Labor,
Anyone?
I grew up in Haifa (the Red City of Israel), a place
where there were annual May Day parades--with red flags and street dancing,
speeches and a day off for all. I loved this carnival, though my parents hated
the unions and all they represented, especially their political power that
could, at a drop of a hat, call for strikes in any sector of the economy. A
mixed upbringing, to be sure.
As much as my parents despised those unions and their
leaders, and as much as they strove to succeed as capitalists in a hybrid
economy, they treated their company as a large dysfunctional family, with my Mom
serving as the matron saint. She stood five feet tall with little formal
education. She helped the pregnant unmarried secretary and scolded wayward men
who cheated on their wives. Yes, these were her employees, but she felt
responsible for their well-being.
As the Labor Day sales were announced across America last
week, most of us think less of unions than about the picnic we attended.
Perhaps we take for granted the benefits from the hard-won battles of
yesteryear between labor and capital that the former was able to win—elimination
of child labor, workplace safety, and paid vacations. Perhaps we simply ignore
unions because of their anemic political power (less than 9% of the private workforce)
or caricature them as represented by Jimmy Hoffa.
Every politician in every election, local to national,
promotes job creation, though none has asked if work is a right or privilege. None
has referred to microeconomics textbooks where “full employment” is defined in
terms of 7% unemployment. And while we’re at it, how are we measuring
unemployment? What about those who have drifted off the unemployment benefits
lines? What about part-time employees?
Perhaps we are too busy to think through our views about
labor: should there be unions, altogether? Our K-12 teachers are unionized, yet
most don’t look at them the way we do at the Teamsters. Do police officers and
fire fighters use collective bargaining, or as my dear friend calls it
collective begging? What about our men and women in uniform?
Some (teachers, fire-fighters, police officers) enjoy
pensions under various conditions. UCCS professors don’t have pensions,
classified staff do. Why? Should they all have pensions, or should none? What
about health insurance?
Recently I was in Detroit with a friend to see what a “bankrupt”
municipality looks like. As Mark Twain quipped, the news of its demise has been
greatly exaggerated. The downtown looks thriving, with some major corporate
headquarters intact. Yes, there are some outlying neighborhoods that are
boarded up or that are being razed with plans for rebuilding, no different from
what is seen outside any metropolitan area where urban renewal is an ongoing
process.
The city’s bankruptcy, just like that of GM and Chrysler
a few years ago, is partially about underfunded pensions. Should the courts
eventually allow the city to shirk its pension liabilities? Do we fundamentally
deserve to have pensions, or is this idea outdated? Now that workplaces are for
the most part safe (some refineries in Louisiana still emit dangerous chemicals),
now that minimum wage is a federal law, is it time to revisit pensions?
If it’s time, let’s separate the practical from the
theoretical. In theory we should ask ourselves if, after years of hard labor,
one deserves to retire with benefits. When it comes to the military, our
national answer is a resounding yes! Depending on many variables, pensions are
granted to military retirees (over 100,000 are residents of our fair city). For
the sake of consistency, should this answer apply to everyone?
It is argued that our men and women in uniform have
risked their lives for our nation, and therefore deserve a pension. True, but since
1973 military service is voluntary, and is no different, in this sense, from those
serving as teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and utilities employees. Should
a pension be owed to them all?
Even when we agree to offer pensions to all employees,
can we, practically, afford to do so? The answer is simpler than it sounds. All
we need to do is adjust our outdated spreadsheets and the formula used to
determine retirement benefits. As we live longer and are healthier later into
our lives, we should work longer for our benefits; we should also contribute a
greater percentage of our current wages (matched by employees) for future benefits.
Otherwise, the system isn’t sustainable, as is also the
case with Social Security. Change the formula, and you can save the system.
Keep it, and it’ll be in a crisis, the kind that becomes an excuse for
bankruptcy. If we plan better, we can provide all working citizens an “honorable
discharge” from their place of work with benefits commensurate with their
contributions to them.
Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS; rsassower@gmail.com See
also sassower.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment