|
JULY 28, 2003 –
GATT and NAFTA are enemy number one to some people. School
funding is issue number one.
Now, The Moderate
Independent offers two solutions that can vastly improve our working
conditions and schools, regardless of NAFTA and without additional
educational funding required.
Improving
Working Conditions The Right Way
Americans get the least
vacation and fewest holidays of any developed nation. Even the
Japanese, renowned for their excessive work ethic, get more holidays
than us.
GATT (Global Agreement on
Tariff and Trade) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
didn't help. Passed without adequate protections for workers,
these two agreements - passed despite huge opposition from Americans
- have sent many jobs overseas on an endless, now tariff-free quest
for cheaper and more poorly treated labor. In addition, our
laws are now subject to review by the WTO (World Trade
Organization,) which can override any laws we pass - including
environmental standards - and levy punishments against us if they
feel the laws impose upon the trading rights of another nation.
But not to fret, there is a
simple, inexpensive solution to all of this - and you will only read
it here at The Moderate Independent.
Labels.
Let's face it, getting our
government to change regulations so that each of us get four or five
weeks of vacation a year like the Europeans isn't going to happen.
And frankly, we at The Moderate Independent don't think a government
can usefully or should impose such standards upon businesses.
It is not the job of the government to interfere with the market,
putting together a few arrogant politicians in a room and having
them decide what is the best balance between good for the people and
good for the economy. It works much better if the people do
it.
Food is a great example of
this. Do you think we would be better if, instead of having
ingredients and nutritional content spelled out on labels on our
food products, some governmental committee was put to the task to
dictating the best balance of taste/nutrition/health, and so
dictating how foods should be prepared, with which ingredients in
which balance. Of course not. One day, they say avoid
all fat and cholesterol. Another day, cholesterol - some of it
- is good, and low fat may not be good for you after all.
The best way for things to
work is the way they currently are. The government dictates
that food manufacturers must provide you with a list of ingredients
and specific nutritional information. Without it, you would
buy a cake solely on taste and price, unaware whether lard or
vegetable oil was used.
Well, folks, that is how we
shop for everything except food.
Take buying an answering
machine, for example. You go to the store, and there are only
three criteria you base your decision on: features, price, and
assumed quality of the brand.
Say there are two answering
machines, both made in America, identical features, similar quality,
but one is $50, and one is $45. Which one are you going to
buy? The $45 one, of course. Why spend $5 extra dollars
to get the same features and the same quality - it makes no sense.
Now, what if the reality is
that the company that is asking $50 gives all of its employees full
health benefits and four weeks of vacation, and uses mainly
permanent, full-time labor (as opposed to temp or part-time labor,)
and the company that makes the other answering machine uses lots of
part-time labor, pays lower wages, offers its employees no health
benefits, and gives the average employee only one week of vacation a
year.
Does that change your
thinking at all?
The reality of capitalism
is that each time you buy something you are casting a vote for a way
of life. We have known this for years, and used to have, "Look
for the union label," ad campaigns, but even that was vague and
non-specific. If you knew you would be voting for and
supporting a better standard of life, would you pay the extra $5 for
answering machine from the company that treats its employees well?
If there were labels that
listed this sort of information on all of the products we buy,
things would be entirely different. The criteria you use when
choosing a product would be much different. Like now, as
people are willing to pay more for foods that are made with better,
healthier ingredients, the products we purchase might change.
Think about this.
This would put everything in our hands. If we value companies
treating employees better, providing more vacation, better health
benefits, better salaries, we could make them do so by buying from
the companies that do.
As things stand right now,
companies' main incentives are to keep labor costs as low as
possible, and there is no downside to underpaying workers, giving
little or no vacation, or skimping on health benefits. If
labels existed on their products, this would reverse things.
Now companies would have to compete to seem like they are treating
their employees well. In fact, it would create a new dynamic
in which companies would likely advertise based on how they
compensate their employees.
That is, if we care.
You see, as I said, we at
The Moderate Independent don't believe the government should
baby-sit or dictate what you want. In the best case scenario,
from our perspective, they should ensure that you are provided with
all of the vital information to make the best decision you can make.
After that, it is up to you.
Like with food, where you
can choose to save some money and buy low quality garbage that is
bad for your health, people would still have the option of buying
the cheapest product regardless of how poorly a company compensates
its workers. But, the difference would be that at least you
would have the information and be able to make a choice. Then,
you get to make your own bed - so no complaints after that.
The labels would include
information about: highest paid worker (including bonuses,)
lowest paid worker (yes, even if it is just one 25 cent a day
laborer in Pago Pago, that would have to be listed,) mean salary,
differential between the officers, management, and other laborers,
percent of employees offered health benefits, percent of employees
that are permanent (as opposed to temporary,) percent of employees
that are full-time (as opposed to part-time,) and maximum, minimum,
and mean amount of vacation provided to employees.
The information provided
can be refined to include what the people want to know, whether
there are other compensation standards people wish to know,
environmental standards, or whatever it turns out people care to
have as part of their shopping equations.
The point is, you would now
not just be looking at $45 versus $50 for a similar answering
machine. You would have the chance to shape the working
conditions of others, and they in turn would have the chance to
shape the job you work. This has unlimited potential for
improving working conditions, more than any lobbying or dream of
legislation ever could. And, as we said upfront, it is not a
huge expense, no increase in taxes is required to implement this,
and it will only be a minor expense for companies, a few
calculations required from their accounting departments.
That is what The Moderate
Independent calls good labor policy.
|
