Yay!
Low-wage workers are routinely denied proper overtime pay and are often paid less than the minimum wage, according to a new study based on a survey of workers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.
In surveying 4,387 workers in various low-wage industries, including apparel manufacturing, child care and discount retailing, the researchers found that the typical worker had lost $51 the previous week through wage violations, out of average weekly earnings of $339. That translates into a 15 percent loss in pay.
The study, the most comprehensive examination of wage-law violations in a decade, also found that 68 percent of the workers interviewed had experienced at least one pay-related violation in the previous work week.
“We were all surprised ...
Why?
... by the high prevalence rate,” said Ruth Milkman, one of the study’s authors and a sociology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the City University of New York. The study, to be released on Wednesday, was financed by the Ford, Joyce, Haynes and Russell Sage Foundations.
In surveying 4,387 workers in various low-wage industries, including apparel manufacturing, child care and discount retailing, the researchers found that the typical worker had lost $51 the previous week through wage violations, out of average weekly earnings of $339. That translates into a 15 percent loss in pay.
The researchers said one of the most surprising...
Why?
.... findings was how successful low-wage employers were in pressuring workers not to file for workers’ compensation. Only 8 percent of those who suffered serious injuries on the job filed for compensation to pay for medical care and missed days at work stemming from those injuries.
“The conventional wisdom has been that to the extent there were violations, it was confined to a few rogue employers or to especially disadvantaged workers, like undocumented immigrants,” said Nik Theodore, an author of the study and a professor of urban planning and policy at the University of Illinois, Chicago. “What our study shows is that this is a widespread phenomenon across the low-wage labor market in the United States.”
So, thieving from top to bottom: Theft from Timmy, Larry, and the banksters, and thieving a pathetic $51 a week -- a fucking week, I've been there -- from those to whom $51 means a lot more than a few lattes.
Truly, we have become a banana republic.
NOTE $51 a week buys a lot of ramen noodles....
UPDATE Just imagine what a difference single payer would make in the life of somebody who's employer was stealing their paycheck -- assuming that they'd managed to eke out some pathetic form of junk insurance for their family. They could leave the guy who was stealing from them, and go someplace better! Thanks, "progressives"!
- lambert's blog
Printer-friendly version- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
From the same NYT article:
From the same NYT article: "The study found that women were far more likely to suffer minimum wage violations than men, with the highest prevalence among women who were illegal immigrants. Among American-born workers, African-Americans had a violation rate nearly triple that for whites."
NPR's Morning Edition "Business" segment briefly mentioned the same study this morning (Sept. 2). They did not mention this detail.
It seems important to see that those "most likely to suffer" the violations are not only defined by minimum wage, but also as women, illegal immigrants, and African American identities.
As you write, lambert, thieving from top to bottom. Thanks for putting this up.
JLA
If this is prevalant
than it seems likely a function of maintaining competitiveness and labor markets. If the employees wanted to quit they would. By staying there they are accepting the 15% reduction, realizing that there is high unemployment and little chance of a better option. If existing minimum wage laws were strictly enforced, the 15% would get added onto prices or reduce the margins to nothing (I'm assuming that profits are at 20 year lows in these industries like everywhere else, so it's not pocket lining). Products would cost more which may force a business to close or fire a few employees and have the others pick up the slack at no pay increase. The results would be a counterproductive reduction in labor demand and reduction in the supply of goods. Enforcement of the laws would also have an added cost to the taxpayer.
I agree that health insurance via employer makes transitioning employment much more difficult...but we could combat that by getting rid of tax breaks on employer provided health insurance.
So, you're OK working for thieves?
Good to know.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I don't understand.
What's the theft if I'm not forced to work for the company and I was aware that the additional labor would not get me overtime?
Because you're part of a community
with standards. It's very simple. By using the resources the community provides to build your business, you're expected to contribute in return by creating jobs that rise to the minimal level demanded by the community. If you can't pay minimum wage, then you should not be hiring someone. You have more work to do.
Our society is not served by a race to the bottom where anyone who can get away with paying someone less is allowed to do so.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
I wasn't. So I went to the NLRB back in '82.
Doesn't seem to have hurt profits at that store. It's still there today. I think by now that manager's even finished with whatever the legal repercussions were.
I was not the only person stolen from; the NLRB investigation revealed that of the store's 6 non-management employees, *all* the women had been stolen from. None of us were black, but it was early in the Reagan Revolution and we had an oil bust on.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
I do not understand how this is possible:
"Doesn't seem to have hurt profits at that store." - If the labor costs were mandate up...did they raise prices and maintain demand? Well that's what I argued, prices go up. If they're forced too high to maintain demand than business have to reduce the number of employees or simply close because their margins in that industry are no longer worthwhile.
And that is a preferable outcome to
exploiting workers. If the store closes, or lays people off, those workers can collect unemployment, get new training or move more easily to another job. An honest economy provides more dignity than a dishonest one.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
oh, please
Somehow, when the minimum wage was increased, employers did not go out of business and people were not laid off.
To say, well the exploited people can quit is just ignorant. Smaller employers get away with a lot of illegalities because most employees, ESPECIALLY LOW WAGE EMPLOYEES, do not have the resources to fight it.
My son worked for a landscaper who routinely did not give employees their last paycheck. The owner was friends with the local cops. So, when one boy tried to wait in the office for his paycheck, the police took him away. He never got paid.
When I found out, I contacted a state agency. (The employer did withhold taxes, etc.) At first he said it was too late to prove. When I explained that the guy did this all of the time, they did put some pressure on him. But, I am sure he is getting away with it to this day.
How cheap can a person be, to exploit the lowest paid people??!!
Your latter anecdote
does qualify as theft because the boy was told he'd be paid for that service. For the subject in general that is also true, if an employer tells me I will receive overtime and I don't, that's theft.
"Somehow, when the minimum wage was increased, employers did not go out of business and people were not laid off. " - People do get denied work because of minimum wage requirements. If none of those effects are real, then we should make the minimum wage $100/hr.
My point is ...
My point is that paying people fairly does not drive employers out of business, not that we should set a high minimum wage.
The article is about people not getting paid; not about people not getting hired.
Wonder why the companies that have decent pay, etc. do better than the ones who exploit their workers. One reason is the latter have high turnover.
But you do admit that it
increases the price to consumers right? Otherwise where's the money coming from? These aren't monopolies so the profit margins are lean to begin with. If consumers do not want to pay the higher price...then the business does cease to be profitable.
Define "fairly".
My point was that if that if the effects I described for setting a minimum wage are not real...why stop at anything less than $100/hr?
"The article is about people not getting paid; not about people not getting hired." Yes, you are correct. My point was that these people, who remain in the jobs, realize they will be replaced if they do not accept the natural wage being set by the labor market.
"Wonder why the companies that have decent pay, etc. do better than the ones who exploit their workers. One reason is the latter have high turnover." Can you define exploit and give a real example. Like microsoft does better than nike? What are we talking about here?
No, it doesn't increase costs to consumers.
That's just a lunatic assumption. Business owners absorb the extra cost, and when the extra costs build up to a level that they think justifies an increase, then they raise prices.
The minimum wage increases usually result in more jobs being created - much to the consternation of the right. The simple fact is that poor people spend the increased money, and it goes right back into the local economy creating more jobs.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
Wow.
Provide some empirical evidence please.
If that were true, then it would still be the case that the initial absorption period for every increase would favor large franchises over independently own stores making minimum wage a gift to big business.
Also, you contradict yourself in the second sentence:
"No, it doesn't increase costs to consumers. ....when the extra costs build up to a level that they think justifies an increase, they raise prices."
You didn't provide empirical evidence.
You simply made an unsubstantiated charge. Very simply, if it cost jobs, there would be a jump in the unemployment rate, when the minimum wage was raised. Instead, we see a decrease in unemployment. There is absolutely nothing to back up what you said.
As for raising costs, that happens after business owners have absorbed a number of increases in their costs. If a minimum wage earner gets a 70 cent increase, that only raises costs by $28 a week - not enough to justify a price increase.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
Samuel, if the minimum wage goes to $100 an hour,
would you work for it?
The contention the "free market" advocates always want to use is that minimum wages cause unemployment, because businesses can't afford to pay a living wage.
Henry Ford himself refuted this, saying that paying his workers enough to buy his cars would make his business prosper.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Are you hiring?
I have no clue the point you're trying to make.
The more Henry Ford pays his employees the more he has to charge for his cars. What what what What what Waht waht are you saying? Let me refute another logical principal: 2 + 2 = 5. Feel free to use me having said this as evidence against math somewhere down the line.
"The contention the "free market" advocates always want to use is that minimum wages cause unemployment, because businesses can't afford to pay a living wage." - Try focusing on what I said to have the most productive debate. Businesses must increase the price of their products or reduce the number of employees while making the remaining ones work that much harder (but no more hours) in order to maintain their margins. Now I'm assuming that the margins are already low since that's the cause barring a monopoly.
I'm only hiring people...
... I can steal from. Do you fall into that category?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
If you use force
or lie to me before I work the overtime hours then you are stealing from me. Otherwise I'm there voluntarily.
So, when is a contract a contract?
Out of curiousity.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Yo go ahead
and give me your definition.
Also, yes
I live by Rittenhouse and would love a low wage job at this website! It has by far the most intelligent progressive discussion I see and I would gladly contribute to a civil debate that's not right/left but more/less gov as I feel many of the readers here are skeptical of gov solutions in most areas. The great exception being health insurance, which is by far the most convincing case (yes, it beats roads).
well, Samuel has one point.
In our current economy, which more and more, only serves the already wealthy (at taxpayers expense), most of us stand to become exploited workers (ie, workers with no real place to go because there are not enough jobs). With enough desperate workers, we will be in his world, where people stay in jobs where they are cheated and employees lose benefits (such as pensions they already paid for) while CEOs take huge bonuses.
Oh absolutely
As a matter of fact, that pretty much sums up the previous year's employment for my partner.
He'd been working as an independent contractor for absolutely horrible people. People who buy new boats and cars, before they make sure they can meet the payroll. Or ones who would pay whenever they felt like, instead of on a regular schedule. Or would only let employees work in 1/2 hour increments, because trying to figure out 1/4 hour increments was just too hard.
And he stayed and stayed with these people, and these people could get away with treating their employees that way, Cuz where else they gonna go?
If I wasn't such a kind caring compassionate person, I might actually wish for the US to degenerate into this libertarian anarchist utopia people like Samuel imagine, just so they can figure out first hand that it won't work.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
What do you mean cheated?
Losing benefits is much different, if you want to change the subject don't bother using my name to describe "my world". Come on.
Define exploited, pleeeease. You're talking about a bunch of things as though they're all the same.
If I'm a worker willing to work for 4.25/hr and no one will hire me because of the minimum wage requirement...is that not unfair to me? It's either 4.25/hr or nothing so what do I do? If I own a small shop and give that guy 4.25/hr rather than he remains unemployed is that me exploiting him?
Define your terms so I can at least know if I disagree.
Well, hiring somebody to work for $5.25 an hour ...
and then paying them $5.25 an hour * 85% is cheating.
Do you agree with that simple proposition -- before we begin to deal with the diversionary issues you raise?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Yes I do.
If someone quotes me at a wage for 8 hours and pays me less than wage x 8, they owe me the difference. If I'm told before hand that I will be getting paid for 8 hours but will have to work 10 hours, then I'm agreeing to those terms by staying there. If they cheat me once and I still work there, I'm passively accepting the new terms though I should be entitled to the wages I was mislead to thinking I'd received. That's not to say that it should be responsibility of someone else to procure those wages on my behalf at their expense.
What you call diversionary was me indicating that this labor imbalance, the fact that people are being hired and staying at jobs that are not crediting total hours ,is a result of an artificial wage floor. Businesses should be allowed to pay whatever price the employee is willing to accept. If this is not the case, lower skilled workers have no means to compete against higher skilled workers as their only advantage is a willingness to accept lower wages. The minimum wage is a restriction not only on employers but on workers as well.
I love "passively accepting the new terms"...
Of course, the ripped off worker might not be able to leave right away, and might be trapped in the job for months or years, for all sorts of obvious reasons. Not least that the employer's thievery robs them of the (some of) means to leave.
Reminds me of the old joke about post-modern theorizing that ends "Yes, but does it work in theory?"
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Trapped?
For months or years? Of course there will be a turn-around period but no one is trapped, the owner isn't holding them on premise with a gun.
The worker still chooses to remain...why? Because clearly the wage floor is artificial as they are willing to remain and have concluded that if they were to demand a higher wage they'd be replaced.
My theories are at least based on logical axioms, yours are based on sentiment as far as I can tell.
Like I said...
"But does it work in theory?" You prove my point.
For good or ill, sentiments, and not logical axioms, are the basis of all human (and arguably, all) decision making. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments:
UPDATE This would be the premise correction you said you'd accept. Unfortunately, so far as I can tell, the premise that needs to be corrected is a fundamental, and so you're going to need to do a good deal of reworking. Do feel free to come back when that work is completed.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Let me clarify.
Your theory of minimum wage laws is based on your own personal sentiments, it seems a desire to help people and the belief that government force is the best means to do such. Perhaps mine our as well, a belief in voluntary cooperation leading to optimal results does have a soft spot in my heart. That's the reason that we must best apply logic to economic interactions, to be sure we're free of predisposition.
One of the axioms to which I referred is that if the cost of labor increases, the demand for labor decreases. Another is that if an employer has to pay a minimum of 7/hr and has 2 candidates, one higher skilled asking for 7/hr and another lower skilled that would be willing to accept 5/hr, the lower skilled worker is less competitive than before the wage floor existed.
I'd ask you address these points as pulling Adam Smith quotations is a waste of your time.
Free of predisposition?
Nonsense. Can't be done. Read Smith again.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Well surely
you'd agree that 2 + 2 = 5?
That is not true
I work in an accounting dept for a small business, and the recent hike in the minimum wage didn't hurt our prices or our labor demand at all.
None.
if the cost of labor increases, the demand for labor decreases.
This is just false. It is something in your head that sounds like it oughtta be true, but its not.
If the cost of labor increases, the demand for labor also increases, because there is a glut of money to the workers in the system, and that calls for more labor, not less.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Henry Ford...
... agreed, and paid his workers $5 dollars a day so they could afford cars.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I don't understand
how increasing labor costs for the express purpose of subsidizing a fraction of your consumer market at the expense of everyone else is good for a business.
Is your thesis that the minimum wage exists to protect business owners from their own lack of understanding of the economic principal Henry Ford purported to be behind his wage increases? That business are more profitable as a result of the minimum wage?
"One argument against the assembly line was that the work was monotonous. Ford almost conceded this point when he said, "There is not much personal contact—the men do their work and go home." Ford did keep his factories well lighted and ventilated, and he worked hard to prevent accidents on the job. But the work was not challenging. Partly as a result, he (and many other industrial employers) had high rates of turnover and absenteeism. Ford found himself spending $100 to train each new worker, though many stayed only for a month or two and then quit.
Ford's reaction to this problem was dramatic: in 1914 he doubled his minimum wage to five dollars a day and cut daily working hours from nine to eight. The experiment caught the industrial world by surprise. His competitors were startled; his workers were energized. Ford himself was ecstatic. Some of the most talented workers in Detroit lined up by the thousands to apply for jobs with Ford. He couldn't hire as many as he would have liked because turnover and absenteeism almost disappeared overnight. No one wanted to lose his job. As a result, production surged and profits skyrocketed. Ford happily paid the higher wages and also cut the price of the Model T by over 10 percent in 1914, 1915, and again in 1916. With each cut, more and more of his workers could afford to buy the cars they were making.
Ford was delighted to violate "the custom of paying a man the smallest amount he would take." And yet "[t]here was . . . no charity in any way involved. . . . The payment of five dollars a day for an eight-hour day was one of the finest cost-cutting moves we ever made." Ford was so pleased that in 1922, when Model T sales began to top a million a year, he raised his minimum wage to six dollars a day. Meanwhile, he cut the price to about $300. With all of their manufactured steel, vulcanized rubber, and processed plate glass, Model Ts were selling at about 25 cents a pound—perhaps the best bargain in the industrialized world."
Is it your thesis...
... that all business people are rational actors?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
No.
Can you answer my question then ask me a question so that I can better understand you.
Once again: "Is your thesis that the minimum wage exists to protect business owners from their own lack of understanding of the economic principal Henry Ford purported to be behind his wage increases? That business are more profitable as a result of the minimum wage?" If yes, then can you address the economic criticism I pasted into my last response. If no, then why did you include reference to Henry Ford as an anecdote in support of minimum wage legislation?
Could you also please lend your criticism, specific criticisms please, to the previous comment I made which is posted below so that I may understand you:
"One of the axioms to which I referred is that if the cost of labor increases, the demand for labor decreases. Another is that if an employer has to pay a minimum of 7/hr and has 2 candidates, one higher skilled asking for 7/hr and another lower skilled that would be willing to accept 5/hr, the lower skilled worker is less competitive than before the wage floor existed."
"Just false"?
You don't think there's a point at which increasing the minimum wage would reduce labor demand? For sure a small change may not have any effect in the short run or even long run but if there was no minimum wage as of tomorrow you're saying that there would not be more jobs for lower skilled workers in impoverished areas? If the minimum wage was raised by 5/hr you don't think there'd be some layoffs somewhere?
"If the cost of labor increases, the demand for labor also increases, because there is a glut of money to the workers in the system, and that calls for more labor, not less." - I think you mean the supply of labor increases. A shift up in prices will reduce demand.
Sure, but "a point"...
... isn't what you asserted in the beginning, right?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Does that mean
with the clarification you agree with me now?
You realize how asinine your comment is and are trying to bug me...I think. I mean if I'm a company that only hires workers at 5/hr and there's no minimum wage and then the minimum wage is set at 5.01, then obviously there's very little reason to believe much will change. If I hire a teen to mop my floors for 2.5/hr and have to now pay him 5 then he may not be retained. The world operates in degrees, no shit Lambert.
I expect to see less abuses under the Obama admin. than Bush.
He has a good sec. of labor. Despite Reich's disappointment with Clinton, he was able to hold business accountable for a number of these sorts of abuses, and after him, I personally benefited from the Clinton justice department going after employer abuses. I worked as a manger of Borders Books. The justice department sued or weighed in on some case(it may have actually been Borders) in which employers hired "managers"on salary, then had them working 60 hour weeks, where half or more of their time was spent doing non-managerial work. After the law suit, I lost my title, but ended up earning far more per hour as an hourly staffer.
Medicare for All is Civil Rights
"Will work for food"
seems like Samuel's ideal—win/win for business owners and consumers. (Workers? Who cares!)
To be fair
you can disagree with my reasoning but we are both interested in workers (as in lower income earner) rights here.
My objection to the linked article was simply that the problem of people being mislead arise from wage requirements that increased the costs while lowering the availability of goods and thus the demand for labor. Certainly there's cases of disingenuous business owners, sure. But I mean seriously, there's not some pandemic of gas station owners roping employees in with a teaser wages only to readjust after the initial investment of 30 seconds training is done.
If one fish is dead, you investigate the fish. If all the fish are dead, you investigate the water.
If I was going to adopt your approach to debating I guess I would right "Gmanedit's ideal - 'Would work for food, if the minimum wage wasn't an artificial barrier to employment AND driving up the costs at my local grocer".
I don't think I believe you, Samuel. I think you're interested
in the right to suppress earning power, rather than in the rights of lower-income earners.
If you wait until all the fish are dead it's too late to investigate the water.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
You should be arrested for metaphor crime.
Other laborers suppress your earning power, not lack of minimum wage laws...as is the point of this articles, that even with the laws, excess labor pools have pulled it closer to the natural rate. Employers are breaking the law to remain profitable it would seem.
I didn't believe you when you posted this yesterday, so we're even haha.
Willing
It's questionable whether margins are "lean." That's a theory about the marvelous free market that has significant evidence against it. So all the "you would agree that . . . ." is simply restating the fundamentalist free market beliefs. Even the hacktacular Milton Friedman recently admitted that his free market mouthings were based on an erroneous assumption. But, hell, he's still rich, so he's walking proof against the free market belief that failure leads to financial loss.
The main problem is the concept of who's "willing" within a power structure. When access to the means of life is constrained by state power, you are forced to accept situations that you wouldn't accept if you in fact had choices. For that reason, even Milton Friedman supported a guaranteed income for everybody. Then workers could indeed enter willingly into relationships with employers. Otherwise, "willing" simply mystifies the very real coercion.
Why do progressive blogs
bring up Milton Friedman, ever? I mean come on, the dude worked for Reagan. Alan Greenspan was a free marketer too. Obviously these people bailed on what they had claimed to believe to only oversee massive gov expansion and bubbles. Cahmon..
I gather you understand the reasoning behind competition reducing margins, can you give me the counter reasoning to these larger margins (in regards to the industries we're discussing, not anything gov subsidized or protected of course)?
Samuel make what must be one of the most idiotic statements
The person quoted below is another example of how far US education has declined.
"If existing minimum wage laws were strictly enforced, the 15% would get added onto prices or reduce the margins to nothing" - By Samuel on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:17am
Samuel make what must be one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard in regard to business.
For the edification of those who are as ignorant as Samuel...let me help you with some very basic arithmetic.
The cost of a typical item is [1]material + [2]labor + [3]manufacturers margin + [4]transportation + [5]marketing + [7]distribution margin + [8]distribution marketing + [9]distribution transportation + [10]retail margin + [11]retail marketing = Price
Now I've missed a few steps, but as you can see Labor constitutes a very small percentage of price. So when idiots like Samuel say a 15% labor increase is a 15% price increase you know you are talking to a retard who doesn't know squat about business.
So that's the counter argument?
You take one mistake I made and that's hwy I'm wrong, none of the other reasoning is pertinent. That's embarrassing.
And you're extremely rude about it. Substitute your correction into what I said...now what is the objection?
Why not simply write "do you mean it will increase 15% if overall costs rise 15%"? Why the paragraph of derisive remarks, why not get at the actual argument?