Sounds and Fury

【上一篇專欄美國的不平等主要是談不平等的原因，重點是除了全球化和科技變遷等結構性因素外，各國制度會影響各國不平等的形式和程度。本文則是挑戰右派認為只要提高人力資本政策，就可以不管不平等問題。而文中提到的兩大重要制度改革，中文媒體似乎都沒有提到，值得大家關注】


美國參眾兩院在兩週前通過法案，把最低工資從每小時5.15美金提高到7.25美金。另一個更重大的變革是眾議院在三月初通過一個新的工會法案「員工自由選擇法」(Employee Free Choice Act)，讓員工可以更容易在公司內組成工會，並加重處罰不當阻礙組工會的企業主。


這是美國政治對社會不平等趨勢的大反彈，也是工運團體的大反攻。去年的國會選舉，民主黨以強調中產階級和工人民生問題的經濟民粹主義贏得選舉，並把改善社會不平等的政策視為首要立法目標。畢竟，美國的最低工資已經十年沒有調漲了；而私部門工會的組織率也從1980年的百分之二十掉到現在的百分之七-----原因除了全球化和經濟轉型的結構性衝擊外，也包括共和黨保守政策的打擊和資本家的惡意阻礙。

當前關於社會不平等的核心辯論是，保守派認為過去三十年的貧富差距純粹是反映了新全球化和新科技的時代中高教育和高技術者的高報酬。紐約時報專欄作家、BOBO族一書作者大衛布魯克說，「現在的制度運作的很好，因為其給予個人才能應有的報酬。高教育可以獲得好的回收是因為其提供了技術和知識，並且他過濾掉那些沒有紀律、沒有上進心和不能適應改變的人」。
所以，他們認為國家的角色是提出好的人力資本政策，包括職業訓練、對教育的投資等。對個人來說，則是要能自我投資，提升教育和技術能力，然後就可以享受全球化和新經濟的好處。


然而，這個解藥只是國家工作的一半。因為即使真的是高教育和高技術會帶來比較高 的報酬，難道這個社會就不會存在Wal-mart和速食店的低薪工作嗎？難道一個社會可以忽視這些新市場體制下的輸家嗎？或者讓那些中年失業、短期內無法轉業者被時代巨輪無情地碾過去嗎？更何況，一個人能否獲得高教育乃是原本各種制度性不平等的塑造結果，而絕非僅是個人努力的成果。資本主義社會存在著本質性的不公平。另一方面，和全球經濟整合深化，也意味著論是高教育的電腦工程師還是低技術勞工，工作的不穩定性都提高。


所以，一個國家要面對全球化挑戰，固然要有一套新的人力資本政策，更要有完整的社會安全政策，來改善社會平等和降低社會風險。這有賴於國家的政策介入，有賴於讓勞工更有能力和資本家協商，以建構一個屬於全球化時代的新社會契約。二次戰後的西歐和北歐國家，就是因為他們的經濟更開放，更容易受到市場波動的影響，所以要建構更堅強的社會安全網。


對人力資本的公共投資和財富與風險的重分配兩者都是戰後歐洲社會民主的政策主軸。美國保守派今日開始願意積極擁抱對教育的公共投資，但對於社會平等仍然缺乏根本性的承諾：在當前這場工會法的修法戰役中，兩黨依然存在巨大鴻溝，布希更揚言一旦參院通過這個法案他將會予以否決。而共和民主兩黨同樣的盲點是，他們還沒有面對一個讓美國不平等比歐洲更嚴重的核心問題：重分配政策以及稅制改革。


但無論如何，自由市場天堂的美國已經開始對社會平等的結構性改革進行熾熱的辯論了。面對台灣同樣日益嚴重的社會不平等，諸位天王們在凝視凱達格蘭大道時，準備好了開始思考問題嗎？

(中國時報觀念平台2007/3/16)


延伸閱讀：這兩個通過的法案剛好是經濟學家認為對不平等有影響的制度，見美國不平等的原因。
美國的經濟民粹主義


AFL-CIO關於Employee Free Choice Act的新聞

另外，附上一則紐約時報關於這個法案的社論
March 6, 2007
Editorial
The Right to Organize
There are many reasons for the long decline in the membership rolls for private sector unions, including powerful changes in the economy and the unions’ past corruption scandals. And there is little doubt that federal rules and regulations for union organizing have also become increasingly hostile to labor, helping to drive unions’ share of the work force down from a peak of 35 percent in the 1950s to a mere 7.4 percent today.
The House of Representatives passed a bill last week that would strengthen the rights of employees to form unions, and it drew an immediate veto threat from President Bush. But if Mr. Bush were, as he claims, truly concerned about rising income inequality and truly committed to improving the lives of America’s middle class, he would support the legislation and urge the Senate to approve it.
The most significant change in the bill is known as a majority signup, which would allow employees at a company to unionize if a majority signed cards expressing their desire to do so. Under current law, an employer can reject the majority’s signatures and insist on a secret ballot. But in a disturbingly high number of cases, the employer uses the time before the vote to pressure employees to rethink their decision to unionize.
The bill would also increase the penalty for employers who fired or otherwise discriminated illegally against pro-union employees. An employer currently found guilty of an illegal firing must pay back pay, minus whatever the fired employee might have earned at a new job — a fine so low as to be meaningless. And the bill would require binding arbitration if a newly formed union and company management were unable to agree on a first contract after 120 days. The refusal to bargain is among the most common allegations against employers in filings to the National Labor Relations Board.
Some employers, like Cingular Wireless and the health care provider Kaiser Permanente, have voluntarily embraced the practice of the majority signup. But many others, represented by interest groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, remain rigidly opposed.
The bill’s opponents charge that replacing secret ballots with the majority signup would be undemocratic. But the current system is by no means fair. The law prohibits union advocacy by employees during work hours and allows employers to ban organizers from the work place. But employers can require workers to attend anti-union presentations, and can discipline or fire those who refuse to attend.
In 2005, according to the most recent annual report of the National Labor Relations Board, 31,358 employees were receiving back pay after being discriminated against for their union-related activities. In research for a bipartisan Congressional commission in 2000, Kate Bronfenbrenner, a labor relations professor at Cornell University, reported that 25 percent of employers illegally fired at least one employee during organizing campaigns.
Labor unions have a role to play in helping to fix today’s economic ills — most notably, worsening income inequality, a problem that’s caused in part by unions’ decline and the workers’ resulting lack of bargaining power. What’s needed is a Congressional drive to help Mr. Bush see this obvious connection. The Senate should take up the House bill promptly and send it to the president for his signature.