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

The American Workplace Is Stuck in the '50s

By Sarah Sattelmeyer and Margy Waller, AlterNet. Posted June 25, 2008.


Wages are in the gutter. Work-life balance is out of whack. When will workplace policy catch up with the changing landscape of America's workforce?
Advertisement

It's not your grandfather's labor market.

What changed? A generation ago, a typical American household consisted of a family with two parents: a working father, who often earned enough to support the entire family, and a stay-at-home mother. Today, however, most households with children need the incomes from two jobs to make ends meet. One of the most significant trends over the past 50 years has been the movement of women, especially mothers, into the paid labor force. Now that most women have entered the workforce, a two-parent, middle-income family has a husband working full-time and a wife working approximately three-quarters of full-time.

Complicating efforts to manage work-life responsibilities, employer work schedules can be inflexible and many working women must work irregular hours that include nights, evenings and weekends. One-third of working women work shifts that differ from those worked by a spouse or partner. Between 1979 and 2004, the combined annual hours of work among families with children rose by 18 percent, the equivalent of every family putting in an additional 13.5 weeks of full-time work per year.

Today, in 70 percent of households, all adults work, resulting in an increasing number without a stay-at-home parent or primary caretaker. While family dynamics and living arrangements have changed, the typical requirements of work have not, creating a mismatch between workplace expectations and workforce needs. Nearly half of all employees report conflicts between jobs and other responsibilities, more so than a generation ago, and many workers do not have access to opportunities to balance work-life responsibilities, such as paid sick days, family and medical leave, or flexibility in the workplace.

Today, workers need to be able to make use of a variety of work-life policies. Our national work-life policies must also address the needs of people living alone, a living arrangement that has grown dramatically since the 1950s, when only 9 percent of households consisted of people living alone. By 1970, people living alone represented 17 percent of households. In the 1990s, the number had grown to 21 percent, more than all other types of living arrangements. By 2005, 26 percent of households consisted of people living alone, and the percentage exceeded that of households made up of married parents and their own children. People living alone also need time off to deal with responsibilities of extended family and other obligations. Unlike the occupants of households with more than one adult, people living alone must deal with these obligations on their own.

A new labor standard for paid sick days

Despite these shifts in our society and labor force, only about 50 percent of workers are offered paid sick days. A mere 39 percent of low-wage jobs offer any paid sick days for personal illness, compared to 79 percent of jobs held by higher-wage employees. While many higher-income workers also benefit from the Family and Medical Leave Act adopted during the Clinton-Gore administration, workers who cannot afford to go without the income from work are less likely to use the federally guaranteed unpaid leave. Nearly three-quarters of all workers who benefit from family and medical leave policies earn $30,000 or more annually. Among workers who needed leave but did not take it, not being able to afford unpaid leave was the most commonly reported reason.

Even occasional job-protected unpaid sick days or leave to handle community or household responsibilities are not an option for many low-wage workers. Workers fear job loss or disciplinary action (such as fewer or less desirable shift assignments) for taking time off. Only about one-third of all jobs provide employees complete or much control in scheduling work hours. About 38 percent of jobs held by low-wage and low-income employees are low-flexibility jobs, compared to 19 percent of other jobs.

Our public and private policy must acknowledge this reality and provide ways to turn low-wage jobs from bad jobs into better jobs. Given these gaps, a new labor standard -- like the national minimum wage created by federal law -- establishing a universal right to take time off for short-term illness would strengthen our labor market and turn millions of bad jobs into better ones.

A comprehensive set of work-life policies would be a significant step in enhancing our labor market standards. Strengthening the labor market in this way requires that decision-makers acknowledge these changes in our labor market and living arrangements, including the growth of single, single-parent, and two-working-parent households.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: workplace flexibility, womenomics, work-life policies, family leave, medical leave

Sarah Sattelmeyer is senior research associate and Margy Waller is executive director at The Mobility Agenda. They are co-authors, along with Heather Boushey and Layla Moughari, of a new report: Work-Life Policies for the Twenty-First Century Economy.



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:
No kidding
Posted by: Richard House on Jun 25, 2008 12:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But what was so great about the 1950's labor market anyway? Read Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman for that answer. In the 1950's it was great to be a guy in the “land of (equal?) opportunity” but today U.S. women outnumber men in higher paying, white collar managerial and professional jobs. America's stuck maybe because we have a serious lack of skilled workers, 35 percent of eleventh grade students can’t read at their grade level and 48% are below proficient in math, maybe because the US is ranked 156 in the world in literacy. It’ll probably get worse…look at Florida, they want more “Christian teachings” and less reality for the modern workforce. I suppose they expect Jesus will update the job market.

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

» RE: No kidding Posted by: vssmith
» RE: No kidding Posted by: thinks4herself2008
Contract labor.
Posted by: colinmeister on Jun 25, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 1950s, and later profile of the worker was a person who had interviwed for a job, been hired, and could expect to retain that job for as long as he performed well and the company he worked for had a demand for its products and was profitable. The worker could expect to get paid for holidays and vacation, and maybe even receive sick pay and have some health insurance.

50 years later, in order to survive, a worker is likely to have to take a contract position. He will have been recruited by a headhunter and placed in a position with a company who needs workers. This worker will usually be quite well paid, but will have to go without pay for a week when the company closes between Christmas Eve and New Year's day, and for every other holiday that the company decides to give. He will likely have no health insurance, and if he takes vacation it will be unpaid. If he gets sick, he will not be paid. If the company decides they no longer need the contractor, he will be dismissed at a minute's notice with no comeback.

In many ways this is worse than the 1950s situation.

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

» contract labor loophole Posted by: cyr3n
Disappearing Holidays
Posted by: catullus13 on Jun 25, 2008 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a side note to this article, another shift in the workplace that I've noted over the years is how many fewer paid holidays workers are getting now in comparison to the past. Many companies I've worked for are now down to only about six paid holidays per year, when we used to get 10 or more. New Year's Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day now seem to be the only paid holidays left in many companies. I was surprised when my last company didn't give the traditional day after Thanksgiving Day off, making everyone come back in on that Friday. As to President's Day ... forget it. It's now a dead holiday, so you have an enormous timespan between New Year's Day and Memorial Day to get through. I recall that we used to get both Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday off, but those days are long gone in our ever-increasing push to improve productivity and not pay workers for it.

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

» RE: Disappearing Holidays Posted by: clvngodess
» Freelancing Posted by: benzene
» RE: Disappearing Holidays Posted by: thinks4herself2008
What Changed? You never even answered your own question
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jun 25, 2008 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What did change? What was it that made women enter the work force en mass?

Women in the 1950s had just gotten their shiny new tvs. And as they watched these tvs they became brainwashed and fell under mind control. Suddenly, having more meaningless trinkets and nameless "stuff" became more important than ensuring their own children grew up with the ability to discern. (Discernment is primarily gained from what I would call "family education". Family education is the knowledge and wisdom attained through all social interactions at home.) Now, witness the result. Cancer, diabetes, obesity, debt, all generally preventable, all out of control. It makes no sense to me at all... why someone would want to throw away their family's future, and their country's future, so they can have more money for useless crap.

And worst of all, by forsaking "family education", people have allowed themselves to become easy prey for all the scamming and looting that is going on right now. So now their money is worth so much less because they never cared to become informed about basic monetary policy so they could demand sane policies from their elected representatives. I find it ironic that an entire demographic would enter the labor force in the hopes of making more money, yet in the process of doing that, they would destroy the value of their currency to the point where everyone now needs to work full time just to survive. Talk about brilliant. Whoa. I can't wait to see what's next.

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

» minor correction Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: minor correction Posted by: benzene
» not just women... Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Women didn't' do it... Posted by: liberalibrarian
» you had plenty of say Posted by: Iconoclast421
You got that right!
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jun 25, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LOL, very good article. Seems the COST of living has gone up 300 percent but teh amount of money I make has only gone up 15 percent. What a joke. Thank you Dictator Bush!

JT
Is your ISP watching?

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

» RE: You got that right! Posted by: Cybershaman
Community
Posted by: benzene on Jun 25, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about this?
All companies in the U.S. with a regularly employed staff of 100 or more must give at least 10% of their paid employee work-hours back to the community in the form of charitable service.

Think about it: very quickly many seemingly insurmountable societal problems would be effectively rendered obsolete with so many work-hours going to help them.

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

» RE: Community Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: Community Posted by: VZEQICVA
» It's called China Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Mandatory Posted by: BlueTigress
The fall in real wages and benefits due to drop in union membership
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Jun 25, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of anguishing over the inflexibility of the modern workplace, wouldn't it make more sense to attack the cause of this problem: the precipitous drop in union membership in this country over the last half-century?

In the mid-1950s, 36% of the United States labor force was unionized. Even at America's union peak in the 1950s, union membership was lower in the United States than in almost all comparable countries. In 2004, 12.5% of U.S. wage and salary workers were union members. 36% of government workers were union members, but only 8% of workers in private-sector industries were.

This is the real reason it now takes two breadwinners, per family, to keep a household solvent. Now, even that's starting to prove not enough.

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

» Not so fast Posted by: Roger Ritthaler
» RE: Not so fast Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Not so fast Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Nice chart. Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Nice chart. Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Not so fast Posted by: Philip Newton
Freedom to choose and explore
Posted by: Roger Ritthaler on Jun 25, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When will workplace policy catch up with the changing landscape of America's workforce?"

When there is freedom to choose and explore.

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

One More thing to Add
Posted by: jwhitneywise on Jun 25, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the article failed to mention is that the decline in good wages and benefits is directly linked to the decline of union membership. The bosses realized that if they could stop their employees from collectively demanding good jobs then they could get away with whatever they wanted. If you've got a shitty job and lousy benefits and you want a change contact a union organizer. There are still unions for just about every industry.

http://www.unions.org

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

Most of you don't actually KNOW the 50's, I do
Posted by: lindawageck1 on Jun 25, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had to laugh at the postings about women and TV's in the 1950s. Uh, no. Even with our first TV, there was hardly any
schedule of good shows to watch like there is now. You could have (theoretically)own 3 TV's and it wouldn't matter; you simply didn't sit there glued to the TV. It didn't happen because nothing was on half the time. Saturday night was "Bishop Sheen" at 8PM, remember? Other than "I Love Lucy" for 30 minutes, there was very little to watch, and all stationed stopped at 10PM. And the commercials were even worse. It was back in the day when we would watch TV for 30 minutes, then walk over to the TV and actually TURN IT OFF since we were through watching it. When turning ON the TV, we had to first wait for the tubes to "warm up". As far as working women, it became a matter of "freedom" in the 1970s-1990s but nowadays it's just another income to keep the families head above water, to keep checks from bouncing at the bank.
I had to laugh at some of the postings to this article. Almost all of you don't have a clue what work life in the 1950s was like. Since I'm older than you, I'll tell you.

Men. Men. Men. And anybody could get fired on a seconds notice if the boss didn't like the employee's hangnail or anything else minor. Even men
with good jobs found themselves
going along with the majority,
and making themselves "just like" the approved of majority (in dress, walk, talk)socially and in the workplace for fear of being fired if he used the slightet bit of creativity in his life. Which is why creativ-ity and individual thoughts were punished so badly back then. Remember, this was not the 60s yet. There was no such thing as a differeing opinion on anything. No such thing in dress, no pink dress shirt for men, not even a loud tie at work. Hair was not one milli-meter longer than what was socially acceptable. The work-place in the 1950s demanded total obedience to "accepted norms". A couple of years ago I heard that the workplace was more accepting of women and/or part-time employees but I don't think it is. It seems to me that maternity leave is fairly much like it always was. At best, ones husband can take off now (for birth of a baby) if he's lucky, and that was unheard of in the 1950s.It would have been con-sidered 'sissy' back then.
I wish somebody with Alternet would write an article which includes information on just how many workers are/ were actually professional people who chose what they wanted to do when they were back in college.

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

We live in a fast changing world. Our problem is that our
Posted by: practical idealist on Jun 25, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
econnomists are living in the 1950s and so what we hear from politicians is the same old pandering and promises. Politicians and economists led us into this mess, and they are not going to lead us out. Look at Obama and McCain, they're clueless. Gas prices are rising,Marxist China is threatening the world. Our economy is going down the drain, taking the dollar with it. And once that happens, how are we going to fund our military? We need a reality check and new ideas for a changing world. For those that agree here's a blog that deals with reality and offers solutions.

http://theendpoint.blogspot.com/

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

» Marxist China? Posted by: pdxstudent
What Changed? They Destroyed Organized Labor
Posted by: Dallas Suz on Jun 25, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the late 19th century through the mid 20th century we had a strong labor union movement.

They went out and fought the bosses, sometimes even with guns for the rights of workers.

Workers went out on strike and shut down factories and ports. They fought for the rights of workers including minimum wages, job safety and the 40 hour week.

My father was a steel worker and a union man. He built tall buildings and cursed the Taft Hartly Slave Labor Act that drove the Reds from the unions and destroyed them.

Here's the Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers of the World:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Since the 1950s the bosses have convinced people that they do not need unions. They tell us that we need to be independent agents when they are huge corporations. that makes us into insignificant and interchangeable units of skinware. We used to have personnel offices now we have human resources.

Instead of creating products for our own consumption we create financial con jobs called "instrument" and make money of of debt service.

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

Reality check
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jun 25, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The truth is complicated, and no one wants to really pay attention and understand. Over the last 30 years Ronald Reagan broke the air traffic controllers union and there has been a war on unions ever since. Unions have been portrayed as the bad guy, but the reality is that because of unions we have child labor laws, a minimum wage, 40hr. work weeks, etc. - people don't remember that. We have allowed our schools to stop performing because we are so busy between working and commuting (who isn't tired?), that we barely have time to have a decent conversation with our children, let alone realize that they aren't getting the education they need to prepare them. We have allowed the Religious Right that doesn't want to think for themselves or learn (because learning is bad) to dominate too many areas of our lives both public policy wise and privately because of ideology. While this country may have created by white men that were (or not) churchgoing, the thing that they recognized is that religion can be used tyrannically to beat up on those that won't conform to what they want us to do. We have allowed ourselves to be duped into trade policies that allow corporations to move jobs overseas where they don't have to pay (.50 per day) people fairly; so the CEO can be well paid and the shareholders compensated, and yet the worker gets the shaft. All of this touted under "free trade" pacts that are not working for the American worker. In the meantime all of the fat-cats have their hands in the cookie jar (my tax dollars have to bail them out) up to their elbows. No one really wants to talk about class-ism that is prevalent and if you do you're labeled. The truth is until "we the people" come together to fight the b-s- that we keep getting shoveled and believe nothing is going to change.

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

» RE: eality check Posted by: luzmejor
Big business runs America
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Jun 25, 2008 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently read an article (I can't remember where, but it might have been here on Alternet) about how Tim Russert catered to the government and was a cheerleader for the Bush Administration. It occurred to me that perhaps it's not that Russert or any other TV personality was a cheerleader for the government, but that the government is a front for big business.

It was the energy moguls, for example, who gathered in secret meetings with Cheney to develop the government policies on energy. It's a few huge corporations who own the vast majority of the TV and radio stations in the US. It's companies like Walmart and Home Depot that set the stage for how businesses are run - especially when it comes to how employees are treated, and it's multinational corporations that now impose their deregulatory agenda on the government.

It's therefore no surprise that representatives like Russert and other pundits are espousing "conservative" points of view that support big business. And if my theory is correct, and business controls the government instead of the other way around, wealth and power will continue to be sucked up to the top 1% rather than (as some racist zenophobes like to insist) being sucked down to illegal immigrants or some huge poor ethnic underground.

Unless a huge change takes place during which government becomes an entity that protects people not only from some nebulous "islamofascist extremist terrorism," but also from the excesses of big business and the overly powerful, working people will continue to be the victims of the current New Gilded Age. Of course it's morally wrong, and of course it goes against everything Jesus is supposed to have taught, but as has always been the case, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

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

Workers still fighting with Capital for their lives. Literally.
Posted by: Coleman on Jun 25, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The battle over the duration and intensity of the workday is a war of attrition that can only be understood in the context of class struggle.

Unfortunately, the issue is framed for most Americans as simply a difference between "good" jobs and "bad" jobs, i.e. as yet another issue of personal responsibility. If your job sucks, it's your own fault for selling your labor to that particular employer. This notion of course obscures the class nature of the conflict. Human beings remain the most expensive aspects of most businesses, and as profits tend to fall, that's where cuts can be easily made. In the past 20 years, we've seen plenty of "good" jobs lost, with the "lucky" remainders accepting flat incomes and fewer benefits.

This will always be the case in a capitalist economy, even in a country with strong unions. There's someone else across the border who can do your job just as well as you, and who can work for less. You may not be in competition with your union brothers, but unless the working class organizes globally, just as capital has, you will be in competition with someone, somewhere.

Many unions have been quite conservative regarding this reality, pushing instead for the Faustian bargain of protection for their national enterprises - i.e. allying themselves with the Bosses - instead of helping to organize workers everywhere. Short-sightedness and fear can push anyone to make a deal with the devil, as history tragically shows.

Still, we'd prefer to live in a country where working-class organization is at least a mainstream idea, unlike in the United States. This idea will rise again in the next inevitable capitalist crisis, but the particular flavor of the idea is an open question. It's up to us. Will the next generation of union members take the long view and organize globally? Will the next generation of unions come to the table with creative ideas regarding what is to be produced rather than just arguing over compensation? If the next generation of organized labor includes large segments of the intellectual and professional classes, this isn't such a far-out idea.

Consider the auto workers who build Ford F-150's, and who are now being laid off in droves. The trucks were profitable for Ford, a dinosaur of an enterprise with no vision beyond the next quarter. If the industry's Union took into account the looming energy crises, the availability of better vehicle design, and the immanent drop in demand for F-150's, they could threaten to strike unless Ford moved away from it's short-sighted dependence on gas-guzzlers. Utopian? Maybe in comparison to the right-wing purgatory we find ourselves in today.

We need unions with vision and a mission of social change. We've been fighting over the damn workday for 140 years. Something's gotta give!

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

The only thing that changed is that we buy more junk
Posted by: HistArch on Jun 25, 2008 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our wages and hours worked would be fine if:
1. We didn't pay for cable, the internet, cell phones and other monthly services. These didn't really exist 50 years ago so nobody paid for it.

2. One of anything was enough for the whole family. One car. One TV. One radio. One good outfit. One credit card. One dinner for the whole family (if you don't like it, you don't have to eat) You get the point.

3. Extravagance was not emulated. Who cares about what the rich and famous have? Take pride in your family, neighborhood, town, yourself. Be satisfied if you have a roof over your head, food in your belly, and kids that aren't handicapped. Five fingers and toes used to be good enough. Now kids need to be stimulated, challenged, given everything. The ultimate challenge is to learn calculus without a graphing calculator and enjoy yourself with your imagination and a stick.

4. Live within your means. Don't make that much money? Then you don't get that much stuff. Want more stuff? Figure out how to make more money. People didn't use credit (my grandfather told me the only two things you need credit for is a car and a house. I think you only need credit for a house, a modest house)

We all just sat back and watched commercials and believed it was real. Now the consumer price index includes luxuries that nobody really needs. Simplify your life and you will find that there is still time to work less and have fun with your families. Don't believe the hype. Things are no better or worse now than they were 50 years ago. Its still the same people with the same problems on the same turf.

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

» RE: No... Posted by: Dianka
What Did You Expect?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jun 25, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taft-Hartley, 'Right-to-Work' laws in the oligopolistic, racist south of the 1960-1970's, NeoCons gone wild, the sell-out DLC, 'Blue-Tick' (read Repugnican-Lite) Democrats...

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

One single policy reform
Posted by: Geonomist on Jun 25, 2008 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People must lose the peon attitude and expect an extra income apart from their labor, a la Alaska's oil dividend. With such a cushion, all the cited problems go away. People have leverage to negotiate higher wages, time off, even start their own business. Europeans, at least, talk about it. Forget symptoms; deal with systems. Society has a fat surplus. Demand we all get a fair share.

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

why people work
Posted by: luzmejor on Jun 25, 2008 12:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Waged labor is underpaid and overworked. In addition, employers of even the simplest of operations are demanding college educations, even though few jobs in businesses actually require that level of education.

A college education is expensive now, far more than at any time in the past.

Women went to work because wages fell and that meant 2 incomes were needed to support a family. Then, even though the average wage was about 400 per month during the 1960s, owners started complaining about labor unions. Reagan started getting rid of more unions in the 80's and employers began systematically demanding "rollbacks" of their previous wage increases by threatening the collapse of the whole industry. Those companies have gained rollbacks of more than 44 percent of the wages at least 3 times since then, from defense and aviation industries.

Employers since that time have never stopped tinkering with time cards in order to have workers continue working additional hours without pay. During that time many enslaved laborers from other countries have been discovered in the nation and rescued from their captors.

Everyone knows that corporations are moving their entire business to developing nations so they can get slave laborers to manufacture their junk, while charging the highest prices the American people can bear for the end products. To aid their enterprises, our government provides these businesses with very liberal tax breaks.

That is their version of Nirvana. But it isn't enough, not by a long shot. Now immigrants are pursued, criminalized and made to work for already low wages that they then are not paid. How can they complain without being arrested by authorities?

It seems that America's wealthy elites can never stop longing for low-waged classes they can abuse and rob, just as they did in their heydays of African slavery.

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

» RE: why people work Posted by: Dianka
JOB SATISFACTION AND HEALTH OUTCOMES
Posted by: drricklippin on Jun 25, 2008 1:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Job satisfaction is one of the most understudied and underappreciated factors as regards human health outcomes

But slowly articles are beginning to appear in the mainstram medical journals on this topic of vital importance.

I'd like to see more published articles and more research funding on this topic.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

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

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Jun 25, 2008 7:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporate tyranny enabled by egregious tax cuts and unnecessary preferential treatment, has taken the place of family strengths, and the families followed meekly along, becoming good little mindless wage-stripped consumers who bought the trickle down drivel and they bought the garbage economics that passes for policy we have now. Families are extremely stressed - because no one has asked anything of corporations - only sacrifices of working families.

We need to re-think this whole corporate structure which does not work well for citizens. We probably would not spend nearly as much on healthcare if we were as sensible as the Europeans in our life approach. Why, in a era where we have 70% of us working outside of the home (both men and women) are we still only being offered a stingy two weeks off in most places? Why do we not have a full 8 weeks as the healthy Europeans do? Why do we not have a 35-32 hour week in addition to that? And why are we addressing maternity leave as some separate issue? It is not. These are family issues for everyone, and if not, then single people should enjoy that time off as they wish also. It should be 8 weeks of leave and sick leave could be included in that - for all. Then one could take maternity leave within that frame if desired. Having children is not a one person activity; thus we need to address what should be the desire of both parents - to be with their families. People without children should have the same amount of leave. Depends upon what you want to do with it.

Also we must do away with disrespect for home life and family life. There should not be this great corporate induced tension between the two. Personally, as a woman born in 1958, and the mother of one child, I question the word "liberation" as I am not liberated in the sense of being able to do as I want - I must work and on a schedule that I often do not like, and while I enjoy it a great deal most of the time, I would like to have much more time off and I want not to feel guilty about it - and we never should. We as humans have the power to humanize work - we have the technology to help us instead of beating people down...and we must throw off the yoke of the stock market that lives and breathes profits and heeds nothing else. The stock market and family values could not be further apart.

If you wonder why we have arrived at this juncture, it is because women mistakenly embraced the corporate culture without thinking of its consequences...and because it became even more empowered due to the mercenary, anti-family government we have in power. The work structure is for a man or woman with someone at home taking care of the other 40 hours of house work and life work...it is not a culture that addresses two people working. And women should not feel any sense of pride at emulating a corporate system that is brutal to its lowest workers, many of whom are women with no control over much of anything in their lives.

We will only recover from this disastrous ruling class interlude by embracing the unions, no matter how imperfect. We must enact progressive tax policies, and all tax breaks should be means tested and none given to those who already have so much.

Supply siders are wrong, as we have always known in the liberal community. It is a symbiotic relationship - and one cannot function without the other. If you treat your workers so poorly, bankrupt them of their peace of mind, wages, and their leisure time, then you have a greatly weakened society, certainly not the envy of the world. While we're at it, we need to stop admiring the greed/star worship culture that got us in the mess in the first place. There should be shame in accumulating money like that...and in bankrupting other's lives while doing it. When we get back to this thinking, we will much more easily empower ourselves and maybe some real family values reforms can take place.

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

Sorry
Posted by: Dianka on Jun 25, 2008 9:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't you notice that our politicians aren't listening, and couldn't care less what the people think? The only thing that would shake them out of complacency is a nation-wide general strike, and I won't count on that happening.

Since the "Reagan Revolution", We the People have, step by step, voluntarily thrown out all the supports that created our middle class and gave legitimacy to our claims of democracy. From the spider's web of welfare/workfare policies to the anti-union movement to NAFTA, we've given our OK to strip away the human and legal rights of entire chunks of our population. From our massive prison system (and we imprison a larger percentage of the population than any nation on Earth) to the atrocities at Guantanamo to genocide in the Middle East (and threats to launch World War III), we have collectively spit on the Constitution and all American ideals. We disregarded all the lessons of history. Today, we're frozen into inaction, unwilling and/or unable to unite to save our own country.

What is happening today can only happen because we allow it.

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

Much left out of the history here
Posted by: GPFrank on Jun 26, 2008 9:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Left out of the article and the posts is the effect of the anti-Communist ideology, racket and panic in 1950. Anything you now consider progressive was red-baited.Red-baiting was a profession taken up by Joe McCarthy and others. Even the moderate policies of Eisenhower were red baited and Eisenhower had to pay by having Richard Nixon as his running mate. Unions, by and large, submitted to the pledges, first demoting their most able officers and then throwing them out.
Hubert Humphrey sponsored a bill that penalized
an individual with a five year sentence for mere possession of a Communist membership card. That was eventually vetoed by Harry Truman as I recall.
The worst of it was before the cold war got to a daily saber rattle, presidents of prestigious universities actually prevented scholars from trying to learn more about the Soviet Union and voluntarily reported them to the FBI. (i.e.; ' "A distinguished liberal, Mrs Millicent McIntosh, president of Barnard, explained," "If the colleges take the responsibility to do their own house cleaning Congress would not feel it has to investigate" " , George R. Stewart, "The year of the oath" p. 97 (NYT) march 20, 1953 (as cited by David Caute: "The Great fear",p 405,Simon and Schuster, NY, 1979
The situation was exacerbated by the start of the Korean war in 1950 by North Korea crossing the line that had been recently established, to invade South Korea, presumed to be acting as surrogates for Stalin but actually egged on by the Chinese.
But getting back into war reversed the post war slump and gave the unions their last
opportunities, but which they lost by purging themselves. The article and the posts also leave out the renewal of the draft for the Korean war and its consequences.
It was only the election of Kennedy that led to the mitigation of the fears of the 50's
when he finally muzzled the generals and admirals who had been taking over foreign affairs with their saber rattling.

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

More like a combination-platter
Posted by: talkville on Jun 27, 2008 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The '50's, that is the 1950's, the 1850's, the 1750's; a kind of capitalist re-vision and re-form of the concept of labor and it's place and status in the production process. From 'left-to-right', the relation is moved back to 'master-slave'; just to their Taste.

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

supply and demand factor?
Posted by: cyr3n on Jun 28, 2008 11:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting that no ones commenting on the elephant in the room. If more educated women are entering the workforce, aren't we increasing the supply of workers thereby driving down the wages?

Ultimately there needs be be serious labor reform because minimum wage doesn't equal LIVING wage. But even before that can be tackled.. there needs to be a cap on how much outsourcing & contracting a company can do because thats killing us.

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

Wrong
Posted by: Philip Newton on Jun 29, 2008 12:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we were "stuck in the 'Fifties" we would have a worforce that was four times more unionized, a working class that saw itself as such (and acted like it), defined benefit pension plans, health insurance and, as the article contradictingly points out, families that thrived on a single earner.

Nowhere does this article point to the single-greatest factor that will revive American labor: A renascent labor movement.

Because the boss ain't gonna give us nuthin' Honey.

EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT -- COMING SOON TO A SWEATSHOP NEAR YOU.

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