Levinson
for Northeast Pennsylvania 2022 |
||
Manufacturing isn't Everything;
It's the Only Thing The $15 an Hour Minimum Wage
Labor Relations and Unions |
This web site's purpose is to
explore the viability of running for the 8th Congressional District in
Northeast Pennsylvania in the November 2022 election. No campaign
donations are currently being solicited or accepted. Manufacturing isn't Everything; It's the Only Thing The loss or absence of manufacturing capability has always been a
leading indicator of national decline. There have been no
historical exceptions.
The $15
an Hour Minimum Wage; What Would Henry Ford Do? Ford would almost certainly figure out how to pay $25 or more
an hour while reducing prices and increasing profits in the bargain.
This is not speculation; he figured out how to pay $5 a day, and later
$6 and $8 a day, when the dollars were made of silver and a dime would
buy a large loaf of bread. There was a time when one blue collar worker
could support an entire family, and own a home and automobile, on a
single income, and nothing says we cannot use Ford's proven principles
to achieve similar prosperity today. Here is Ford's $5 a day minimum
wage in perspective; the ad is from 1920.
Ford's system is much more familiar today as the Toyota production system
because the three people who knew how Ford's system really
worked--Henry and Edsel Ford, and Ford's production chief Charles
Sorensen--were incapacitated, died, and retired respectuvely during the
early 1940s. The
United States forgot Ford's principles for roughly 60 years; I
rediscovered them after I read Stuelpnagel, T. R. 1993.
"Déjà Vu: TQM Returns to Detroit and Elsewhere." (Quality Progress (September),
91-95). "One Japanese executive referred repeatedly to 'the book.' When
Ford executives asked about the book, he responded: 'It's Henry Ford's
book of course—your company's book.'" That got my interest immediately.
Then I discovered the Advanced
Book Exchange in about 2000 and ordered Ford's My Life and Work. The first few
pages were a terrific revelation, and the rest proved that the Toyota
production system did in fact originate at the Ford Motor Company
during the first quarter of the 20th century. I subsequently purchased
and read Ford's other books (Today
and Tomorrow, and Moving
Forward) as well as books about Ford; one spoke of hundred-fold
productivity improvements circa 1915. Ford left the United
States an inheritance worth tens of trillions of dollars in terms of
knowledge, and it is ours to claim whenever we want. This leads us to what I believe should be the principal issue
in the 2022 election: how do we connect
Northeast PA's workers with high-wage jobs? I believe reasonably, based on what I have seen of numerous
21st century jobs (including jobs in which subminimum-wage farm workers
bend over to pick crops) and also the actual achievement of Ford and
his contemporaries, that modern jobs should
start at upward of $20 an hour. This is not however something
that politicians can legislate, but rather something that science and
engineering achieved in the past and can easily achieve again. If the
government mandates that jobs must pay $15 an hour, the same way
Shakespeare's Jack Cade declared that seven half-penny loaves of bread
would sell for a penny, one of two things will happen:
Henry Ford, however, told us in one sentence everything that
anybody needs to know about industrial and labor relations (My Life and Work, 1922): "It ought to be the
employer's ambition, as leader, to pay better wages than any similar
line of business, and it ought to be the workman's ambition to make
this possible." The principle that changed the entire world some
time around 1908, the day the first Model T rolled off Ford's moving
assembly line, is that most jobs contain
enormous amounts of built-in waste, and removal of this waste allows
higher wages, higher profits, and lower prices simultaneously.
Frank Gilbreth proved that brick laying, as practiced for thousands of
years, wasted 64% of the mason's labor by forcing him to bend over to
pick up each brick instead of having the bricks delivered at waist
level--and, as I said above, there are photos and videos today of
poorly-paid migrant workers bending over to pick the same fruits and
vegetables that sell for inflated prices while the farm owners get
mediocre profits in the bargain. Harrington Emerson described in 1911 how the Suez Canal was
dug by women who used their hands to excavate the soil and carry it
away in baskets. It came as no surprise that the workers were given
only subsistence (they were effectively forced labor, the French corvee
or corresponding Central European robota, from which the word "robot"
came) while the canal cost $80 million rather than the budgeted $30
million. Everybody
pays for bad job design; workers get low wages, customers pay high
prices, and investors realize mediocre, if any, profits. The
next time you see somebody using a mop instead of a machine to clean a
huge floor, or bending over and/or walking to do a job, that is exactly
why his or her wages are low and the product of his work overpriced. The politicians who promise a $15 an hour minimum wage can no
more deliver on that than Jack Cade would have been able to deliver
seven half-penny loaves of bread for a penny, but industrialists can
deliver $20 an hour wages. Some, in Pennsylvania's gas drilling
industry, pay upward of $25 an hour. I believe the Federal government,
and also state departments of labor and industry, should educate all
stakeholders (Labor, Capital, and Customers) on how to make this
happen. Ford's detractors will be quick to point out the company's
labor relations problems in the late 1930s including the Battle of the
Overpass in which labor organizers were beaten up by Ford's security
force. These problems happened not because the people who were running
the company at the time used Ford's principles, but because they went
against them. Upton Sinclair's pro-labor (and United
Autoworkers-endorsed) The Flivver
King proves that the company's management went against Ford's
principles including
a no-layoff policy. "Twenty men who had
been making a certain part would see a new machine brought in and set
up, and one of them would be taught to operate it and do the work of
the twenty. The other nineteen wouldn't be fired right away—there appeared to be a
rule against that. The foreman would put them at other work, and
presently he would start to "ride" them, and the men would know exactly
what that meant."
Ford had a no-layoff rule because he knew that, the instant you lay people off when productivity improves, the workforce will not support further productivity improvements. Frederick Winslow Taylor said the same thing in Principles of Scientific Management (1911) as did Ford himself (My Life and Work). When Ford was in charge, his workers not only had no desire to unionize, they turned against their own union when it called on them to strike. "In England we did
meet the trades union question squarely in our Manchester plant. The
workmen of Manchester are mostly unionized, and the usual English union
restrictions upon output prevail. We took over a body plant in which
were a number of union carpenters. At once the union officers asked to
see our executives and arrange terms. We deal only with our own
employees and never with outside representatives, so our people refused
to see the union officials. Thereupon they called the carpenters out on
strike. The carpenters would not strike and were expelled from the
union. Then the expelled men brought suit against the union for their
share of the benefit fund. I do not know how the litigation
turned out, but that was the end of interference by trades union
officers with our operations in England." (My Life and Work, 1922)
Ford knew how to break up a union; pay the workers as much rather than as little as possible, and then the workers will look for ways to make their jobs even more productive because they know a fair share of the improvements will show up in their pay envelopes. Ford acknowledged that unions are necessary when employers look for ways to pay their people as little as possible. We got the United Mine Workers because mine bosses looked for ways to pay coal miners as little as possible and then cheat them of those wages in company stores as depicted accurately in The Molly Maguires. When the employer looks for ways to cut wages and benefits, or ship jobs offshore, while the CEO rakes in millions of dollars in salary and bonuses, the employer does not deserve the respect, trust, and loyalty of its workforce. Ford made it emphatically clear (My Life and Work) that such a CEO was unfit for his job and the best way for the company to cut expenses would be to fire that CEO for incompetence rather than lay off workers and/or ship jobs offshore. "Cutting wages is the
easiest and most slovenly way to handle the situation, not to speak of
its being an inhuman way. It is, in effect, throwing upon labour
the incompetency of the managers of the business."
I also know, however, of organizations in which the CEO or owner cut his own pay to nothing during hard times, at which point workers were willing to accept small pay cuts to keep the organization in business. Bill "at" levinson4nepa.com PRIVACY NOTICE: This
Web domain, with the exception of the blog (Wordpress, not yet set up)
does not use
cookies. If we can figure out how to disable cookies for the blog, we
will, as we do not want to collect personal information. There is an automatic
cookie deleter for Firefox (it may also be available for Chrome and
Edge)
that removes all cookies except those from domains you authorize (safe
list) to put them on your computer. |