The broadcast cause of labor right now is Minimum Wage, and for good reason: workers need sustenance, and the burden of the discrepancy between sustenance and compensation is displaced onto society - and governments in particular – when workers make minimum wage. If republicans are sincere about wanting to reduce the size of government (and wanting business responsible for its own risk and reward), then they could reduce the need for government services by supporting labor rights.
That's just my acknowledgement though. While Minimum Wage is a worthy issue, I'm writing today to broaden the conversation to instill solidarity throughout the workforce - and include my own self-interest. You see, my boss claims to work 80 hours/week, and he pressures me work over 40 as well. I'm a grown man with valuable skills in a tight labor market, so I can stand up for myself and say "no," right? This is an "at-will" relationship, so either one of us can terminate it at any time if a better opportunity comes along.
There's a catch, though, in that - so long as I stay at this employer, which is otherwise attractive in many ways - I have to play by their rules. Rule #1: any hours that I work beyond 8 hours in a day are not credited toward the 40 that I'm contracted to exchange for my salary. That means that if I stay late to make a deadline, those hours beyond 8 are coerced from me without compensation. This also happens past 40 hours: no compensation because I'm a salaried employee.
There's a law that prevents employers from coercing free labor out of their employees using either of these methods, it's called the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Unfortunately, I'm officially "exempt" from FLSA protections. That means that my employer can squeeze me for additional services that they don't have to pay me for - and they do. Our competitors squeeze their employees for free time too, so then everybody does it to keep up - wherever I go, I'll be exempt from FLSA protection. Generally speaking, administrative, professional, and executive positions are exempt once the salary reaches a modest threshold, but overtime exemptions also apply to a laundry list of other professions. Throughout the professional world, exempt employees are coerced into giving away free working time - and it's perfect legal. It's called wage theft, and it's a problem in other industries too, besides my own (see WageTheft.org)
Why am I exempt from FLSA protections? Is there a sound basis for allowing employers to use unfair labor practices? In Europe, salaried professionals are paid for overtime. It’s not like there’s a fundamental law of economics that says business will suffer if they have to pay for the service provided. To the contrary, this kind of policy obscures and distorts the true value of labor by allowing employers to coerce service without cost. If anything, it suppresses employment by allowing employers to delay hiring by forcing their existing, exempt workers to serve overtime.
I can see arguments that business is feeble and wouldn’t be able to compete without the freedom to exploit their exempt professionals, but I’m not buying it. If prices have to rise with fair compensation, so be it; the cost of labor should accurately reflect its value. The American business community has been spoiled by cheap labor forever. From slaves, to wave-after-wave of immigrants, we’ve always had a massive influxes of cheap labor. Hell, they even modeled the American education system after the Prussians, who broke a strong proletariat by instituting compulsory schooling with rigid structure to mold compliant workers. Business has had plenty of advantages, and their advantage over labor is now so severe that it actually inhibits economic growth.
The discourse around income inequality is not well integrated with other issues, and this is a perfect example of that. Income inequality is typically discussed as a cerebral economic topic, but the fact of disparity is not just a consequence of excessive pay for CEO’s – it’s also because we’re underpaid and/or coerced to work for free by our employers. “Inequality” messages don’t resonate with voters because we all know that life isn’t fair – and that there’s not much we can do about it. You know what kind of message will resonate with voters? “You’re underpaid.”
It’s not as if nothing can be done: raise the minimum wage, eliminate exemptions from FLSA protection, and reduce barriers to union formation. My personal preference would be to also see a limit that the CEO can’t make more than 100x the guy at the bottom, and I’m sure there’s lots of other smart solutions that people more knowledgeable about labor issues would suggest. My point is that labor rights is at the heart of income inequality, and the movement should be advocating to alleviate exploitation of all workers – not just those at the bottom. That way, we’ll get more investment throughout the population as people identify with the injustice that one another are subjected to – and vote in solidarity with our common interests.