of the working class, are loosening child labor laws. Companies are complaining that they are having trouble filling their open positions. Something must be done, so teenage labor is the solution to their problem.

Unfortunately, teenagers are banned from hazardous labor. No problem. These companies did a risk assessment about hiring underage employees. They figured out how much potential fines would be and then compared this to the price of raising wages and decided that paying the fines was the better deal. Higher wages are a sure thing while fines need only be paid if they get caught. Now that is a risk worth taking. They would probably have gotten away with it if nothing had gone wrong. This suggests that fines are too low. Fines should discourage companies from breaking the law, not be a factor in whether they are going to break the law or not.

But, saying that they can’t attract workers is misleading. These companies are having problems filling positions at the wage they want to pay. The wage isn’t enough to attract adults to perform an obviously hazardous job. When labor is scarce and the job is hazardous, the company needs to pay wages that attract the best workers. It is basic capitalism. They can’t just expect workers to risk life and limb for nothing. But, of course, these companies do.

What I find particularly irksome here is that these so called Capitalists only like Capitalism when it is to their advantage. When it isn’t, they moan to government for help — make the laws easier so we can hire people who will take the jobs at the rate we want to pay. Let in qualified immigrants who will take the lower wage. Hire teenagers who will take the lower wage. Boo hoo. Whatever they are, they aren’t good Capitalists.

By on

While talking with friends the other day, I was reminded of the latest trend in corporate malfeasance. Corporations are moving to this new idea where any day is vacation day as long as you are caught up with your work. You are free to take any day off you want. It is all up to you. We will no longer be tracking vacation days because you are free to take any day off. The company doesn’t have to track, you don’t have to track. All you have to do is make sure your work is caught up. Isn’t this great?

As a matter of fact, it is not great. It is a horrible idea designed to screw employees out of paid time off. There are two mitigating factors to consider here. The first is corporations were having trouble with balancing their books at the end of the year because employees were carrying over paid time into the next year. This meant that the unused time which was budgeted for a specific year wasn’t being used in the that year. This played havoc with the bean counters. They want to balance the books at the end year. In the past, this usually resulted in a message from HR telling you to use your time off in the appropriate year. We want you to use your time off that is why we generously provided you with time off. Don’t you understand how much we care about you and your work/life balance? With this new policy, the company released from their responsibility to track time off, and more importantly their responsibility to pay for unused time, just shrugs their shoulders indifferently. It isn’t their problem any more.

Then the companies claim that they are no longer keeping track. Yeah. I can take off every day as long as I keep my work up-to-date. Don’t believe that for one minute. If you are taking too much time off — your boss will be aware. She will then say to herself either I need to give this person more work or why don’t I can cut this sucker’s job and move her tasks over to somebody else. The bottom line is someone will be aware if you are taking too much time.

On the other hand, they will be conveniently unaware of your time off if you are overloaded with work and don’t feel you can take the time off. Then they are definitely not tracking. Oh you haven’t had a day off in a year, sorry, we aren’t tracking, that’s up to you now. In the past, this was time you were owed. You may not have been able to take the time off when you should have but, at least, you got paid for your time when you left the company. No more. So they are selectively tracking or not tracking which ever is convenient for them. The point is you lose either way.

Finally, what galls me the most is the happy HR introduction of changes like these. HR makes it sound like the company has this wonderful idea that is going to make you so very happy. Nobody believes it. Most people know that when a company makes changes like this, it is acting in its own self-interest. I would rather have blunt honesty over saccharine lies.