The Secret War Against American Workers

Crossposted with TomDispatch.com

The Unemployment Story No One Notices

Juanita Borden, 39 and jobless, patiently waits as her résumé methodically works its way, line by line, through a fax machine at a state-run job center in downtown Philadelphia. Lying open before her on a round conference table is a neatly organized folder. "This is my résumé and everywhere I've been faxing to. This is how I keep track of what day I've sent them on, so I can call and check back," she says, leafing through pages of fax cover sheets. "I usually give five business days before I inquire whether or not they've received it and whether or not they're interested."

Juanita was fired last October, when her employer found out that her driver's license -- a job requirement -- had expired. "It was only a matter of twenty-six dollars. I was under the impression that it expired in November of '08, but it was actually November of '07, and because I hadn't been driving I wasn't aware of it." The one occasion on which she was required to drive, though, she couldn't, and that was all her employer needed to fire her for failing to fulfill her employment responsibilities. She has since renewed her license and says with an air of futility, "I'd like to have my job back if they would give it to me."

She hasn't been asked back and, despite her persistent efforts, she hasn't received a single call from a prospective employer either. "The good thing," she says, remaining remarkably buoyant despite her misfortune, "is that usually when I interview I get the job. So... I'm hoping for an interview soon." Until then, her carefully managed folder serves as a small measure of control over an otherwise steady drift into poverty and homelessness.

Juanita isn't the only one at this job center on the precipice of acute need. And she isn't alone in relating a story about being fired for what would seem to many a frivolous reason. Chris Topher, 25 and making his first visit here, was axed in March of last year. The telecommunications company he had been working for sent him packing when, as he tells it, he installed cable equipment a customer hadn't ordered. It didn't matter that the mistake was on the work order Chris was given. "It was the best job I had since I graduated high school and I've had a few: Turnpike Commission, working in a Senator's office. I've had some nice jobs, but that one, I enjoyed it the most."

And there was good reason to enjoy it. Chris pulled down $1,200-1,300 every two weeks in addition to receiving a full benefits package. He thought of contesting his termination, but at the time it looked like a long, uphill battle that he wasn't eager to take on. It's a fight that, in hindsight, he thinks he could have won and that his employer probably knew he would win as well. "And that's why I believe I was approved by my employer for unemployment," he says.

Under unemployment eligibility requirements, an employer must certify whether an employee committed a "fault" on the job and was therefore terminated. If an employer indicates that no fault was committed and the employee meets several other requirements, including being physically able to work, states grant an unemployment claim. In other words, Chris's former employer granted him a small concession, while otherwise turning his life upside down amid the worst job market since 1983.

"Unemployment is the pits pretty much," says Chris, whose unemployment compensation is significantly less than half what he made as a cable installer. Still, he's better off than Juanita, who has applied for unemployment twice and been denied both times. She is now appealing, but her employer is conceding nothing. In a recent arbitration hearing, Juanita says, her former supervisor claimed that, if she had only told them about her expired license, they would have allowed her renewal time. If only.

Now, Juanita lives with her brother and his wife, but they, too, have financial problems. "My brother is working part time and it's driving him crazy, because it's causing money problems between him and his wife," she explains. "And with me being there," she hesitates, "...it's a little constrained."

Ratcheting Up the Fear

The mainstream media has generally sketched a picture of a labor market in which, under the pressure of an economic meltdown, workers succumb to two types of downsizing. In one, a fierce recession forces businesses, desperate to cut costs in terrible times, to lay off workers. They, in turn, face grim prospects for gainful employment elsewhere. In a kinder, gentler version of the same, employers, desperate to cut costs in terrible times, offer -- or sometimes force workers to take -- "furloughs," salary cuts, union give-backs, four-day work weeks, or un-paid holidays rather than axing large numbers of them.

In this case, tough as it may be, workers benefit, retaining at least some of their income, while businesses wait out the recession. In both cases, businesses are largely depicted as unenthusiastic dispensers of pink-slips. Managers and bosses are just facing up to an unpalatable reality and unavoidable pressures imposed on them by the worst economic moment in recent memory.

A visit to a job center is hardly a scientific survey. The experiences of Juanita and Chris, along with those of other unemployed people I spent time with while in Philadelphia, may be purely anecdotal evidence. But they do raise questions about a subject of no small importance, and it's not one you're likely to read about in your daily paper -- not yet anyway. If a deepening recession weighs down and threatens businesses, some of those businesses are undoubtedly also making convenient use of the times to do things they might have wanted to do, but were unable to do in better conditions.

In some cases, under the guise of "recession" pressure, they may be waging a secret war against their own workers, using even the most innocuous transgressions of work-place rules as the trigger for firings -- and so, of course, putting the fear of god into those who remain. In this way, company payrolls are not only being reduced by mass layoffs, but workers are being squeezed for ever greater productivity in return for lower wages, worse hours, and less benefits. The weapon of choice is the specter of unemployment, a kind of death by a thousand (or a million) cuts.

Companies stand to gain a lot these days from such small-scale but decisive actions. After all, they reap a double benefit. Not only do they pare down the size of their payroll, often without needing -- as in Juanita's case -- to consent to unemployment compensation, but they also contribute to a climate of intensifying fear. Workers who remain on the job are now not only on edge about lay-offs or scaled-back hours, but also know that a late return from a bathroom or lunch break might mean being shown the door, becoming another member of the legions of unemployed -- now at 12.5 million and rising fast.

This dynamic is, of course, hardly new. Countless critics of working conditions have written about it since the dawn of the industrial age. But at the moment, even as the latest unemployment figures make screaming headlines, this is a subject that seldom comes up. Consider, though, that in December, Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, settled 63 outstanding class-action lawsuits that alleged massive wage and hours violations. Fearing termination, Wal-Mart workers, according to their testimony in the lawsuits, labored through lunch breaks and past their scheduled hours for just above minimum wage pay, with little hope of getting enough hours to qualify for the company's health benefits.

As a condition of the settlement, Wal-Mart will pay out as much as $640 million to those workers. If corporations were able to exert such coercive power when the unemployment rate was around 5%, what can they do in a job market in which 14.8% of the population can't find adequate work?

In fact, the world's largest retailer is one of the few American corporations doing well in dark times. While retail sales slid almost everywhere, the company's same-store sales went up 5.1% in February (when compared with February 2008 sales). Yet, in that same month, it announced a move to "realign its corporate structure and reduce costs." It cut 700 to 800 jobs at its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club home offices, in effect acting no differently than any of the companies being battered by the deepening recession.

Free-Firing Zone

Rodney Green, a soft-spoken 52-year-old, comes to the job center three times a week to search on-line job listings. He describes his decades-long drift from full-time employee with benefits to marginalized temp-worker with no benefits and, finally, to the category of unemployed for an extended period.

From the late 1970s until the early 1990s, he worked for Bell Telecommunications, where he earned a good salary and full benefits. Since Bell laid him off, he's worked periodically as a forklift operator for various companies, getting temporary placements through an employment agency. Most recently, he earned $12 an hour working for a deli meat and artisanal cheese producer. No benefits were provided. A year's work, he explained, would mean a week's vacation, "but they don't keep you that long. They lay you off or rotate you into another job before then."

Today, as he's discovered, even such temp jobs are becoming scarce. "In the eighties, it wasn't as bad as it is now," he comments from the unemployment heartland of what, in 2009, is a deeply de-industrialized Philadelphia. "The city had jobs, but then the jobs moved to the suburbs. Now they're moving overseas. Back then, say, you applied for a job, maybe fifty others applied, too. Today, that same job, you're going to have hundreds -- I mean, a thousand for that one job. It's hard. It's depressing."

For the past year and a half, Rodney has been collecting unemployment periodically, and in that time, he hasn't landed a single interview. Recently, because the Bush administration finally acquiesced to grassroots and Congressional pressure to lengthen unemployment benefits, he received a thirteen-week extension, providing him a little cushion (unlike equally interview-less Juanita). "That helped me a lot. Times are hard right now. I hear there are over four million people collecting unemployment. That's kind of high."

If Juanita and Chris are casualties of the intensified war of attrition businesses are quietly waging on workers, Rodney represents a deeper unraveling of jobs and job security, thanks to a globalized economy in which the hard-pressed workers in this country are pitted against cheaper labor pools in Latin America, South Asia, China, and even the American South. In such a job environment, what is one to do?

Someone I interviewed prior to my job center visit described her reaction when she heard that her company had recently closed a plant in the Midwest: "The first thing I thought, and I felt bad for thinking it," she recalled, somewhat sheepishly, "was that means more work for us -- at least for the time being."

Her comment speaks volumes, as does her request not to be identified. Who needs union busters, patrolling shop-stewards, or legions of high-paid lawyers fighting wage and hours claims when a worker is so anxious about job security that she responds positively to the laying off of those she imagines as potential competitors? When employees police their own behavior for fear of the axe -- monitoring their time checking email or using the bathroom -- bad times distinctly have an upside for management.

In this job environment, it's easy to turn not just on others, but on yourself. Reflecting on what she will do without a job and unemployment benefits, Juanita wonders if the problem isn't the economy, but the choices she made in life. "I left home when I was sixteen and lived in my own places, had my children, and got married," she says nervously, continually folding and refolding a local newspaper. "I should have gone to school and did a lot more things to make myself more marketable earlier in life. Now I'm left having to start over again."

A look at corporate opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), whose passage in Congress is a central demand of organized labor, offers a glimpse of how persistently companies seek to disadvantage their workers. EFCA would allow workers to form a union when a majority of them sign union cards in a given workplace. "Card check," as it is frequently called, enables them to organize unions without the need for an election. In a November column surveying the business elite's response to the Act, Wall Street Journal op-ed columnist Thomas Frank wrote: "Card check is about power. Management has it, workers don't, and business doesn't want that to change."

In Frank's estimation, the current struggle over EFCA is the latest incarnation of a constantly evolving struggle between workers and employers. For the under- or unemployed crowding into this center in Philadelphia, the current recession isn't a time-out from the normal struggle, it's more like a new open season for corporate attacks on them.

Right now, for Juanita, Chris, and others at this center, there are actually two wars going on, and only one of them seems to have caught the attention of labor and business reporters. The headlines about the first read: Desperate Companies Forced to Cut Jobs. But many here seem to be experiencing a second war in which businesses are using bad times to act in ways they couldn't in the best of times.

Shouldn't reporters be heading out in search of this one-sided, covert struggle? Isn't it time for the second business war of our moment to make a few headlines of its own?

Comments

[CharlesMac]

The personal perspectives are valuable, but let's look at what is going on here. I'm not sure everybody gets it unless you are in the Market.

Getting rid of employees is a "good thing" for companies. It raises their profit margins. For the past 8 years, the US median income ceased to rise. When the companies gave lousy increases, the money went into their margins... unless you can find it some where else in the Economy. But you can't. There is nothing but historic levels of household and national debt.

Everybody is acting like "the jobless recovery" of 2002+ wasn't a jobless recovery. We barely created enough new jobs to keep up with population. And we have destructed 2/3 of those jobs in the past year. Plus we have 6 more years of working age population in the mix.

The headline U3 unemployment number of 8% is all anybody notices. While the U6 unemployment number of 15% is much more interesting. That's U3, plus people who are under employed and who have just given up. BTW, you can only "give up" for a year, then you are dropped. The longterm unemployment figures are unprecedented since WWII.

So for a good part of it, we didn't fully re-employ everybody from the last recession.

This one is going to be worse. Corporations have not only cut the jobs, they will also knock down the salary and wage grade, for when things "turn around". Profit margins.

We gravely underestimate this "war".

[JohnBryansFontaine]

How To Win Union Vote
Former organizer "spills the beans" 5 keys to winning your union vote
LRIonline.­com/5-keys

READ THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ANTI-UNION, ANTI-EFCA LABOR RELATIONS INSTITUTE (LRI) :

http://www.phillyimc.org/en/employee-free-choice-act-rats-are-coming-out-woodworks-our-newest-member-efca-union-busting-club-lri

[BillMelater]

My son, now 19, attends college and worked for an employer part time. The employer intentionally scheduled his hours to conflict with his college classes by an hour here and there. My son brought this to the employer's attention every time and each time was told to just not worry about being late on these occasions.

LOL - yea, so when performance review came around, guess what they fired him for? And please take another guess at who this fantastic employer was. Yes, it was Walmart.

[jeffrey678]

It's never been a secret.

[greyhound2]

Great article and well said. The three components of capitalism are capital (money), labor (workers) and raw materials (stuff which gets processed). Raw materials doesn't vote so its investors versus the people who actually do the work. Capital has been waging a war against labor since time began and has a big advantage of power. Unions began as a way to check that power but in recent years has come under full assault from corporate managers (representing owners) and bought and paid for politicians. It is all about money, which is why anyone works, and should be right on top of the table with no appologies. Revitalizing the unions is the only way to bring back balance to a lopsided deal.

[WorkingClass]

"Card check is about power. Management has it, workers don't, and business doesn't want that to change."

Workers need unions because only by collective bargaining will they receive fair value for their labor. Please note that it is government that will grant or deny the power of card check. What America and Americans need is a Labor Party.

[Biffmeister]

With a capital L. Labor is 95% of the population. Having our own party is long overdue.

[Chaimirija]

Agree with all posts and really appreciate littles...we all bought that line about if you follow these rules, great things will happen---the reason janita feels guilty is she has gotten the message it is HER fault...well, when I graduated high school, you did not need a college degree (and this was only the 80's)---but, little is right, that doesn't help either...WE ARE ALL WORKERS...cept for the upper crust---we really have to stick together now....little? move to madison wi---trust me on this :)

[thebigbike]

When bill clinton carried the goopers' water ont he "globalization" ills, I lost most of my faith in the dem party, what with the doma and dadt. I had hoped obama with his own personal experience as well as Michelle's experience with life as it is lived by the vast majority of Americans might have been some help. Is it reasonable to believe that the resolution of the "financial" crisis might include a little more equity for Americans who work? ( and dont try to peddle that crap about the upper ends of the "financial " "business" being work) ? Is that reasonable? prolly not...

[faicole]

It's a sad commentary that a story this important only have five posts. This issue is very serious. The people I call "working suckers like me" are treated like so much fodder to be chewed up and spit out "at will". Where I live (GA) this is an "at will" state. The rationale, supposedly, is to prevent workers from being at the mercy of unions or any entity that would force them to work where they don't want to. In reality, it puts workers in positions of powerless, just like Juanita and Rodney. In my 30 years as an Employment and Training professional, running centers like the one these job-seekers use, I've heard heartbreaking stories of how people were fired for no reason (One long time employee was fired for not coming in on the day he was getting married.) In some instances people were fired days before they met eligibility for benefits or, worse yet, retirement. They can NEVER get the job back, but they may get unemployment once it was determined they lost the job for no fault of their own. Nor have I ever heard of the labor department sanctioning a company.

The trickle down economics has worked as it was intended and we see the results. I hope American workers, working suckers like me, see it for what it is and make the changes we need for all our sakes.

[pragmaticdallasite]

Yes indeed, it the most important struggle of our times

[jerrypl]

For anyone to believe that this has NOT been a war against the American worker has been asleep! It began with Reagan, his trickle down voodoo economic supply-side David Stockman theory, all designed by Milton Freedman--Chicago School of Economics and Ayn Rand. By outsourcing, keeping wages low (only a 1% per year average gain over 30 yrs.) or stagnant, you force working America to borrow to maintain their standard of living. They borrow on their homes, credit cards, and other ways. This increased American productivity on paper, but was a false productivity growth indicator.

Then the rich took those loans and got paper rich off of them, creating a shadow banking system, off balance sheet over the counter exchanges, securitizing them at 60:1, selling credit default swaps against failure, all around the world amounting to, at its height, $1000T in total derivative value. WOW!

Now that it has melted severely, even the WSJ is realizing that without working America receiving good wages, there is no spending, there is no expansion, their is no economy.

Dude, I have been writing about this for a year now!

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com

[pragmaticdallasite]

It is a great blog, I wish Obama had some economic advisors with this mentality. His choice for Sec. of Labor does seem to be progressive.

[Biffmeister]

Secretary Solis is a superb choice. She was a gift to labor from President Obama. The President is very much committed to helping working Americans.

[Mikeeee]

How come the company that fired Juanita isn't named? Would seem to be a reasonable thing. I'd like to know companies that are treating my fellow citizens poorly.

[WorldGriot]

This war, both covert and overt, has been going on since the beginning of the nation. Slavery v. Free labor was what it was called in the earlier days but in each case, the "owners" held all he cards. If we don't figure out the leverage that makes the covert war on labor perpetually successful, and allows management to undermine the working class, we will never get out of this loop of powerlessness. So here is what we do know. The overt acts of business owners are the blue smoke and mirrors. They have created a situation where Jimmy Hoffa is still being used to connect labor unions with organized crime and he has been dead for over 40 years. Yet, Business scams, frauds, Madoffs, AIG's, worldcom, Enron and the list goes on and we still are naming all of our leadership positions after CEO's. How does this work? What PR power is encoded in our daily language and rituals that make us disdain our own working class selves and revere so completely the robber barons of wall street who are the real crooks? Unless and until we find the answer to this conundrum, we will never grow out of this vicious loop of lunacy.

[chayefsky]

Robert,

There is no secret war against the American worker. The war , which is blatant and pervasive, was begun years ago by the Reagan administration. When Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in the 1980's replacing them with scabs from the military, thereby breaking the Union, he fired the first shot in the war that has been raging ever since. Unions have been losing members and credibility for years, partly because they have allowed themselves to be demonized by the federal government and the Media and because they have neglected to rid themselves of corruption. Union leadership has seemed baffled at best and apathetic at worst when met with the challenge of combatting the misinformation being given to the public by the vociferously anti-Union forces. The power of Solidarity among American workers has been seriously damaged and Unions are losing the war for the heart of the American public.

[littlebriefauthority]

Juanita should not feel guilty, bad, or otherwise shamed that she got married and got a job and had children instead of going to school. I did go to school "before" getting married, etc., which I never did. Now, I have a masters degree and am a licensed lawyer in California, but I am basically in the same position as she is, work-wise, but I have no family, no money, no community-- I feel guilty, bad and shamed that I have no work, and no life, to boot. I have been trying to get a job ever since I got out of law school in 1993. I am about beaten.