Here’s one question that ought to be put to the Democratic candidates at their next debate in September: How would you improve the life of the average home health care worker?
The iconic American worker of the 20th century — a man making cars in a Detroit factory — remains the focus of political debate about work in America. But the real face of the modern working class is a woman caring for that retired autoworker somewhere in the suburban Sun Belt. Half of the 10 fastest growing jobs in America are low-paid variants of nursing.
More manufacturing would be nice, but it won’t create many jobs. The best way to improve the lives of American workers it is to improve the terms of the jobs that they actually hold: raising the salaries of restaurant workers barely able to feed their families; providing paid leave for child-care providers who cannot care for their own children; securing benefits for warehouse workers who lack insurance because they are employed as contractors.
Democratic candidates are beginning to take notice of this fundamental shift, in part because voters are demanding that the candidates address the realities of their working lives.
Many of their keynote proposals would create, or increase, minimum federal standards for compensation and benefits. Notably, nine of the 10 candidates who qualified for the next debate in September support a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour. The exception is the businessman Andrew Yang, who worries that a higher minimum wage would reduce employment. A potential variant, backed by Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, one of the remaining candidates who did not qualify for the debate, would allow a lower minimum wage in less affluent areas. This could be sensible so long as exclusions are drawn narrowly.
There is also general support for a law guaranteeing paid family and medical leave.
Any such minimum standards are important, but insufficient. Most workers already earn more than the minimum and receive basic benefits. But in recent decades, workers have received a declining share of the nation’s economic output in the form of wages and benefits. The need is for changes in federal law to shift the balance of power toward workers.
One potential vehicle is a revival of the union movement. Only 10.5 percent of American workers were unionized in 2018; a new report from the Brookings Institution argues that the decline of private-sector unions is an important reason for the stagnation of wages and the rise of economic inequality. Some ideas for empowering unions have become table stakes in the Democratic race. Most of the candidates, for example, favor federal legislation to prohibit so-called “right to work” laws, on the books in 27 states, that allow workers in unionized workplaces to refrain from paying union dues. (Mr. Yang once again is an exception.)
Another necessary change is to reverse the racially motivated exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the full protection of federal labor laws. Senator Kamala Harris of California is leading the field on this issue. She has introduced a “Domestic Workers Bill of Rights” that would extend basic protections to the nation's caregivers and housekeepers — including a mandated minimum wage, eligibility for overtime and paid time off.
Other candidates, including Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and former Representative Beto O’Rourke, also have backed an end to that unjustified divide — as well as other measures to strengthen the hand of unions.
One intriguing proposal, backed by the influential Service Employees International Union and embraced by Mr. Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., would rewrite a law that requires workers to bargain solely with their employers. In other developed nations, “sectoral” bargaining lets workers in a given industry negotiate wages and salaries collectively — a potential game-changer in industries with many small workplaces.
Former Vice President Joe Biden has declared himself a “union man,” but unlike most of his rivals, he has not offered details, in keeping with the general tenor of his campaign.
Significant changes in labor laws, necessary to shift power toward workers, are likely to require Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress. But a candidate’s support for such measures is suggestive of how likely they are to use the levers of executive power in the interest of workers. Mr. Sanders, for example, has promised an executive order barring federal contracts for firms that don’t meet standards like paying a $15 minimum wage.
Candidates also have demonstrated a considerable willingness to expand federal support for workers, an approach that amounts to sending the bill to taxpayers rather than employers.
All the candidates have proposed to expand the availability of health insurance for people without access to affordable private-sector plans. (The details are consequential, of course.)
There is also broad support for subsidizing child care. All of the candidates in the September debate except for Mr. Buttigieg have expressed support for a federal commitment to provide universal access to affordable preschool, and several candidates have gone further. Ms. Warren backs free care from birth to school age for families with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty line. Senators Harris, Klobuchar and Sanders, and Mr. O’Rourke, back the Child Care for Working Families Act, which similarly aims to provide universal access to care.
The United States lags far behind most developed nations in ensuring access to health care and child care. A strengthened safety net not only improves the quality of life, it also increases productivity, by allowing workers, particularly women, to stay on the job. And by easing the pain of job losses, it can encourage people to take larger risks — and to earn larger rewards.
These ideas work together: higher minimum standards, collective bargaining and a stronger safety net can all help to improve the quality of working-class jobs in the 21st century.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
We and our partners use cookies on this site to improve our service, perform analytics, personalize advertising, measure advertising performance, and remember website preferences.Ok
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | Reviving the American Working Class
Opinion | Reviving the American Working Class
Here’s one question that ought to be put to the Democratic candidates at their next debate in September: How would you improve the life of the average home health care worker?
The iconic American worker of the 20th century — a man making cars in a Detroit factory — remains the focus of political debate about work in America. But the real face of the modern working class is a woman caring for that retired autoworker somewhere in the suburban Sun Belt. Half of the 10 fastest growing jobs in America are low-paid variants of nursing.
More manufacturing would be nice, but it won’t create many jobs. The best way to improve the lives of American workers it is to improve the terms of the jobs that they actually hold: raising the salaries of restaurant workers barely able to feed their families; providing paid leave for child-care providers who cannot care for their own children; securing benefits for warehouse workers who lack insurance because they are employed as contractors.
Democratic candidates are beginning to take notice of this fundamental shift, in part because voters are demanding that the candidates address the realities of their working lives.
Many of their keynote proposals would create, or increase, minimum federal standards for compensation and benefits. Notably, nine of the 10 candidates who qualified for the next debate in September support a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour. The exception is the businessman Andrew Yang, who worries that a higher minimum wage would reduce employment. A potential variant, backed by Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, one of the remaining candidates who did not qualify for the debate, would allow a lower minimum wage in less affluent areas. This could be sensible so long as exclusions are drawn narrowly.
There is also general support for a law guaranteeing paid family and medical leave.
Any such minimum standards are important, but insufficient. Most workers already earn more than the minimum and receive basic benefits. But in recent decades, workers have received a declining share of the nation’s economic output in the form of wages and benefits. The need is for changes in federal law to shift the balance of power toward workers.
One potential vehicle is a revival of the union movement. Only 10.5 percent of American workers were unionized in 2018; a new report from the Brookings Institution argues that the decline of private-sector unions is an important reason for the stagnation of wages and the rise of economic inequality. Some ideas for empowering unions have become table stakes in the Democratic race. Most of the candidates, for example, favor federal legislation to prohibit so-called “right to work” laws, on the books in 27 states, that allow workers in unionized workplaces to refrain from paying union dues. (Mr. Yang once again is an exception.)
Another necessary change is to reverse the racially motivated exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers from the full protection of federal labor laws. Senator Kamala Harris of California is leading the field on this issue. She has introduced a “Domestic Workers Bill of Rights” that would extend basic protections to the nation's caregivers and housekeepers — including a mandated minimum wage, eligibility for overtime and paid time off.
Other candidates, including Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and former Representative Beto O’Rourke, also have backed an end to that unjustified divide — as well as other measures to strengthen the hand of unions.
One intriguing proposal, backed by the influential Service Employees International Union and embraced by Mr. Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., would rewrite a law that requires workers to bargain solely with their employers. In other developed nations, “sectoral” bargaining lets workers in a given industry negotiate wages and salaries collectively — a potential game-changer in industries with many small workplaces.
Former Vice President Joe Biden has declared himself a “union man,” but unlike most of his rivals, he has not offered details, in keeping with the general tenor of his campaign.
Significant changes in labor laws, necessary to shift power toward workers, are likely to require Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress. But a candidate’s support for such measures is suggestive of how likely they are to use the levers of executive power in the interest of workers. Mr. Sanders, for example, has promised an executive order barring federal contracts for firms that don’t meet standards like paying a $15 minimum wage.
Candidates also have demonstrated a considerable willingness to expand federal support for workers, an approach that amounts to sending the bill to taxpayers rather than employers.
All the candidates have proposed to expand the availability of health insurance for people without access to affordable private-sector plans. (The details are consequential, of course.)
There is also broad support for subsidizing child care. All of the candidates in the September debate except for Mr. Buttigieg have expressed support for a federal commitment to provide universal access to affordable preschool, and several candidates have gone further. Ms. Warren backs free care from birth to school age for families with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty line. Senators Harris, Klobuchar and Sanders, and Mr. O’Rourke, back the Child Care for Working Families Act, which similarly aims to provide universal access to care.
The United States lags far behind most developed nations in ensuring access to health care and child care. A strengthened safety net not only improves the quality of life, it also increases productivity, by allowing workers, particularly women, to stay on the job. And by easing the pain of job losses, it can encourage people to take larger risks — and to earn larger rewards.
These ideas work together: higher minimum standards, collective bargaining and a stronger safety net can all help to improve the quality of working-class jobs in the 21st century.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Read Full Article