Bush and Labor
Just like Nathan, I was struck by Bush's announcement that he wanted to forego prevailing wage laws to rebuild New Orleans, but quite frankly, why should it surprise any of us? This Administration has been the most anti-union in history. George W has put his own father to shame--at least the first Bush met with labor leaders and even spoke at an AFL-CIO Convention. In contrast, George W has, to the best of my knowledge, never met with the president of the AFL-CIO (when labor was unified). Early on, he wooed the Teamsters, but the Teamsters learned better.
This is a president who has no interest in even pretending that he cares about working people. This Administration is anxious to deregulate everything in its wake, so a hurricane has just become an excuse for additional deregulation and more unwrangling of the weak labor laws already on the books. Perhaps they think that people who are already traumatized and poverty-stricken will be thankful for any crumbs that are delivered their way. But, honestly, that's how we got in this mess in the first place. There has to be a national strategy to create good jobs, good wages, and a good future--otherwise, the kind of poverty that was exposed in New Orleans and is endemic to the American South will continue to plague our cities and our rural areas.
so a hurricane has just become an excuse for additional deregulation and more unwrangling of the weak labor laws already on the books.
What is your definition of "deregulation"? These rates only apply to spending on government contracts. Most construction to rebuild homes, etc will be privately funded and the law won't even apply. The government contracts will mostly be used for large infrastructure projects like the highways and levees that only large companies with union workforces will be working on anyway.
September 9, 2005 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
See this MSNBC article for a range of other laws that the administration is looking to relax as well.
September 9, 2005 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no urban planner and I'm sure I'm missing tons of complexities, but if I were President in fantasy land, and I were out to rebuild the Gulf Coast in a hurricane resistant and vibrant way, and I'd just watched a city full of people go elsewhere... I'd appeal to the basic economic principle of incentives and would say:
"A good wage for anyone who rebuilds the Gulf Coast!" Not a living wage, but a good wage. I'd work with the unions, who know what a living wage is, in order to martial the energies of a lot of people who were maybe struggling before the storm. I'd get them all together to fix the place, with the promise that their efforts would be well enough compensated that they would have a better life in the rebuilt city than they had in the city that stood before.
That's what I'd do, anyway.
September 9, 2005 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is totally anti-labor and so was the great white Reagan. All of this free market crap is just that - crap. People need to be free, and business needs to be regulated. It's so amazing at how much for how long this group gets away with and how the low and working classes in this country just keep voting against their own best interests. Guess its better to be poor and white then prosperous and living next door to someone of color. God, ugly Americans! How true it is.
September 10, 2005 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
""A good wage for anyone who rebuilds the Gulf Coast!" "
As I understand it NO had a very high concentration of low income people. Is it wise to attempt to lure them back to the city with the promise of an artificially high wage for reconstruction work? What happens to them when the construction bubble ends? Is it not better to allow those who wish to find more sustainable lives elsewhere? I think most urban planners agree that it is not healthy to concentrate poverty in one area, perhaps this is a good opportunity to allow it to disperse and one would hope, dissipate.
September 10, 2005 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the reason for this is the lack of an ideal vision of possibilities that Labor could enthusiastically attach itself to. Labor leaders need to offer more to working Americans than simply "we will fight for you." That doesn't mean much to potential customers who are aware that your record of success is poor. They need to hear that it is possible to create an economy that optimally provides for the needs of the Working Class. They need to be able to imagine what such an economy would be like, what kind of benefits it would bring, how specifically it would make every working person's life better. It has to be not just imaginable, but also believable
I can report that I'm personally getting closer to putting together a complete articulation of just such a vision, but do not yet have a single document to present. What I can do is share some of it. In a document I titled On Job Losses & Trade Policy http://taxwisdom.org/trade_policy_jobs.htm I provide a glimpse of the kind of economy that would ideally serve the interests of the Working Class:
If Congress were to commit itself to the goal of creating and maintaining a sustained labor shortage an economic environment where there are more jobs available than there are people to fill them—most objections to free trade would be completely silenced. In such a labor market, workers would enjoy the best of all possible economic worlds. Jobs would still be lost, but it wouldn’t matter. New jobs would be easy to find. Market forces would put upward pressure on wages & benefits, obviating the need for government band-aid remedies like minimum wage legislation. An optimal level of national wealth would be produced, benefiting everyone—in real terms—both rich & poor.
There is not a sober economist in the world who would dispute this essential point, i.e., that if a labor shortage could be maintained without automatically bringing on some bad consequences, the Working Class would ideally benefit. However, we can be absolutely certain that every Republican economist [and even many Democrat economists] would all cry out in unison is that such an economy would “devastate” the economy with “runaway inflation.” Well, I’m here to tell ya, they’re wrong. In the Trade Policy article I quoted above, I provide a number of arguments that expose the speciousness of the arguments pushed by the “Fear Inflation Gang.” Let me just mention one of them here:
Republican economists will never tire of mentioning the ‘costs’ of inflation that they will describe as a “grave concern.” What they won’t tell you is that:
"The extra costs that controlled, moderately-high inflation (in the 5%-19% range) would impose on society---above and beyond the costs that are already imposed on us by the low-inflation rates we normally experience---are a mere “headache” compared to the extra costs that are imposed on society by unemployment."
"The benefits of sustained, moderately-high inflation—one consistent with a sustained labor-shortage—are at the top of the chart. If we focus our attention on the real economy, on what people are actually producing & consuming [and forget about abstract calculations of "rate of return"] it soon becomes clear that a chronic labor-shortage would create an outcome that is true economic perfection. All those who are able-bodied & able-minded would be producing something of value. In such an economy, the production & consumption of wealth are optimized. Investment is optimized. When production & consumption & investment are all at optimal levels, society gets to experience an ideal economic achievement. That’s quite a benefit to stack up against the list of “headache costs” that are so often mentioned by those who describe inflation as a thoroughly horrifying prospect."
There is fertile ground here, Labor advocates. Just understand that if you want to help create an economy that optimally benefits the Working Class, you are going to have to take on the anti-inflation arguments that the Right will raise. The good news is that butt-kicking counter-arguments are there, waiting to be used. Need empirical evidence? Check out Gerald Epstein’s work at http://www.umass.edu/peri/pdfs/WP62.pdf. We really do have the power to make our economy work for us.
September 10, 2005 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The extra costs that controlled, moderately-high inflation (in the 5%-19% range) would impose on society---above and beyond the costs that are already imposed on us by the low-inflation rates we normally experience
I guess all I can say is where were you in 1980 when we had an inflation rate of 13%, a prime interest rate of 20% and unemployment rate of 7.6%. A whole lot of us lived through it, didn't like it, and aren't ready to go back there, thank you.
September 10, 2005 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it NO had a very high concentration of low income people. Is it wise to attempt to lure them back to the city with the promise of an artificially high wage for reconstruction work? What happens to them when the construction bubble ends? Is it not better to allow those who wish to find more sustainable lives elsewhere?
This is some funny, funny stuff. I presume the idea here then, is to "lure" middle class workers into New Orleans by paying below standard wages? They're already middle class, so they'll work for less? It's ridiculous, but you have to be both amazed and disgusted by the brazenness of it, the complete lack of self respect someone needs to peddle shit like this. Bush did it, low wages are part of conservative cant, so it must be defended, no matter how ludicrous and self-degrading the argument one must stoop to.
Well Robert, you've talked about "breathtaking stupidity" before, and I now see it's a subject you are intimately familiar with, a bit of expertise you've aquired from lots and lots of personal experience.
September 10, 2005 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink