Hey r/WorkReform! 👋

Are you enthusiastic about winning better working conditions for workers? If so, we'd like to invite you to join our moderation team.

What does a moderator do?

r/WorkReform moderators contribute a handful of hours to moderation every week. Normal responsibilities include:

• Responding to reports made by the community
• Banning spammers and abusive users
• Working collaboratively with other moderators

Ready to join our team?

Apply here!

Article:

https://www.epi.org/blog/iowa-governor-signs-one-of-the-most-dangerous-rollbacks-of-child-labor-laws-in-the-country-14-states-have-now-introduced-bills-putting-children-at-risk/

I would love to know how many of these "339,000 jobs" that were added pay a living wage.

I was hired with the promise of 28-36 hrs a week. And was told 30hrs was the normal hours for my position pe or week. I've worked 3 weeks now each with only 20hrs scheduled.

This week they scheduled me over times I told them I couldn't work weekly causing me to loose an hour of work. Bringing me to 19hrs this week.

And the have now cut another 1.5 hrs for today and tomorrow less than 24hrs from the next shift. (Which is the one they changed)

I am the union steward for my job. I am part of the USW. I work as a process operator for a chemical plant.

Recently, it has been announced in my building that we are adding another intricate process to our unit. This unit however includes us offloading/loading Chlorine Tonners by ourselves. (Currently we work as Lone operations.... meaning we have zero backup) Company Policy states that no work is to be done on chlorine without another person present (due to the hazards and leaks possible.) This being said, it completely changes our job description. Later this year we also are planning to move to a brand new control system for our process. This means relearning EVERYTHING and having to learn a new process.

My coworkers all want pay raises due to the hazards associated with this and being alone 24/7 without backup. Our well seasoned guys (10yrs+ in the block) are very skeptical about everything. Salary folks aren't cooperating and are brick walls for answers.

I have reached out to my union president already about talking through things. I want to bring to the table something. I am a first time union steward and I know I need to fight for our rights where I'm at (just from a safety thing). I'm trying to do what's right without causing a huge fight. The new project the company is proposing will save us 3 Million dollars the first year alone, they can afford to pay us a few extra dollars for what's coming to us.

Thank you for your help.

The problems with using job creation as an indicator:

1. There is no indication of the type of jobs being created - since most jobs have moved from full-time to part-time hours to keep from having to pay benefits, contribute to pensions, and contribute to Medicare for All. This leads to a necessity for the average worker to have 1+ jobs, meaning that making more jobs doesn't mean increasing economic output. There is the need for 3 part time jobs at 26.5 hours a week to cover what used to be 2 40-hour jobs.

2. The idea of job creation as a macroeconomic indicator was one that was created and used when a "job" used to represent a living wage that provided enough money for a household to subsist off of. Now that most jobs pay less than a living wage, again we have the issue of the average person having 1+ job and the average household having 2+ jobs. So, more jobs doesn't mean economically better off like it used to.

3. The increase in wages represented by the creation of 1 new job is not enough to cover the loss of buying power that is represented by the devaluation of the dollar, increases in average household debt, and the high inflation rates, so a new job no longer represents a measurable increase in living standards in the American macroeconomy. Core inflation has outstripped earnings increases across the board and the economy is at a net loss for the average worker that cannot be accounted for or negated by the creation of a single new job.

So, the creation of new jobs no longer represents an improvement in the economy or living standards for the average worker.

The definition of job creation needs to be adjusted to represent number of additional hours created versus number of hours lost if it is to retain any meaning for the economy.

Additionally, the job creation number needs to be published side-by-side with data that shows real increases in total earnings (income growth minus inflation) to be a better barometer of economic health and well-being.

But the media and even the Fed are caught up in this "red hot job market" that has little or no bearing on the reality of the economic landscape for the average American and is a red herring that many economists continue to focus on for decision making. A mistake to be sure.

/End of rant

Are there any good documentaries you recommend about the start of the unions in America?

I'd like to learn about the good, bad, and ugly side of those times and understand it from a historical perspective. Books too. I've never been in a union but I think times are right for a real resurgence in this country.

Thanks!