Blog: Labor

People get fired from jobs all the time - the company isn't doing well and has to have layoffs, the person isn't doing a very good job, there's personality conflicts, or whatever. A lot of workers are "at will" employees, meaning they can be let go for any reason at any time. But I'd bet if you asked most people, they'd believe that the employer has to at least have some decent reason, and if the reason is egregious enough, the employee could sue. After all, people sue for age discrimination, or racial discrimination, or if they are fired for reporting sexual harassment. And sometimes the employee is right, and sometimes the employer is right, but hey, at least a worker can challenge if the reason crosses the line.

But the categories I mentioned, like race and sex and age discrimination, are specifically protected under federal law. What if you got fired because you asked your employer why the people at your company weren't being paid as much as people at another company? Or if you inquired as to why the company didn't seem to be depositing as much money into your 401(k) as they had promised? Or if you talked to your fellow employees about concerns you had, and were fired because you were asking too many questions? I bet most people would say you should be able to challenge that, and if you were otherwise a model employee, the company would be wrong.

Unfortunately, you don't have any recourse if you are fired for asking questions. That is, unless you have a union, which fights for protection against this sort of abuse. My friend Nichole Byrne Lau worked for Wiliamsburg Charter School in New York City. Her students loved her and her boss gave her a glowing review. However, in May she started asking why the 401(k) deposits didn't seem to match what was promised, and why teachers at the school, despite working more hours than public school teachers, were being paid less.

Employees ask questions about compensation all the time - asking their bosses for raises, or asking their companies' HR departments about 401(k) errors. But apparently Williamsburg Charter School's business model is based on paying teachers less than they are worth and less than they could get elsewhere, and trying to keep them from finding out about it, because the moment Nichole talked with a few fellow teachers about these concerns, the school fired her. Even worse, when the Daily News called, the principal claimed that "[Nichole] hates children. She's a racist," a smear completely refuted by both her students and her evaluations, and which he later stopped making once more newspapers started calling.

For more details and links to the many articles in the press today about this issue, see Edwize's great summary.

The popular press is rife with negative statements about unions, like the claim that they make it hard to fire bad people, for example. When I started going to policy forums and met people involved with unions, I asked them to please articulate good, concrete reaasons why the union makes things better. Here's an easy one: someone shouldn't be fired just because she asks questions the bosses would rather not hear.

Update: Mikebot sent this link to New York State at-will employment law:

Q: Can an employee be fired without due cause?

A: Yes. New York State is an "employment-at-will," state. Without a contract restricting termination (such as a collective bargaining agreement) an employer has the right to discharge an employee at any time for any reason. This also protects the employee's right to resign. An employer may fire an employee for "no reason" - or even for a reason that might seem arbitrary and unfair -- and the employee is equally free to quit at any time without being required to explain or defend that decision.

According to that page, exceptions include "discrimination based on race, creed, national origin, age, handicap, gender or marital status"; "political or recreational activities outside of work, for legal use of consumable products outside of work, or for membership in a union"; and for making a complaint about the labor law to the employer or to the government. But trying to organize a union (not what Nichole was doing, by the way), or asking questions about compensation, are among the countless other unfair reasons absent from this list.

For half a century, liberals were ascendant in American politics. Americans generally accepted with large majorities that it made sense for government to try to solve problems, and that society ought to help those less fortunate. This is "American consensus" described by Rick Perlstein, that was eroded by conservatives starting with Barry Goldwater.

Because of this consensus, many organizations on the left, such as labor unions, have become overly accustomed to taking their value for granted. Just as we don't go around talking every day about why, say, jobs are a good thing - of course jobs are good - people in the labor movement know they are useful, but it's been a long time since they have practiced articulating this.

Problem is, conservatives have spent decades chipping away at these basic assumptions, and now we can no longer take them for granted. And while a majority of Americans still believe that labor unions are a good thing, and believe that Roe v. Wade should be upheld, and believe that unemployment insurance is important and everyone should have health care which is too expensive and the rich don't pay their fair share, we've gotten out of practice at justifying these things. So gradually, bit by bit, fewer people believe the labor unions do good tihngs for society as a whole, and those who believe it have stopped knowing exactly why in a tangible way.

A few days ago I was at an event with two employees of the UFT, New York's teachers' union, and a well-known labor blogger. And I asked, "tell me in a few sentences, why the UFT is good for society - not just for teachers but something the public should support?" I happen to think the UFT is very valuable, but I wanted them to tell me why.

Nobody could concisely answer my question. After talking about it for a few minutes, they came up with some terrific examples. It's not that good answers don't exist. They do. The UFT does some great things. They're coming up with innovative ways to improve education, and they make sure conditions are good for teachers to be at their best. But it's not enough to be right. You have to be able to say why.

I think that every employee of the UFT, and every teacher, ought to be able to repeat in ten seconds or less the core message of why the UFT is good. And every member of the TWU should be able to do the same, and every member of an environmental organization, and every campaign finance reformer, and every member of any group.

In business, this is called an elevator pitch. If you're stuck in an elevator with a potential investor, can you make your case in 30 seconds or less? If an entrepreneur doesn't have one, they'll get laughed out of the room. Every established business has a mission statement, and a good business has a good mission statement. Google's is "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." That's punchy, and best of all, I just recited it by heart. When every Googler, or even every supporter of Google, can quote their memorable mission from heart, it spreads.

Someone said to me recently that in DC, many progressive groups still take the attitude that they shouldn't be "corporate," and doing things the way the business world does would be too "corporate." The sooner we can eliminate that destructive attitude, the better. Articulating one's own value proposition is one of many lessons progressive groups need to learn, and the sooner the better.

One of the biggest factors in the United States' success, particularly in the second half of the twentieth century, was its scientists and its universities. The most talented people from around the world, particularly from India, Iran, and the countries of east Asia, came to the US for college and graduate programs, then went on to make significant discoveries or form the backbone of successful and innovative companies.

The brain drain is slowing regardless, as India and China in particular foster public policy to nurture their native scientists without sending them permanently overseas. But as Richard Florida writes, we are doing a lot to hasten the loss of one of our greatest assets, thanks in particular to the Bush Administration.

The altered flow of talent is already beginning to show signs of crimping the scientific process. "We can't hold scientific meetings here [in the United States] anymore because foreign scientists can't get visas," a top oceanographer at the University of California at San Diego recently told me. The same is true of graduate students, the people who do the legwork of scientific research and are the source of many powerful ideas. The graduate students I have taught at several major universities -- Ohio State, Harvard, MIT, Carnegie Mellon -- have always been among the first to point out the benefits of studying and doing research in the United States. But their impressions have changed dramatically over the past year. They now complain of being hounded by the immigration agencies as potential threats to security, and that America is abandoning its standing as an open society. Many are thinking of leaving for foreign schools, and they tell me that their friends and colleagues back home are no longer interested in coming to the United States for their education but are actively seeking out universities in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere.

Richard Florida also wrote a fantastic book, The Rise of the Creative Class. It investigates why certain cities (like San Francisco) are economically successful while others (like Pittsburgh) struggle even though they have a labor pool, industry, infrastructure, and other classic economic necessities. He identified three primary factors: high tech, "street-level" culture like jazz cafes and comedy clubs, and tolerance of diversity, particularly of gays. In the Washington Monthly article, he continues:

Recently my colleague Irene Tinagli of Carnegie Mellon and I have applied the same analysis to northern Europe, and the findings are startling. The playing field is much more level than you might think. Sweden tops the United States on this measure, with Finland, the Netherlands, and Denmark close behind. The United Kingdom and Belgium are also doing well. And most of these countries, especially Ireland, are becoming more creatively competitive at a faster rate than the United States.

Though the data are not as perfect at the metropolitan level, other cities are also beating us for fresh new talent, diversity, and brainpower. Vancouver and Toronto are set to take off: Both city-regions have a higher concentration of immigrants than New York, Miami, or Los Angeles. So too are Sydney and Melbourne. As creative centers, they would rank alongside Washington, D.C. and New York City. Many of these places also offer such further inducements as spectacular waterfronts, beautiful countryside, and great outdoor life. They're safe. They're rarely at war. These cities are becoming the global equivalents of Boston or San Francisco, transforming themselves from small, obscure places to creative hotbeds that draw talent from all over--including your city and mine.

However we might screw up the federal budget or the tax code, we can eventually fix it. It takes a lot longer to build the demographics necessary for innovative research and entrepreneurship. I don't begrudge other countries their opportunities to have some high tech success as well. But if we stop being a good place to come earn a graduate degree and start a business, the next economic boom might completely bypass America.