Programs to Aid Workers on Back Burner

The estimated $70 billion a year that the government spends on welfare programs to help the sick, poor and elderly will be among the most furiously debated issues in the nation this year.

Unfortunately, far less attention will be given to the country’s inadequate minimum-wage laws and social insurance programs--both of which are supposed to help the average worker. These critical issues are generally ignored because money for those programs doesn’t come out of the deficit-plagued federal budget or state and local budgets. Yet the needs of the millions of low- and middle-income American workers are, in many ways, almost as urgent as the needs of welfare recipients, whose benefits have already been cut and almost surely are going to be cut further.

The only social insurance program involved in serious public debate is Social Security, and, while most of that raucous argument appears to be over, there are continuing, widely discussed demands for the elimination of--or at least further curbs on--cost-of-living increases for retirees. But debates over the minimum wage and social insurance programs such as workers compensation for on-the-job injuries and unemployment benefits are barely noticed by the general public. That’s because arguments about them will take place mostly in rather obscure committees of state legislatures and in small government commissions.

In many states, including California, changes in the minimum wage or social insurance programs are often made by the legislatures or by government commissions only when substantial agreement is reached in private talks between a wide variety of often conflicting forces such as employers, unions, insurance firms, lawyers, doctors and hospitals.

Among the least-audible debates are those over laws that set minimum wages, even though they directly affect an estimated 15 million workers and indirectly affect millions more who earn above the minimum--since they get raises from private industry when the minimum wage is increased.

Congress, which enacted the first federal minimum-wage law for workers in interstate commerce in 1938, is giving no consideration to raising it. The federal minimum is now so low that it doesn’t meet the original intent of Congress, which was to allow an ordinary worker enough money to maintain a standard of living at least up to the poverty level as defined by the federal government. Yet the Reagan Administration wants to undercut the present minimum by creating a “subminimum” wage for young workers.

Even without the further cut sought by the Administration, minimum-wage workers have been badly battered economically since the minimum was last raised five years ago. Inflation has eaten away a whopping 25% of the buying power of $3.35. The minimum would have to be raised to at least $4.20 an hour just to give workers the same purchasing power they had when President Reagan took office, and it would have to be $5.20 an hour to give the working poor the same standard of living they had in 1968, when the minimum was about 55% of the average workers’ wage.

Today, the minimum is less than 38% of the average, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Each state sets its own minimum wage for workers on jobs involving intrastate commerce, and almost all follow the federal $3.35-an-hour pattern. Only Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum wages above the federal level. Alaska’s minimum is the nation’s highest: $3.85.

Despite its widespread impact, the California minimum is set by just five individuals who are members of the state Industrial Welfare Commission. Last year, the commission, now all appointees of Gov. George Deukmejian, voted against any increase for the fifth year in a row. And it isn’t certain if an increase will even come up for a vote this year.

There may be a bit more public discussion of such social insurance programs as workers compensation and unemployment benefits because some aspects of those programs have been highly controversial, such as compensation for disability due to job stress. But the chances of any significant improvements this year are slim because, among other reasons, employers (who generally agree that benefits should be raised) want much stiffer eligibility rules before any increases are granted.

While several states have made some improvements in their social insurance programs in the past three years, most, including California, have not. Last year, Gov. Deukmejian vetoed laws passed by the Legislature to increase both workers compensation and unemployment benefits because they did not make eligibility rules strict enough, as employer groups had demanded.

New measures are now being debated in the California Legislature to improve benefits, but the chances of that happening are slim even though this state pays maximum temporary disability benefits of $224 a week and so ranks near the bottom of all states in benefits paid to workers injured on the job.

There are legitimate reasons for changing at least some of the procedures and eligibility rules because there have been some abuses of the workers compensation program and because the costs of this program are high.

In California, employers will pay about $5 billion in premiums this year to provide benefits, although they will get an estimated 20% of that back in dividends from insurance companies.

Granted, some workers abuse the programs by seeking benefits to which they are not entitled. But charges of abuse are often exaggerated. Suspicions of the system’s integrity are inevitably aroused further when newspaper advertisements are placed by lawyers and doctors offering their services to help workers get benefits if, for example, they feel they have been “harassed at work,” have high blood pressure or are “depressed” by their jobs.

The entire workers compensation system would collapse if all of us who feel harassed on our jobs at times or are depressed by our work filed claims for benefits, as the advertising lawyers and doctors seem to suggest that we do.

The system does have built-in safeguards against abuses. Formal hearings must be held before administrative law judges, who must decide if workers have proved that their claimed mental or physical injuries are real and job-related before they can get benefits. Another safeguard--one that tends to discourage frivolous cases--is the fact that workers’ attorneys are paid on a contingency basis: They get fees only if their clients win.

But the safeguards aren’t foolproof. While most workers’ benefit claims are legitimate, many are not and would never even be sought if the workers were not openly solicited by some lawyers and doctors to file those claims.

The problem is that employers, insurance companies and some other groups are so anxious to cut costs by closing every avenue of possible abuse in the workers compensation program that their proposals for changes in the law would sharply curtail legitimate benefit claims.

Besides the minimum wage and workers compensation, another program that is generally ignored provides benefits for unemployed workers. California’s jobless can get a maximum of $166 a week, which means that there are 33 other states that pay higher benefits.

The state Legislature last voted to increase jobless benefits in three steps in 1979. The current rate became effective Jan. 1, 1982, so, despite inflation, there has been no boost in that benefit for four years.

When Gov. Deukmejian vetoed a jobless benefit hike last year, he argued that California’s eligibility rules for those benefits, like the ones for workers compensation, are too liberal and must be tightened before any increases are granted.

There is a need to change some of the rules, and an even more urgent need to increase benefits and raise the minimum wage. Both goals can be achieved. But that isn’t likely in the near future unless there is more public debate on the issues that would, in turn, bring increased pressure on the conflicting forces to find equitable compromises.

If recent history sets the pattern for the future, however, those public debates will not occur.

TDU Hails Finding

Dissidents in the Teamsters Union were elated recently when the President’s Commission on Organized Crime backed their charge that top officers of the union are elected by illegal procedures.

The dissident Teamsters for a Democratic Union alleged in federal court that the Department of Labor has failed to enforce laws governing union elections. The support that the dissidents got from the President’s Commission could give a substantial boost to the TDU’s legal action. (Federal law now says that union officers can be elected only “by secret ballot among members in good standing or at a convention of delegates chosen by secret ballot.”)

The TDU and the President’s Commission both contend that the Labor Department has the power to democratize the 1.8-million-member Teamsters Union, but has, in effect, covered up the union’s violations of the law. The result, it is alleged, has been the election of many officers, including three presidents of the scandal-ridden union, who have been convicted of a variety of crimes and sent to prison.

The dissidents contend that a more democratic election process would have prevented the election of those officers.

But, while the election process may indeed be in violation of the law--at least technically--it is far less clear that a change in the process would have resulted in the election of less controversial union leaders. Perhaps closer to the truth is that Teamsters members don’t rise in revolt against their international officers because most of them have union contracts that pay reasonably high wages and provide good fringe benefits. It’s difficult to start a revolution under such circumstances.

Why are the dissidents and the President’s Commission complaining?

First of all, they note that the top officers are elected by delegates to the international union’s convention, which is held every five years, and convention delegates are almost all members of the executive boards of the estimated 600 Teamsters locals throughout the nation. The union members don’t vote directly for the top officers. Nevertheless, the local union officers are themselves directly elected by their members in elections that are held every three years, and the local officers automatically become convention delegates.

Secondly, the critics argue that the system violates federal law because top officers are neither directly elected by the members nor do members vote directly for delegates to conventions that do elect the top officers.

There are doubts that there would be dramatic leadership changes in the union because most local union members are aware that the officers they elect to head their locals automatically become delegates to the international conventions.

In other words, the members know, or at least could easily find out, that the local officers they elect by secret ballot are also delegates to the convention. And so far, at least, the members haven’t elected local officials who are willing to oust the top international officers.

To solve these problems, the critics insist that convention delegates should be directly elected by the members by secret ballot 120 days in advance of the international conventions. That would focus campaigns for convention delegates on the convention itself, and on the union’s top officers, instead of on candidates for local office.

The dissident TDU has attracted only about 9,000 members in the 10 years of its existence, but Ken Paff, the TDU’s chief spokesman, insists that a majority of Teamsters are disgusted by the conduct and criminal records of many of the top international officers.

The TDU doesn’t have more members, he argues, because “most of them just don’t want to be involved in political battles, either because they believe the task of ousting the top officers is just too big to succeed or because they fear repercussions such as a loss of their jobs if they defy the international.”

The President’s Commission contends that it is “reasonable that a limited number of (local and regional) union officers be granted ex-officio delegate status” but that the system of electing the union’s top officers is so indirect that members have no real chance of ousting corrupt leaders.