• Choose Language:
  • print
  • decrease text sizeincrease text size
    text

News and Issues Blog: Today's Workplace

Advertise on Workplace Fairness

Your source for the latest developments in workplace rights and employment law. "Today's Workplace" is the the blog (weblog) written by Paula Brantner, Program Director of Workplace Fairness. In each entry, Paula focuses on legal and political information relevant to employee rights and fairness issues in the workplace. Whether you're an advocate trying to stay on top of the latest case developments and workplace trends, or a worker wanting to follow and understand the issues, keep up to date here!
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Warm Bodies Cost More Than Machines to Maintain, But They Also Vote and Spend Money
You may have heard lately, here and elsewhere, about the "jobless recovery." While a number of the traditional leading economic indicators demonstrate that our nation is coming out of the economic malaise characterizing the past few years, unemployment and job creation statistics aren't matching up. While the debate could become endless whether a "jobless recovery" is or should be an oxymoron where policymakers are concerned, economists are still grappling for an explanation as to why the economy is growing when its workers aren't. A recent article suggests one explanation: the number of businesses investing in new equipment is increasing significantly, while the numbers reflecting businesses who invest in new employees isn't budging.

In the story Player Piano, author Justin Lahart cites the statistics that document the problem: in the last five years, the cost of labor (the Employment Cost Index) has risen 21 percent, while the cost of equipment in the same period has fallen 9.2 percent. Tax incentives such as depreciation allowances further deepen the cost divide between man (and woman) and machine. As economist Paul Kasriel puts it: "People got too expensive and they're still too expensive."

This probably shouldn't come as a huge surprise. After all, machines don't require health benefits and vacation days. And why does it always seem that the managers who are the hardest to work for get along quite well with the machines? While machines and people both seem to need sick days when it's least expected, it's often easier to get the machines up and running at full capacity than to accommodate disability, pregnancy, and family leaves. Aside from the occasional hardware and software incompatibility, machines often do better than workers at communicating with each other and working together successfully. Technology advances are always boosting a machine's productivity, and we thought that would work with humans as well, as cell phones, web browsing and e-mail started taking over everyone's off-duty hours and vacation time. Machines handle burnout much better than humans--you just get a new one or replace a part, while the toll of constant stress and fear of unemployment is harder to quickly fix in human beings.

However, machines and humans need each other. Who is going to build all the machines if all the manufacturing jobs go away? It appears that the answer in the short run may be workers in China and India and other companies around the globe rather than workers in the U.S. But who is going to buy the things that the machines make, if no one here has income that makes discretionary spending possible? Moreover, if employers and insurers don't help subsidize the cost of health care, we all know that the American taxpayer pays the price. We need healthy, educated, and skilled workers to design the machines, run the machines and fix the machines' malfunctions, and to step in where a human touch is and will always be needed.

And preliminary attempts at creating glitch-proof voting mechanisms notwithstanding, machines aren't going to be doing any voting in the 2004 elections. People are, and the candidates that promote business interests and the purchases of yet more machines with tax breaks and incentives, without considering the interests of human workers, may just find that a machine isn't an adequate substitute for the American worker after all.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Latest Wrinkle in Overtime Debate Holds Up Spending Bill
"It ain't over until it's over" appears to be the rallying cry of those in the U.S. Senate fighting to save American workers from overtime "reform" this year. Although the proposed regulations of the Department of Labor limiting overtime protections for millions of workers are slated to go into effect by March 31, 2004, the Senate has delayed action on the appropriations bill funding Labor and several other key departments in response to the Administration's refusal to delay the implementation of the new regulations. The departments at issue are only funded until January 31, so someone will have to cry uncle soon. Let's hope it's not the American worker who pays the price, although by all indications, that may very well be the ultimate outcome.

Keep contacting your members of Congress, especially your Senators. This is such a key battle, and it isn't over yet, so it's very important that your legislators know where you stand.

Take Action Now: Protect Overtime Pay


More information about the Overtime Debate:

Editorials:

Overtime Grab/A Bad Idea That Won't Die
Gaming Overtime

News Articles:

Senate Democrats Block Bill to Gut Overtime Rules
Chao Refuses To Delay New Overtime Rule
GOP Split on Overtime Pay
Overtime Pay Proposal Won't Reduce Lawsuits, Key Lawmaker Says
Impact of Overtime Changes Still a Puzzle
U.S. Offers Tips on Avoiding Overtime Pay






Archive

Follow us on: