Quantcast
Connect with us

There’s no guarantee a job will be waiting for you when you ‘go back to work’ — here’s why

Published

on

Thanks for your support!
This article was paid for by reader donations to Raw Story Investigates.

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.

Terry H. Schwadron
Terry H. Schwadron

Even before these protests have tried to take over the public stage, the widespread effects of coronavirus are already showing us that the workplace will have to change.

But the changes won’t be along the lines of what those protesters are seeking – other than the patchwork approach to re-opening businesses shut down in the name of public safety. The magical thinking of Trump loyalists and assorted “I-don’t-want-rules” folks holding their public tantrums about stay-at-home orders are going to do nothing to make things safe to go to work – or play – again.

ADVERTISEMENT

Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas are already lifting some restrictions this week, with no guidance about how one maintains social distancing maintained in a nail salon or barbershop, as examples. Or meat-packing plant. Shopowners are on their own.

This pandemic will prompt companies to move a lot faster towards automation, if for no other reason than robots don’t pick up contagious diseases.

The openings are coming as another 4.5 million file new unemployment claims, a total of more than 26 million, with the actual number of unemployed well over 30 million.

The early evidence says re-opening without re-envisions is quite dangerous, as we can see in a growing number of meat-packing plants in the Midwest where isolated cases of contagion are enflaming into hundreds of cases virtually overnight. And it is under the unwatchful eyes of Trump’s OSHA, the government workplace safety overseers, who are looking the other way and dumping safety rules.

From a public health viewpoint, it is difficult to see how the chest-thumping for some kind of freedom from common-sense rules is going to keep the infection monster from coming around the corner.

ADVERTISEMENT

Permanent Work from Home

A number of recent articles, commentaries and interviews reflect my thoughts that workplaces introduced to remote operation may well choose to remain that way, that office spaces likely will look to redesign to allow more physical distance among employees once they do return, and that we will need a fresh look at health benefits, sick leave and employee testing to assure that a return to physical workplaces does not just trigger a new cycle of disease.

One thought that keeps occurring to me is that this pandemic will also prompt companies to move a lot faster towards automation, if for no other reason than robots don’t pick up contagious diseases.

But our stumbling as a society and our seeming inability to devise appropriate, effective and humane policies over the handling of the effects of coronavirus gives me serious pause about how well we will deal with the inevitable widespread rollout of automation.

ADVERTISEMENT

For sure, those protesting in the streets are not looking more than a foot or two into the future, expecting a return to happier working times rather than the creation of a new normal.

Truckers Affected

Consider the images we are seeing on television now about truckers having trouble finding disease-free ways to get their own supplies as they labor around the clock to keep store shelves filled. Or the reports that cleaning employees in police stations and hospitals are being infected in record numbers.

ADVERTISEMENT

One clear answer is that it will occur to companies, particularly to companies who receive government bailout money to restart the stalled U.S. economy, to turn to robots to do these jobs in an effort to speed economic recovery – despite rules that are supposed to incent keeping employees on the payroll. Driverless trucks are already on the proving grounds and are beginning to roll out, and a lot of companies have industrial cleaning robots. Some hospitals have been experimenting with robots who deliver beside drugs and meals.

We have a strange oddity in which disease is getting us to value contributions for those most whose income and working conditions we most have ignored.

Businesses vs. Employees

For good or not, even Donald Trump is saying that the coronavirus is making it easy to see the benefits of more American production of pharmaceuticals and auto parts, the elements of supply lines.

ADVERTISEMENT

As usual, he is seeing only part of that picture. The virus is also making it easier to see nationwide trucking supply lines that depend on machines rather than humans. Indeed, how difficult is it to project that our profit-hungry companies will accelerate efforts to re-start markets and supply lines?

My concern is that our seeming repeated governmental disregard for workers and benefits will help businesses turn away from employees.  If American society is baffled about how to handle a month or two of lockdown, how are we going to deal with the effects of widespread and permanent unemployment?

The New York Times did a story last week surveying companies that are already moving aggressively towards automation. Industries from recycling to grocery supply companies to fast-food companies, call centers, warehouses and robotics itself are looking to replace humans with machines.

With machines that can be tasked to do specific jobs, like sorting through trash for recyclers, the idea is that employers can devise themselves a disease-free environment for work by machines that do not get sick. Or need health insurance. Or want improvements in working conditions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Already More Automation

Sometimes it is automation replacing cashiers with “contactless” transactions or more electronic transaction capabilities – even as the risks of hacking and cybercrime are on the rise – or providing translation services.

Some facilities that were looking at getting one or two robots are now saying, ‘We need quite a bit more,’” AMP Robotics’ Matanya Horowitz told The Times. “It’s all moving quite fast.”

Other than Andrew Yang, none of the presidential candidates, including Donald Trump, have discussed the permanent widespread displacement of workers or what we should be doing about jobs lost to humans. Yang, of course, made such claims the basis of his campaign, calling for monthly basic income payments to all American households exactly to offset the long-term effects of automation.

Replacing Humans

Employers say that robots augment the work by humans rather than replace them. But, increasingly, coronavirus is making us question that.

ADVERTISEMENT

When Republicans and Democrats in Washington split along familiar party lines about whether to aid companies first or workers first, it underscores the strange fragility we suddenly are finding about the nature of work altogether. We have a government that wants Americans at their jobs so much that we are punishing those who find it necessary to turn to food stamps. We want an economy booming again so much that our government and states are split about whether to risk rekindling a pandemic to make it so.

We have a Labor Department that does not put worker conditions first, a Commerce Secretary who blithely asserts that disease overseas should be good for American companies, a Health and Human Services Department that was overstepped by the president himself on a number of pandemic planning initiatives.

Yes, in its bumbling way, the government will find ways to open narrow parts of the economy, if for no other reason than to get people off suddenly overwhelmed unemployment rolls. But automation is likely to “bend the curve” of re-hiring workers.

We need a Plan, please, to guide to require that companies expecting to benefit from adding automated production to compensate the workers who are displaced.

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

2020 Election

Andrea Mitchell knocks Biden for virtual convention speech: ‘How much does that damage the campaign?’

Published

on

MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell suggested to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Wednesday that presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden could "damage" his campaign by holding a virtual convention speech.

Mitchell made the remark after President Donald Trump said that he was considering holding his convention speech at the White House.

"Joe Biden is not going to Milwaukee," Mitchell told Pelosi. "How much does this damage the campaign?"

Pelosi disagreed by insisting that Democrats will hold a "great convention."

Mitchell then asked about Trump's plan to hold his convention speech at the White House.

Continue Reading

2020 Election

Trump’s psychiatric disturbance could destroy democracy if he wins a second term: clinical psychologist

Published

on

I’m not being hyperbolic or melodramatic when I say that democracy itself is on the line on November 3. Donald Trump has been on a mission to subvert our democracy and to push it toward an autocracy. No president has ever disavowed democracy like Trump. No president has ever wanted to change our democratic way of life like Trump.

Trump has shown little interest or intent in following our Constitution. He is not abiding by the emoluments clause. He breaks norms and rules at will. He does not recognize that the three branches of government are co-equal. He operates as if the executive branch has total power. Our democracy is not based on the executive branch having absolute power. It requires that the three branches have separate powers in a check-and-balances system. Trump impugns democracy because it limits his power and requires him to be held accountable.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

WATCH: Sally Yates clashes with Lindsey Graham for claiming Flynn was investigated over a policy difference

Published

on

Former acting attorney general Sally Yates testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee this Wednesday, answering questions regarding former national security adviser, Michael Flynn and his being the subject of surveillance under a United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant, also known as a FISA warrant.

At one point, Yates went head-to-head with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who accused her of partaking in a conspiracy to prosecute Flynn over a policy difference.

"You weren't investigating a crime, were you?" Graham asked Yates.

"We were investigating a counter-intelligence threat," Yates responded.

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image