> >For those unfamiliar with Australian industrial relations history, "the awards" > >referred to at the end of the article are industry-wide standards of pay and > >working conditions (I gather something similar once held in New Zealand also). > >Traditionally these awards were ratified (and often arbitrated) by State-level > >or Federal-level industrial courts after negotiations between employer and > >union bodies - more and more, they are being pared back to very minimum > >criteria, with the emphasis being shifted to workplace and/or individual > >contracts . . . > > > >Steve > > > > > >Subject: Sydney Morning Herald: AMERICA All work, low pay > >From: Paul Canning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 23:22:20 +1100 (EST) > > > >AMERICA > > > >Saturday, December 27, 1997 > > > >All work, low pay > > > >The deregulated, no-union, zero-employment economy of the United > >States is seen by some Australian employers and politicians as a > >model for this country. But as ADELE HORIN travelled America, > >she found the downside - an army of worn-out, exploited working > >poor. > > > >"GETTING a job is easy," says Rose Scott. "It's getting the pay you > >want that's hard - $7 an hour is the most I've ever made." A small, > >blonde, shy woman in her 30s, Scott is talking in the office of the > >Adecco Employment Agency in Greenville, South Carolina, where > >she has come to get a job. > > > >In Greenville, population 65,000, a Bible-thumping, anti-union town, > >the jobless rate is 3.8per cent, even less than the US national rate of > >4.9per cent. > > > >As Scott says, getting a job is easy. In the booming US economy, > >where unemployment is at a 25-year low, crack addicts have jobs, > >alcoholics have jobs, and single mothers of newborn babies have > >jobs. For an Australian, accustomed to more than a decade's bad > >news on the jobs front, the atmosphere is electric. > > > >South Carolina, which only four years ago recorded Australian-style > >unemployment rates, has achieved what economists loosely define as > >full employment - and other States such as Nebraska, South Dakota > >and Wisconsin boast even lower jobless figures. > > > >But having a job in the US does not mean having a living wage. > > > >When Scott's husband left her with three children under eight to > >support, she found a job in a convenience store, working the > >midnight to 8am shift. > > > >"It paid $6 an hour and I could barely support myself let alone my > >children," she says as we wait in Adecco's over-bright, no-frills > >office. > > > >Unable to find overnight child care or feed her children, Scott was > >forced to send them to live with her mother in a town 50 kilometres > >away. > > > >But relinquishing her children was not the only trauma for Scott. An > >armed robber held up the convenience store when she was on duty. > >Terrified, she resigned the next day, which is what has brought her, > >still shell-shocked, into the Adecco employment office. > > > >It isn't long before Adecco's placement officer calls Scott to the desk, > >having scanned the computer and found her another job - just like > >that. This time, she will be making boxes for a packaging company at > >$US7 (about $10.50) an hour, starting at 7am. > > > >"I should be able to have my children back in a few months," Scott > >says happily as she leaves, clutching complicated directions to her > >new workplace. > > > >But who, I wonder, will mind her children when she leaves for work > >at 6.30am, and how will she afford child care? > > > >AS I travelled around the US, wondering whether Australia should > >emulate or beware the US economic model, Rose Scott's pale face > >stayed with me. She came to embody the contradictions of this > >"economic miracle". America has put its underclass to work. > >Virtually everyone not incarcerated - and there are 1.7million of > >those - can get a job. But the workers are exhausted. They are > >suffering from too much work - 12-hour shifts, seven-day weeks, > >60-hour weeks. Compulsory overtime is common. Mothers drag > >infants on a succession of early-morning buses for the sake of a > >minimum-wage job. Rose Scott works through the night for a > >pittance. American families have suffered falling or stagnant incomes > >- and declining hourly wages - for more than 20 years. That's the > >underside of the US economic miracle - an army of worn-out, > >exploited working poor and an embattled middle class puzzled at the > >gap between their living standards and the enviable unemployment > >rate. > > > >Compared with Australia's, other US indicators look less impressive. > >The US has much greater inequality, twice the proportion of working > >poor, seven times as many men in jail and a much higher divorce > >rate. And US workers are much more likely than Australians to be > >retrenched, while feelings of job insecurity, as measured by the > >Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, are much > >more widespread. > > > >Shelters for the homeless are filled with people who have jobs. "Sixty > >to 70per cent of the people we serve are working," Anne Burke tells > >me later when I visit Urban Ministries, a charity for Carolina's > >homeless and medically uninsured. > > > >"The work is there," she says, "but work is not the solution to the > >problem of poverty." > > > >On average, Americans work about a month longer per year than > >they used to 20 years ago. But the typical family is still worse off > >than its counterpart in 1979. As well, fewer workers in the 1990s are > >covered by health insurance and aged pension plans. > > > >And while jobs are easy enough to get, millions are on the road to > >downward mobility if they get retrenched. Few are as lucky as Rose > >Scott: on average a new job will pay 15per cent less than the > >previous one. > > > >Recently, families have begun to reverse the long decline in median > >household income. But since hourly wages have continued to fall, the > >only way people have caught up has been through working longer > >hours or at multiple jobs or through putting more family members to > >work. > > > >When President Bill Clinton boasted at a rally that he had created > >11million jobs, a worker called out, "Yes, and I've got three of > >them." > > > >When he boasted that most of the new jobs were relatively well paid, > >the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, showed that > >30per cent of America's full-time workers earn poverty-level wages. > > > >When the minimum wage shot up to $US5.15 an hour, or $US10,700 > >a year, on September1, it meant minimum-wage workers were still > >$US2,000 a year worse off in real terms than their counterparts 30 > >years ago. > > > >High-tech jobs are increasing. But the five occupations with the best > >prospects over the next 10 years, according to the US Department of > >Labor, are cashier, janitor, shop assistant and waiter. Also, America > >can't get enough prison guards. And it seems any American can get > >work at Wal-Mart, the downmarket retail colossus that provides one > >in every 200 civilian jobs. "About 75per cent of American families > >are caught in an Alice-in-Wonderland world, working enormous > >hours but not getting anywhere," says Professor Barry Bluestone, of > >the University of Massachusetts, when I meet him in Boston. > > > >In the mid-1980s Bluestone alerted the nation to its "disappearing" > >middle class as the rich grew hugely rich, and the poor grew poorer > >and more numerous. In the '90s, he is warning about its overworked > >and underpaid. At a time when labour should have the upper hand, > >the willingness of incumbent workers to work harder and longer has > >kept a brake on wage increases. It has also contributed to the highest > >rates of after-tax corporate profits in 36 years. > > > >IN A sprawling car parts factory outside Raleigh, North Carolina, I > >meet some of the conscripts to the 70-hour week - the tiredest > >workers I have ever encountered. Many are required to work bizarre > >shifts - 3am to 3pm, for example. Here they are not clamouring for > >overtime - they are too frightened to refuse. When I meet Ron, > >Lillian, Beth, Stella and the union president, Iris (this is a union > >plant, a rare entity in the Carolinas), at the end of their 12-hour shift, > >they flop into chairs in the meeting room as if they will never move > >again. > > > >Ron has worked 60- to 70-hour weeks for almost three years and > >clears $US450. He had worked for the past three weeks without a > >single day off - 12 hours on weekdays, 10 hours on Saturday, and > >eight on Sunday. On Sunday morning he preaches in church. > > > >"There's no choice," says Ron, a grandfather, hitting 60. "I do it > >because the company says we have to. If the supplier goes, we go." > > > >It occurs to me that 130 years ago Ron's forebears were slaves, and > >under slavery everyone had a job, too. > > > >But these workers have known worse conditions, and worse > >employers. Two of the women previously worked in textile and > >apparel factories that have shut down and migrated to Mexico. They > >have seen 250,000 textile jobs in North Carolina alone disappear in a > >decade. > > > >MANY workers live in fear of getting sick. They have jobs but > >increasingly no health insurance, sick pay or other benefits. US > >corporations have found ways to evade their traditional obligations. > >They get someone else to hire the workers for them. > > > >Employment agencies, like Adecco, where I met Rose Scott, or the > >giant Manpower, have become huge hirers of labour on behalf of the > >corporations - but with none of the usual obligations. For some > >workers their "temporary" status lasts for months or years. > > > >"The perception among workers is that you can't get a job without > >starting as a temp through the agencies," says Charles Taylor, of the > >Carolina Alliance for Fair Employment. > > > >In the small city of Greenville, alone, he says, the number of > >employment agencies specialising in "temporary" workers has > >increased from 12 to 60 in less than a decade. > > > >Taylor tells me about a worker called Patricia who used to have a > >permanent job as a weaver in a textile mill. When that job ended, she > >worked as a "temporary" for two years at the Fluor-Daniel > >construction company in Greenville. > > > >Finally Fluor-Daniel put her on permanent staff, gave her a pay > >increase, a pension program and health insurance. That arrangement > >lasted 18 months before she was laid off. > > > >"Then they hired her back as a temp," Taylor says. "Same desk, > >same phone but less hourly pay, no health insurance, no benefits..." > > > >The Tupperware company in Hemingway, South Carolina, laid off > >most of its workers and hired them back as temporaries, minus > >benefits, through an agency. > > > >Harry Payne, the Labor Commissioner who oversees North > >Carolina's employment regulations, had said to me: "If America is so > >prosperous, why are its workers so anxious?" > > > >I'm beginning to see why. > > > >Corporations, however, are showered with benefits. In a bidding war > >that has been likened to the arms race, States have extended > >extraordinary subsidies and tax breaks to some of the world's biggest > >companies. > > > >Alabama even renamed a freeway the Mercedes-Benz Autobahn in > >honour of the German car maker, which had deigned to build a plant. > >The Government put up more than $US300million in tax breaks and > >subsidies for a plant that would employ only 1,500 people - that is, > >$US200,000 per job. The deal almost bankrupted the State. Here in > >the South Carolina woods, you can find dozens of foreign companies. > >Near Spartanburg, the German car maker BMW has established what > >is believed to be its first non-union plant in the world. It employs > >2,000 workers - under a deal that cost the State Government at least > >$US79,000 a job. > > > >A Greenville Chamber of Commerce document highlights the State's > >attractions to business: South Carolina has the "second lowest union > >representation in the nation", and boasts some of "the nation's > >leading [anti] labour law firms". > > > >About 25per cent of the area's workers earned the minimum wage, > >and would gratefully "respond to more rewarding job opportunities". > > > >There are a host of tax credits and subsidies for job-creating > >companies. As well, the State will bear the total cost of training > >company workers, "even when it involve[s] training in a foreign > >country". > > > >WHAT can Australia learn from the American experience in creating > >a low-unemployment economy? The lessons are not obvious nor > >easily transferable. Low wages play a part in the low unemployment > >rate. But if low wages were the main reason, Britain, which lacks > >any minimum wage, should have even more impressive figures. The > >UK's unemployment rate, however, is much higher than the US's, at > >about 7per cent (using comparable figures). > > > >Nor does faster economic growth provide the explanation for low > >unemployment. Until recently the Australian economy has grown > >faster than that of the US - at 3.5per cent compared with the sluggish > >US performance of 2.5per cent. > > > >Elaine Bernard knows Australia and the US well. She is executive > >director of Harvard University's Trade Union Program. "Australians > >say, "If only we could have America's job machine plus Australia's > >safety net'. I always caution people to be careful about what they > >wish for - they could end up with the failings of the US and > >Australia." > > > >If Australia cut wages, it would have to cut its social security > >payments, and put time limits on them, too. It might get "good" > >unemployment rates. But "bad" poverty. And then again, it might just > >get the poverty. > > > >IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING HERE > > > >AUSTRALIANS, too, are working longer and harder as competitive > >pressures, a hard-nosed management style, and Government policy > >push us towards the US model. > > > >Employers and Canberra have run aggressive campaigns against the > >ACTU's claim for a "living wage" and against all but minimal > >safety-net adjustments to awards for low-waged workers. As well, > >awards are being stripped back to cover only 20 basic conditions of > >work. > > > >Despite the introduction of the 38-hour week, full-time employees in > >Australia work more hours than they did a decade ago - on average > >41 hours. And compared with 20 years ago, a lot more Australians > >work very long hours. In 1996 just under half of male full-time > >workers clocked up 45 hours a week or more, compared with 37per > >cent in 1980. > > > >As well, Australians endure more stress, work faster and more > >intensively, and put more effort into their jobs than they used to, > >according to a Government survey released this year. A quarter of > >the workforce feels the balance between work and family has > >deteriorated. > > > >The American trend towards replacing staff labour with contract > >workers has also accelerated here in the first half of the 1990s. And > >like Americans, Australians are turning their backs on unions, with > >coverage falling from 50per cent of employees in the 1980s to 31per > >cent now. In the US, however, coverage has fallen to 13per cent. > > > >Also, there has been a fundamental shift in attitude to sacking people. > >In 1990, 39per cent of big Australian workplaces had sacked > >workers; in 1995 the figure was 60per cent. > > > >Real wages have fallen for some Australian workers over the past 20 > >years - the poorest 30per cent of male workers have gone backwards. > >But most other Australian workers, unlike the Americans, have > >enjoyed wage increases. > > > >The fundamental difference between Australia and the US has been > >our award system. It has meant even the poorest Australian workers > >are better off than their American counterparts - getting the > >equivalent of $US7.50 to $US8 an hour. Until the recent rise to > >$US5.15 an hour, America's low-wage workers received $US4.25. > > > >[end of article] > > > > oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo > > LEFTLINK - Victoria's Broad Left Mailing List > > http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/ > > Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop > > > > Publication of a message on this list does not indicate > > endorsement by either LEFTLINK or the New International Bookshop. > > oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo=oo
