Workers' Power and Budgetary Considerations

 

By Harry E. Berndt

 

The International Day of Labor, May Day, originated in the United States on May 1, 1886, but it is celebrated in every country accept the United States and Canada. In 1894, the United States Congress initiated Labor Day, to be celebrated on the first Monday of September. There are those who think that the creation of Labor Day was an attempt to keep American workers separated from the workers from around the world. Indeed, workers in the United States have been made to believe that they are "Middle Class", and that their interests are the same as the interests of corporations. The working classes in Europe recognize that their interests are different from those of corporations, and they form political parties to put forth their interests. As a result, workers in the United States work longer hours, have fewer benefits, are less secure, and endure more part time and temporary work than do workers in Europe. Workers who think of themselves as middle class suffer from the American malady of false consciousness. Much of this is due to the demise of unionism in the United States.

 

Today workers have no reluctance about crossing picket lines to take the jobs of fellow workers. This is because very few think of themselves as working class, a status that is undefined or defined imperfectly in this country. Those of us who depend almost entirely on the weekly or monthly paycheck, and who are subject to termination with scant recourse to appeals, are working class, no matter what our salary happens to be or how we are led to perceive our positions. It is wealth, not wages or status perceptions that determine our class position. The office has become the new factory, but the tenants think of themselves as management, or at least as Associates, rather than workers. Above them are Team Leaders, rather than supervisors or bosses. People are downsized, not laid off or fired. The changing nature of work and the symbolic dissonance accompanying it is a partial reason for workers' misunderstanding of their true status and the need for worker coalescence. Workers who cross the picket lines to take jobs from other workers may be referred to as replacement workers, but that is merely a euphemism for scab.

 

Every day we read of more corporations downsizing, which used to be called being laid-off or fired. The unemployment figure reported by the Department of Labor for June, 2011, is 9.1%. Not considered unemployed are the millions of workers who are employed part-time, are temporary employees, or who fall into the newly created category of contingency employee. Also not considered unemployed are students, many of whom are in school simply because they cannot find suitable employment. The truth is that we simply cannot employ all of our people. Corporations find it to their advantage to hire part-time and temporary workers, and to move their operations to low wage and regulation soft countries. Outsourcing, too, has become de rigueur, as the government and business tell us that in the global economy outsourcing is necessary to create new jobs for Americans. All of this is in the name of competing in the global economy.

 

Sad to say, corporations are not alone in hiring part-time rather than full-time employees. A report by the trustees of public universities indicates that the number of part-time instructors has nearly doubled since 1970, and that 55 percent of Ph.D.'s in English and foreign language failed to get full time positions. Many colleges have three and even five part-time instructors for every full time faculty member. This is very dangerous for the future of higher education. Young men and women who might naturally be drawn to scholarly pursuits in academia could be turned off if their prospects were only part-time employment. Education can also be faulted for not teaching labor history, except only minimally in some universities and not at all in secondary schools. It is no wonder that the population as a whole has little or no understanding of the importance of unions in the economic history of the country.

 

The present legislative moves in a large number of States, and in the Congress of the United States, are indicative of the attitude pervasive in our government today. Legislators feel no compunction about budgetary cuts directed toward reducing the benefits of workers and the power of unions.. After all, we all have to sacrifice: that is, all except corporations, the rich, and the Legislators.