iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Tom Woodruff

Tom Woodruff

Posted April 1, 2009 | 10:12 AM (EST)

Depression in California's Inland Empire Shows Need for Employee Free Choice Act


An economic tragedy is unfolding in the "hub" of the new global economy -- the Inland Empire region of southern California -- and it serves as a living reminder of the need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act to give working Americans a realistic shot at the American Dream.

While the rest of the country is going through a recession, the Inland Empire is in the grips of a depression. Just east of Los Angeles in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, the region led the nation in economic development and population growth as recently as three years ago. Now it leads the nation in unemployment and ranks third in foreclosures.

The collapse of the housing market started the downturn, but the reason this area is now ground zero of the Great Recession is the failed business model of its dominant industry: warehousing and distribution for the nation's biggest retailers.

The Inland Empire is home to the largest concentration of warehouse space on the planet, 366 million square feet and growing. More than 43% of all US imports come through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and over three-quarters of this cargo takes at least one trip through an Inland Empire warehouse. The top five companies with the most warehouse space are the biggest retail corporations in the nation: Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes, and Sears/Kmart.

As the region's manufacturing base disappeared -- Southern California lost over 361,000 manufacturing jobs between 1990 and 2005 -- it was replaced with new jobs hauling, sorting, packing, and shipping the goods that are now being manufactured in China and other parts of the globe. As the key hub in the "goods movement industry," the warehouses and distribution centers of the Inland Empire employ more than 100,000 workers.

The goods movement industry was supposed to provide a path to the middle class for workers in the region, but instead a majority of the workers in these warehouses are hired through temp agencies or third-party logistics firms, paid low wages, receive few benefits, and have no job security. Temporary employment in the area grew by 575% since 1990.

This was a bad situation for working families when times were good, as many workers made less than $8.49 an hour according to a recent report. Now that times are bad, it's been a total disaster. Many temporary workers have found themselves getting fewer and fewer hours, until they become virtually unemployed, but without any unemployment benefits at all, not to mention severance pay, recall rights, or even any advance notice.

The area's fractured employment model has turned a recession into a depression. There are now tens of thousands of laid off warehouse workers with no unemployment, no safety net at all, just barely getting by.

Ignacio Sanchez lost his warehouse job in October and now struggles every day to feed his family. Ignacio was a "lumper," unloading the large containers that come to the warehouses from the ports. He now spends his days watching over his five year-old daughter and searching dumpsters for cans and food. When he finds food, he has to hide where he got it from his daughter because if she knew, she might not eat it.

Olga Romero, who worked 14 hour days repacking shoes at a warehouse, was laid off three months ago with no warning or cause and has been unable to find work since. She can only afford to feed her family rice and beans for dinner, and worries about the days ahead. "There's no future with these bad jobs," she says. "I need a real job to take care of my family, not another temp job."

As conditions worsen in the Inland Empire, the big retail companies that created the broken business model have not accepted responsibility for the damage they have done. They hide behind the temp agencies and third-party logistics firms in an elaborate shell game.

This is typical of an industry that has not acknowledged responsibility for any part of its supply chain, from the workers in the factories in China and Southeast Asia to the temp warehouse workers in the Inland Empire to the retail staff working for the minimum wage. And make no mistake about it: many big corporations would spread this failed fractured temp system to every corner of the country if they could.

Even when the economy recovers, there will still be no hope of achieving the American Dream for the warehouse workers unless the system is changed. It is time for Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes, and Sears/Kmart to take responsibility for the workers who helped them become so profitable and to treat them with dignity and respect.

A new worker movement is growing in the Inland Empire to hold these companies accountable. Thousands of warehouse workers are joining together in Warehouse Workers United to change the broken system. They are calling for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which will make it easier to form a union and negotiate for higher wages, better benefits and a new employment system that treats all workers fairly.

More than one million new jobs will be created in the goods movement industry in Southern California by 2030, according to projections. For only pennies on the dollar, the retail industry could turn them into high quality, middle class jobs that support a family. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced and could play a major role in revitalizing our reeling economy. But only if the nation's biggest retailers are held responsible for the treatment of all the workers in their supply chain.

This struggle is just one of the many across the country that illustrate why American workers need the Employee Free Choice Act. You can help by telling Congress to pass this important bill. Sign the petition.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 54
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
02:29 PM on 04/02/2009
It amazes me that the great nanny state of California has not addressed this problem by forcing temp agencies to protect their workers. Here in North Carolina temps do indeed receive unemployment. My brother worked for the Sam's-Wal-Mart warehouse. When he was laid off the warehouse did try to say he was not eligible for unemployment. The Temp agency stepped in, assured him he would get his unemployment and he has gotten his unemployment. Right here in the right to work state of North Carolina. My son worked for a temp agency (not the one my brother got his job through) for years. He was responsible for making sure all the withholding was taken care of so these workers did contribute to unemployment insurance. So what is wrong out there in the Inland Empire? Believe me while in the past unions did insure our forty hour work weeks and holiday pay, but that was then and this is now. Most companies can no longer afford to pay inflated wages or face work disruptions. People would be better served by better laws protecting them, forcing these temp companies to pay the worker's tax so they can avail themselves of these services when needed. Unions are not the answer. Unions require dues etc. Why add another layer of red tape into these people's lives?
11:13 AM on 04/02/2009
Any company that is forced to deal with labor organizations and a unionized workforce as a result of EFCA should simply refuse to comply and close their business immediately.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
11:39 AM on 04/02/2009
Yeah, go ahead with that..... You'll find that most businesses won't do that.

In addition, I would like to point out the fact that the labor costs involved in everything that you purchase are a tiny tiny amount of the total cost, around 2% for most products, up to around 5% for the most labor intensive. If you double the cost of labor, then you will find that the cost will go up between 2% and 5%, meaning that your income will MORE than offset the increased costs, and the economy will do a superfast turnaround!
01:30 PM on 04/02/2009
Why wouldn't they? What is the incentive to remain in business?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NABNYC
08:34 PM on 04/01/2009
The Inland Empire mostly represents the devastating effect of the Bush//Fox policies which had the effect of encouraging 20+ million desperately poor, unskilled, uneducated illegal immigrants from south of the border to move to California for jobs. With this massive influx, there was also an increased need for housing, much of which was built inland, in exactly the area mentioned. "Inland Empire" sounds better than "Cheap Housing Not Much Else."

Many of the immigrants bought homes with tricky mortgages, are now in default. Entire communities are collapsing as the phoney underpinnings of unrestricted immigration, cheap money, cheap housing, begins to collapse. There is no "there" there. Unions will not solve this problem. Immigration reform, control of the border, restrictions on building, financial regulations, all might have prevented it. But it's too late now. It's a poor area and soon will likely be just one big ghetto.

There should be no surprises: when you slash wages for Americans, take away their jobs, job security, healthcare, pensions, and allow 20+ million desperately poor people to move in to take those jobs, the effect is to bring the desperate third world poverty of Mexico up to the U.S. Welcome to Cali-Mexico. Where "M" and "N" are not letters in the children's alphabet lessons, but instead signify which Mexican Mafia prison gang rules that particular neighborhood.
03:00 PM on 04/01/2009
The important thing to remember here is that these workers are the hidden link of the chain between American consumers and all the stuff we buy. One reason consumer goods are so cheap is that these retailers squeeze every penny out of their supply chains. Folks in the IE have been getting you your stuff for years and have gotten nothing but pollution, injuries and $8 a day. When the economy was "good" they could scrape by. Now that imports have slowed, they're out on their ass. It's time they got together and demanded that the retailers respect their labor.
02:47 PM on 04/01/2009
Thanks for highlighting the plight of the Inland Empire economy. You are quite correct the unionization would be a great help for the workers in this industry. However, it would be helpful to have some data on the average pay/compensation packages that workers receive in these warehouses. I'm not sure that temporary employment makes up the bulk of workers at the largest distribution centers. Unless there has been mass erosion of pay/benefits int he past 10 years since I left the IE for Cambridge, MA, we always thought the warehouse jobs for Target and Home Depot were good paying jobs with benefits. Whereas retail employees of the companies paid 8-10 dollars an hour plus benefits, the warehouse workers were paid 12-16 dollars an hour plus benefits. I worked at Target for three years in the mid-90's in San Bernardino and started at over 7 dollars an hour with benefits. So, some current wage data would be helpful. Aside from that, the larger problem is an un-diversified economic base in the area. All eggs are in the trade basket and will rise and fall with shipping trends and trade with China. There is not reason why LA/LB will be the dominant port of entry forever.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JScott
John Galt's last name is McGuffin-Smithee
03:05 PM on 04/01/2009
And too much dependency on this, real estate and big box retail-----NOT A GOOD MIX for the local economy.
03:41 PM on 04/01/2009
There's great info on wages in a new report by the University of California-Riverside, which can be found on www.warehouseworkersunited.org
02:28 PM on 04/01/2009
I can't believe the propaganda about unions. Do they create jobs? How does EFCA take us out of this recession? Have any of you taken an economics class? If you want EFCA for social justice reasons fine. I wish the Democrats would focus on real measures to get us out of this recession. Before someone writes to say it was Bush's fault --that doesn't matter now does it? Come up with solutions that help businesses create more jobs.
02:54 PM on 04/01/2009
With Employee Free Choice, millions of workers will be able to negotiate for higher wages. With higher wages, they will have more money to spend, stimulating the economy. The collapse of the credit market means that working people have to rely only on their wages, which have been stagnant for 30 years and went down during the Bush years. To get out of this recession, wages must improve.
03:21 PM on 04/01/2009
Unions helped improve wages and create jobs in the Great Depression during the 30's, I don't see why it can't now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dctackett
01:06 PM on 04/01/2009
I have to say that it's not a union that is needed, but government on their side...

how about living wages and benefits?... how about worker safety standards?... and all of the above actually enforced?

I understand that these kinds of things were not so easy to implement in the 20th century and earlier, but with today's technoglogy, we can easily have living wages by region, based off of real data... a streamlined and easily available regulation structure that's easy to enforce...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
01:39 PM on 04/01/2009
Those would be valid, but where do you think any of those laws actually came from....... That's right, the UNIONS made those laws get passed!
02:00 PM on 04/01/2009
where do you think the concept of a living wage, benefits, holidays, weekends, minimum wage, eight-hour work days, overtime pay, sick time, vacation time, worker's comp, and unemployment benefits came from? Do you think they just fell out of the sky? Unions achieved all these things by their members working relentlessly, demanding rights, and holding politicians accountable. The only reason there are laws to enforce is because unions demanded they be put there. Without the benefits that all Americans have gotten because of unions, there would be no hope of the average worker ever having a decent quality of life.

Support unions!
12:37 PM on 04/01/2009
The solution to unemployment isn't to effectively remove the secret ballot. That is fundamentally wrong.

Just imagine extending that provision to local school board elections.
01:14 PM on 04/01/2009
Under current rules, all that is needed to decertify a union is a card check. Why is it so much harder then for the workers to organize a union? There is no vote under those rules,yet unions have to have a vote. THAT is quite unfair to say the least.
So votes FOR a union are good,yet voting to get rid of a union is WRONG. I think you need to go back to the GOP and run that past the dummies there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
01:40 PM on 04/01/2009
Wow...... Can't you go back and find some different talking points??? The fact of the matter is that more than a majority of Americans would join a union were they given the chance, which means that statistically more than a majority would accept the unions in their particular place of employment. Which means that your lie about the secret ballot needs to go the way of the dodo!
02:41 PM on 04/01/2009
My Dad always said that "a good employer doesn't have employees that want a union" Says something about all those companies that are ruled by the Dow Jones...
The bottom line has a whole different meaning now. I hear that Ben & Jerry's has a rule that the highest paid employee can't make more than 7 times the lowest paid employee's wage. CEO's at less than $60 an hour? I bet with a corp. structure like that...Union Reps would have a hard time finding an audience.
photo
Aldyth
Advocating for those who cannot defend themselves.
05:20 PM on 04/01/2009
The only real objection that I have to EFCA is the lack of a guaranteed secret ballot. Drop that and I'll support it.

Every time I challenge an EFCA supporter on this issue, they tell me to be quiet and go away. What are you guys trying to hide?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AnnfromCA
12:25 PM on 04/01/2009
Taking away the right to vote privately is not an economic solution. You're admitting that this bill would usher in tons of unions.

That's the objection.

It's a bully move by unions, and ask Detroit how well that worked out for them.
01:08 PM on 04/01/2009
The problem with Detroit is that they REFUSED to listen to the UAW when they told them to change their business model. The UAW has economists on their staff and did the research and gave the auto makers their results. The response of the big three was go to HELL! It is managements perogatives to run the company into the ground as it turns out. The UAW TRIED to get them to change. They refused.

When H.Ross Perot was on the GM board, he went to the UAW to meet with their leaders. He was DENOUNCED for doing that. He also gave a long rational presentation about what GM should be doing and why they were wrong. The response was to GET RID of Perot! It is NOT the unions fault for stupid management.

GIVE ME A BREAK!
11:55 AM on 04/01/2009
Workers do need unions, but their power needs to be somewhat limited also.

Part of the reason our education system is so poor is because it is being held hostage by teacher's unions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
01:41 PM on 04/01/2009
Or, far more likely, because since raygun took office we've been starving our public education system!
02:02 PM on 04/01/2009
The education system is being held hostage by religious right-wingers more fixated on teaching creationism and bashing gays than assuring that basic standards are met.
11:47 AM on 04/01/2009
You need to look at business models of good, honorable corporations that actually pay competitive wages, employ excellent benefits to their employees, and do it without the workers being forced into unions that end up costing them more of their pay checks to those who promise to protect their jobs.
Look at Michigan. Where did the dues go? Who got protected? We need something different from Congress. We need bold leadership and conscionable legislators who actually have an interest in serving the best interests of the public. If that were to happen, we wouldn't need unions to protect us, and our legislators wouldn't be draining profits from quid pro quo PACS at the expense OF THE PEOPLE.
02:03 PM on 04/01/2009
A lovely sentiment, but I wouldn't put that much trust in a politician, no matter how much I liked him or her. Besides, you can't trust your fellow citizens to elect politicians who will actually do that. Much better to have a union that represents the needs of YOUR workplace and is answerable to YOU.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JimR
10:31 AM on 04/02/2009
I've been in bloated unions whose sole interest was in fattening their own coffers.
11:46 AM on 04/01/2009
If you want to have a serious discussion, then you are going to have to look at the issue from all sides, pros and cons so that we actually come to consensus on how to protect the worker, and their right to a competitive wage and fair health care coverage and benefits for the profits they bring to an industry. In the same vein, you must address what measures will be taken by our congress to protect the wages of all workers - including non-union workers, to protect the rights of everyone to health care coverage, competitive wages and benefits, and to address WHY our tax dollars seem to be able to afford one set of valued health care benefits to some public servants - while the rest of the working population can't seem to afford the same kind of coverage for their own families! Address the truth beneath these issues, and compel congress to provide answers to why the health care benefits they enjoy from our tax dollars doesn't seem to be available to non-union workers.
11:46 AM on 04/01/2009
You raise many compelling reasons for why some believe that the answer is to form more unions.
However, what you do not address is the real failure of unions to address the tragedy that is taking place in our educational system, or the failure of unions to produce results that would have protected all those employees now facing the loss of jobs in Michigan.
12:03 PM on 04/01/2009
It's hard to lay all the blame for the failures of the US education system and auto industry at the feet of unions. It's true that when workers have formed unions and been successful over decades in allowing their members to achieve the American Dream, like the autoworkers and teachers, they have a special responsibility to make sure their industry is going in the right direction. That may be one of the key lessons of the crisis in Detroit. But what's happening in the Inland Empire is like Detroit in the 30's, and it would be hard for folks working in the distribution centers and warehouses that feed Walmarts and Kmarts, making $8.49 an hour, to imagine a day when they had a high enough standard of living that others would complain about it. It's either make it easier for them to form unions, or accept that these jobs of the future will always suck. There has to be some hope.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
01:43 PM on 04/01/2009
You honestly think that the problems in Detroit are caused by the UNIONS?????? Pray tell, how often are the union members of the Big Three allowed to choose the business plan for the company?? That's right, NEVER!!! The collapse of the Big Three is due almost EXCLUSIVELY to the management who refused to provide a valid business plan in the last three decades, coupled with the fact that everything the union has the MANAGEMENT AGREED TO!!!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JimR
10:32 AM on 04/02/2009
The unions' demands over the years have greatly increased labor costs, you can't deny that. And the Jobs Bank? Give me a break.
11:45 AM on 04/01/2009
I have spent a good amount of time in the Inland Empire recently, and it really does look like a depression out here. There is no safety net for the army of temporary workers who staff Wal-Mart and Target's supply chain, so they are losing their homes, moving in with relatives, or living in their cars. They make $8/hour -- even when work was plentiful it was a struggle to get by. Now that global trade is contracting and warehouse shifts are hard to come by it is a disaster. But the work will come back eventually; the warehouses will be here as long as the ports of LA and Long Beach continue to be a major gateway to Asia. The question is, when the jobs come back, will they be jobs you can support a family on? That will depend on whether the warehouse workers are successful in their struggle to change the permatemping system and force these giant retailers to take responsibility for the people who move their goods. Bad enough that Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes take advantage of sweatshop conditions in Asia, now they are doing it right here in Southern California. You want to make all your stuff in China and ship it here, fine. That horse may be out of the barn. But you'd better treat the people who work in your supply chain with the respect they deserve, because... they move the goods!
11:31 AM on 04/01/2009
When big corporations like Walmart and Home Depot walk away from the workers who helped make them so profitable, you know the system is broken. Why does the CEO of Walmart get to keep his job? His former employees are now picking through the trash for food for their families! These CEOs hide behind temp agencies and act like they have no responsibility at all. That's why these workers need a union, and the laws need to be changed to make it easier for workers to join together.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JScott
John Galt's last name is McGuffin-Smithee
03:10 PM on 04/01/2009
Yup they have to realize it's like Henry Ford, you can let the union raise their compensation (so they could by the products they make/move) or you can go the race to the bottom, but ultimately that ends in failure because they will have no money to spend on anything (that gets made/moved) because they will be making very little.