Unions and Work From Home

Newly elected CWA President Claude Cummings, the union’s first African-American president.
(Picture & caption source)

I owe my friends at Solidarity some love--I've been ignoring them too long. And they deserve it by reposting a piece by Steve Early entitled Bosses, Union Officials, Rank-&-Filers Debate Work from Home. Mr. Early is a longtime activist in the Communication Workers of America (CWA) union, specifically its Newsguild affiliate which organizes newspaper employees. It's obvious that Mr. Early is a reporter: he writes well, and he definitely knows his facts! Mr. Early reports on a topic nobody else on my beat has mentioned: Work From Home (WFH).

According to demographer Wendell Cox, within all US metro areas with at least one million population, 21.9% of employees worked from home in 2021, while only 3.8% rode mass transit. At very least, the era of so-called "mass transit" appears to be over.

A recent WSJ article, dated July 11th, leads with this:

Office attendance is slumping again and bosses have a warning: We are a worse company when you stay home. 

In buildings across 10 major U.S. cities, office occupancy has fallen back below 50% for the past three weeks, according to Kastle Systems, which tracks security swipes into offices. The drop comes despite new return-to-office mandates that affect more than 600,000 workers and counting.

The bosses cite multiple reasons for wanting their employees back in the office. First, they suspect they're slacking off. Then there is less room for creative conversations and serendipitous discoveries. And finally it's hard to on-board new employees or discover the likeliest candidates for promotion if you never meet them in person.

Also cited is the damage it does to downtowns:

“Everything from daycare to public transportation, toll roads, fuel and fuel taxes, auto purchases and maintenance, dry cleaners, nail spas, restaurants, clothiers, hair stylists, dog walkers, nannies and office leases suffer when people work from home,” said Dean Porter of Houston. “Mayors and governors and too many managers want people back commuting.”

Workers who do a good portion of their job remotely contend they aren’t obligated to prop up the office, or an office-centric economy.

“It is not my responsibility to save downtown by going back to the office,” said Merrik Wright of Miami. “The average worker should not be in charge of something that just costs us time and money.” 

Conversely, employees really like working from home, not only because it saves commuting time and expense. It permits a more flexible schedule, within which they can balance childcare and other responsibilities. They hate the "open-office" layout, which inhibits work. And they claim--with some data to back them up--that they're at least as productive at home as in the office.

On the downside, employees miss social contact with workmates, and they're also required to absorb the expense of setting up a home office.

If the bosses and their employees are struggling with WFH, then so too is the CWA. In a recent election for union president, the two candidates in the run-off disagreed on precisely that issue. The winner, newly elected president Claude Cummings, is a fan, arguing 

... that CWA would not be well-positioned to help more white-collar workers win bargaining rights and contract language on WFH if top union officials opposed remote work options."

Mr. Cummings had support.

According to Local 7250 President Kieran Knutson, his fellow customer service reps in Minneapolis had discovered that remote work “was safer, saved them money on commuting and childcare, gave them more time for rest and with their families and more control of their work space.”

That’s why Knutson and leaders of other AT&T locals launched a grassroots campaign aimed at keeping Work from Home (WFH) as an option at AT&T, the most heavily unionized telecom company.

The response from the union leadership was lukewarm, at best. Indeed, Mr. Cummings' opponent was CWA Vice-President Ed Mooney. His stated reason for opposing WFH doesn't make too much sense.

... WFH has put “the companies in the driver’s seat because they are aware our members like it so much.”

But Mr. Early delves deeper, and Mr. Mooney's objection is more reasonable.

Mooney defended his role in negotiations with Verizon over WFH last year. During those talks, other CWA bargaining committee members like Local 1400 President Don Trementozzi had to overcome Mooney’s initial opposition—voiced during union caucuses — to extending remote work opportunities for Verizon customer service reps.

Then and now, Mooney’s questioning of WFH resonated not only with east coast Verizon locals, dominated by technicians, but also some rank-and-file radicals who belong to those locals. Echoing Mooney’s concerns, one long-time activist and fellow Labor Notes supporter told me that WFH “takes away our bargaining power, leaves people more atomized, and gives management too much control.”

And that's just it. The union depends on the office just as much as the bosses do. The bosses want to instill a company culture; the union wants to foster solidarity. Both of those are threatened by WFH, and hence the resistance from union officialdom despite the rank and file pressure.

Put in my own words: How do you organize a strike in a WFH shop? Holding a picket line in front of a largely abandoned office building doesn't look effective. Do you picket everybody's front porch? And how do you rat out the people who cross the picket line simply by logging in from their home office?

Mr. Early himself admits to being an early WFH skeptic.

Three decades ago, I was similarly ambivalent. As a national union rep between 1980 and 2007, I had much first-hand familiarity with the workplace culture of telephone company service reps and the different (and more blue-collar) world of inside and outside “plant technicians.” ... Most cable guys loved being able to take their trucks home at night and go directly to customers’ homes the next morning. Union-minded telephone techs wanted their co-workers to report to a central location every day, so they would have more regular contact with shop stewards.

After I helped a group of 1,500 customer service reps in New England get a first contract in the mid-1990s, it wasn’t long before the company now known as Verizon wanted to do a “trial” of work from home. One reason for our resistance to that proposal was the fear that collective action in newly organized call centers would be more difficult, if everyone was isolated at home and not working under the same roof.

But he's since come around--for which he credits new technology.

The availability of now well-tested new tools for communication, coordination, and membership participation — that were not available back then — has convinced me that greater union flexibility on this issue is absolutely essential. ...

According to [Don] Trementozzi, rank-and-file participation in his local actually increased during the pandemic. Because bargaining sessions, committee meetings and general membership gatherings were conducted via Zoom, they attracted people who would not have attended in person, after working all day or all week in their previous work locations.

The union argument against WFH is exactly the same as the bosses. And like the bosses' employees, Mr. Early is arguing that company culture/union solidarity is just as well transmitted during Zoom meetings. Count me just a little bit skeptical. But both the bosses and the union have to deal with huge employee resistance to being marched back into the office--and Mr. Early has given up the fight and chosen to side with the employees. I don't blame him, but I'm not sure how well that will serve the union.

The fact is that the interests of the union (in this case building solidarity) and the interests of the workers (who overwhelmingly like WFH) often diverge. There are many other examples, e.g., gig workers generally prefer their gig status to being full-time, unionized employees. I commented on how hotel workers have interests that don't correspond to their union here.

All that said, Steve Early is a good writer and an honest reporter who really knows something about his topic. He takes on a serious issue with important economic ramifications. His piece is well worth reading.

Further Reading:

• Professor Wants to Shut Down CUNY
• Labor Notes 2022: Starbucks
• Lost in the Amazon

 

Workers' Voice Doesn't Understand Deficits or Taxes

Source: CATO Institute

Thanks to Jaime Monterojo over at Workers' Voice for writing a serious article about the debt ceiling. I'm a few weeks late in getting this up--that's because I've been traveling overseas for several weeks, and then also had some health issues.

Mr. Monterojo's good turn is an article entitled Democrats and GOP make a deal to avert debt crisis. It is a legitimate attempt to discuss the economics of the issue--and while I think his Marxism leads him hopelessly astray, as I'll detail below, I really do appreciate the effort.

Marxist theology comes through loud and clear in one of Mr. Monterojo's introductory paragraphs.

Today the debt is $31.4 trillion, or 133% of U.S. GDP, a 25% jump from 2016. This is the highest level of national debt in U.S. history.

The debt problem has at its root the crisis of capitalism’s profitability. The fall in this profitability, starting in the 1980s, prompted the rich to attack the conditions of the American working class through cuts in public services, anti-union attacks, and factory closures of companies that opted to move to other countries—mainly China—in search of better conditions to generate profits.

To begin, there is no problem with "capitalism's profitability"--this is a myth foisted on us by Marx. Mr. Monterojo cites no data for his assertion, but I assume he's referring to work by Michael Roberts (see here, here and here. See my review of these articles here, along with the bottom-line criticism here.) In bullet points, the reasons why the Marxist notion of the declining rate of profit are wrong are given below.

• Marx's measure of "profit" was a very weirdly defined measure of operating margin. The data required to tabulate it is not collected today. Even Mr. Roberts can't reliably calculate the Marxist figure without making lots of dubious assumptions. The results of that calculation are meaningless, and nobody outside the small, Marxist circle pays any attention to them.
• Marx assumed that all products were commodities--i.e., the only distinguishing feature is price. For example, gasoline is mostly a commodity--one buys gas from the cheapest gas station, and rarely does any other feature count for much. But most of what we buy today are not commodities--nobody chooses an iPhone because it's cheap, and folks don't pick a restaurant based primarily on price. These are not commodities, and the profit margins do not depend on operating margins or the cost of production.
• Even if Marxists could accurately calculate their "operating margin/"profit", they don't understand what their result means. In fact, a "declining rate of profit" is good for the economy because it saves consumers money. The whole purpose of an economy is to benefit consumers (what other purpose could it conceivably have?), and lower profit margins benefit consumers. This is why Walmart limits its operating margins to 3% or below.
• For some bizarre reason, Marx insisted that the "rate of profit" only be calculated for the global economy as a whole. This is impossible--the data don't exist. And it's hard to see how any individual capitalist could make sense of that number even if you could calculate it.
• In point of fact, capitalists don't measure their profit by operating margins, but instead by return on investment. The operating margin does have to be above zero, but beyond that "profit" in the meaningful sense depends on the capital invested, as expressed by the price/earnings ratio. Here "price" is the price of a share of the company, i.e., the cost of capital.

Even if you accept Mr. Monterojo's thesis that profitability is "declining," it's still hard to see how that causes the debt crisis or cuts in public services. On the other hand, anti-union attacks and factory closures may increase profit margins, but more likely (and in the long term, always) reduce costs for consumers, i.e., make society richer and more prosperous. 

Then Mr. Montejero complains about how Presidents Bush and Trump lowered tax rates, and how this supposedly impoverished the working class. He writes,

The state began to also lower taxes paid by the rich, one of the fundamental causes of the rise in debt. Successive presidents since Reagan have lowered taxes paid by the wealthy and undermining federal revenues. For example, Bush II lowered taxes on the wealthy in 2001 and 2003, in addition to encouraging the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, which required going over $2 trillion in debt, a sum that is growing. In 2017, Trump cut taxes for the country’s wealthiest people to a rate lower than that paid by the working class, the first time in the country’s history.

There are two parts to this argument. First he implies that tax receipts declined following the Trump tax cuts. The chart above shows that's not true. Total tax receipts are largely independent of tax rates.

Second, he says that marginal rates on wealthy people are lower than they are for us poorer folks. This is not strictly true. From this data, the top 1% paid 26.0% of their income in taxes. The top 50% paid 14.6% of  their income in taxes. The bottom 50% paid only 3.1% of their income in taxes.

Admittedly, this is only the federal income tax; it doesn't include payroll taxes, paid disproportionately by working people (who also receive a vastly disproportionate share of the benefits). Further, the very poorest people occasionally pay marginal rates in excess of 100%, e.g., when they exceed the maximum income to receive food stamps. So the story is more complicated, but since Mr. Montejero talks about tax rates, then he is obviously referring to the income tax.

Marginal tax rates aside, we have a remarkably progressive tax structure. The top 1% paid 42.3% of all federal income taxes. The next 49% paid 55.4% of all taxes. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of the population paid only 2.3%. The rich paid more, not because of minor changes to marginal tax rates, but simply because the rich have more money and can afford to pay more.

Mr. Montejero writes,

So the ruling class is in a complicated situation: On the one hand, they need to borrow and spend more money to avoid a crisis and, on the other hand, they need to keep an exorbitant inflation at bay, during which two American banks—the Silicon Valley Bank and Signature—have collapsed. The agreement signed by the Democrats and Republicans worsens national indebtedness, keeps inflation levels high, and ultimately is a postponement of an economic storm that has been growing and threatening the world capitalist economy, at the expense of workers’ living standards.

This paragraph is actually mostly true. I'd replace the words "ruling class" with "government," but perhaps that's a distinction without a difference. Either way, they need to spend more money to avoid a crisis--and they're borrowing it! The flaw in our author's argument is not in this paragraph, but in the preceding where he attributes all ills to the mythical declining rate of profit. That's not the problem.

The problem is political. For decades politicians have been promising their constituents more and more: bigger social security checks, more comprehensive healthcare benefits, exorbitant payments to the higher education cartel, not to mention greater defense expenditures. They got away with this because they never had to pay the bill--the government always borrowed money at low interest rates, and it was up to future generations to pay it all back. By which time said politicians will long since have been out of office.

Well, the future has arrived--and now the bill is due. What we've got is a big, stinking pile of debt--not just in the US, but worldwide. The politicians are increasingly unable to refinance it. Somehow this debt is gonna have to be liquidated--either by paying it back (raising taxes), cutting entitlements (good luck with that!), defaulting on it (ouch!), or inflating it away (happening right now). There are no other alternatives. And that's the crisis.

Debt necessarily lowers future GDP--and today will be no different now that the future has arrived.

It's got nothing to do with any mythical Marxist measure of profit.

Further Reading:

• Oppression!
• The Harm Reduction Team
• It's Not Just About Abortion

Oberlin, 2023

 

Laura Garza leading comrades in prayer
(MILITANT/ARTHUR HUGHES)

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), publishers of The Militant, report on their recent International Educational Conference held June 8 - 10 in Oberlin, Ohio. There are two articles describing the event, both written by Steve Clark and Terry Evans--members of the Party's core leadership. They're entitled Socialist Workers Party leadership sets course ahead and ‘A road forward to raise workers’ confidence in our own capacities’. One can think of these as being news and commentary, respectively, and for brevity I'll refer to them as such.

The news piece highlights the report given by Jack Barnes, the national secretary and Party's chief honcho. We're told that 333 people attended the conclave, including representatives from Canada, the UK and Australia, which seems around average for prior years. The article lists the agenda in a series of bullet points, which I quote here in shortened format.

In addition to defense of constitutional freedoms, the report by the party’s national secretary adopted by the June 12 leadership meeting focused on:

• The centrality of organizing solidarity through the unions ...
• Why advancing women’s emancipation cannot be reduced to the fight for the decriminalization of abortion. ...
• The necessity of a proletarian internationalist course. ...
• Why the unions must lead in forging an alliance of workers and exploited farmers ...
• Why achieving any of these goals requires the working class and trade unions to break from the Democrats, Republicans ...
• Advancing the revolutionary fight by the working class to remove state power, including the power to make war, from the ruling class and to establish a workers and farmers government that, as the SWP Constitution says, “will abolish capitalism in the United States and join in the worldwide struggle for socialism.”

The Party is justly proud of its defense of Constitutional rights, which has been a tradition since its founding. Indeed, I'm proud to say that I've been consistent on the subject as well, defending the SWP's right to free speech and to equal treatment under the law back when I was a comrade, and extending the same defense to Donald Trump and his followers today. Clark & Evans point out that

The same espionage statute wielded by Biden against Trump was used in 1918 to jail Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs for his support for the Bolshevik-led Russian Revolution and opposition to U.S. imperialism’s predatory aims in World War I.

The SWP is the only organization on the Left that I'm aware of that is consistent in its support of Constitutional rights for ALL citizens, including both Trump and Debs (and James Cannon imprisoned under the Smith Act). For this it deserves considerable credit.

The Party's statement on women's rights is also more sensible than you'd expect. They write,

The starting point in the battle for women’s emancipation, Barnes said, is recognizing and addressing the growing social and economic crises that prevent working people starting families and providing for them. That means fighting for jobs  with wage rates, work schedules and conditions that make family time possible — time for social activity together, sports, recreation, caring for children who are sick or need help with their homework, help for the aging. Time for family members to read, to take part in union, political and cultural activity.

Astonishingly, the Party is both pro-child and pro-family, which makes their decades-long championing of abortion rather embarrassing. The topic was debated during last year's convention, which resulted in the book The low point of labor resistance is behind us, which I reviewed here. Abortion, instead of being legalized should now only be decriminalized. I'm not sure what the difference is, but the latter makes it sound less important. Mr. Barnes goes on to say

The political course pursued by Democrats, the middle-class left and leaders of today’s bourgeois-minded women’s organizations, however, heads in the opposite direction, Barnes said. They reduce the fight for women’s rights to abortion access, campaigning for capitalist (almost always Democratic Party) politicians and “breaking the glass ceiling” to get more women into well-remunerated professional and managerial positions.

The Party is much more sensible than their nuttier comrades on the Left, who believe in 52 genders and that a man can transition into a woman simply by putting on a dress. The Party actually believes in fertility, which places them in the realm of sane political discourse.

But I won't go along with their communist project to socialize all childcare. This is a totalitarian project.

The commentary article tells us that a "proletarian internationalist course" actually consists of: solidarity with the Cuban "revolution."

The socialist conference opened with a political report by Mary-Alice Waters. Having led three political trips to Cuba this year by teams of cadres in the SWP and broader communist movement, Waters focused, among other topics, on political and leadership lessons of Cuba’s socialist revolution and Washington’s intensifying efforts to crush it.

The news yields a bit more information:

Barnes pointed to the global media blitz Washington has begun cranking up, alleging Chinese government spying operations in Cuba — charges Cuban leaders rebutted as “mendacious and unfounded” lies. Such false charges, the SWP leader said, are in line with the Biden administration’s course — building on that of the Trump White House and every Democratic and Republican administration for some 65 years — to overturn the socialist revolution in Cuba. 

That's it--endless solidarity and uncritical acceptance of everything the Cuban government says is all there is to internationalism. 

The Party's union work is so small scale and unimportant that it's barely worth mentioning. To wit:

Organizing solidarity is the backbone of work to strengthen the unions. Barnes pointed to the recent example of eight rail workers, all members of SMART-TD Local 1373, joining the picket line of striking Teamsters at Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages in Philadelphia last month. They brought several hundred dollars to donate to the strike fund.

Eight workers and a few hundred dollars adds up to a hill of beans. For what it's worth, the Party doesn't participate in what is probably the most viable union movement around: Labor Notes. I posted a piece on that, and in the comments I point out why I think the SWP abstains. I stand by that comment.

Similarly, getting the unions to break with Democrats is a lost cause--the Democrats have all the money and also power to change labor laws. More, unionists intrinsically understand economics better than my Trotskyist friends, blinded as they are by Marxist theology. The issue is about divvying up the producer surplus, not about who owns the means of production. The unions have got that right.

The last bullet point is simply a religious assertion--it has no practical consequence whatsoever. It is to Trotskyism what Judgement Day is to Christianity. But, beyond narrow pork barrel issues, it's a religious and moral impulse that motivates humans to engage in politics at all. And that's the role of the last bullet--it puts everything into moral perspective and justifies all the efforts (however futile) in trying to get from here to there.

The photo of Ms. Garza highlights the commentary article, and frankly "prayer" was the first word that came to my mind when I saw it. I doubt Ms. Garza experienced it that way, but if she's talking about that last bullet point--the ultimate purpose of the whole thing--then prayer is exactly what it was. And so, however unintentionally, The Militant's photographer and editor have accurately illustrated what the Socialist Workers Party is all about.

Amen, Amen!

Further Reading:

• Oppression!
• Wittenberg, 2022
• Cuba Needs More Communism!