Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Fair Labor Standards Under Attack

By Eric Schlosser, The Nation. Posted March 24, 2008.


Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage reached its peak in 1968. Today's cheap labor comes at an enormous cost to society.
Advertisement

"The proposal is unworkable, un-American, impractical and dangerous to our institutions," said Representative Wade Kitchens, a Democrat from Arkansas, during the Congressional debate over the Fair Labor Standards Act. What were these radical ideas, guaranteed by the last great piece of New Deal legislation, that in Kitchens's view threatened the future of the Republic? A minimum wage, limits on overtime and a prohibition of child labor. In submitting the act to Congress on May 24, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt succinctly explained its basic goal: "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work."

It's good to keep in mind some of the labor conditions in the United States before passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Workers were often forced to work ten to twelve hours a day, six days a week. They earned as little as twelve cents an hour. They were sometimes paid in scrip, redeemable at a company store, instead of money. A survey of American children conducted by the Labor Department found that one-quarter worked for sixty or more hours a week. The median wage for children was $4 a week. All of this was justified in the name of "freedom," as business groups championed the liberty of contracts and the liberty of employers to hire, fire and set wages without any restrictions. The Supreme Court had consistently upheld that notion of freedom, overturning a federal child labor law in 1922 and a local minimum wage law the following year.

The Court abruptly switched course in March 1937--amid Roosevelt's effort to pack it with sympathetic Justices--and affirmed the right of Washington State to require minimum wages for women and minors. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes argued that "the denial of a living wage" not only harmed workers but placed an unfair burden upon society. "What these workers lose in wages the taxpayers are called upon to pay," Hughes noted in his majority opinion. "The community is not bound to provide what is in effect a subsidy for unconscionable employers."

Two months later Roosevelt sent the Fair Labor Standards Act to Congress, launching one of the most bitter legislative battles of the New Deal. Despite overwhelming popular support, Southern Democrats joined forces with Republicans to oppose the act, forming a coalition that would thwart future New Deal legislation. Their spirited defense of low wages and the liberty of employers delayed passage of the bill for more than a year. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, signed by Roosevelt that June, was a watered-down version of the original. It provided exemptions for agriculture and other industries, as well as a minimum wage of just 25 cents an hour. Nonetheless, it established fundamental economic rights for American workers.

Seventy years later, the Fair Labor Standards Act is still under attack. "A higher minimum wage equals less economic freedom," a Heritage Foundation essay claimed last year. Although the rhetoric is more subdued, the underlying attitude has changed little since Representative Kitchens railed against the bill. The minimum wage doesn't eliminate poverty; it creates poverty, we are told. When do-gooders demand a higher wage, poor workers lose their jobs. Countless studies are cited as proof. Yet the period of America's greatest economic growth coincided with its highest minimum wage rates. In 1956 the minimum wage in today's dollars was about $7.93 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage reached its peak in 1968, at about $9.91 an hour. During the decades that followed, its real value declined by almost 50 percent. That enormous pay cut for the nation's poorest workers benefited some industries enormously--supplying cheap labor to fast food restaurants, retail stores and farms--while imposing enormous costs on society. When the federal minimum wage hits $7.25 in July 2009, it will still not reach the level considered adequate by President Dwight Eisenhower.

The high-minded arguments against the minimum wage, for the most part, are merely justifications for higher corporate profits. Since passing a minimum wage law in 1998, Britain has enjoyed some of the fastest economic growth rates and lowest unemployment rates in the European Union. The British minimum wage is now equivalent to more than $11 an hour. "No business which depends...on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country," President Roosevelt once declared. "By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level--I mean the wages of a decent living." Those words are as true today as when they were first spoken. I hope our next President will not only agree with Roosevelt on this subject but will have the courage and compassion to do something about it.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: minimum wage, new deal, fair labor standards act

Eric Schlosser is the author of 'Fast Food Nation' and 'Reefer Madness.'



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Problem Reaction Solution
Posted by: Adler Berriman Seal on Mar 24, 2008 1:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My mother's grandfather and uncle were stationed on Corregidor and Bataan respectively when the scum-sucking traitor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt stabbed them in the back by intentionally allowing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to succeed.

It is ever so touching that he acted as the savior of the American people who had been betrayed by his fellow cabal members controlling the Federal Reserve Banking Swindle.

I believe some Freemasonic Lodges have voted to posthumously expel the traitor Roosevelt from their fraternity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Problem Reaction Solution Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Problem Reaction Solution Posted by: Adler Berriman Seal
» RE: Problem Reaction Solution Posted by: newtype_alpha
» The President's Base Posted by: Artkansas
Another reason for tariffs ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Mar 24, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To protect companies from slave labor overseas.

And just what policy made this country great? ... Tariffs ... It is only in the last 60 years that we have been lowering tariffs constantly and irrevocably. Our whole industrialization was accomplished under tariffs to keep other countries finished goods from killing our own industry.

The Civil War was fought between the 'free trade' South and the 'protectionist' North. The South being a cash crop region, while the North had industry. The issue caused the Civil War...

To be fair, I believe other countries should use tariffs too. They need to protect their local industry from the multi nationals. Every country needs a mix of business to be economically healthy and provide decent jobs.

For a Great Article on What Creates Good Jobs and Trade :

The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The slave labor that the western world MISuses is the result of 28 years of
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 26, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
union busting, privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for business that offshore and outsource, etc ...

If one were to take a look at the pro-death cruelty in the work places in Asia especially China and India, one would be heartbroken and might even ask "Why the FUCK is Wall Street begging for more sweatshop ?!?!?"

And the next time anyone screams "illegal alien", PAY ATTENTION to the economic and foreign policies, most of which lead to this mess for the past 28 years !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The mythical benefits of "free trade" depend upon conditions that no longer exist
Posted by: Rune on Mar 26, 2008 12:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A critical assumption that went into the theory of comparative advantage, which underlies the whole belief system of "free trade" advocates, was that capital could not be quickly, easily, or cheaply shifted among countries. When that is true, there is reason to believe that countries can all become better off if each specializes in economic activities in which each as a comparative advantage, then each trades for the superior and/or cheaper goods each has to offer.

However, in an era of instantaneous transfers of financial capital as well as fast, cheap, and massive shipping capabilities, coupled with global corporations, the game is no longer the same. Instead of free trade giving rise to comparative advantages among countries that engage in trade, it promotes absolute advantage among international businesses with monopoly power and no particular tie to a given country. Under such conditions, a lack of tariffs and regulations that force businesses to internalize the human and environmental costs of potentially damaging practices results in a race to the bottom, in which the most vulnerable people and nations are exploited to their detriment to satisfy the owners of capital and consumers of greatest wealth, both of whom can quickly shift their investments and purchases to low bidders around the globe should any interest try to raise its prices above those of the most easily exploitable.

Today, we call one of the most obvious effects of this situation "offshoring." We have yet to come up with such a simple description of the desruction of natural resources and dumping of pollution into air, water, and land, but part of the reason why such abuses migrate to poor countries (which are then made poorer by these impacts) is tied to the same mobility of capital and international ownership that violates the initial premises that supported the theory of "free trade" lifting all boats. It is a myth that needs to get busted before any more of the world's people, and the ecological systems upon which all life depends, go bust.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Mar 26, 2008 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The supply siders just don't get it. If you bankrupt your own customers - read: median and under income workers - then I guess they can't buy your products and continue to make you rich. If you blow up the prices of housing, healthcare and education because you were given unconscionable tax breaks, then your working class customers will not be able to afford anything you manufacture. And you will end up subsidizing this greed because in the end, greed still doesn't pay...not matter that this is 2008, not 1929.

This kind of greed just puts people out of their homes, has them going hungry, hurts their health and ultimately they need to seek care through emergency relief whether it is emergency rooms, temporary housing, cash assistance and the like. And then the overpaid CEOs say that social services cost too much.

If you pay everyone a living wage, I guess there would not be such a need for assistance. It just shows you cannot continue to break people and not have a consequence. As Henry Ford realized, you need to have a fairly paid worker if you expect him to buy your product. Good luck today. The greed is astonishing, stupid and unconscionable. Do you know that the private equity regime does not want the American citizen to realize just how little they pay in taxes so that no one gets too angry and actually demands that our government do something. Where are the angry activists? They are doing mindless consumerism while their wages are quietly depressed ever more by the greedy market. When they wake up and do something besides shopping and watching dumbed down media, maybe there will be a change. There should be nationwide outrage but it is slow in coming. Let's hope soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free Trade
Posted by: gellero on Mar 27, 2008 10:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny that the biggest supporters of free trade (aka de-industrialization) have been democrats. Al Gore was a big proponent of NAFTA and Mexican slave labor.

Democrats are a big force behind the H1-B scam. Read about it here.

Your Jobs are Doomed

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]