[PEN-L:8368] FW: Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1997 RELEASED TODAY: The Employment Cost Index for December 1996 was 130.9 (June 1989=100), an increase of 2.9 percent from December 1995 On a seasonally adjusted basis, compensation costs for civilian workers (private industry plus state and local governments) increased 0.8 percent in the three months that ended December 1996. This continued a pattern of increases that have ranged from 0.6 to 0.8 percent for the last three years. Wages and salaries increased 0.8 percent during the September-December 1996 period. The increase for the June-September period was 0.6 percent. Benefit costs increased 0.7 percent in December; in September, these costs increased 0.6 percent In an article about ex-welfare moms who are taking traditionally male jobs, yesterday's Washington Post (page B1) quotes BLS figures -- women represented only 0.08 percent of the nation's carpenters, 1.3 percent of the plumbers, steamfitters, and pipe fitters, and 0.7 percent of the mechanics, but 97.8 percent of the secretaries. The reasons for the disparity are multiple and complex, and barriers such as discrimination and sexual harassment will not tumble easily, analysts say. Perhaps more important, most women simply shy away from construction work, economists and others say In addition, women, who assume most child-care responsibilities, have other concerns, said Howard Hayghe, a BLS economist. "If your kid gets sick at school, how does the school get word to the mother on the construction site?" he said. "In the summer, construction workers can work from sunup to sundown. How is a mother going to find day care for such bizarre hours?" Sunday's New York Times (page A1) says that, as hospitals merge and shrink under pressure from managed care, a large and growing number of senior doctors and nurses have found themselves suddenly dismissed or demoted at the height of their careers. With their high salaries and roots in old-style medicine, older doctors and nurses are natural targets for hospitals trying desperately to economize, health experts say. And when hospitals merge, even world-renowned doctors can become redundant. No institution needs two chiefs of cardiac surgery, for example. Health industry experts estimate that thousands of senior staff members have lost jobs or their supervisory positions No longer just helpers who keep the boss's calendar straight and take dictation, career secretaries and administrative assistants have, in the last decade, increasingly taken on the duties of middle managers. The reasons are varied. Because of downsizing, there are fewer middle-managers around, and companies have given many of the unfilled responsibilities to secretaries. And with executives typing memos on their laptops and checking their own voice mail, secretaries have been relieved of some of their time-consuming clerical duties and are available to tackle other tasks In most cases, however, the authority given to secretaries has lagged behind that of the former managers, whose duties they are assuming. So have their salary levels: the average pay of secretaries is about $8,000 a year less than the average pay for white-collar workers in private industry. But over the last five years, the gap has closed slightly. From 1982 to 1996, the national average for secretarial salaries rose 14 percent, to $24,200, according to Watson Wyatt Company, a human resources consulting group based in New York, while white-collar wages as a whole climbed 11 percent to $33,100, according to BLS (New York Times, Jan. 26, page F14). The Federal Reserve releases updated measures of industrial output, capacity, and factory use rates, showing that the manufacturing sector, as expected, advanced at a slower pace in 1996 than originally estimated (Daily Labor Report, page D-1)_The nation's industrial output grew a little more slowly than previously thought over the past 20 years, and inflation pressures were slightly more muted. The conclusions came from part of an overhaul of the method to calculate output (Washington Times, page B6).
[PEN-L:8369] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, utopian
In part we ARE an "atomized, stressed, and distracted" society precisely BECAUSE we are obstructed from having significant influence over the decisions that most affect us -- economic and political decisions in particular in the 1990s.
[PEN-L:8371] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, utopian
Further thoughts on Justin Schwartz's concern that participatory economies lead to a dictorship of the sociable: Most people would be surprised to discover that participation in participatory planning takes place almost exclusively through a kind of voting that does NOT entail attending meetings and taking part in long discussions. The procedure of proposal, counter proposal, approve, disapprove is all done without attending meetings. Where time is required is cable TV type debates with "experts" presenting their views on what ARE the predictable consequences of new products, technologies, and investment priorties that are provided for people in general, but representatives of federations in particular, to inform themselves before the vote. The problem here, admittedly, is that some will tune in and others will not. Some will process this information more intelligently than others before they vote also. I don't know what can be done about either of these unfortunate results. Ultilmately voting is done according to degree effected. Unfortunately democracy rules out any attempt to weigh some votes more because someone deems them better informed.
[PEN-L:8376] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, utopian
In response to Robin Hahnel, Justin Schwartz wrote: With regard to your point below, I understand that your model does not require participation. But that results in a different problem. This is that those who do take advantage of the opportunities to participate in the planning have their preferences count for more than those who do not. This tends to favor the sociable, the argumentative, and those who have time to do it--a factor which militates against parents in particular (I am one). You may say, well, it's no different from voting, those who don't vote, aren't counted. But participatory planning is a lot more time and skill-intensive than voting. Voting is relatively costless and anyone can do it. Speaking at meetings, taking responsibility for getting things done, etc. are costly and require a special personality as well as time. COMMENT: After a fashion the preferences of those who do not participate in planning do count since their preferences are not to participate. As to voting being relatively costless and hence not comparable, it is also possible to make greater use of referenda as part of planning and this is a form of voting. In the electronic age this should (eventually) be relatively easy. Forcing people to participate certainly does not seem the answer since it would produce donkey participation just as compulsory voting produces donkey voting--for example picking the first name on the ballot. Certainly conditions should be made favorable for anyone who desires to participate in planning to be able to do so (not just the formal right to do so) but equally important is that participation be informed. Talk of preferences per se recalls the deity-like status given to these in traditional welfare economics and in liberal ideology of the individual. There are after all preferences for children as sex objects, prefferences for child labor, preferences to put out contracts on opponents, adaptive preferences, etc. etc. Should these count equally. If not then you had better start developing some ethical thinking that puts preferences in their proper place, namely as part of ideological baggage of liberal capitalism and its deductive theology masquerading as a science of welfare economics. Talk of preferences serve as a convenient cover for arguments to the effect that in a market people get to choose and so avoid the "dictatorship" of the commmunity , the intelligent, or whomever and preserves freedom of the individual as contrasted to the road to serfdom of planning .. Talk of a dictatorship where everyone has a right and opportunity to participate is inappopriate in any event. If people allow decisions to made for them this may be undesirable in some situations but when the means for preventing exist and are more than formal it is their own fault. In the vast majority of situations the vast majority of people will probably not want to be involved. If there are problems then they will want to act, and surely then there should be mechanisms for critical feedback into the system. This would replace market exit, with critical voice as control on any attempted market dictators just as market exit helps to control production that is not wanted by consumers. CHeers,Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:8370] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, utopian
This is only intended as a partial answer to Justin Schwartz's thoughtful question. You're right. There is a fundamental dilemma that cannot be ducked: If people are free not to participate even when given effectively equal opportunities to do so -- and I distinguish "effectively" from "formally" and believe that is one big difference between market socialist models and our model -- then those who do participate will have more decison making input. The alternative of forcing all to participate is, however, worse and ultimately even more alienating. I once answered Nancy Folbre's warning that we would end up with "the dictatorship of the sociable": Better the dictatorship of the sociable -- under conditions where they cannot gain material advantage for themselves -- than the dictatorship of the wealthy (capitalism), the dictatorship of the well educated (what market socialism will reduce to), or the dictatorship of the politically powerful (Communism). I was being only slightly facecious. I have never imagined that a participatory economy would arrive without equally revolutionary and compatible transformations in other areas of social life -- including parenting and child rearing. So not only will there be none who cannot participate because they are too busy surviving economically while others are a leisure class with full time to dominate meetings, parents will be largely relieved of their extra time burdens. I personally don't think this should be entirely the case, but see no problem with people going through 10 to 15 years of their lives with greater parental duties and consequently less time for economic meetings. In both macro institutions -- like participatory planning -- and micro institutions like workers and consumers councils there are better and worse ways to organize equitable cooperative decision making. Debates about such procedures should be at the top of progressive economists think/research agendas -- though they seldom are. Hasta la Victoria Siempre
[PEN-L:8380] Re: current events: increased job insecurity?
friends, i want to thank jim devine for his interesting post on employment trends. in a recent article of "the nation" there is a good article about mexican workers at meatplanting plants in iowa. these jobs are not contingent in the way the bls defines this, but the job security of the workers is low to put it mildly. and turnover is extremely high. the union jobs that used to be there were certainly more secure, paid better, etc. michael yates
[PEN-L:8381] Re: comp vs OT
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: The Wall Street Journal had a piece about comp time vs. overtime yesterday, a fight that is "dividing the labor movement." Clinton Congress look to be moving toward some kind of deal, making a longtime Republican dream a reality, to amend labor law to allow for compensatory time off rather in place of overtime. The article said that unions are internally divided - with "working women" showing preference for comp time, reversing traditional union preferences. Any thoughts on this? Are conservative unionists speaking on behalf of "working women," or is this a real feminist position? I don't think it's fair to divide the issue in this way -- conservative unionists v. feminists. The issue is more complex than a simple one of a time v. money tradeoff. It also includes issues of job control. If you have ever worked under a comp time system, taking that banked comp time becomes a real problem. The mere fact that you have accumulated comp time means that you are working too many hours. It is likely that this condition of more work for the hours available is not a short term one. This means that the hours may have to be carried on the books for a long time. Then there will be disputes about the totals and conditions under which they can be taken. One issue in dispute is the notice an employer must give before terminating the program. The Republican time is so short that it may not be possible to take the hours. This all turns into potentially grievable issues for workers. Just getting the OT in the next paycheck is so much simpler and - to return to the original goal of OT legislation - may act as a stronger deterrent on employers to its overuse than banking comp time. There are ways the legislation can address each of these problems, but it may be that the eventual law will not be drafted in a way that makes the unionists' lives easier. Ellen Dannin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8387] Re: BalBudget Ad
Max: Thanks for the thoughtful and forthright reply. 1. Is it polyanish to believe that a real full employment statement that says it is reasonable to accept some modest inflationary increase if it means jobs and raises for working people could be adopted by the AFL-CIO leadership and similar resolutions by many local unions and chapters of other organization? 2. Is the political period over where grassroot organizations and union chapters try to mobilize around some mass issue? 3. If Sweeney is worth anything, why wouldn't he want to have a mass mobilization around Real Full Employment? Is it foolish to think that having a real Labor Day next September when in every city the unions have a mobilization with other groups around real full employment is impossible? Isn't it possible for EPI to be a catalyst for some of this? Robert Cherry
[PEN-L:8389] Re: modest proposal
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) At 1:48 PM 1/29/97, Max B. Sawicky wrote: On the last point, a petition almost requires a news "hook" to attract attention. If we were in deep recession such a petition would be a more likely activity. Meaning that EPI - or the US left in general - must always be in a reactive mode? . . . No, as the rest of my admittedly long response to Cherry reflects. Why not say that some of the modest reduction in inequality we've seen over the last couple of years, and the modest average real wage increase, and the modest improvements in social indicators (esp for African Americans) are the result of modestly taut labor markets (taut, that is, by post-1973 standards)? Encouraging recognition of this would make it modestly more difficult for the Fed to tighten, which it almost certainly will do later this year? We do say that. The problem is not in what to say, but in how to get people to listen. Since our resources are finite, we have to pick and choose what to try to put across and when. Any statement (well, most any) someone on this list thinks we are neglecting can be found somewhere in our publications. We can always schedule press events and end up talking to our friends in the labor press, but we can do that just by using the telephone. As noted previously, we don't control the filter we must go through. You knew that, didn't you? MBS
[PEN-L:8378] current events: increased job insecurity?
Recently, Doug Henwood stirred up a tempest in a pen-l pot when
he suggested that the trend toward "casualization" of work in the
U.S. and other advanced capitalist countries is a myth or at
least not as great a trend as many people think.
But the report I heard on NPR as I drove into work suggested that
the consensus of labor economists (such as Audrey Freeman) is
that casualization is a trend. Also, in BUSINESS WEEK (27
January, 1997, p. 20), there is evidence for this kind of trend,
provided by the government's Economic Benefit Research Institute:
between 1983 and 1996, the median years at one's current employer
fell steadily for male workers, especially for those between ages
55 and 64 and those between ages 45 and 54. "The data also
confirm that older men have been particularly affected by
layoffs." and down-sizing.
On the other hand, women have seen about the same degree of job
stability (though BW doesn't present any stats). I think that
fits the idea that the primary labor market (the "good jobs") has
been shrinking pretty rapidly over the last 15 years. Since it
was primarily (white) males who benefitted from the primary jobs,
they were hit hardest. This fits with the partial convergence of
male and female wages, in which (if I remember correctly) the
fall in male wages plays a larger role than the rise in female
ones.
Looking at Doug's newsletter's reports on casualization, it seems
pretty obvious that he's talking about a different issue: he
emphasizes the issue of the role of part-time workers as an indes
of casualization.
This seems the wrong way to look at the issue (unless one's only
job is to trash Jeremy Rifkin, Stanley Aronowitz, et al): my
impression is that capitalist employers don't really _want_
part-time workers; there are overhead costs that they want
distributed over as many hours of a worker's time as possible.
But what they _do_ want these days is zero commitment to the
worker over the long-term unless there is a clear pay-off to
them. The market situation used to be such that a capitalist
could offer a "primary" job with some job security and a pension
and get a pay-off from it. But nowadays, such a strategy is ruled
out by the competitive environment, pressure from creditors, and
increased opportunities to find workers who don't have the power
to demand such "primary" jobs.
Speaking of such, the same issue of BUSINESS WEEK (in the "Up
Front" pages) has a little article on the impact of NAFTA:
US employers have increased their practice of threatening to move
to Mexico (during union votes) since NAFTA passed. Not
surprisingly, such threats lower the chance of union victories.
When unions win, the firms are also more likely to shut down
("triple the level in the pre-NAFTA 1980s"). The study doesn't
indicate whether or not the firms move to Mexico rather than
someplace else (such as low-wage areas inside the U.S.) This of
course fits with Guess Jeans' recent decision to fight a
unionization campaign in Los Angeles by moving its operations to
Mexico. (Can anyone guess what brand of jeans should be
boycotted?)
The report just cited was commisioned by the US Department of
Labor but was suppressed. It's been four months since the study
was finished by the Cornell researchers. Kate Bronfenbrenner, the
lead author, seems to have released the report without DoL
permission.
On a lighter note, the Los Angeles TIMES op-ed page had a column
today (29 January 1997) by Martin Mayer predicting a stock-market
crash. It also had a column by Martin Mayer predicting that the
stock market would be essentially stable in the future. I like
someone who is modest about the validity of his predictions.
(Doug's web page (http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood) suggests that
the stock market is overvalued, so that we should expect a "68%
decline over the next 10 years.")
While I'm on the subject of current events, yesterday's L.A.
TIMES (p. 3) had an article about the calculation of what kind of
wages were needed for "welfare mothers" to totally "escape the
need for government assistance" (and attain self-sufficiency)
according to the Washington-based think-tank, Wider Opportunities
for Women. A family with one adult, one infant, and one
preschooler needs a monthly income of $2,858.44 or an hourly wage
of $16.24. The US minimum wage is of course $4.75/hour (or for
California, $5 starting in March). By the way, the budget
includes $281.40 per month for food, less than $10 per day for a
family of three.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:8375] Economists' Petition Against Balanced Budget Amendment: Last Ca
Colleagues: We've topped the thousand mark for our petition condemning the Balanced Budget Amendment. We will be releasing the names to the press very soon. Our press conference will be on Thursday (maybe on C-Span) at 2:30. If you have not yet forwarded your endorsement, do not delay. Best way is to fax it to 202-331-5545. Second best way is to e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT to me, thank you very much). Chances of the amendment being defeated remain promising, though the vote will undoubtedly be close. Max Sawicky === Max B. SawickyEconomic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax)Washington, DC 20036 ===
[PEN-L:8379] BalBudget Ad
I am a strong supporter of the EPI and have signed ad. However, I am increasingly disheartened by the lack of focus of the EPI on the issue of full employment. In the election ad, some in the EPI capitulated to the claim that we are so near full employment that there is not much room for a demand side stimulus. While the EPI tried to distance itself from this positon it has done nothing to contradict it. That is, it has yet to mobilize economists around the notion that the unemployment rate should be driven down to the 4-4.5% range. Instead, it has gotten sidetracked into the focus on the balanced budget demand. Even here, EPI accepts a united front with regressive liberals. That is, the ad accepts the notion that it is good to generally balance the budget but disagrees with the method. I believe that the EPI should provide some leadership with a discussion of making a mass demand to lower the unemployment rate to say 4.2% EVEN IF IT MEANS A MODERATE INCREASE IN THE ANNUAL INFLATION RATE. Without leading such a campaign the EPI will at best put a human face on Rockefeller Republicanism which after all is what the Democratic Party has become. Of interest, I just reread a 1965 piece by James Tobin in which he makes essentially the same points that I am making. In that article, he argued that the unemployment rate should be brought down to an AVERAGE of 3.0- 3.5 percent and he was willing to accept the modest increase in inflation rates. Maybe the EPI can have Eisner and others generate an ad that would have this focus -- even a few hundred signatures on this kind of an ad is worth more than the thousands you are getting on the bbamendment ad. Robert Cherry
[PEN-L:8382] Re: BalBudget Ad
On 29 Jan 97 at 10:41, Robert Cherry wrote: I am a strong supporter of the EPI and have signed ad. However, I am increasingly disheartened by the lack of focus of the EPI on the issue of full employment. In the election ad, some in the EPI capitulated to the claim that we are so near full employment that there is not much room for a demand side stimulus. While the EPI tried to distance itself from this positon it has done nothing to contradict it. That is, it has yet to mobilize economists around the notion that the unemployment rate should be driven down to the 4-4.5% range. By your first reference to "ad" I assume you mean the anti-BBA petition, which is not quite an ad yet though it will be released to the press with the appropriate PR hoopla. Chances are some virtuous organization will decide such an ad should indeed be placed and pony up the $50,000 or so required. By "election ad", if you mean the petition signed by 500+ economists criticizing the Dole economic plan last fall, I completely agree with you. You won't find my own name on that ad, nor that of certain other EPI staff economists and cronies in academia. We would like to mobilize people, including economists, around the notion that UE could be less than 5 percent. We have not done a separate petition because a) the other petitions were politically pressing; b) doing the work of the other petitions was financed; and c) it's not obvious such a petition would be successful. On the last point, a petition almost requires a news "hook" to attract attention. If we were in deep recession such a petition would be a more likely activity. We're also in something of a position of petition saturation, what with two in the past six months. We don't want to go to the well too often. Another factor re: success is that it's not clear we could get many signatories to the notion that Robert Gordon's NAIRU is too high. A petition that only gets 150 names is probably better not circulated (especially after getting 1000+ names on a different petition). It (e.g., the 150 names) says nobody buys this except for a fringe. The problem in taking on the NAIRU, beyond sponsoring research (which we have been doing), parallels a basic problem in the debate on the balanced budget. Namely, the entire organized left and labor movement is unwilling to go to the public and proclaim that it is simply not necessary to balance the budget, ever. Even my colleagues at EPI think it's an exercise in futility. The public conviction that the emporer is well-attired has intimidated anyone from saying the dude is buck naked. The Progressive Caucus in Congress, led by Bernie Sanders, is in the process of forging a coalition with the Right around the notion of reducing so-called "corporate welfare." For the right, this means killing anything that looks like industrial policy (outside of defense, of course), while for the left, it means reducing some tax expenditures. The purpose of this grand enterprise is to reduce the deficit. The main problem is that such cuts devoted to deficit reduction will be entirely wasted, from the standpoint of potentially constructive initiatives in public spending. They are wasted because health care spending growth will just eat them up and then recreate high deficits, prompting further rounds of austerity. I have been arguing to no avail that as long as the public thinks balanced budgets are good things, they will gloss over the details of how such good things are best brought about and eventually the BBA will pass. I further maintain that the polling data on public support for the BB is bogus because such polling never couches the question in the economically-honest way, namely, making clear that a BB has inexorable consequences and cannot be taken in isolation. For instance, when pollsters ask if the BB is a good thing when it entails cuts in Medicare and Social Security (as it inevitably must), then 2/3rds of the public rejects the BB. The neglect of full-employment politics is a major opportunity for budding third-party efforts, but so far it seems these folks are content with demanding employment and income as a right, as if the government can simply create them by fiat, rather than talking about policies that can actually create jobs and raise wages. Any thoughts on how to cope with these political problems would be welcome. Until then, I'm busy solidifying a rep in D.C. as an unbalanced-budget crank. Instead, it has gotten sidetracked into the focus on the balanced budget demand. Even here, EPI accepts a united front with regressive liberals. That is, the ad accepts the notion that it is good to generally balance the budget but disagrees with the method. The petition back-handedly accepts the notion held by the majority of the profession -- that the budget ought to balanced over the business cycle, and that arrangements to ensure such a policy ought not to be in the Constitution.
[PEN-L:8377] comp vs OT
The Wall Street Journal had a piece about comp time vs. overtime yesterday, a fight that is "dividing the labor movement." Clinton Congress look to be moving toward some kind of deal, making a longtime Republican dream a reality, to amend labor law to allow for compensatory time off rather in place of overtime. The article said that unions are internally divided - with "working women" showing preference for comp time, reversing traditional union preferences. Any thoughts on this? Are conservative unionists speaking on behalf of "working women," or is this a real feminist position? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:8384] Re: comp vs OT
Blair and Doug brought up yesterday's Wall Street Journal article on overtime.
Doug asked,
Any thoughts on this? Are conservative unionists speaking on behalf of
"working women," or is this a real feminist position?
and Blair asked,
The question is then, what is labor's objection really? In other words,
shouldn't we push labor to get behind this proposal full force in order to
shape it in accord with workers' needs, rather than just saying "no?"
I haven't seem the WSJ piece yet (thanks for the tip). But I circulated a
provocative fable on a few other lists two days ago on "Time and a half and
a tooth fairy too." Since OT seems to be in the news, I'll send it out to
PEN-L.
Please be forewarned, in the fable's prologue, I make the perhaps
provocative claim: THE OVERTIME PREMIUM ENCOURAGES THE USE OF OVERTIME AND
BLOCKS THE WAY TO SHORTER HOURS OF WORK. Of course, I have the charts,
tables, equations and sophisticated econometric models to back up my rash
claim and have had quite a number of requests to post the documentation. So,
in a few days to a week, the more scholarly version of this fable will start
to emerge. Anyone who wants to take premature cheap shots at my argument is
welcome to do so, provided they promise to eat the truckload of footnotes
that will show up in their driveway in a week. And now, without further ado...
**
TIME AND A HALF AND TOOTH FAIRIES, TOO
Tom Walker
The overtime premium ("time and a half") offers a striking example of good
intentions gone awry. Few would doubt that the intention of the overtime
premium is to discourage longer hours of work, but to do so in a way that
gives employers some flexibility to meet emergencies and peak periods of
demand. Although some observers question the effectiveness of the premium in
curbing overtime, I have yet to find one who would state that the overtime
premium actually *encourages the use of overtime* and blocks the way to
shorter hours of work. So I'll say it now:
THE OVERTIME PREMIUM ENCOURAGES THE USE OF OVERTIME AND BLOCKS THE WAY TO
SHORTER HOURS OF WORK.
How so?
My argument takes its cue from Ronald G. Ehrenberg's 1971 study _Fringe
Benefits and Overtime Behavior_. In that study, Ehrenberg showed that high
fixed labour costs (such as fringe benefits) offset the overtime premium and
lead to more frequent use of overtime. I'd push the argument one step
further to say that overtime premiums are probably a major cause of the
steep and steady increase in employer paid fringe benefits that occurred in
the three decades after World War II. In other words, I'd say the offset was
deliberate.
It isn't possible to be inside the heads of corporate managers and union
negotiators from four or five decades ago, but it is possible to do a few
simple calculations and reconstruct the cost options that they might have
had before them. A simple story can help to illustrate.
Let's now go behind the scenes of an historic collective bargaining session
between the United Sisterhood of Tooth Fairies and Allied Workers (USTFAW)
and Mammoth Dental Finance Corp. The year is 1947 -- and YOU are there...
The demand for tooth fairy service has always been unpredictable. Some
nights, it takes a fairy 10 or 12 hours to visit all the children who have
lost teeth that day. Traditionally, Mammoth has paid it's fairies by the
hour and has provided no benefits or time off with pay -- "an hour's work
for an hour's pay" was the founder's slogan. Starting this year, however,
Mammoth is feeling the impact of a nine-year old law requiring it to pay its
fairies time and a half for work over 8 hours in a day (night) or 40 in a week.
The rule has caused Mammoth's accountant, Peter Pencil, some consternation.
Not only has it increased the company's average cost per hour actually
worked, it has made that cost less predictable. Now, whenever there's a
surge in demand, there's also a surge in labour costs. Pencil is not pleased.
But Pencil knows his fractions, and he's determined to find a way around the
time and a half dilemma. A careful reading of the overtime law gives him an
idea. "Let's see, it says here 'the overtime rate shall be equivalent to
time and one half the employee's *regular rate of pay*'. Hmmm, doesn't say
anything about 'fringe benefits'. That's it! If we pay our fairies
two-thirds of their regular wages in wages and one third in 'fringe
benefits', then we'll only have to pay them straight time for overtime
[two-thirds times one and one half equals one]! But wait a minute -- these
fairies aren't going to be too happy about a one third pay cut. We'd better
introduce this thing gradually."
Armed with Pencil's cost calculations, the company negotiators enter into
collective bargaining with USTFAW. The fairies are pulling for a 10% raise
-- well within the company's ability to pay. But management throws a curve.
"O.K., we'll give you the 10%. But our cost calculations show that we'd be
more competitive if we
[PEN-L:8388] California to privatize welfare?
Los Angeles Times Monday, January 27, 1997 PRIVATIZATION EMERGES AS NEW WELFARE OPTION By Dave Lesher, Times Staff Writer SACRAMENTO--Gov. Pete Wilson, in the fine print of a welfare reform plan he issued earlier this month, quietly opened the door to a striking new idea of hiring private corporations to run public assistance programs. The proposal has scarcely been noticed in the Capitol, where lawmakers are still focused on questions such as how much care the state should provide--and to whom. But elsewhere, California is being closely watched by a fledgling industry of conglomerates, major charities and venture capitalists that are banking on welfare reform to become a multibillion-dollar enterprise nationwide. "We are positioning ourselves to do everything we can in California," said Robert Stauffer, a vice president in the human services division of Electronic Data Systems Corp. in Dallas. "We want to be involved." The governor's privatization idea stems from his attempt--encouraged by the counties --to provide local government with substantial discretion over how they will meet strict schedules for moving hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients into the work force. Wilson would like the state to set the rules--such as standards of care and caseload reduction goals--then get out of the way and allow counties to design their programs. The governor's plan would allow counties to "enter into performance-based contracts with nonprofit or for-profit" companies to operate nearly all or parts of their welfare programs. "The governor has said many times that government alone is not the solution," said Lisa Kalustian, deputy press secretary to the governor. The idea is welcomed by county officials. "They should be allowed to contract out as much as they deem appropriate," said Frank Mecca, lobbyist for the County Welfare Directors Assn. of California. But privatization of any government function has been hotly contested in Sacramento. And officials expect that welfare will be even more complex since there are huge consequences for thousands of poor families. For government officials who are intimidated or confused by welfare reform, the idea might offer relief. But labor unions, fearing the loss of jobs, are planning to oppose the idea. And community advocates say they are concerned about the ethics of injecting profits into the government's traditional role as caretaker of the poor. "I still have trouble with the whole concept of making a profit on the backs of the poor," said Anne Arnesan, director of the Council on Children and Families in Wisconsin. Private contractors already have been used in many California welfare offices for limited assignments, such as bookkeeping, delinquent child support collection, computerized record keeping or work training. But the governor's proposal is potentially far more sweeping. Wisconsin is implementing a plan that is similar to Wilson's proposal. There, in one county, state authorities are studying proposals from companies about how they would run the welfare program. When the contract is awarded, welfare applicants in Milwaukee County will be screened, trained and placed in jobs by the employees of a private company-- some of whom may be former welfare recipients themselves. Texas is also poised to offer at least a $500-million contract that could transfer the majority of care for its 690,000 welfare recipients to private control. Already, in both states, the opportunities have sparked intense competition among a range of small to giant corporations--both profit-making and nonprofit ones. In Texas, the major bidders include two consortia. One represents Lockheed Martin Corp., IBM and the Texas Workforce Commission. Another is composed of Electronic Data Systems Corp., Unisys Corp. and the state Department of Human Services. A third major bidder is the giant accounting firm of Arthur Anderson Co. In Wisconsin, the bidding has attracted major charities, including United Way and Goodwill Industries. Since the contracts being awarded are unprecedented, industry officials said, the potential for profit is still speculative. Privately, though, officials said most companies expect a profit of at least 3% to 4% of the contract value. In Wisconsin, the maximum profit is being written into the contracts. The strongest attraction, however, is the potential for billions of dollars in new business. And the gold rush already has begun. Maximus Corp. in McLean, Va., has worked exclusively as a private contractor in welfare offices nationwide for more than 20 years. But in the last year, the company has doubled in size, going from a $50-million operation in 1995 to $105 million in 1996. It expects to do the same this year. Welfare reform "is, as yet, an undetermined revenue pool," said Kevin Gedding, a Maximus spokesman. "But there are billions of dollars in
[PEN-L:8391] Re: BalBudget Ad
From: Robert Cherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8387] Re: BalBudget Ad 1. Is it polyanish to believe that a real full employment statement that says it is reasonable to accept some modest inflationary increase if it means jobs and raises for working people could be adopted by the AFL-CIO leadership and similar resolutions by many local unions and chapters of other organization? No. The question is why anybody else would pay attention. There are plans at the AFl-CIO for economics education for trade union members where such ideas will be fully motivated. The problem is one of politics: how to push such a view beyond the faithful, although the problem of first gathering the faithful should not be glossed over. We've often heard union leaders saying, in all sincerety, 'well we do have to balance the budget.' There is a major educational problem among the most likely progressive forces, which is logically where we would start. 2. Is the political period over where grassroot organizations and union chapters try to mobilize around some mass issue? I don't think so. Now should be the best time, when the BBA and its threats to employment and economic security are most great. The question is how prepared grassroots groups are to take up this issue. As mentioned, the process within the labor movement is already underway. We have a long way to go on many fronts. 3. If Sweeney is worth anything, why wouldn't he want to have a mass mobilization around Real Full Employment? Is it foolish to think that having a real Labor Day next September when in every city the unions have a mobilization with other groups around real full employment is impossible? I wouldn't be surprized if something like this did come off at some point. Now isn't the best time. We are reduced to saying let's mobilize because unemployment could be a percent (or two) less. Not very blood-curdling. The time to ring that bell is when UE is over seven and the govt is visibly reluctant to do anything. Then the exposure available makes it possible to press for a policy of 'probing' to push UE down below five percent and beyond. Isn't it possible for EPI to be a catalyst for some of this? I think so. Right now all the buckets are being filled to douse the BBA fire. If BBA passes the House and Senate, this whole thing will be replayed in state legislatures. I just did a radio debate with Jim Miller (Reagan OMB chief) and was reminded of the power of the simple premise 'neither a borrower nor lender be.' (That was about the limit of the economic wisdom he had to impart.) My proposal to fight this popular delusion is to emphasize three things the govt must do, for which budgets and their deficits are merely a tool: full employment, public investment, and economic security, all of which are impossible under balanced budgets. The public supports these missions more than mere budget balance. It just doesn't understand their connection. I'm in the minority in this view on the left; the dominant tactic is to oppose the amendment and pay lip service to the priority of budget balance, not to mention those others on the left who propose to balance the budget "progressively." People outside the beltway can probably have more impact here than EPI, since we deal with people who deal with members of congress whose views depend on public opinion. So the people we deal with don't want to try to sell something to a Member that the Member is not interested in. In contrast, for those that deal with real constituency organizations, there is the opportunity to raise these issues before those who are less constrained by the need to ape public opinion and conventional wisdom. The big exception is the labor movement, where I am confident at this point a well-founded view of this issue will be energetically propagated in planned educational activities. Another important pole of activity is what should be called the 'teach-in movement,' namely efforts by various people and groups to revive mass campus gatherings where dangerous minds can hold forth. I just hope the organizers of the latter affairs do not prove reluctant to involve economists of the EPI stripe, as well as the PEN-L. MBS
[PEN-L:8390] What it Means To Be Political
WHAT IT MEANS TO BE POLITICAL We reprint below excerpts from a presentation by a member of the women's initiative at a meeting utilizing VOR #119, "Taking Politics Into Our Own Hands." Presentations are part of the effort to encourage all participants to express their views. It has been edited for publication. United States Marxist-Leninist Organization -- In the current political system we are led to believe that voting is everything and that politics--and real decision making--is to be left to the rich and their political parties. One of the biggest blocks in moving this society forward is the fact that politics are considered a domain which does not belong to the working class and ordinary people. The working class never sleeps. Working people are so busy struggling to get by, who's got time for politics? Yet, no one else is going to make things better for us. It is the workers, students, and other ordinary people who must become political, and create a new society in their own image. By raising our level of social consciousness and becoming political we have everything to gain. One problem we face is that workers lack confidence in their ability to win power, to rule and govern. This is not an accident. The capitalists and their agents work day and night to make people feel powerless. When you go to the bank you come out feeling powerless. When tuition fees go up you feel powerless. When your workplace lays-off some and adds on more work for others, you feel powerless. When the bills come and you struggle to pay them you feel powerless. The capitalist class is making us feel powerless! To put an end to this situation people have to ask themselves a question, tonight ask yourself a question--do you feel oppressed? If you feel oppressed then you must become political. Being political is much richer than just voting. Being political means taking a definite stand on issues. It means discussing, and raising the level of social consciousness. It means looking at the concrete conditions right before our eyes and drawing conclusions. Being political means being involved in the fight for a new society. I work days and my husband works nights, we have opposite days off, we are raising two children. We make time for politics because the old society is dying and things are becoming worse all the time. We don't believe the monopoly controlled-media, the schools, and the politicians of the rich, when they tell us that voting is enough. People want to exercise control over their lives. In order to do this it is the people themselves who must go for power. All capitalist parties are the greatest defenders of the capitalist system and their kind of democracy. While they defend the system, the Republicans, the Democrats, the Perot's, etc. all pretend that they are completely different from each other ideologically and split the polity on that basis. People think they are voting for someone who is different, but they end up being the same. They are the same because they defend the capitalist system. They do not want you to become political because they are afraid that the working class will change the social relations that exist between the capitalist class and the working class. Revolutionary politics to some seems like an impossible goal, but revolution comes in ebb and flow. Revolution is in retreat now, but it will once again be in flow. This is why the people must begin to claim politics as their own, so they can be ready to move society forward. Discussing and taking up our own politics, the politics of empowerment, is a first step. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8373] participatory planning
Robin Hahnel writes: In both macro institutions -- like participatory planning -- and micro institutions like workers and consumers councils there are better and worse ways to organize equitable cooperative decision making. Debates about such procedures should be at the top of progressive economists think/research agendas -- though they seldom are. right! we need to figure out how to improve democratic procedures. Under capitalism, of course, all the incentives are such that the powerful do not want to improve such procedures. Also, about the idea that participatory planning would be like an endless student council meeting (which I think was what Nancy Folbre said to Doug Henwood, if my memory serves me): the problem with student council meetings (as with the recent Dole/Clinton election) was that the students have no power; the principal remains in power. Under Robin Mike Albert's scheme (if it works as promised), the voting would actually have an impact. That would encourage a different kind of politics, a different dynamic. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
[PEN-L:8385] Re: comp vs OT
Doug, Perhaps the longstanding desire to kill OT is because in steel, tires, and other "measurably productive" sectors, time-and-a-half pay was used (by labor) to get at the surplus value. Capital has had a somewhat more difficult time "rationalizing" nursing, sales, and other service occupations that tend to have a greater %age of female workers. Nevertheless, it is happening with a vengence - especially in nursing where night-differentials and other perks are being taken away. In the ins company I work for, the workweek was increased from 35 to 37 1/2 hours, which is equivalent to about 23 days or about 7% more labor time. While comp time might appear to be more "family" oriented, the basic problem is that raising children is a totally path-dependent affair: you can't get back the time with your kids, even if they give you two days off for working an 18-hour shift. This issue hasn't been addressed by the WSJ crowd. Jason
[PEN-L:8372] re: The Pack is Back
Just a point: the packers may be the only US football team that is community owned, but at least three CFL teams (North American pro football) are community/socially owned, including our own Winnipeg Blue Bombers. It is interesting to note that in a league that has been beset by financial problems and franchise losses, it has been the community owned that have been the most stable and the most able to retain fan support. Paul Phillips, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada And Canada has single-payer health care too.
[PEN-L:8374] overtime vs. comp time
An article in yesterday's (1/28) WSJ says labor is divided over the GOP proposal to allow employers to offer workers comptime instead of overtime pay. I understand that there are legitimate concerns about employers forcing workers to take comptime rather than paying them overtime, but assuming reasonable safeguards (is this the catch?) I should think labor would be all for the option of reducing workloads (which at least in principle, even if negligibly, would increase jobs), especially given the concern workers have for free time, family time, etc. In other words, though this may be a boon for capitalists, isn't it also in our interest as workers, doesn't it give workers more power over their lives, more space away from capitalist jobs? Doesn't it suggest more interest in social relationships and activities and less interest in consumption (because less income)? Doesn't it even provide a small opening for non-capitalist productive activities with the time freed up? I know what I've written is very sketchy, but I believe it's also old hat for most of us, so I hope folks can fill in. There's a long and well-known literature on free time and leisure. The question is then, what is labor's objection really? In other words, shouldn't we push labor to get behind this proposal full force in order to shape it in accord with workers' needs, rather than just saying "no?" Interested in others' opinions, Blair * Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." *
[PEN-L:8367] Sweden--Moral and political dilemma!
Dear List, Been confronted with a moral and political dilema of the first class this week which cultimated in a huge fight in the community i live in. Being that I have been unemployed for a year and a half their is a rule which says that the unemployed has to do a 6 month ALU project in order to be eligible for a new period of unemployment benefits. ALU is surpose to be some sort of worker developing program which gives people projects in the work place without taking somebodies job. I was offered a 6 month bit going around to the schools and talking about envionment. Which naturally would have been a great opportunity to turn the class room into a place where one could link up the envionment question to a Trotskyist perspective on class struggle. I had already planned to show a couple of films on Bougainville and what the Australian imperialists and multi national mining company were prepared to do in order to convince people about their interest in the envionment and linking it to that these same companies were now looking for precious metals (gold,Diamonds) all over the place here in northern Scandinavia. This is being done with the good wishes of the Social Democratic Government here in Sweden who along with the bougeoisie have given the rights to mining and exploitation (which the state use to control) to International private interests! Including having key company men on the state board who gives out the permits and rights to exploaitation of everything that lies one meter under the ground here in Northern Scandinavia. This operation is being headed by an International outfit called Rio Tinto Zinc who has its head office in London and owns a lot of the shit in Australia and the gold mine that the war in Bougainville is being fought about. This is the same Social democratic government by the way that was critisied by this years "Nobel peace prize" winner for "dubble morals" because of the Swedes allowing Bofors to ship replacement parts to the Sukarto regime's gunboats! However, I have been getting the arguements from my ex-wife among others that going to the school with this kind of stuff is in fact scabbing on the teachers who with teacher resources being cut across the board no longer can garantee that children learn anything never mind the national school plan which every teacher has a responsibilty to carry out! And it is the weakest poor and working class children children and the non-swede children that are effected most by these cutbacks! Well the person responsible for the project just called on the telephone and we had a big fight. Because in principle the whole thing was ready to go including and announcement of others to help in the project (which had already gone out) and I said I don,t think it possible to carry out the project because the teachers would consider it in principle free labor and helping the government to make the cuts and use ALU people to fill the gaps. She appealed to me "Well the only thing left if you refuse is WELFARE!". I said no I would shovel shit or take WELFARE before I would break the principle of scabbing on a union! But it really was difficult! I mean the teachers in Sweden make a lot of bread. My ex makes 18,000 a month and I get 7500 a month before taxes! And the teachers are in fact a working group which generally holds up the ideals, culture and rules of bougeois society. And with my prolo background there is a bit of deep embedded hate for these professional purveyors of bougeois morals and rules of the game people. So anyhow as a Communist and a Trotskyist it is important despite my personal weaknesses on this question to act on principle which I believe I did. This means concretely that the teachers and their trade union will be happy and the teachers will still be making 18,000 a month for teaching a lot of this garbage. While they refuse to take class struggle action to fight the government and the cutbacks which mainly effect poor and working class kids the most and especially the non-Swede foreign nationals. They do this as a group of middle class professionals who wory more about their standard of living for those who are left then collective struggle in the interest of the whole class. They in fact are turning towards solutions of discussing raising individual salaries even more, (which on the one hand is defensible and on the other sickening) because these creeps are using the cuts to raise their salaries even more in relationship to a normal worker. The teachers are certainly a very cuddled group both in salaries and working hours despite the cutbacks. The real problem is that they do less and it is poor and working class children that suffer! I will either be put on welfare or now i am working on the possibility of helping to arrange a big Ski tournament and painting some houses for a sports club in the area.. PS: The project will probably be carried out anyway by some
[PEN-L:8383] modest proposal
At 1:48 PM 1/29/97, Max B. Sawicky wrote: We would like to mobilize people, including economists, around the notion that UE could be less than 5 percent. We have not done a separate petition because a) the other petitions were politically pressing; b) doing the work of the other petitions was financed; and c) it's not obvious such a petition would be successful. On the last point, a petition almost requires a news "hook" to attract attention. If we were in deep recession such a petition would be a more likely activity. Meaning that EPI - or the US left in general - must always be in a reactive mode? Why not say that some of the modest reduction in inequality we've seen over the last couple of years, and the modest average real wage increase, and the modest improvements in social indicators (esp for African Americans) are the result of modestly taut labor markets (taut, that is, by post-1973 standards)? Encouraging recognition of this would make it modestly more difficult for the Fed to tighten, which it almost certainly will do later this year? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
Re: [PEN-L:8362] book project
At 08:59 AM 1/28/97 -0800, you wrote: RE: University, INC. The Corporate Takeover of the Academy I am an editor at the University of California Press. I am interested in commissioning a book about the corporate takeover of the academy: the way that universities have been transforming themselves and their curricula to be "competititive" in the marketplace and to attract research and funding dollars from corporations. etc. Here is an example of a myth in its nascent state: the Academia, like a Victorian virgin, being raped and ravaged by corporate interests. A consortium of distinguished professors with the aid of a distinguished academic publisher are going to tell us how that virtuous and pristine institution is being corrupet by monied interests... In reality, if I can use the Spanish Civil War analogy, there might be four columns marching on Madrid, but there is also the fifth column inside the city, and that fifth column works very hard to turn the city over to Franco's forces. That is, there might be some corporate attempts to takeover the academia, but the major thrust to institute that takeover comes from within. It is a well known fact that certain professions, such as physicians, use organizations (hospitals, HMOs) as a platform to launch their own professional projects (see for example, Magali Sarfati Larson, _The Rise of Professionalism_, Berkeley, U of Cal Press, 1977; Andrew Abbott, _The System of Professions_, Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1988; Douglas R. Wholey, Jon B. Chirstianson Susan M. Sanchez, 1993, The Effect of Physician and Corporate Interests on the Formation of Health Maintenance Organizations, _American Journal of Sociology_, 9(1):164-200). The lattter work is quite interesting because it demonstrates that corporations, that are often third party payers for medical services, may exert a _positive_ role by providing checks and balances against excessive control of the health care market by the supply side (doctors). My own research on nonoprofit organizations (__Making Friends in the Market__ and _Garbage Cans, Framing, and the Construction of Public Benefit_) shows that professional service providers may use such organizations as a platform to create a market and secure funding (and their own occupational autonomy as well) for the services they offer. The interesting part of this process is that these professionals use the image of public service associated with nonprofit instituitions as a form of marketing device that gains them respectability as dedicated public servants rather than self-serving peddlers of professional commodity. The same holds for the academia, as many academics use that institution as an institutional platform to launch their personal career projects. While at this time I have but anecdotal evidence to support that claim, I am prety sure that every reader will be able to find at least one example of the anecdotal characters I describe below in his/her own department. First, Professor Organizer, who some time in his late adolescence or early adulthood made a wrong career choice and instead of becoming a business manager, chose a non-marketable field (such as philosophy, classcial literature, or sociology). Since the only way up in those fields is entering a PhD program, Mr. Organizer enters this career path. He/she might not be a good scientist in the "traditional" sense of the word, but his real strength lies in schmoozing, networking, and cutting deals. He does not have much to say by himself, but he is good at circulating the ideas of others. He/she pulls togetehr discussion groups, seminars, conferences, edited volumes and what not to give other a forum to express their opinions, to be heard. For that, the others (including students and college administrators) love him. In exchange, some of the splendor of the ideas preseneted on a forum falls on the forum organizer, who becomes a respected academician even though he does not have any original work and his only contribution to science is that of a business agent or publicity manager. As time passes, Professor Organizer establishes him/her-self as a succesful business manager of academic speech. Since academic splendor of the Organizer is essentially a residual of the splendor of the work of others he manages to publicize, it follows that the higher the volume of work that passes through the Organizer, the greater his splendor. I call it the "MIT principle of earnings," "MIT" standing for "mosquito-in-take." It is a well known fact that mosquitos have no ability to suck, their feeding depends on the pressure of blood in the vessel they manage to tap into -- the higher the pressure, the more they take in, even to the point that their own body blows up from the bllod pressure if they tap into a vein. The same principle characterizes the academic work of the Organizer. At certain point, the volume of work that passes through him/her becomes so large, that he cannot
[PEN-L:8386] Re: current events: increased job insecurity?
Is there anyone out there who isn't insecure about their job? Tenured faculty? C'mon, U/Minn Law School profs (that hotbed of radicalism) are trying to hang together. A day doesn't go by where my wife and I don't talk about the possibilty of getting axed. Anyone notice "retirement" announcements on their e-mail of people who have put in many years but aren't quite at the "right age." Maybe all us boomers are experiencing what our grandparents and great-gpts went through during most of their working lives. Jason H
Pacifica News feeds,Pacifica Management and Union busting
Here is another example of liberal "progressivism" going astary -- a "progressive" FM station WBAI in NYC (I really like their programming, though) "going NPR" and becoming a union-busting force. Enjoy. wojtek sokolowski Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 04:39:46 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pacifica News feeds,Pacifica Management and Union busting To: Recipients of conference [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: "Conference labr.party" [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Gateway: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lines: 66 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John P.McWilliams) Subject: Pacifica News feeds,Pacifica Management and Union busting Hello everyone from KBOO.(Portland, Ore.) My name is R. Paul Martin, and I'm the Chief Steward in the Union at WBAI-FM, the New York City station of the Pacifica Network. I've heard that this evening you're going to be considering actions regarding Pacifica and its feeds, and I wanted to assure you that we here at WBAI would greatly appreciate anything you could do to help us to keep Pacifica Management from busting our Union. Both the Paid Staff and the Unpaid Staff here are under attack by Management, which has admitted that it's taking its orders from Pacifica. As you may know they have brought us (we're a part of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 404) to the National Labor Relations Board in an attempt to remove one Paid Staff person and all Unapid Staff from the Collective Bargaining Unit (CBU) at WBAI. The Unpaid Staff produce about 19 hours of the weekday air and 23 hours of the weekend air on WBAI, and since this is the only product a radio station actually has, we are obviously doing work at the station. As people who are producing the actual product of the radio station we think we have a right to be represented. We have been a part of the CBU, and represented by the Union, for the almost 10 years that the Union has existed at WBAI. The Union has gone to the NLRB and filed Unfair Labor Practice charges aginst WBAI Management for their refusal to negotiate in good faith. At a recent Contract negotiation session Management tried to end the session after only 9 minutes. They have been using delaying tactics for months in order to avoid actually bargaining with the Union over ther Contract. As part of the current Contract negotiations WBAI Management is also demanding a number of economic give backs from the Paid Staff as well as demanding other give backs in areas such as vacations, grievances and child care. In the latest outrage at the station, Management has fired our Chief Engineer, who has worked at the station for about 20 years, on some trumped up charges. We are filing a grievance on this today, but this is just another part of the Pacifica plan to destroy community radio at WBAI. It appears that they are going to try to replace him with some Management hire they're going to make. If you could do something that would tell Pacifica Management that people outside of the Pacifica Network care about what's going on and disapprove of what Pacifica is doing it would help to communicate to them the need to stop this Union busting policy. If you want to see more about all of the you can visit my Web site below and view many of the primary documents related to this struggle, which has been going on for a number of months now. In Solidarity, R. Paul Martin Chief Steward, WBAI/UE -- http://www.interport.net/~rpmartin Short Stories - Empty Shelf http://www.pacifier.com/~taproot/EmptyShelf/ wojtek sokolowski institute for policy studies johns hopkins university baltimore, md 21218 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (410) 516-4056 fax: (410) 516-8233 +--+ |Wenn ich Kultur hoere, entsichere ich meinen Browning.| | -Hanns Johst | | | |When I hear "family values," I reach for my revolver. | |(no apologies to Hanns Johst) | +--+
