Letters from Linden
by JACK LINDEN

Southern states, and Texas in particular, are known as non-union states. Politicians and many citizens proudly state that we don’t need unions and unions are bad for the economy and the nation. As a result, the South and Texas are attractive to manufactures who provide lower wages and fewer benefits than those demanded by workers in the Northern states who tend to be unionized.

While there has been corruption in the labor unions, many people fail to recognize that the unions are responsible for many of the rights and benefits that employees now enjoy.  It was the unions which demanded that there be child labor laws. That coffee-break and uninterrupted lunch break you enjoy are the result of the efforts of union workers. Safe working conditions and vacations are enjoyed by most of us because unions demanded it. Even the minimum wage law was the outgrowth of union efforts. It has always surprised me when the very people who have been helped are proud of the fact that they are non-union.

While mentioning some of the attributes of unions, I am more concerned about the jobs that are being brought into Texas. Our governor proudly points out the many jobs and businesses that he has brought to Texas. While his numbers may be impressive to him and to other people, a bigger question is being left unanswered.  “What type of jobs have been brought to Texas?” should be the question that he is being asked, not how many.

Entry level jobs at just above minimum wage have an impact on the entire environment of a city or a state. The first indication of companies needing only entry level jobs moving to a state is the quality of the education in that state. Obviously, higher paying jobs demand a higher and more rigorous education. Since Texas has been declining in their ranking in education, is this contributing to our attracting lower paying jobs?

Jobs that do not offer a future in the place of employment often means that the community does not offer much of a future to the employee. Attracting a large plant is good for any community, but that plant must offer some future for the employee. If there is a maximum wage for the employee, what contribution will that employee make to the community? The employee must see opportunities in both the workplace and community to stay and contribute. How many small communities with entry level employment have seen their community become a training ground for another city? Too many, unfortunately.

Are there some ways that communities can ensure that while they are getting companies to move to their community, the company is more than just an entry level employer? The first thing that should be asked is exactly what type of jobs and employees does the city wish. It is easy for a company to espouse high wages and working conditions to get tax incentives to move to a city. However, it is near impossible to enforce the promised wages once the company is located.  Too many communities have been the victim of such deals.

Cities and states, and their individual entities must look at potential employers if the city is to grow. The city and state must have the quality of life that the workers will want to stay and better the community. Cooperating with the community, the employer must also add to that quality of life. Sales tax and real estate tax are not the only contributions that will help the community. If the employer is paying just above the minimum wage, how can we expect the employees to be more than just that? How have the employer and the community shown the employee that they are a good place, not only to work but also to live?

Our employment opportunities are important, but so is the quality of life of our residents. We must take this into consideration when we are offering incentives to companies. It is argued among economists that incentives do not generally pay for themselves. Let’s not give our community away just for low paying jobs.

jdlinden@satx.rr.com