In today’s news cycle, the word “jobs” is as ubiquitous as it is daunting. We are at a point where “jobs jobs jobs” are the primary issue for most of the American electorate. Several events have intensified the issue of high unemployment into our national dialogue; including the GOP nomination battle, Occupy Wall Street, the fall of the American Jobs Act, and the Wisconsin collective bargaining controversy. While articles can be written on each of those events alone, it is the lack of a solution to our 8.6% unemployment which deserves attention.
Work Sharing is a policy outlined by Dean Baker, an economist at the Center for Economic Policy and Research. Currently, it is the best policy proposal to curb high unemployment and ought to be implemented on a national level immediately. Work sharing in a nutshell involves reducing hours for workers during times of declining demand instead of laying them off thus keeping them employed. Funds otherwise devoted to compensating a laid off worker for the allotted 99 weeks would thus offset the reduction of hours. The work sharing policy would be a part of the already existing unemployment benefit system and would require a fraction of the total cost.
Germany has already used this policy on a national level to great success. With a 5.5% unemployment rate, employers have the incentive to decrease 20% of total work hours for everyone instead of laying off 20% of their workers. Germans who lose one day out of their workweek are given one-fifth of what their usual unemployment check would be. It has helped largely workers within the construction and manufacturing industry, the same industries hurt the most during America's economic downturn.
Although 22 states, including New York, California, and Rhode Island, in the U.S. have similar programs, they have not been updated since their founding in the 1970s and 1980s. Furthermore, limitations towards eligibility, over bureaucratization, and little knowledge of the program’s existence have contributed to the lack of significant impact work sharing has had within the U.S.
A work sharing system on a national level can be implemented better if employers are given more discretion over their own hour reduction and employee eligibility for such a program. This would involve funds being given to the employer themselves rather than the individual worker according to Baker. Questions of benefits and time restrictions would have to be addressed and are to a great extent in Baker’s proposal seen above.
Short-term effects would consist of keeping workers more employable to the extent that they would not have any gaps in their resumes. What’s more, for the long-term, when companies see increases in demand, all they have to do is increase hours instead of going through an intensive hiring process. The policy of work sharing is not only conscious of workers, but “job creators” as well.
The process of pushing such a policy on a national level should not be divided by party line to the extent that 22 states have already put similar, but weaker, polices in place. The German government, comprised of social democrats and conservatives, has had relatively little difficulty keeping their short-term work-sharing program in place. Wall Street Journal associate editor Justin Lahart has expressed his support for such a program. Kevin Hasset of the American Enterprise Institute and John McCain’s 2000 campaign chief economist has also advocated for a work sharing policy.
With policy modernizations, program commitment, and financial support, we can install a national system where it is more desirable for companies to keep their employees on the payroll instead of laying them off. If the reader is skeptical of work sharing, the author implores them to read Baker’s proposal in full, as critical details vital to program implementation are held within it.
What the U.S. does not need is sloganeering and political banter regarding changes in government policy. “Cut, cap, and balance” and “9-9-9” are not real policy proposals, they merely suggestions of them, subject to change for the political expediency of the elected official at any given time. What we need are new policies to follow in the face of new challenges. With the jobs challenge at hand right before us, work sharing is the best solution out there.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
Hmm... The way you've laid out the idea of work-sharing is quite compelling but I fear that American business, being what it is, would exploit the process in much the same manner that part-timers are exploited by being denied any of the benefits that would make their life station tolerable. Maybe a better policy would be a legislative cap on outsourcing?
The problem with work sharing is that worker costs aren't linear. Two half-timers cost much more than one full-timer. If a worker is cut to 4 days a week, do they also get 80% of health insurance coverage? Are they given only 4/5 of a locker to store their equipment? Do they receive only 4/5 of the training needed to do their job? If they're fired, do they get only 80% of the unemployment benefits?
Add to this the fact that if I have two workers, one is probably better than the other. Why should I take half of each instead of just keeping the better one?
1 Replies
http://on.wsj.com/wX72j5
Excellent assessment. Germany bounced back from the crisis relatively quickly because it had a plan in place to keep its labor market flexible. Meanwhile, companies in the US jettisoned workers by the thousands, and the high cost of full-time employees has left managers hesitant to rehire.
So much about this proposal depends on the type of work being performed. Some employees are indispensible and needed full time. Others (such as many public sector employees) could accomplish the same amount of work in fewer hours. Still others would welcome fewer hours if their benefits remained.
Using federal money to artificially increase hiring above the market clearing level only serves to obfuscate the structural issues which cause there to be such a low demand for labor that the unemployment rate would be offensive without said program.
Just what's needed, another progam telling business how they must run. Many companies have put work-sharing into place to help when one worker needs time off. It is a concept that business is aware of and is their choice to use. You use Germany as an example. Are you aware of the tax rate in Germany to cover this? When I lived in Germany, 1984-1987 and 1990-1994, Germans also received unlimited sick time, 1 week vacation every 3 years call Kur (go to a spa), maternity leave 3 months before and 12 after, min 2 wks vacation per year. Their Works Councils would make our unions green with envy.
3 Replies
1 Replies
Important development: http://reut.rs/AskhcI
1 Replies
Oh goody, another "central planning" idea from Washington.
Haven't we learned from gas rationing, welfare, DOE, war on poverty, Obamacare, or any of the host of other failed government programs. They always result in higher costs, bigger government, more bureaucracy, more corruption, and fewer benefits.
Look at Europe and their failing economies for a vision of what such a program would mean. Are we really intent on destroying our Nation?
I think work sharing is a good idea in an amicable environment. However, I think some employers like the practice of getting rid of employees they don't like even though they perform adequately - they may not like their personality or they may want to replace them with someone cheaper down the road. Economic hardship gives them good cause even if they are "at will" & don't need one. They could fear a lawsuit nonetheless or have other misgivings.
Dave,
Though the idea is interesting, there are numerous problems & situational differences between our system & laws vs. Germany & others. I read the proposal but national unemployment compensations laws must be rewritten. Collective bargaining & strike moratoriums would have to be enacted. Small business, the backbone of US recovery, couldn't stand the disruption or intrusion of more gov. The battle here is larger than passing regulations creating jobs. Enforcement would demand more bureaucracy not less. Not all jobs are similar requiring unique skills and experience that can't be shared.
Job sharing is a euphemism for part-time work. Under job sharing, a 40-hour per week position is divided 50-50 between two people. And we know what that will likely mean for their health care coverage. Currently, only 30% of US businesses offer health care coverage for part-time staff!!
1 Replies
http://lat.ms/zyCzh5
1 Replies