Labor

While the industrial era sprang from the demands of war it introduced several changes that eventually increased the standard of living. These were the increased of employment associated with the increase in production and machinery. Ultimately, this drew larger groups of people into cities. Then things changed again as society progressed into the post-industrial era. With this new era various kinds of work emerged. For example, the development of the assembly line and mechanical production work ironically deskilled many workers by becoming more specialized. To explain how this is transforming our economic infrastructure, I will brake it down into the domestic changes, the international changes, and the emergence of globalization.

On the domestic labor front unions are having a hard time. The development of a segmented labor market eventually hurt the unions by making it difficult for small groups of workers to organize. On top of this, was the Taft-Hartley Act that limited the rights of unions to negotiate collective bargaining agreements, which lead to the decline in unionism and the weakening of domestic workers. (Organizing Power, pg. 49) In contrast, the employers were empowered through “employment at will” which allowed companies to eliminate jobs at the discretion of the employer. (America Works, pg. 16) Also, with the rise of global businesses, domestic labor has had to turn to consumer-worker alliances in order to use their working power along with their purchasing power in an effort to open up new domestic structures for solidarity. (Consumer-Worker Alliances, pg. 373)

Accompanying these domestic changes, international labor, on the other hand, saw the rise of big labor, or global labor chains, and big box business. An example of this is Costco. According to Gary Kotzen, the Vice President of General Merchandise, Costco has six global strategies: leverage, standardization, branded merchandise, private label, reputation, and becoming known as a global company. By controlling every aspect of the business, from overseas where the product is generated to where it is sold, the business has become one of volume and saving money by being the middleman and controlling the logistics. This has developed certain economic trends within globalization that are responsible for shifting the balance of market power.
Where once the manufactures would tell the retailers how many goods to purchase from them, now the retailers tell the manufactures exactly how much they want of their product, which can be credited to the growing power of the consumers and technology. By tracking exactly what the consumer is spending currency on, manufactures can predict how much of a certain product is required and where. (Wal-Mart) Also, with the dispersion of the industrial supply chains into other countries and new production centers being generated, globalization has opened up a whole new can of worms. A few of these are the exploitation of child laborers, corruption, hazardous working conditions, excessive hours, poor wages, and agreements between governments. (Beyond Corporate Codes, pg.21) Gay Siedman looks at this corporate role with “concerns about how to regulate corporate behavior across borders.” He determined that a nationally based system of corporate regulation would be required above and beyond corporate codes of conduct. (Monitoring Multinationals, pg. 388-403) That it would require the efforts of government, corporate business, and suppliers together to address these concerns of globalization.

By looking at the changes in domestic labor, international labor, and the development of globalization, the post-industrial era has become one of challenge to both the domestic and international worker. Although one may argue that it has enhanced productivity and efficiency through the new logistics of corporate business, it can be concluded that the strain on the working class is felt economically on both sides of the borders.


Essay 2
During the twentieth century there were several laws that dramatically affected the US labor movement. They are the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Wagner Act), the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Taft-Hartley Act. Some of these acts benefited workers while others suppressed them.

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children was designed to aid dependent children from poverty-stricken families. (America Works, pg. 98) Many of the mothers were single parents and what was called “welfare mothers.” One end of political thought believed it was better to help support the mother while she supported her children. The conservatives believed it was better to outsource the parenting and make single-parent families more like two-parent families. Although the AFDC was never enough for a single-parent to live on, the sheer number of recipients boomed. So the AFDC was followed by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to rectify the number of welfare recipients, and it succeeded. The number of recipients dropped from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million in 2005 and welfare single-mothers were employed at multiple minimum wage jobs in order to support the children that they rarely saw.

Prior to this, the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) of 1935 was passed. (When Affirmative Action Was White, pg. 53-55) The Wagner Act was good for unions in that it made employers unions illegal. Workers could also freely elect monitor workers and officers in their unions while utilizing successful union strategies from the past. Strikes and pickets were legalized and the power of the unions and the workers grew. Times were only made better when the Wagner Act was shortly followed by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Now, with federally set minimum wage and safety oversights, unions thrived and “unfair labor practices” were starting to be addressed.

The enthusiasm was checked when a strike wave through 1945 and 1946 brought a labor law reform to the top of the domestic policy agenda. (When Affirmative Action Was White, pg. 61) In 1947 the Labor-Management Relation Act (LMRA, or the Taft-Hartley Act) as passed when the pivotal Southern Democrat vote came in on the side of the Republicans. By giving them the supermajority, Truman’s veto ability was disabled. His opinion was that it was “a slave labor bill.” (When Affirmative Action Was White, pg. 62) The Taft-Hartley Act limited the rights of unions to negotiate collective bargaining agreements and barred the use of secondary boycotts, picketing, and strikes. In addition, it claimed that close-shop unionism was illegal and employers could higher non-union workers while pursuing “unfair labor” suits in NLRB. This reduced the effectiveness of unions and tied their hands with red tape.

By the 1970s, labor for many, especially African-American and female workers, was scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The hero’s of equality and fair wages did not diminish, just the laws helping them. Real hourly earning for much of the workforce had lowered while productivity had increased. (America Works, pg. 36) And it is on this foundation and history that future reforms of our labor market will be made to equalize the distribution of income and power.