Labor Day calls attention to the concern that many are worried that increasing automation within the workplace will further accelerate the already-unacceptable level of job loss.  As is clearly evident, the  growing gap between the dividend-clipping wealthy and those who make their living with real, salaried jobs is huge and still growing, exacerbating the wealth divide. To be really meaningful, the UU Principle of valuing and respecting all people equally requires that we also focus on the dynamics of the job environment.

At present, we have embraced the concept that full-time work involves a 40hour/week and 5 days/week.  But that isn’t sacrosanct – in the not so distant past the standard workweek was 50 hours and more.

Why can’t we think of the new workweek as, say, 35 hours per week (meaning that a full-time person worker would put in 35 hours and receive a full paycheck)?

Business views labor as just another cost of doing business.  If it can make an investment (say, in automation) that will be cheaper than the cost of labor, then that’s the way to go, no question.  In the past, until the early 1980’s,  labor was accepted (somewhat reluctantly) by management as a partner.  As such, it shared in the profits.

That has obviously changed.  To the corporation, the only thing that counts is profit.  If that profit can be increased by more automation (and less labor), then that’s the logical way to go.

If it makes business sense to lay off workers, or cut back their pay, that usually happens.  Yes, that does cause disruption to the affected workers and the larger community.  But this disruption, this “cost,” doesn’t show up on the corporation financials.  So it’s ignored.

That might seem to make sense, at first.

But what about other externals (costs to society resulting from internal corporate decisions)?  Let’s take, for example, pollution.  If the anti-pollution rules didn’t exist, the corporation could save money and hence, increase profits.  So why isn’t the corporation free to pollute?  Because as a matter of public policy, air and water pollution are deemed an unacceptable cost to society in general.  Thus corporations can’t take the cheaper way out.  Regulations and fines make sure of that.

Why is labor so different?  When a person is laid off, that harms not just that person, but the community as a whole.  Why should the corporation be able to ignore those costs when regulations prevent it from ignoring the costs of pollution?

What we need is a new perspective.

We are conditioned to think that an automated machine which  reduces the need for certain labor is something that the corporation will want, and labor will not.

Why not think of job automation as a benefit to workers?  If a machine can do the work of three laborers, instead of just thinking that we should therefore kiss those three laborers goodbye, why can’t we think of such a machine as making everyone’s job more efficient?

If we start with ten workers and add automation that can do the work of three workers, why not consider that we now have the capability of thirteen workers and increase production to that level (instead of staying at the 10 person-equivalent level)?  Or, alternatively, why can’t we see this as an opportunity to give everyone full pay for a thirty hour week (versus the previous 40 hour one)?

Well, the answer is that we only look at the costs internal to the corporation, then we let the people go.  But if we reflect the costs of unemployment back to the corporation (the way we do with the costs of pollution) then the decision criteria change.

It’s certainly true that introducing automation into a workplace will likely change the nature of labor’s role.  Maybe they will need to become more skilled at operating and maintaining the automated equipment.  Let’s say that we started with 10 workers who made $100 per week each doing the job directly.  let’s further say that with the new automation, it can do the job of three of them at $150 per week.  However, we now need some of the workers to become more skilled (to operate and maintain the new equipment).

Business has collectively taken the view that it’s important to keep labor costs down (in terms of wages per worker and in terms of numbers of workers).

Why should business management have a say and labor not?  Labor is not a simple “input” cost, and the sooner we accept that, the better off all of us will be.