How surprising that labor--and working people more generally--had some victories this week, or perhaps not so surprising....As the Republicans continue their free fall, the marginal congressional members are looking to the building trades who have traditionally voted more frequently for Republicans--to support them in what could be a swing back in the Democratic direction during next year's midterm elections. Thus, the Republican discomfort with suspension of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions in New Orleans, that helped lead to Bush's reversal.
Regarding Wal-mart, it does seem that they are trying to have their cake and eat it...but there is no doubt that the opposition against Wal-mart has begun to have a serious impact.
Yet in both these cases, one of the lessons to be learned for labor is that casting issues as those that concern the broader workforce, not just union members, helps make these issues resonate to a larger public and aids in victory.
First: Davis-Bacon. The prevailing wage laws mean that a contractor must hire his or her workers based on the going wages in a locale. This doesn't have to do with union contracts necesssarily since union work has a negotiated wage attached to it and isn't dependent on federal legislation.The conservatives like to point out that Davis-Bacon originally was created by a mostly-white building trades union leadership to protect their members against the entry into the workforce of African-Americans. Yet, while it's true that the building trades were once not only mostly white-and yes, exclusionary--today, you are more likely to find Latinos, African Americans, immigrants, and many women among the construction trades members--all of whom are in need of a living wage to provide for their family. Prevailing wage laws means that union wages can be preserved and not ratched down by the lowest common denominator--and that means a victory for all workers who need to receive a wage to live on.
Which leads to the Wal-mart story. How amazing that the spokesperson for raising the federal minimum wage was a top official at Wal-mart this week and not simply Senator Ted Kennedy. There are layers upon layers of cynical maneuvers being orchestrated in the Wal-mart boardrooms but the minimum wage raise is not about paying their workers more--it's about putting cash in the pockets of their potential customers. The thing about minimum wages among the lower sectors of the workforce is that they provide the floor by which everything begins to sink--or rise-- and as we face a substantial portion of the workforce now on a downward spiral, keeping a depressed minimum wage means that the myriad of Wal-mart customers have less to spend in the stores. Minimum wage is a key issue for unions--but even more so for all those millions of workers who don't have union protection and the benefit of a union bargaining structure.
but there is no doubt that the opposition against Wal-mart has begun to have a serious impact.
What impact is that?
October 28, 2005 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
People will still shop at WalMart if the t-shirt they are buying is $11.50 instead of $11.25, they will still eat at Taco Bell if the taco is 80 cents instead of 75 cents, etc.
Sweat shops are outsourcing overseas now anyways so they don't really count anymore.
October 28, 2005 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jo Ann,
I agree that Walmart's support of an increase to the minimum wage is significant. It appears that Walmart is starting to apprehend the logic of a mass consumption society--i.e., that higher wages tend to act more as a spur to economic activity rather than a break on it. Walmart also seems to have rejected the conservative canard that increases in the minimum wage decrease employment. Indeed, Walmart seems to be supporting an increase so as to help drive up demand to support its employment levels.
As many of us know, every emperical study of minimum wage increases has found that increases either have no effect on employment levels or actually are correlated with increased employment levels. It's good to see the largest employer in the US taking some of this data to heart.
October 28, 2005 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
jhey i am new her if u could send me any scholary links about the labor union and social just it will be appreciated thanks
October 30, 2005 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see Ms. Mort deleted my comment, #3. I am guessing that Ms. Mort took offense at my comments about Wall Street not being interest in building a better America.
In my comment, I described how the telecommunications scandal of the '90s played out. I mentioned Laurence Grafstein, managing partner at Lazard Freres and Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs formed MCG Capital as a vulture investment group to pick up telecom assets on the cheap when the telecom market went bust.
Perhaps Ms. Mort took offense because her employer, George Soros, invested $900 million in MCG Capital.
I'm not that great at writing but I think I'll take another stab at the telecom scandal in my TPM Cafe blog.
Ms. Mort deleted another one of my comments in a different post about whose side she is on. Bit thin-skinned, if you ask me.
November 3, 2005 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink