June 17, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:That slow slide . . .
Henry Farrell takes The Economist to task:
The Economist really should have gone elsewhere for this week’s Horatio Alger story about undocumented immigrants making good in the American economy.Consider Alberto Queiroz, who crept across the border 12 years ago. . . picked blueberries for $5 a box. . . this job lasted only two months . . . So he sought more stable employment, which he eventually found at America’s largest hog slaughterhouse. Smithfield Foods’ plant at Tar Heel, North Carolina, turns some 32,000 pigs a day into hams and loins. Thanks to selective breeding and efficient, hygienic processing, American meat has grown steadily leaner, cheaper and safer, says Joe Luter, Smithfield's chairman. . . . Human Rights Watch, a watchdog from New York, issued a report in 2004 . . . Slaughterhouses are harsh and dangerous places to work, said the report, and illegal immigrants, who form a large chunk of the workforce, find it hard to defy abusive employers. Mr Queiroz takes a more benign view. Yes, the work is hard. The line goes fast and you have to keep cutting till your hands are exhausted. And yes, it is sometimes dangerous. He says he once saw a co-worker lose a leg when he ducked under the disassembly line instead of walking round it. But many occupations are risky. Taxi-drivers are 34 times more likely to die on the job than meatpackers. Mr Queiroz does not think Smithfield was a bad employer. Wages of more than $10 an hour enabled him to buy a house back in Mexico.Bob Herbert, spirited across the Times Select paywall by Jordan Barab, has a rather different tale to tell about the same plant. . . .None of this gets any mention at all in the Economist, natch. Feelgood stories about illegal immigrants coming through blood (quite literally in this case), sweat and tears to eventual success, don't generate quite the same glow about the American can-do economy when you know that their employer threatened to get 'em thrown out of the country if they voted to unionize. Note also the sly way in which the Economist minimizes meatpacking firms’ responsibility for workplace safety by peddling an anecdote which lays the blame for a serious accident on a careless worker rather than Smithfield Foods. The Economist is continuing (and perhaps even accelerating) its downward trend.
Note that The Economist, whose reporters extensively research and fact check their claims, is automatically full of [expletive deleted]. A New York TImes columnist who turns in 700 words twice a week consisting, in this case, apparently largely of reprinting the press releases of the Smithfield plant union organisers, is an unimpeachable source. Opinion columnists: reliable fonts of disimpassioned analysis. Reporters who spend weeks working on a story: partisan hacks.
This is not to slam opinion columnists, who I often enjoy. But having written reported stories, and opinion columns, I know that the standards for the latter are a tad more loose. No one ever challenges an opinion columnist to be balanced, fair, or even defend his facts, unless they're of the "The Holocaust never happened!" variety. Reported pieces, on the other hand, get checked down to the spelling of the names, and then gleefully interrogated by editors and other reporters who disagree with you. When I see an opinion piece, I know that all the inconvenient facts have been left out so they won't annoy the reader. When I read a reported piece, for all the complaining about the MSM in the blogosphere, I know that the editors and the writer are at least nominally interested in the truth, not the conclusion--at least provided that they work at a mainstream paper, and not one of the money-losing political mags where the editors have to keep the donors happy.
Not that Mr Farrell's readers seem particularly interested in facts or truth. Much of the comments section consists of readers rather hilariously assuring each other that one of the statistics from The Economist's story is right-wing horse puckey that cab drivers are 34 times more likely to be killed on the job than meat packers. I don't know where that particular stat comes from, if they'd spent a little less time working themselves up into a fine lather of pompous indignation, and a little more time actually, y'know, trying to find out the truth, they would have discovered that the Bureau of Labor Statistics lists taxi driver as one of its most dangerous occupations in its Census of Occupational Fatalities, and that the most recent data shows that our nation's 500K+ meatpackers experienced roughly 20 deaths per year on the job, while the roughly 60K cab drivers had an average of 60 occupational deaths per year, putting the disputed figure in the right ball-park.
Reality-based community. Tee-hee!
Posted by Jane Galt at June 17, 2006 8:54 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksIt's sort of amusing that taxi drivers are used as the counterexample in an article on immigration, given that taxi driving, just like meatpacking, is a heavily immigrant occupation.
Mother Jones - The Chain never stops.
Here is a nice article about the meat packing industry and how well they treat their employees.
Safety and Health Guide for the Meatpacking Industry
The meatpacking industry (Standard Industrial Classification 2011) , which employs over 1000,000 workers, is considered to be one of the most hazardous industries in the United States. according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 1 this industry has had the highest injury rate of any industry in the country for five consecutive years (1980-1985) with a rate three times that of other manufacturing industries.
BLS studies have also shown that for 1985, 319 workers were injured during the first month of employment in the industry. Of those workers, 29 percent were cut by knives or machinery and 30 percent received sprains and strains. In addition, more than 30 percent of all injuries occurred to workers 25 years of age or younger. Younger new workers are at the highest occupational risk and suffer a significant proportion of all injuries.
Every thing that I can find thru Google leads me to believe that the Meat Packing Industry is one of the most dangerous places to work in.
While the BLS stats mentioned by OSHA are horrible and from the 1980 to 1985, I have no doubt that thanks to people of your ideological bent that they are worse today than they were twenty years ago.
What's so great about unionizing? Unions are like Spanish moss on a tree---real pretty and picturesque to look at, but it'll eventually kill the tree. The unions will probably eventually kill the Big Three automakers, mostly because they pushed and pushed and pushed for huge benefits back before the Big Three had real competition from overseas, and now they can't give ground without looking useless.
Not that you can't find better opinions in articles and sometimes more facts in editorials.
Looks like you own this attitude, didn't hot-wire it. 'Give 'em hell, Harry' (the old phrases don't come in proper gender varieties).
"I have no doubt that thanks to people of your ideological bent that they are worse today than they were twenty years ago."
Reality-based community indeed. He doesn't have the facts, but he has no doubt of what they would show if he did.
Anyone who doesn't think that being a cab driver isn't a dangerous occupation needs to spend three months with a taxi strapped to their backs. I did just that for over two years and consider myself lucky that I experienced a single assault and one sole accident. (The accident was getting hit by a DUI on Mother's Day morning... You can imagine the phone call that came after that one.) And the immigrant drivers are just as stressed out as the native-born drivers, and for the most part have had the same experiences.
So those commenters are full of crap. Should they come to Denver, I'll get them into a cab.
Initial prediction is that most of them wouldn't last a week. If they even make it out of the parking lot.
Reality-based community indeed. He doesn't have the facts, but he has no doubt of what they would show if he did.
The facts are relatively straightforward and simple.
Once upon a time the Meatpacking industry was unionized, the wages were solidly middle class and the working conditions were safer. The industry was deunionized, the wages went down and the working conditions became far more dangerous.
Don Quijote - Thanks for packing your thought provoking comment with loads of facts. Of course wages went down after the industry de-unionized - unions extort higher than market wages.
As far as your assertion about safety the plants have become safer since they became non-union. Wow that was easy making bold statements without having to get information to back up my claims.
Actually, it would suprise me if injuries increased after unions were kicked out. A commenter above noted that injuries disproportionally effected new, inexperienced workers. Unions tend to make it harder for young workers to get hired so the leading cause for accidents would have been absent from the plants.
Actually, it would suprise me if injuries increased after unions were kicked out. A commenter above noted that injuries disproportionally effected new, inexperienced workers. Unions tend to make it harder for young workers to get hired so the leading cause for accidents would have been absent from the plants.
Did you even bother to read The chain never stops? So I'll just highlight a few of the author's observation.
In 1999, more than one-quarter of America's nearly 150,000 meatpacking workers suffered a job-related injury or illness. The meatpacking industry not only has the highest injury rate, but also has by far the highest rate of serious injury�more than five times the national average, as measured in lost workdays. If you accept the official figures, about 40,000 meatpacking workers are injured on the job every year. But the actual number is most likely higher. The meatpacking industry has a well-documented history of discouraging injury reports, falsifying injury data, and putting injured workers back on the job quickly to minimize the reporting of lost workdays.
Thirty years ago, meatpacking was one of the highest-paid industrial jobs in the United States, with one of the lowest turnover rates. In the decades that followed the 1906 publication of The Jungle, labor unions had slowly gained power in the industry, winning their members good benefits, decent working conditions, and a voice in the workplace. Meatpacking jobs were dangerous and unpleasant, but provided enough income for a solid, middle-class life. There were sometimes waiting lists for these jobs. And then, starting in the early 1960s, a company called Iowa Beef Packers (IBP) began to revolutionize the industry, opening plants in rural areas far from union strongholds, recruiting immigrant workers from Mexico, introducing a new division of labor that eliminated the need for skilled butchers, and ruthlessly battling unions. By the late 1970s, meatpacking companies that wanted to compete with IBP had to adopt its business methods�or go out of business. Wages in the meatpacking industry soon fell by as much as 50 percent. Today meatpacking is one of the nation's lowest-paid industrial jobs, with one of the highest turnover rates. The typical plant now hires an entirely new workforce every year or so.
unions extort higher than market wages
Even granting the premise, does not importing a vast illegal work force extort lower than market wages?
Even granting the premise, does not importing a vast illegal work force extort lower than market wages?
Why no. In these parts, downward pressure on wages are the market deciding. Upward trends are communism.
Glad I could help.
Trostky:
I'm not sure you know what "extort" means.
Did you even bother to read The chain never stops?
Of course not. The underlying theme of this post is that you can predict position in writing on a specific topic from the publication's overall position. I am familiar with the overall position of Mother Jones.
By the way, one consequence of the more reasonable labor cost in the meat packing industry is more reasonable pricing for meat. I was able to serve entire boneless breasts of chicken to each of my guests tonite because I bought them, individually flash frozen, for a third the price per pound that I was paying for them frozen in a lump ten years ago. A classic example of that old goal of the greater good for the greater number.
Trostky:
I'm not sure you know what "extort" means.
Perhaps you two could start a club then.
This is annoying. I consider myself libertarian. And yet other people who call themselves that don't seem to welcome market choice.
Well, I normally end up finding myself at odds with other people that call themselves that, and indeed, that seems to be a primary reason why we can't agree or organize.
That doesn't make it less funny.
Of course not. The underlying theme of this post is that you can predict position in writing on a specific topic from the publication's overall position. I am familiar with the overall position of Mother Jones.
I'm sorry for posting twice.
So, wait. Your assertion is that is doesn't matter that you don't look at data collected on "the other side", 'cause you know what they say, and you assert this in a converation about fact and authority. But hey, we don't care about that when the Democratic leaderishship is still dumb, right? Am I right? Who's with me. Beer Bong?
so the Economist has extensively researched and fact-checked the claim that one Mr. Queiroz takes "a more benign view" of the working conditions in the meat packing industry than Human Rights Watch - that's certainly some impressive reporting
also impressive is the reasoning that unless the fatality rate in the meat packing industry rises 34 fold, there's really no reason for concern
Don Quijote - My post should have read "It wouldn't suprise me" that injuries increased. If you read the rest of the post I think that should have been clear.
@trotsky - When people enter into voluntary relationships its not extortion.
@novakant - Did anyone say that there isn't cause for concern? Meatpacking is inherently damgerous (get people around sharp objects long enough someone is going to get hurt) 40 overall deaths per year in light of this fact is probabably a reasonable number. Perhaps not acceptable, but certainly reasonable.
yeah and you're conveniently forgetting the fortythousand work-related injuries cited above
also, "perhaps not acceptable, but certainly reasonable" makes no sense whatsoever
give me a shout when the Economist or TCS run long articles about awful working conditions around the world (and there's no shortage), then I'll take your talk of concern seriously
Not being able to understand the distinction between "reasonable" and "acceptable" pretty neatly sums up the basic problem with the left in America, I must say.
I worked for a meat packer years ago. The parent company finally shut down the location after the union workers found they could beat up supervisors, with no adverse consequences, just by claiming the supervisor made a sotto voce ethnic slur in their direction while admonishing them about some work rule violation.
Novakant - How am I forgetting the 40,000 injuries? In an industry that employs hundreds of thousands of workers and a statistic that includes minor cuts and stubbed toes with a regulatory environment that creates incentives to report every scrape and bruise I don't think those numbers are particularly troubling.
Not at all ironic is that directly to the right of your blog entry disparaging The Economist is an ad suggesting I buy my father a subscription to The Economist.
yeah and you're conveniently forgetting the fortythousand work-related injuries cited above
Probably because it?s a misleading factoid as many of the ?work-related injuries? are for things like carpal tunnel syndrome and other ergonomic-related injuries that were probably not counted as ?work-related injuries? back when meat-packing was union-controlled. In which case, it?s comparing apples to oranges.
Is there any way to get a breakdown of those 40,000 injuries? I know that in the electronics factory where I work, we break them out into such items as repetitive stress injury (carpal tunnel, e.g.), slip and fall in the parking lot, and ... well, that seems to be just about all of them. We aren't doing anything more dangerous than working hard, and coming to work in northern Michigan snowstorms. In the meatpacking industry, an "injury" could mean that the guy's arm is in the weiners, or it could mean carpal tunnel syndrome.
Meatpacking is likely to be more dangerous, not just because they use knives, but because it's harder to automate. A hydraulic press operator is running a machine that could sever and mangle an elephant's limbs, but he's most likely pushing a button and looking through a clear lexan shield to see the machine work. Every piece of sheet metal going into the press is identical, and every piece coming out is supposed to be identical, which makes it easy to automate and guard it so the operator's fingers have to be out of the way before the machine will activate.
OTOH, cows don't come in fixed sizes and shapes. You have to vary the place where you cut for each carcass depending on the size and where the joints are, and you have to deal with steaks of varying sizes coming out of the cutters. This means that the workers have to be far more closely involved with the work, and maybe it isn't possible to give the worker enough control over a cutter without depending on him to keep his body parts out of the sharp end.
well, I hope you all experience the joys of carpal tunnel syndrome once, if it won't lead to outbursts of compassion, at least it will keep you from minimizing the suffering of other fellow human beings on blogs
novakant - what an odd statement. What does compassion have to do with the discussion? Noting that some percentage of the injuries reported are repetitive motion simply frames the discussion. When people hear 400,000 injuries the immediate reaction is to think severed fingers and broken arms. When you realize that it also includes injuries that aren't that severe you can talk logically about the subject - after all no one thinks that secretaries have an incredibly dangerous job.
Carpal tunnel is treatable (with workman's comp claims even) and not very preventable; so your efforts to demonize meatpackers over this particularly silly.
Stop trying to make out all opponents of your viewpoint into evil monsters using emotion and passion to discuss an issue is never going to carry you far.
Novakant: I have experienced carpal tunnel - it's no fun, but I've never missed a day of work because of it. The knee that got banged up in purely recreational activities 40 years ago hurts more. But the main question was whether there really is an increase in on-the-job industries, or just that they are counting things that used to not be counted, such as repetitive stress injury.
Comments are Closed.