Saturday, September 20, 2014
10

تقاسموا العمل

بيركلي ــ إن الولايات المتحدة تواجه اليوم أزمة بطالة طويلة الأجل لم تشهد لها مثيلاً منذ ثلاثينيات القرن العشرين. فقد ظل 40% من العاطلين عن العمل بلا عمل لمدة ستة أشهر أو أكثر، وهذه النسبة كما ذَكَر رئيس مجلس الاحتياطي الفيدرالي الأميركي بن برنانكي في حديث أخير أعلى كثيراً من أي وقت مضى منذ الركود الذي أعقب الحرب العالمية الثانية.

والواقع أن أزمة البطالة الطويلة الأجل هذه تخلف تأثيراً بالغ الضرر على حياة هؤلاء الذين يتحملون العبء. ونحن نعلم هذا بفضل سلسلة من الدراسات المتأنية الدقيقة للمشكلة والتي أجريت في أوج أزمة الكساد الأعظم في ثلاثينيات القرن العشرين.

كانت أشهر هذه الدراسات تتناول البطالة الطويلة الأجل في نيوهافين بولاية كونيتيكيت وأجريت بواسطة ئي. وايت باكي، طالب الدراسات العليا آنذاك ثم أستاذ الاقتصاد في جامعة ييل لاحقا. ومن خلال المقابلات مع المشاركين، والمراقبة الشخصية، واليوميات، والدراسات الطولية، أظهرت الدراسة كيف تسببت فترات البطالة المطولة في تدهور مهارات العمال وكيف جعلت من الصعب عليهم اكتساب مهارات جديدة. ويواجه العاطلون عن العمل لفترات طويلة مجموعة متنوعة من المشاكل البدنية والنفسية، مثل انخفاض الروح المعنوية، واللامبالاة، والإحساس بالعزلة الاجتماعية.

إن البطالة الطويلة الأجل بالنسبة لهؤلاء الذين يبتليهم بها سوء طالعهم ــ الآن كما كانت الحال في ثلاثينيات القرن العشرين ــ مأساة بكل المقاييس. أما بالنسبة للمجتمع ككل فهناك الخطر المتمثل في الإضرار بالقدرة الإنتاجية لقسم كبير من قوة العمل.

ولكن الأمر غير المعلوم للجميع هو أن الولايات المتحدة في الثلاثينيات نجحت بدرجة أكبر كثيراً مقارنة باليوم في التخفيف من تأثير هذه المشاكل. فبدلاً من اللجوء إلى تسريح العمال بأعداد كبيرة، جعلت الشركات موظفيها يعملون بدوام جزئي. فانخفض متوسط ساعات العمل الأسبوعي في التصنيع والتعدين من 45 ساعة في عام 1929 إلى 35 ساعة في عام 1932. ونحن نعرف هذا من مقال كتبه في عام 1986 زميلي في كلية بيركلي جيمس باول وشريكه في كتابة المقال بن برنانكي.

إن نسبة البطالة التي بلغت 24% في أوج أزمة الكساد الأعظم لم تكن بمثابة نزهة في حديقة. ولكن هذا المعدل كان ليصبح أعلى لو ظل متوسط ساعات العمل الأسبوعي في قطاع التصنيع ظل 45 ساعة. لقد سمح خفض ساعات العمل بنسبة 20% للملايين من العمال الإضافيين بالبقاء في أعمالهم. ولقد استمروا في كسب الدخل واكتساب المهارات، ولم يتخلوا عن الأمل في إمكانية التقدم.

ولكن لماذا كان كل هذا القدر من تقاسم العمل في الثلاثينيات؟ من بين الأسباب أن الحكومة هي التي دفعت في ذلك الاتجاه. ووفقاً لتقديرات الرئيس هربرت هووفر فإن ما يقرب من مليوني عامل تجنبوا البطالة نتيجة للجهود التي بذلها لتعزيز مبدأ تقاسم العمل.

والسبب الثاني أن التشريعات كانت مشجعة لنفس الاتجاه. فقد حددت قوانين "الصفقة الجديدة" للصناعة سقفاً لعدد ساعات العمل الأسبوعي لصناعات محددة وقطاعات بعينها من العاملين. ونص قانون معايير العمل العادلة على تقديم حوافز مالية من خلال المطالبة بأجور عن ساعات العمل الإضافية للموظفين العاملين لساعات طويلة.

وثالثا، لم يكن هناك تأمين ضد البطالة للحد منها. فالفرد الذي يواجه اليوم الاختيار بين العمل لعشرين ساعة أسبوعيا أو الحصول على إعانات البطالة، قد يجد إغراءً في الخيار الأخير. ولكن في الثلاثينيات، وقبل التأمين ضد البطالة، كان العمل لعشرين ساعة أفضل من لا شيء.

لا شك أن التأمين ضد البطالة لا يعوض إلا عن جزء ضئيل من الأجور السابقة لأغلب العمال، وهو ما يشير إلى أن تأثيره في هذا الصدد ليس قوياً للغاية. ولكن حتى لو لم يثبط التأمين ضد البطالة مبدأ تقاسم العمل، فمن الممكن إعادة تشكيله بحيث يشجعه. فمن الممكن تقديم فوائد جزئية للعمال لساعات قصيرة، بدلاً من الحد من أجور هؤلاء الذين يعملون بدوام كامل. وعلى الأقل سوف يغطي هذا البرنامج تكاليفه جزئيا، مع التعويض عن المبالغ الإضافية المدفوعة للعاملين لساعات قصيرة من خلال انخفاض معدل البطالة (وبالتالي انخفاض المدفوعات لهؤلاء العاطلين تماماً عن العمل).

والواقع أن الولايات المتحدة لديها ما يشبه هذه الخطوط: البرنامج المعروف بتعويض الساعات القصيرة. فبوسع العمال تحصيل إعانات البطالة تناسبياً بما يتفق مع ساعات عملهم عندما يقدم صاحب العمل خطة معتمدة لتقاسم العمل، في حين تعمل الحكومة الفيدرالية على تعويض الولايات عن جزء من التكاليف. ووفقاً لأحدث البيانات فإن 24 ولاية بدأت عملية تكييف أنظمة التأمين ضد البطالة لديها بحيث تستفيد من هذا التدبير.

ولكن من المؤسف أن الحوافز المالية التي تقدمها الحكومة الفيدرالية تقتصر في الأساس على مساعدة الولايات في الإعلان عن برامجها وتشغليها آليا. وهذا البرامج في المقابل متواضعة للغاية، وخاصة بالنسبة لكبار العاملين الذين يتوقعون البقاء في وظيفة بدوام كامل، لجل تقاسم العمل خياراً جذابا.

ولقد ذهبت دول أخرى إلى ما هو أبعد من هذا. ففي ألمانيا على سبيل المثال يشكل برنامج الحكومة الاتحادية لساعات العمل القصيرة جزءاً كبيراً من الفارق عندما ينخفض داخل العامل بأكثر من 10% بسبب الساعات القصيرة.

وبوسع الحكومة الفيدرالية في الولايات المتحدة أن تحاكي هذا المثال من خلال تعويض الولايات بقدر أعظم من السخاء عن برامج التعويضات في الأمد القصير. والواقع أن فشلها في القيام بهذه المهمة لن يفرض على العاطلين على العمل الآلام والمعاناة التي كان من الممكن تجنبها فحسب، بل إن هذا الفشل يهدد أيضاً بفرض تكاليف بعيدة الأمد على المجتمع الأميركي.

ترجمة: إبراهيم محمد علي          Translated by: Ibrahim M. Ali

Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (10)

Please login or register to post a comment

  1. CommentedAndrew Purdy

    There were also no such thing as health benefits in the 1930s. For low wage workers, benefits are a large fraction of fixed costs, and can even exceed the take home pay.

  2. Commentedphilip meguire

    Between 1929 and 1933, the number of nonfarm private sector full time equivalent jobs declined 29%. In 1933, per capita disposable income was $1/day. This at a time when there was no unemployment insurance or food stamps or Social Security, when nearly all private sector jobs did not offer pensions, and when welfare was at most $5/week or simply did not exist. Many rural Americans burned wood, grew vegetables, raised chickens, and waited for better times. Very scarce money was reserved for property taxes and a bit of gasoline.

    In such a world, a layoff of more than 4-6 months' duration could be a death sentence. And so many private employers cut pay and hours, but kept as many of their core experienced people as they could afford. This happened to my great uncle, whose pay rate was cut and whose hours were cut to mornings only. He got by because he had no children, and because his wife had come into a small inheritance. I deem what his employer did to be a disguised pension.

    I would use "labour sharing" to describe factories and the like being open, say, 8-10 hours a day, but workers working 4-5 hour shifts. It is my impression that many factories in the worst years of the Depression worked mornings only. Many shops at Bethlehem Steel worked only 18 hours/week. I do not know if that was 3 hours before lunch, 6 days a week. I do know that the Navy paid BS a subsidy in order to keep going.

    Focus on the employment-population ratio (EPR). Regrettably, the BLS does not report the measure I would prefer, namely that for persons between their 25th and 62nd birthdays, who are neither institutionalised nor deemed permanently disabled by Social Security. Also avoid seasonally adjusted data. Seasonal adjustment is a great creator of fictional jobs, and destroyer of real jobs lol...

    Before the crisis, the EPR was about 63.5%. It is now about 58.5%, about what it was in 1977. Hence the Great Recession has destroyed one out of every 13 jobs. But a significant part of the problem is that over the past 30 years, we have become accustomed to a level of labour force participation that before 1978 was only attained in wartime. What we have experienced of late is a sharp rise in GDP per full time equivalent employee, in other words, in labour productivity. This is not entirely a bad thing. The issue then becomes one of spreading more widely the benefits of that increased productivity. The way forward I propose is a "demogrant" of $350/month paid to every legal resident of the USA. This demogrant is part of a flat tax system I advocate and have described in detail elsewhere.

      Commentedphilip meguire

      And a few states should immediately trial fractional unemployment benefits for those on reduced hours. That said, I suspect that a lot of people working part time are doing so not because they are working reduced hours in what used to be a full time job, but because part time work is the best the could find after being laid off from a full time job. If we make all part time workers eligible for fractional unemployment benefits, the taxpayer will find itself paying billions to WalMart's work force!

  3. CommentedFrank O'Callaghan

    This goes to the core question of how we should organize our society. What should we produce and how should we distribute it?

    We have improved our productivity to unimaginable levels but our distribution methods are woefully inadequate. In a world of plenty we have conspired to create poverty, debt and fear.

    We need to share much more than the work.

      Commentedphilip meguire

      Tax all value added by employers, all wages and interest paid by government, and all cash social benefits, at a flat 35% rate. Credit FICA and Medicare tax payments against this flat tax liability. Pay all legal residents of the USA a tax-free $350/month "demogrant." I predict that this would move the USA about half way to budget balance AND, when combined with food/energy stamps and Medicaid, would largely extinguish desperate poverty. When the long term unemployed would go back to work, they would lose their food stamps and perhaps Medicaid eligibility, but not the demogrant.

  4. Commentedjames durante

    No one should ever work.

    Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you’d care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.

    My minimum definition of work is forced labor, that is, compulsory production. Both elements are essential. Work is production enforced by economic or political means, by the carrot or the stick. (The carrot is just the stick by other means.) But not all creation is work. Work is never done for its own sake, it’s done on account of some product or output that the worker (or, more often, somebody else) gets out of it. This is what work necessarily is. To define it is to despise it.

    The anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, surveying the data on contemporary hunter-gatherers, exploded the Hobbesian myth in an article entitled “The Original Affluent Society.” They work a lot less than we do, and their work is hard to distinguish from what we regard as play. Sahlins concluded that “hunters and gatherers work less than we do; and rather than a continuous travail, the food quest is intermittent, leisure abundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the daytime per capita per year than in any other condition of society.”

    What I really want to see is work turned into play. A first step is to discard the notions of a “job” and an “occupation.” Even activities that already have some ludic content lose most of it by being reduced to jobs which certain people, and only those people are forced to do to the exclusion of all else. Is it not odd that farm workers toil painfully in the fields while their air-conditioned masters go home every weekend and putter about in their gardens? Under a system of permanent revelry, we will witness the Golden Age of the dilettante which will put the Renaissance to shame. There won’t be any more jobs, just things to do and people to do them.

    Bob Black
    "The Abolition of Work"

      Commentedphilip meguire

      The turnover of most firms is procyclical. How should the resulting risk be borne? The notion that employees should bear no risk except a heightened probability of job termination is one that we should move on from. and is not one our preindustrial ancestors would have experienced. Corporate HR should very seriously entertain reduced rates and hours as well as layoffs.

      Traditional farming involved a burst of hard work to plow and plant, and another burst at harvest time. The rest of the year was a rather relaxed affair. If there were no cows to milk, it was not unknown for farmers to be in no hurry to get out of bed. A major reason for the enormous rise in GDP per capita since 1700 has been a dramatic rise in working hours and work effort. The main way we work less than people did before WWII is that we can afford to retire when we are still healthy.

  5. CommentedCharles St Pierre

    The bosses, ie the wealthy, pay themselves too much. If they paid themselves less, there would be more money to pay the people who actually do the work. More people would have jobs. More work would get done. See:

    http://anamecon.blogspot.com/2011/09/unemployment-average-wage-and.html

    But Zsolt Hermann is also right. The world needs to get on a sustainable course, and quickly. But there is actually a lot of work involved in doing this, since much of the capitalization involved in today's society is a poor investment in a sustainable future. The US, for instance, with its suburbs and mainly dependent on its vast network of roads, is poorly positioned for a future of expensive energy.

  6. CommentedZsolt Hermann

    Undoubtedly one of the main features of the ongoing global crisis is the growing unemployment.
    If we consider the reasons behind the crisis, the unsustainable constant quantitative growth economic model, and that about 90% of all the production happening today is completely unnecessary and even harmful for a normal human life in the 21st century, we will se unprecedented number of unemployed people into the billions world wide, regardless of the development level of the countries.
    According to certain statistics about 10-15% percent of the world population can provide the necessities giving all 7 billion people a normal, comfortable life with the necessities of food, housing, clothing, health and security, so when humanity returns to a necessity and resource based economy in order to come out of the crisis and survive we have to figure out what to do with the rest of the billions.
    We have to first understand there is no "happy ending" here, the way we live today is unnatural, and we are only part of a vast natural system we are going against with our excessive, exploitative ways, thus we have no choice but to adapt to the laws and conditions around us.
    Instead of the cosmetic solutions, and wasting all our resources on institutions that have no future, present day leaders should prepare for the transitional period creating supplies and provisions for each and every one of us to maintain the necessities, avoiding mass hunger, plagues and consequent riots, and other violent scenarios.
    In the meantime they also need to plan and initiate a global, integral education plan in order to explain people why we are where we are, what the new global, integral world means, why we cannot continue with our present socio-economic models and what options we have to build a new system for all of us.
    The information is already all around is, but nobody puts it together for general use.
    As we start building a new mutually responsible system based on our true necessities without excesses, we will understand that the present day unemployment we consider as a tragedy looking from the viewpoint of today's lifestyle is actually the road to freedom from the slavery of the consumer system where everybody is endlessly chasing goods they do not even need and never would have wanted if not for the brainwashing of the marketing system influencing us 24/7.
    Whether we want it or not it is time to disconnect from the "Matrix".

  7. CommentedProcyon Mukherjee

    I have seen the German or the Swiss system working very closely, where the 'short time' work is organized in a manner that the loss is shared between the worker, the State and the company or the employer; this credo of sharing the burden when the recession strikes is the fundamental driver of change and buoyancy that we find missing in America, where partisanship and blame-game make the partnerships a remote possibility. Partnership between the employer, employee and the government and a responsibility to partner together in times of crisis would have gone a long way to reduce the sordid impacts of long-term unemployment; the solution lies in this partnership.

    Procyon Mukherjee

Featured