Pushing for a true living wage
Todd David Whitmore
The Common Good
Last column, I addressed four objections to the living wage. There are more. I will conclude this theme by addressing the remaining objections.
Objection five: Instituting a living wage would be imposing first world values on the third world.
Reply: The companies that fail to pay a living wage are first world companies. If a living wage is a first world value, then they are not living in accord with it. Moreover, it needs to be clear that what constitutes a living wage is minimal. We are talking, for instance, about three changes of clothes (one for on, one for off being cleaned and one for special occasions like weddings). This is hardly a closet full.
There is a big difference between basic needs being met by a living wage and a lifestyle of rampant consumerism. Those who articulate this objection would have you believe that the movement for a living wage is seeking second houses for workers when it is more accurately seeking a fourth wall for their shacks.
Pope John Paul II has made blistering attacks on consumerism, calling it "contrary to what is good and true to happiness." I invite anyone who might make this objection to go and live on the workers' wages for a month and then report back whether current wages are meeting basic needs. The charge that the living wage is a first world value implies that workers in the third world already have all that is necessary for a life of dignity.
I have written before in critique of some of James Keady's words and work, but his Olympic Living Wage Project drives this particular point home quite well. Mr. Keady previously offered to work for Nike at Nike's third world wages and Nike declined. He then decided to live on what amounted to those wages — $1.25 a day in Indonesia — for the duration of the 2000 Summer Olympics. Mr. Keady, already trim, lost 25 pounds and "spent most of the month painfully hungry and exhausted."
Objection six: If the idea of a living wage is not an imposition, then enforcing it through first world agents is.
Reply: Contained in this objection is a legitimate consideration, though it is far from clear that the motives are pure. The legitimate consideration is this: If it could be done, it would be better for workers to achieve their basic needs through self-organization without pressure on companies from first world organizations. The more that the workers themselves have agency, the better. When the objection comes from corporate representatives, there may be reason to be suspicious of motive. Many of the corporations make product in China, which does not recognize the right to organize.
It appears that such an objection seeks to take advantage of the fact that worker organization is frequently weak in third world countries and often both subtly and violently suppressed. Low wages and weak worker organization often go hand in hand. When workers receive wages below a living wage, then they are less inclined to part with what little they receive to pay the dues necessary for there to be a worker organization.
Catholic social doctrine affirms both a living wage and the right to organize and thus does not view the relation between them as a zero sum game. In a particular case, it might be that the best way to achieve a living wage is through worker organization alone, but that is a question of strategy, not a trade-off in principles.
Catholic teaching puts forward a principle that helps regulate the roles of various parties in a situation of social injustice: the principle of subsidiarity. The core insight of this principle is that those groups or persons most proximate to a situation generally have the best read of the situation's nuances. Where possible, those most proximate are to be the primary respondents. In this case it is the workers organizing themselves.
However, the Latin root for subsidiarity means, "to support," or, "to help," and larger, more remote institutions are to help the more proximate groups do their work. In this case, first world organizations can help workers organize and can sponsor living wage studies. "In extremis" situations can require the more remote institutions to intervene directly if the more proximate persons and groups do not have the wherewithal.
Much depends on one's read of the situation regarding the strength of the worker organizations relative to that of the manufacturers and the corporations. Any intervention must have in view the final goal of the living wage being addressed through the workers themselves, even if "help" and perhaps direct intervention is necessary in the meantime.
My own judgment about Notre Dame's case is that the empirical situation of imbalance between corporate and worker strength requires the university to provide help at present. The question is that of how. Some advocates contrast "formula" and "negotiated" approaches. The former uses formulae to calculate the living wage and then demands immediate payment of it, the latter negotiates with the companies to raise wages. Once again, this is a false trade-off.
It is important to have a clear sense of what a living wage is in a particular region in order to have a mark in relation to which one negotiates, thus the need for formulae. It may be important as well to work with corporations via negotiation to move towards the living wage over time. This is a matter of prudential judgment, and my own judgment is that negotiation with a clearly stated goal carefully calculated through formulae and a stated timeline for full implementation of the living wage will be most effective.
It is worth noting that if the corporations followed subsidiarity, they would "help" third world countries develop their own local economies rather than impose the manufacture of product for the first world; the charge of imposing first world values turns on the corporations at this point.
Objection seven (final objection): But paying a living wage would disrupt the market.
Reply: This presupposes that the status quo of the present market is the natural order of things. Corporate representatives cannot have it both ways: they cannot argue that their move to the third world — with its moving of whole sectors of economies from agricultural to industrial bases — makes things for workers incomparably better and then argue that a move to a living wage from within an industrialized economy constitutes disruption. In Catholic teaching, payment of a living wage is the act that is in keeping with the natural order.
Todd David Whitmore is an associate professor in the theology department. His column appears every other Thursday.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Thursday, November 9, 2000
