Following the recent discussion here of critics of US foreign policy being labelled as anti-American, I saw a snippet in the Fin (subscription required) in which the Wall Street Journal (also subscription required) applied the same epithet to anyone critical of US labour market institutions and their outcomes, even extending this to former PM Bob Hawke, about as prominent a supporter of the US alliance as you could find, though, like many others, a critic of the Iraq war. The relevant quote
Even Labor leaders who have previously been strong supporters of the alliance have not hesitated to stir anti-US prejudices this time. Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke warned that making it easier for workers to negotiate wages directly either their employers would be “a move down the path to” horror of horrors “an Americanisation of labour relations
Unfortunately, my efforts to find the full piece have been unsuccessful – I assume it’s behind the paywall somewhere. I’d appreciate it it anyone could supply the full text.
I’d be interested to know, for example, whether the WSJ has extended its net to catch that notorious anti-American, John Howard, who has warned against taking the “American path” in relation to gun laws and tort litigation.
In the meantime, let me offer the hypothesis that lots of American workers share the “anti-American prejudice” that they would rather have a union on their side than enjoy the benefits of direct “negotiation” with employers. For example, this Gallup Poll reports that 38 per cent of Americans would like to see unions have more influence, as against 30 per cent who would prefer less. And I’ll guess that the WSJ itself would be happy enough to endorse Howard’s anti-Americanism, at least as far as tort law is concerned.
Update Thanks to several readers, the full column is over the fold
Australia’s Labor Reforms
November 22, 2005
From the death of that most cherished of Australian traditions — the weekend barbeque — to couples divorcing and a rise in the homicide rate, no scare story is too far-fetched for die-hard opponents of labor reform down under.
Trade unions brought hundreds of thousands onto the streets of major Australian cities last week in the biggest protests the country has seen in seven years. And their Labor Party backers were quick to warn of all manner of dire consequences if Prime Minister John Howard succeeds in reforming Australia’s outdated labor laws.
Never far below the surface, the anti-Americanism of Sydney’s left — still furious at Mr. Howard’s resolute support over Iraq — is back with a vengeance in this latest battle. Even Labor leaders who had previously been strong supporters of the alliance have not hesitated to stir anti-U.S. prejudices this time. Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke warned that making it easier for workers to negotiate wages directly with their employers would be a “move down the path to” — horror of horror — “an Americanization of labor relations.”
Such rhetoric belies the modest nature of the Howard government’s proposals. Even if its Work Choices Bill is enacted, all Australian workers will continue to enjoy generous labor protection — including an A$12.75 (US$9.30) minimum hourly wage, four weeks annual holiday, and a year’s unpaid leave for new parents.
What will change is a belated recognition that labor union protections, aside from infringing on human liberties, are obsolete in today’s Australia. Two decades of economic reform (much of it initiated under Mr. Hawke’s leadership) has produced a entrepreneurial economy where one in ten are self-employed and union membership has fallen to less than a quarter of the workforce.
You wouldn’t know that from Australia’s labor laws, which still ban employers from negotiating directly with their employees, unless they match the wages and conditions set by state-run arbitration bodies for workers in that industry across Australia as a whole. Remove that restriction, as the Howard government is finally proposing to do, and you remove one of the main reasons stopping union membership from plummeting even faster. Other reforms would further reduce union power by insisting that strike votes or other industrial action require secret ballots, and simplifying the maze of more than 100 laws currently governing industrial relations.
Hence the scare stories, and the ferocity of the counter-offensive by the union movement and its Labor allies. They represent an Australia of old battling for its political survival. Having already been dealt a blow by Mr. Howard’s reelection with an increased majority last year, and a swing in his favor among the blue-collar workers who were once Labor’s staunchest supporters, they know how much is at stake.
For all last week’s street protests, the chances are they will fail again. The Howard government’s parliamentary majority all but ensures the bill will be enacted. And modern Australia has shown through its voting habits, and changing employment patterns, an understanding of how true job security comes not through restrictive labor laws, but from a flexible labor market that helps fuel continued economic growth.
Devastating though it may prove to union membership, the bill is only a first step in this direction. As Mr. Howard said recently, “In a year’s time, people will look back and say why on earth did people try and exaggerate and scare us.”
John Quiggin 
Avaroo,
Do you have data on the time profiles of people on minumum wages in the US?
Ernestine,
1) what are you babbling about?
2) they said they couldn’t gt jobs, period. Do you not believe them?
3) what muslim factor?
Ernestine,
my answer to your original question is conditional on the information you had provided me in the original question. I have not received new information regarding the original question hence my answer to the original question remains unchanged.
(Quote) if waiters and waitresses in the US cannot provide basic living conditions for themselves, why don’t we see more of them living on the streets? Or starving on the streets? (End quote)
Because they take substandard accommodation that is inconsistent with good health, a decent life expectancy and raising children. Such as “trailer parks”, “homeless shelters” and motel rooms. As you will note, motel rooms aren’t economical, but if you can’t raise the rent in advance you can’t rent a house or apartment.
(Quote)To my knowledge, no one is forced to work at WalMart(end quote)
This is meaningless – Walmart employees who lack the skills to work in better jobs and the money to acquire those skills would have the “choice” to work somewhere like KFC or a cleaning company – it’s buckley’s choice.
(Quote)and again, where are the homeless WalMart employees? (Quote) And again, in substandard accommodation
(Quote)As the nineties progressed, the lack of affordable housing emerged as a critical gap in service to the working poor. Families ready to leave the Shelter weren’t able to find low-income apartments; thus prolonging their stay and limiting access to other families needing shelter. In 1999, to address the lack of low-income housing, the Shelter expanded our mission to include the development of affordable housing for working poor families.
(End quote) From: http://homelesssolutions.org/aboutus.html
I can’t find any “hard” (non-anecdotal) data for how many actually freeze on the streets, which, given the US climate, is what they do before they starve, so we’ll just say no one does, ‘k.
Terje,
“I am aware that minimum wage laws might displace jobs to other countries”
Not likely. At least not minimum wage laws in the US. Most minimum wage workers in the US are in service industries, things like cleaning services, retail, things that you cannot export.
Helen,
Can you show that most WalMart employees live in hotels, homeless shelters and trailer parks? I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge it if you can prove it. But I’ll need more than your word for it, ‘k?
“This is meaningless – Wal-Mart employees who lack the skills to work in better jobs and the money to acquire those skills would have the “choice” to work somwhere like KFC”
Do people who lack the skills to work in better jobs rountinely get such better jobs in other countries? Are European McDonald’s employees all pHD’s?
Helen, if you can show that most waitresses and waiters live in hotels, homeless shelters and trailer parks, that would work to make your case too.
avaroo,
Perhaps this study should be thrown into the mix – http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17365987-2,00.html?from=rss – this gem comes from it: “Less than a fifth of low-income earners are in the poorest 20per cent of households where weekly income is $226 or less”. This means that the minimum wage is a less than effective way of helping the working poor.
It is always better to get over the rhetoric and actually look at what is happening.
While Helen searches for documentation to prove her claim that US waiters and waitresses live in homeless shelters, hotels and trailer parks, here a case of Wal-Mart taking someone out of homelessness.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_16_05_JS.html
My point isn’t that Wal-Mart is a perfect company, no company is perfect. But every nation has low wage retail jobs. Let’s not lose our heads like Helen did above unfortunately and make wild claims about hotels and trailer parks.
Avaroo: They told EVERYONE that, Ian.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5138990&fsrc=RSS
If even de Villepin can admit, why can’ you?
As it happens I’d already read the article in question.
I quote: “This rapid domino effect reflects two broader failings and two policy problems. First, the mass unemployment that persists in a welfare system supposedly glued together by “social solidarityâ€?. Second, the ethnic ghettos that have formed in a country that prides itself on colour-blind equality.”
This after a paragraph in which they cite the two incidents which were the proximate cause of the ritos: two African teens killed while evading thep olice and a police tear-gas canister accidentally fired into a mosque.
Later in the article two young man from a banliue (note necessarily a rioter) gives his view of the causes of the riot:
“It’s Sarkozy’s fault,� says one. The police harass anybody “with the wrong skin colour,� adds another. Further down the road, at the mosque, a young man mopping the steps agrees: “The police don’t leave us alone,� he says. “They stop you for no reason.�
Unemployment wascertainly part of the cause for the riots.
If it were the only cause, we would be seeing similar riots in Madrid, Rome and Berlin. We aren’t.
We did however see similar riots in Sydney on two separate occasiosn in the last year or so – in Redfern and in Macquarie Fields. The Australian unemployment rate is roughly half that of France.
Thank you for the link, Andrew. I agree, a high minimum wage is a less than effective way of helping the working poor as it keeps them from being hired.
Ian, yes unemployment was certainly a cause. It was the cause of the long simmering anger in the community, with the death of the teenagers being the spark. Unemployment is around 40% in the banlieu. The same conditions, basically ghettos run by non-national authorities, with 40% unemployment, do not exist in Madrid, Rome and Berlin.
Source: avaroo Says:
November 28th, 2005 at 8:15 am
Quote: Helen, of course minimum wage jobs are designed for specific purposes. Most people who hold them are not in them forever, they are entry level jobs
Response: Avaroo, I had asked you for data to support your statement, which I have copied above. Just to be clear, this is your statement, not someone else’s.
Relevant data would be statistical data on the time profile of people on the minimum wage in the US.
Do you have such data?
Do you know any alternative answers beside
a) Yes
b) No
c) Yes but I won’t tell you
Helen, Thanks for your post.
“Ian, yes unemployment was certainly a cause.”
Please don’t make me go through the whole “a” versus “the” distinction again.
Ian, if this is an accurate account of the Redfern riot, I see no mention of 40% unemployment as in France’s case.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/572/572p11.htm
Ernestine,
d) As you put it above to another poster, “I believe the onus is on you to get the data, if you want to have it.”
Ian, if this is an accurate accounting of the Macquarie riots, it appears that unemployment WAS an issue, according to those who live in the area.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/macf-m07.shtml
Avaroo – thank you for confirming my point which is that UNEMPLOYMENT IS NOT A NECESSARY PRECONDITION FOR RIOTS OF THIS SORT.
Remember YOU were the one saying unemployment was the root cause. I was the one saying it was one of several contributing factors.
Would you like me to go through the “you” “not you” distinction? How about “3 is more than 1”?
The Redfern riots were sparked by the death of a young Aboriginal man who thought he was being pursued by the police. The riots in Macquarie Fields occurred aftertwo young men in a stolen car were killed in a crash while evading police.
You might also want to look at the various reprots into scoccer hooliganism in England which foudn the majority of those involved were actually employed – with a signifcant number in well-paying skilled or semi-skilled trades.
Ian,
but we both agree, there was no one cause. Making “the” irrelevant.
Ian, in the case of the French riots, unemployment was clearly a precondition for the riots. Why discount what the rioters themselves said?
I posted information on the Macquarie Fields riots in which locals did blame unemployment for some of the anger.
Soccer hooliganism is largely underwritten by alcohol abuse. Not something that was likely in the French case as most muslims eschew alcohol.
>Why discount what the rioters themselves said?
Because the only article you’ve linked to support your claims that they did say that has them saying the exact opposite?
It’s worth noting that even the French government recognizes unemployment in the banlieu as a critical issue that must be addressed to prevent more violence.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051121/ap_on_re_eu/france_rioting
ah, the article I linked has the rioters saying that unemployment is not a factor? Really? Where?
Here’s the first article I linked
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5138990&fsrc=RSS
I cannot find anywhere in here where anyone says that unemployment is not a cause. In fact, even de Villepin acknowledges that it is.
And here is the second article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4416454.stm
Again, no denial on the rioters part of the underlying unemployment as a source of the anger.
“I cannot find anywhere in here where anyone says that unemployment is not a cause. In fact, even de Villepin acknowledges that it is.”
Work with me here – most three year-olds have grasped this.
You said unemployment was THE cause and you claimed that RIOTERS had said so.
Then you linked to an article in which people who were NOT rioters said it was ONE OF the causes.
Further more, the people quoted in the article who come closest to the typical description of rioters mention other causes but DON’T mention unemployment.
You then attempt to claim that because they didn’t say it WASN’T the cause, then this proves it was THE cause.
I notice they also didn’t say anything about how the International Zionist Conspiracy and Venusain mind-control lasers weren’t the cause.
Let’s recap:
1. Riots similar to those in Paris occur in cities with much lower levels of unemployment.
2. Cities with similar levels of unemployment to those in Paris don;t experience riots.
Therefore high levels of unemployment are neither necessary nor sufficient as a cause for the riots.
Which doesn’t preclude them from being A contributing cause.
Avaroo,
In the absence of getting information from you on your up-ward mobility claim regarding minimum wage earners, the following web-site shows there is a problem with income distribution in the US:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
I assume you trust the US CIA
I assume the French act in a manner, which happens to coincide with your advice given to Australians, namely:
Source: “avaroo Says:
November 28th, 2005 at 6:58 am
Quote: Andrew, although I appreciate your post, I still have no idea why anyone in Australia would care what the US does when discussing Australia’s labor situation. Shouldn’t Australian politicians and businesspeople be discussing Australia, rather than the US? It wouldn’t occur to Americans to consider what Australians do about labor laws.
Since you brought them up, the US has both public and private healthcare, school vouchers are rare and only in places where they have been voted in by the public (which I assume you think is an acceptable way of deciding these things) and minimum wage jobs in the US unlike other places, are not designed for lifetime employment, nor are they usually held for life. The minimum wage issue perfectly illustrates my point that Australian pols and public shouldn’t look at the US when deciding what to do in Australia” End of Quote
Have a good day
“You said unemployment was THE cause”
Where? I can find six places where I said it was a cause but not one instance where I used the word “THE”. Perhaps one of those three year olds can find it for you.
Yes, let’s recap”.
Riots happen in other cities. Sometimes they are underwritten by high unemployment and sometimes they are not. In France’s case, they were.
Rioters in France cited unemployment as a cause of their distress.
French authorities admit that unemployment was a cause of the French riots.
Unemployment in the banlieu is 40%. What city with similar levels of unemployment did you have in mind?
Strange remark from avaroo, in which Helen’s description of Barbara Ehrenlich’s detailed book about the working poor is turned into her claiming that “most” Walmart employees fit this category.
She doesn’t say that at all. She points to a group of people who can’t survive on the wages. It is all a bit like the famous Harvester case in Australia, which has finally been dismantled after a century, which said that the basic wage should be such that a man should be able to support his wife and two children in (if I remember) “frugal comfort”.
If a basic wage can’t allow a single human being to pay for themselves, then it is too low. Of course the apparent social effect is ameliorated by the fact that many people are sustained by their families, are topping up parental contributions to education costs, adding to their partner’s income or supported by food stamps or charities.
When we talk about the working poor, perhaps we should remember that American marines with families are apparently issued with food stamps, or a substituting food allowance. (The program is described here).
Ernestine,
As I assume that you consider anything less than 100% equitable income distribution a “problem”, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I agree with you that the French don’t consider US labor laws when looking at their own. But the US does consider the American people when looking at our own labor laws and the French should too, something I believe they’ll be doing more of in the very near future. At least if de Villepin is to be believed.
Enjoy
Helen does say
“Their wages can’t even buy what we would define as basic living conditions”
Who do you think she was talking about?
“If there are plenty of minimum wage jobs in France why were people rioting and claiming there weren’t any? Were they lying?”
“you no doubt know very well why the French youths were rioting…..no jobs. They were pretty clear about it.”
In both of the above quotes Avaroo you attempt to reduce the causes of the riots to uneployment.
“Rioters in France cited unemployment as a cause of their distress.”
Actually as I’ve repeatedly pointed out to you, you have failed completely to rprodcue any news articles which actually quotes rioters as saying anything of the sort.
“American marines with familes are apparently issued with food stamps”
How bout a little honesty, davidtilley?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/july99/military20.htm
“Since 1982, military salaries have fallen nearly 14 percent behind civilian pay, according to federal figures. After pleas from military supporters, Congress has tentatively approved a 4.8 percent pay raise, scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, and many service members will receive a second raise six months later.”
AFTER PLEAS FROM MILITARY SUPPORTERS. Can we assume you would be for increasing their pay as the US military would like to do?
“Pentagon officials acknowledge that some service members face severe hardships, not only in the Washington area but also in other parts of the country. But they insist that such cases do not reflect conditions for the vast majority of troops, and they point to statistics showing that junior enlisted service members earn more than the general population of high school-educated 18- to 23-year-olds. ”
“In addition, members of the armed forces receive some benefits, such as medical care, at a fraction of the cost for most civilians. Commissaries offer items that are 30 percent cheaper than at civilian stores, according to Pentagon figures. Service members also do not pay federal taxes on their food and housing allowances. ”
“A recent Pentagon study found that, overall, only 450 of the 1.4 million members of the armed forces were living at or below the national poverty level, which is $13,332 for a family of three. “
Ian, is that your admission that I did not use the term “THE” but did several times use the term “A”?
Avaroo,
You only started using “a” after I used the “a”/”the” analogy.
Still waiting for those quotes from rioters.
Ian, check out what Mohamed has to say here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4463862.stm
and Sadek has to say here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4399748.stm
and what Rachid says here
http://www.countercurrents.org/fra-wolfreys181105.htm
Then you admit I did not use “THE”. Excellent.
Avaroo says:
1. “As I assume that you consider anything less than 100% equitable income distribution a “problemâ€?, we’ll have to agree to disagree.”
Response: I appreciate that it is difficult for some people to handle anything between 0 and 1. There is nothing I can do about it. So, let me ask you:
Question: Do you, Avaroo, consider it a problem that there are 12% of the population living under the proverty line in the US, as reported in the CIA statistics on the U.S. economy in the year 2005, which I posted?
(It would be tempting to start a sweep stake on the likelihood of getting a straight answer from Avaroo but I won’t because it is too much work.)
2. “I agree with you that the French don’t consider US labor laws when looking at their own. But the US does consider the American people when looking at our own labor laws and the French should too, something I believe they’ll be doing more of in the very near future. At least if de Villepin is to be believed.”
Response: Quite right, most countries solve their own problems irrespective of your advice.
Well done, Avaroo, you actually managed to find articles which support the view that unemployment is a cause of the riots.
Had you bothered to do so in the first place rather than posting articles that said nothing of the sort and falsely claiming that they did, think of all the time you could have saved.
Yes, but doing it this way, I was able to back you into a couple of corners. And that was certainly worth the effort.
Ernestine, ernestine, you poor thing. How do you get around without assistance?
1) What you claimed, dearest, was that there was an income distribution problem in the US. If there’s a country on earth in which all citizens enjoy the same income, why not just say so and make your case? Short of that, you’ll have to argue that there is, in your own view, an income distribution problem everywhere.
2) Most countries consider their own populations when solving problems like unemployment. France will now be joining us. I’m sure that is very satisfying to you. Unless you have a problem with France listening to the advice of her own citizens?
I was just wondering if anyone else would like to admit that they hadn’t seen reports of rioters in France blaming unemployment for some part of their misery, prior to my posting of some of them here? Or is Ian alone here?
Avaroo,
1. Source: avaroo Says:
November 28th, 2005 at 8:15 am
Quote: Helen, of course minimum wage jobs are designed for specific purposes. Most people who hold them are not in them forever, they are entry level jobs
You haven’t provided any evidence in support of your upward-mobility dream hypothesis.
2. “A recent Pentagon study found that, overall, only 450 of the 1.4 million members of the armed forces were living at or below the national poverty level, which is $13,332 for a family of three. ” Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/july99/military20.htm, posted by Avaroo today.
3. According to the 2005 CIA report on the US economy, 12% of the population live under the poverty line as defined in the US.
4. I conclude that the US government is aware of an income distribution problem in the US but you dont’ know about this.
Helen,
I am not sure whether the content of your post addressed to me is cleared up by now or not. In any case, I didn’t wish to offend you.
Regards
Ernestine
Ernestine,
1) “I believe the onus is on you to get the data, if you want to have it”
2) yes, do you have a point?
3) yes, do you have a point or have you found that place of no income inequality yet?
4) Anyone even vaguely familiar with the US government or Americans for that matter, would know that “income distribution” is not a concept that keeps Americans up in arms. We’re an opportunity society, quite different from an income redistribution society. Americans would never see poverty issues in terms of what someone with more isn’t giving someone with less. Income redistribution doesn’t address poverty. France is the obvious recent example. Your unfamiliarity with the US is quite breathtaking. It would be quite difficult with all that’s written about the US to NOT know this about us.
Fantastic pro-american article at http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB113296592953507051-lMyQjAxMDE1MzIyNzkyNjc1Wj.html,
Let me quote:
“We are winning, and winning decisively, in Iraq and the Middle East. We defeated Saddam Hussein’s army in just a few weeks. None of the disasters that many feared would follow our invasion occurred. Our troops did not have to fight door to door to take Baghdad. The Iraqi oil fields were not set on fire. There was no civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. There was no grave humanitarian crisis.
Saddam Hussein was captured and is awaiting trial. His two murderous sons are dead. Most of the leading members of Saddam’s regime have been captured or killed. After our easy military victory, we found ourselves inadequately prepared to defeat the terrorist insurgents, but now we are prevailing.
Iraq has held free elections in which millions of people voted. A new, democratic constitution has been adopted that contains an extensive bill of rights. Discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, or politics is banned. Soon the Iraqis will be electing their first parliament.
An independent judiciary exists, almost all public schools are open, every hospital is functioning, and oil sales have increased sharply. In most parts of the country, people move about freely and safely.”
God bless America!
Avaroo,
1. I don’t need the data. I just discard your upwardly-mobile dream hypothesis.
As for the rest, I rely on the intelligence of the readers of this thread.
Ernestine
1) then why ask for it? You can discard whatever you’d like. It’s not like it changes anything.
Me too, except for poor Ian, who congratulated me for finding what it’s hard not to find. I really, really should’ve told him that it would be harder to find articles that DON’T list unemployment as a cause of the French riots than ones that do. Guess I’m just not that magnanimous!
It really is a shame that like Ernestine outside the US, millions of people who arrive in the US have had to discard the “dream” of upward mobility. Wave after wave of immigrants remain where they started in the US, the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the chinese, the blacks, all at the very bottom rungs of American society while white Americans of English extraction continue to reap alone all the bennies of American life. (Don’t tell Oprah please, I adore her, she’d be crushed!)
Yes, it was all a cruel hoax, intended to lure millions of people from around he globe here with the promise of a better life. You can see these sad victims lining up to depart the US, dejected and broke, still searching for that land of opportunity. They’ll go back where they came from, poorer yet wiser, until the world awakens to this scam Americans have been perpetrating on people for generations.
Avaroo,
You are not America – in case it may not be obvious to you. People are not as silly as you may assume. In particular, the demonstration of how a ‘spin’ is being done might have been of interest 10 years ago. It is an old hat by now.
It seems to me, the only people who believe spins are those who pay for them.
I strongly object to you putting my name into your spin. I demand that you remove my name from your spin, step by step.
.