Weekend News & Commentary — February 4-5, 2017
The weekend started with some good news, with an above-expectations jobs report released Friday. January saw 227,000 new jobs and modest wage growth; average hourly wages were up 3 cents at $26. President Trump has already claimed credit for the strong numbers, predicting that job growth will “continue, big league,” under his administration.
Meanwhile, federal workers who want to express dissent against that same administration are turning to incognito forms of communication to do so, POLITICO reports. In order to avoid rules covering workplace communications, EPA employees — fearing that the President’s incoming appointees will undermine existing policies — are now using an encrypted messaging app to talk strategy. Similarly, Labor Department employees are using their private email accounts to circulate a letter asking senators to oppose Andrew Puzder’s nomination for Labor Secretary.
Speaking of which, the nominee — still facing delays in his confirmation process — continues to attract criticism. The New York Times investigates Puzder’s early career as a lawyer, when he represented business owners and battled labor regulators in the courtroom. In one of his biggest cases, Puzder defended his boss (a famous mob lawyer and casino owner) against allegations of squandering $25 million from union workers’ pension funds.
Puzder’s opposition to raising the minimum wage has also drawn fire, as the “Fight for $15” and related movements continue to build momentum. Without a doubt, the importance of a “living wage” has become a central tenet of workers’ activism. But where does it come from? JSTOR Daily takes a step back from the debate, pointing out that workers’ acceptance of wage labor — a system that was still decried in the nineteenth century as “wage slavery” — is of relatively recent vintage. Meanwhile, some commentators are of the view that minimum-wage hikes won’t be enough, in an age of automation, to secure the livelihoods of workers. Writing for Jacobin, Mark Paul, William Darity Jr., and Darrick Hamilton argue instead for a federal job guarantee that would ensure employment for all.