While the interviewer in this clip can be a little annoying, he also has a point. Speaker Pelosi says everyone who works should be paid the minimum wage, yet many of the people who work for her don’t make the minimum wage. The fact that we choose to label one “employment” and the other “an internship” would not seem to make much difference from a moral point of view. If it did, then as the interviewer rightly notes, businesses could simply evade minimum wage laws by classifying their employees as interns. On the face of it, then, Speaker Pelosi’s stance here would seem to just be another example of a trend I’ve noted previously, namely that many advocates of the minimum wage think an exception ought to be made in their own case.
My guess, however, is that most advocates of a legal minimum wage would also say an exception should be made for interns, even though most of them do not themselves utilize intern labor. This could just be a result of confusion, but the fact that so many share this intuition suggests that it is at least possible there is something else going on.
One might try to defend unpaid or low paying internships, by noting that interns learn valuable skills and gain important job experience which, while not reflected in their pay checks, could be of enormous value to them. But while this is no doubt true, the same could be said of many low paying, entry level positions.
I think the main reason people do not object to internships is because of the type of person they expect to be filling the positions. As Pope Leo XIII noted when setting out the Church’s teaching on the Just Wage, labor often contains both a personal and a necessary dimension:
were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman’s right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element in a man’s work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but not in reality. The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work.
But while work often contains both a personal and a necessary dimension, this is not always the case. A person has some means of support other than his work. So a student or youth may be supported by their family, or someone may have accumulated enough savings that their basic needs will be met even if they work for no pay. In such a case, the necessary dimension of work disappears, and we are left only with Pope Leo’s admission that “to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman’s right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all.”
Of course, once we admit this, the case for a minimum wage law becomes much more tenuous. But that is a subject perhaps best left for another time.
BA, I have to say I’ve read this twice and don’t see you point.
I’m sure Blackadder is well able to make clear what his point is, but certainly one of the points that seems clear to me from the piece is that by their own actions many high minimum wage advocates implicitly admit the point made by Catholic Social Teaching that there is not a single minimum wage that every person in every situation _must_ be paid as a matter of justice. How much or even whether someone ought to be paid is determined both by the work done and by the situation of the worker. And this is a level of detail which advocates of a high minimum wage as a major influence in how much workers actually make do not admit to exist in moral/economic life.
Are not interns the exception that prove the rule?
One might try to defend unpaid or low paying internships, by noting that interns learn valuable skills and gain important job experience which, while not reflected in their pay checks, could be of enormous value to them. But while this is no doubt true, the same could be said of many low paying, entry level positions.
Perhaps. It depends in large part on how one defines entry level labor. If one were to define entry level labor as anyone making under $15/hr, you would find a certain persistance in entry level labor. If one goes by the poverty level for a family of four, it is $10/hr. By these respective measures, upwards of 20-40% of people are in entry level positions and have been in them most of their working life. Of course this is probably not the best definition of entry level. I think it is better though than asserting the ordinary gaining of skills – don’t people making $80,000 a year gain skills as they work? – is entry level.
That guy has a bunch of interesting interviews. He has an annoying persona, but it’s hilarious to see politicians squirm and try to defend their dimwitted statements. I.e., http://janhelfeld.com/video/31/pete-stark-blows-up-over-national-debt
Are not interns the exception that prove the rule?
The exception that swallows the rule, more likely.
don’t people making $80,000 a year gain skills as they work?
Of course. I never claimed that only entry level positions had this feature, only that entry level positions did have them.
Why pay minimum wage ? There’s always illegals. If they get unruly peeling my grapes, I just say something about La Migra.
I hope everyone is enjoying the continued trickling down of the Bush years. Just the other day, we passed people holding up a sign asking for bread. I turned to my financial adviser and said, Que ne mangent-ils de la croûte de pâté? *
* wrongly attributed to Marie Antoinette
“So a student or youth may be supported by their family, or someone may have accumulated enough savings that their basic needs will be met even if they work for no pay. In such a case, the necessary dimension of work disappears”
I think that the situation of the average worker is pretty easy to gauge. An exact assessment is neither possible nor desirable, since laws aren’t made to address just one person (what’s the term for that, I can’t remember). Since American employers are allowed to treat the average employee far worse than the countries I am familiar with, I deem such regulations necessary. While we’re dreaming of utopia, how about minimum vacation time being legally mandated, fully paid maternity leave mandated and so forth. But -gasp- that’s a slippery slope. Next you know they’ll want guaranteed healthcare.
It is both comical and tragic that one has to fight for and against things in this country that go without saying elsewhere in the civilized world. From evolution to war.
I don’t know about interns in other industries, but in my industry of publishing (or at least in my company), interns work for a few weeks or months for the experience, and although some of them are quite helpful, it is just like training a new employee you know is going to quit before they know the job. In fact, it’s more burdensome than that, since you try to give an intern a variety of tasks to give him or her a broader range of experience than you would give to a new employee.
I have no idea what they get paid, but I assume if we were required to pay them as new hires, we simply wouldn’t take them on. It’s kind of like when an actor rides with the police for a limited time to prepare for a role as a police officer. No actor should be expect to be paid for that by the police department!
While we’re dreaming of utopia, how about minimum vacation time being legally mandated, fully paid maternity leave mandated and so forth.
Getting more vacation time is easy enough, if one is willing to accept lower wages in order to get it. My brother, for example, gets five weeks vacation. Most people, however, tend to prefer less vacation time and a higher wage to more vacation time and a lower wage, and I’m inclined to defer to their judgments on the matter, rather than having the question of how to resolve such tradeoffs be decided by someone who knows next to nothing about them.
…by their own actions many high minimum wage advocates implicitly admit the point made by Catholic Social Teaching that there is not a single minimum wage that every person in every situation _must_ be paid as a matter of justice.
Minimum wage/CST advocates are entirely correct in their assertion that there is not a single minimum wage that justice requires. That is why the minimum wage laws are written the way they are. I don’t think this is news.
Clearly one needs less free time to spend more money on. Vacation ? Surely the kids appreciate a higher allowance more. When I was a kid, we all drove to Greece for a four-week vacation, year after year. You CANNOT make up for the lack of that with money. And you pretend like it’s up to employees to choose their vacation time.
You pretend there is something like equality of positions. But…but…you don’t HAVE to work for an employer who won’t give you lots of vacations. LOL. Priceless. You’re either an employer or a masochist. While Masoch was an Austrian, it seems the inclination jumped the great pond.
Savoir vivre isn’t an American term for a reason. Row you bastards, row you bastards…
A good Catholic tradition re: labor is Sundays off. While still fairly protected in Europe, it’s not how it used to be. But, at least it’s not a show of pride to have a sign out “OPEN UNTIL MIDNIGHT ON CHRISTMAS DAY!”
While you may feel “free” in theory, the reality is that anything that can be used in favor of the company will be used in favor by the company rather than the employee.
Sure, you can quit your job anytime in California. You can also be fired anytime. Wild guess who is favored by that.
But, the American system does a good job of convincing people that it’s great, nay, virtuous, to drudge away.
In the end, there’s those stocks to fall back on, after all. If there’s one person you can entrust your retirement to, after all, it’s a stock broker.
When I was a kid, we all drove to Greece for a four-week vacation, year after year. You CANNOT make up for the lack of that with money.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you’ve no right to make this decision for anyone else.
Sure, you can quit your job anytime in California. You can also be fired anytime. Wild guess who is favored by that.
The employee, obviously (are you really saying that employees would be better off in a system where you couldn’t be fired but also weren’t allowed to quit your job?)
Blackadder, I’m expecting your answer to be characteristically parsed and lawyerly, but I’ll ask anyway: Do you think there is any imbalance in power between Walmart (say) and a door greeter or stocker that works there? If so, in your libertarian utopia who or what would protect the workers from abuse by management?
Blackadder, I don’t think minimum wage laws are a good idea, but you have to admit that the average worker is most definately NOT free to take more vacation and less pay. Unless by less pay, you mean no job. Free markets are a good thing, but our current system dominated by huge multinationals is anything but a free market.
Blackadder, it’s apparent that you’ve been trying to win a misanthropy award of late. Your chances are swell. The majority of posts by you could have been written by Scrooge McDuck. When will we see you pass out toy guns in the ghetto ? (a Libertarian initiative a few years ago). The accumulated nastiness of recent months makes Wonderful Life’s banker look like Jesus.
It’s a bit like a German theater director out to shock the bourgeois audience. “Why, I tell you, Wal-Mart is the victim here !” “Don’t like working below minimum wage ? Why, just look for another job then! The world is your oyster, my man!”
Camels going thru the eye of a needle cackle at the Libertarian lawyer behind them. “Nice try! Why, just look for a bigger needle, my man! Nobody forced you to try this one!”
Management is extremely reluctant to negotiate or allow LWOP. I don’t know of any major employers with liberal policies on this.
Do you think there is any imbalance in power between Walmart (say) and a door greeter or stocker that works there? If so, in your libertarian utopia who or what would protect the workers from abuse by management?
This is a good question. In fact, it’s such a good question that I’m going to try and answer it in a separate post, rather than trying to fit it into a the combox.
I don’t think minimum wage laws are a good idea, but you have to admit that the average worker is most definately NOT free to take more vacation and less pay. Unless by less pay, you mean no job.
If this is true, then one wonders why employers grant workers any vacation time at all. After all, there is no legal requirement that they do so. Yet not only do workers get paid vacation time, but we get more than we end up using. In 2001, Americans forfeited an average of 1.8 vacation days per worker by not using what was granted to them (also mystifying, given your comment about multinationals, is the fact that big companies tend to give more vacation days than smaller companies; perhaps big companies are just more altruistic).
It is true that if I went into my boss’s office today and said “I’d like to take a pay cut in exchange for extra vacation days” he would probably say no. But it is equally true that different employers offer different amounts of paid vacation, and if people in this country were willing to accept lower incomes in exchange for more paid vacation, then employers would respond to that.
It is true that if I went into my boss’s office today and said “I’d like to take a pay cut in exchange for extra vacation days” he would probably say no. But it is equally true that different employers offer different amounts of paid vacation, and if people in this country were willing to accept lower incomes in exchange for more paid vacation, then employers would respond to that.
Management has a legitimate interest in having a workforce in place that meets its production goals. Therefore it certainly has reservations about individual employees announcing they are taking LWOP next week.
But yes, the possibility of trading off vacation pay and wage rates is one of the benefits collective bargaining brings. In scads of contracts this has been negotiated to the mutual benefit of labor and management.
Matt Talbot,
I haven’t forgotten about you. Unfortunately between work and a fascinating discussion in another thread, I haven’t gotten around to preparing a reply to your question. So a full reply will probably have to wait till next week. Please accept my apologies.
It is true that if I went into my boss’s office today and said “I’d like to take a pay cut in exchange for extra vacation days” he would probably say no. But it is equally true that different employers offer different amounts of paid vacation, and if people in this country were willing to accept lower incomes in exchange for more paid vacation, then employers would respond to that.
I’ve never worked in a unionized workplace, but all the places I’ve worked have allowed people to take unpaid time off. Indeed, I even once took an extra unpaid two week period off and (without the need for collective bargaining) made a deal with my boss to spread the accounting for it over two months and get four lower paychecks instead of skipping one entirely.
Indeed, the main reason that I am now one of those millions of Americans who takes less than my allotment of time off each year is that I’ve risen to a level of responsibility where I know it makes life a lot harder for my coworkers when I take time off — and since I like my job pretty well I generally keep my time off under my allotted four weeks per year.
Do you think there is any imbalance in power between Walmart (say) and a door greeter or stocker that works there? If so, in your libertarian utopia who or what would protect the workers from abuse by management?
I’m fascinated to hear what BA will have to say on this, so I’m almost hesitant to respond myself, but a thought: Wal Mart has no ability to say what a potential greeter will make, only what they will make from Wal Mart. A potential greeter can refuse to work for them, and Wal Mart can refuse to pay the potential greeter more than minimum wage. Those are pretty much the options.
What a union allows is for the potential greeter to decree that no other worker will agree to work for less than he will. By denying those other workers who would be satisfied making less employment, he can force the employer to may him more.
In this sense, it strikes me that it’s no so much a matter of Wal Mart having undue power over the worker, as the worker being dissatisfied with the going rate for the work that he wants to do, and thus trying to keep other people from competing with him — thus driving the labor price up. Organizing doesn’t increase the worker’s power relative to Wal Mart, just versus other workers.
Blackadder – No problem at all. I look forward to reading it.
DC –
Union don’t “decree.” We negotiate.
I’m not surprised white collar employees like you can cut the deals you can. That situation is almost unheard of for non-exempt workers.
I’m dealing now with a guy who contacted me because thinks he needs a union in his workplace. He put in for leave and got approval from his employer. He made a non-refundable deposit to take his kids to Orlando. He makes less than $30K/yr and saved for quite some time for this. The boss has recinded his leave. My friend is devastated. Absent a union contract, there is nothing he can do. At this point he would gladly take LWOP rather than use his earned vacation.
Well, for what it’s worth, I made under $30k too back when I had to make that two week deal. Though as a recent college graduate, I certain _thought_ I was professional. Still, I was more knit collar than white collar at the time.
It sounds to me like the root of your friend’s problem is not so much that he doesn’t have a union as that his boss is a total a$$hole. Dante put people rather deep in hell for going back on their word, and I’d tend to agree with him.
On decree vs. negotiate: unions negotiate with the employer so they can decree work terms to potential workers. Let’s be clear, though: the way that unions are able to have the strength to negotiate is by keeping other workers from working for other terms and thus crowding out the union workers.
DC –
No. Under US labor law, a union cannot negotiate the right to decree work terms.
As far as the boss being an A-hole, people (should) have the right to protect themselves from such A-holes.
So if the union has negotiated a $18/hr wage for a job, and a guy who’s out of work wants to outbid a union member for an open role by agreeing to work for $16/hr, he’s allowed to do that in violation of the union contract in order to get the work?
DC —
A union cannot negotiate the right to decree wage rates. Labor and management might jointly agree that the wage rate for a particular job be $18/hr. Given that in the United States the closed shop is illegal, then both the union member and the other applicant can apply and management has the right to select which of them is hired. If the second individual has no need for more than $16/hr, he is certainly free to utilize the parish poor box for the excess $2. How he would waive other aspects of the labor-management agreement might be more difficult. For example, I’m not sure how he could exempt his particular work area from negotiated health and safety standards or waive negotiated equal employment opportunity protections.
Kurt,
You’re a smart guy, so I have to think that you understand what I’m saying, though perhaps it’s not the way you’re used to thinking. The way that unions win increased wages is by setting up a situation in which no one can work for the company except through the union-negotiated terms.
Because this restrict the labor market and flattens the terms available, it has the result of keeping down the people who might otherwise make the most, and keeping out the people who might more marginally have filled a position (less experience, past problems, cultural barriers, etc.) and might have seemed worth hiring if they were willing to work for (and could have been offered) a few dollars less per hour while they ramped, but in a flat rate environment are not worth bothering with.
I have the feeling you and I have been over this before, so I won’t elaborate.
DC –
I would just suggest by avoid inacurate and polemeical words like “decree” and “impose” when the reality is a two party negotiation, it would move the discussion along at a quicker speed.
However, yes, one of the best selling points unions have is protection for workers (particularly those who make long term committments like taking out a mortgage) from being told to clean out their locker and leave the plant because the boss found someone ready to do their job for a nickel less an hour.
Oddly, its just part of our economic system if a lawn service company negotiates a three year contract for a set amount of money and other terms and conditions with an office park owner, but, if the work was done in house, not okay for the lawn service workers to negotiate for themselves.
Capital may organize, but workers may not?
I would just suggest by avoid inacurate and polemeical words like “decree” and “impose” when the reality is a two party negotiation, it would move the discussion along at a quicker speed.
It’s certainly a two-way negotiation with the employer, but it’s imposing and decreeing when it comes to workers. Being a worker, that’s how I tend to think of things. But point taken and I’ll avoid it in future.
However, yes, one of the best selling points unions have is protection for workers (particularly those who make long term committments like taking out a mortgage) from being told to clean out their locker and leave the plant because the boss found someone ready to do their job for a nickel less an hour.
In a “dwarves are for the dwarves” kind of way, I see the attraction of this. However, it’s only attractive for the people on the inside, not for the people who are shut out because one has established control over certain elements of the labor market.
And in the long run, it can hurt the union members as well (as we’ve seen lately in a lot of unionized industries) since blocking the pricing mechanism from labor can allow people to think they have middle class occupations when they in fact are doing very low skill work which may vanish when the industry finally gets beat out by competition from elsewhere (or collapses under its own weight) thus leaving people to go through a very painful adjustment later in life.
Oddly, its just part of our economic system if a lawn service company negotiates a three year contract for a set amount of money and other terms and conditions with an office park owner, but, if the work was done in house, not okay for the lawn service workers to negotiate for themselves.
There’s nothing to keep workers from having set contracts with their employers if both agree to it — but in the case of the lawn service the office park owner will almost certainly have it in there that the lawn service can’t quit in search of greener pastures without proper notice and severance. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many workers who would want to provide 90 days notice or refund their last three months worth of wages when going to take a better job.
It’s certainly a two-way negotiation with the employer, but it’s imposing and decreeing when it comes to workers.
I wish as a shareholder I had 1/10th of the democratic rights and opportunities I have as a union member. I just don’t buy the theory that democratic decision making is “imposing and decreeing” on the minority side (and generally a small minority at that. Most ratifications pass by overwhelming margins).
In a “dwarves are for the dwarves” kind of way, I see the attraction of this. However, it’s only attractive for the people on the inside, not for the people who are shut out because one has established control over certain elements of the labor market.
I think it is very attractive to job applicants that their future employment would include wage security, workplace health and safety standards, and negotiated equal employment opportunity rights.
There’s nothing to keep workers from having set contracts with their employers if both agree to it —
I know. It’s called trade unionism.
…but in the case of the lawn service the office park owner will almost certainly have it in there that the lawn service can’t quit in search of greener pastures without proper notice and severance. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many workers who would want to provide 90 days notice or refund their last three months worth of wages when going to take a better job.
It can be negotiated if that is an concern for management. I’ve never known management to ask for more than two weeks notice. And then there are very common no strike agreements.
I just don’t buy the theory that democratic decision making is “imposing and decreeing” on the minority side (and generally a small minority at that. Most ratifications pass by overwhelming margins).
In this instance, I meant workers in the more general sense — particularly the less skilled and experienced sort who find themselves totally excluded from consideration once the wages have been fixed nice and high.
I think it is very attractive to job applicants that their future employment would include wage security, workplace health and safety standards, and negotiated equal employment opportunity rights.
Oh, it can be attractive all right. I’m just not always sure it’s a good idea. Example: Back in college when I was working in a call center in West Virginia, one of the callers who was currently both in college and on the waiting list for a union job in the local steel mill was explaining to me how if he came up to the top of the list and secured a union job he would quit college since it would take him years to make as much with a college degree working elsewhere as he’s make as a steelworker. Of course, the part he wasn’t taking into account in this plan was that steel mills had been closing up and down the Ohio River for years, and the high wages were just a relic of union negotiations years before when the industry was healthy.
Essentially, those high union wages (and false security) were giving bad messages — making it look like these were high skilled jobs in a healthy industry. So while the union negotiated terms were certainly attractive, they were encouraging people to make bad decisions.
It can be negotiated if that is an concern for management. I’ve never known management to ask for more than two weeks notice. And then there are very common no strike agreements.
I would imagine that’s because most companies don’t think they can successfully get a worker to do good work when making him serve out a long notice period. (Keep in mind, 90 days notice would effectively keep you from being able to take most other jobs — so the worker would be encouraged to just get himself fired once he found another job.) A business contract which requires a long notice/reverence period for breaking the contract outside of its usual renewal cycle would allow you to sue the other company for a significant amount — perhaps the rest of the contract term’s worth of value. It works between companies because companies are larger and flusher.
For myself, I’ve dealt with business contracts which can only be ended on the annual anniversary or with 90 days notice, but I’d certainly never want to work under those terms. I’d much rather be able to leave whenever I want. And I suspect most workers worth having would feel the same.
DC –
I know of about 155 people who are grateful that my union brother Capt. Sullenberger was not laid off so his employer could hire a less skilled person at a lower wage rate.
If your point is just that if unions were out of the way, corporate CEOs with the hearts of a social workers would be providing all of these job opportunities to poor schleps that just need a break and a chance to prove themselves, I think you would be sadly mistaken.
On the general issue of supporting opportunities for new entrants in the workforce or into a particular craft, I think labor has a better record than management’s feeble actions here (though the building trades unions in the 1970s, sadly almost wholly made up of Catholics, are a disappointing exception). If you want to explore this further, can we start with Westinghouse as a case study?
But if there is an honest need to the situation you reference, easy solutions in a union shop exist. Create a Machinist Grade I and a Machinist Grade II position. A union contract could also give the Grade I Machinist some objective standards that once met lead to a promotion to Grade II as opposed to the all too common situation in an unorganized shop of “I was promised….” (If I had a nickel for every one of those stories). A union also give the employees a forum to deal with the question of if the boss is going to hire people working at 80% productivity, are the rest of us supposed to pick up the slack for no additional pay? (You have not quite explained that in your scenario)
N.B. In my third paragraph above, what I meant to say that it was sad members of our own faith tradition did not have more social vision, not that it was sad these crafts were composed mostly of Catholics.
I know of about 155 people who are grateful that my union brother Capt. Sullenberger was not laid off so his employer could hire a less skilled person at a lower wage rate.
Because without unions airlines would have no interest in safety and good pilots? Give me a break. It would be about as fair for me to say it was the fault of unions that your union brother plowed a plane into a house killing 40 people a couple weeks ago due to “pilot error”.
Though as a side note: incredibly high skill/high pay groups such a airline pilots strike me as one of the worst possible cases for organizing. Low skill or no skill workers there’s at least some justification. But workers who take years to train and make over 100k are just getting greedy to organize.
A union also give the employees a forum to deal with the question of if the boss is going to hire people working at 80% productivity, are the rest of us supposed to pick up the slack for no additional pay? (You have not quite explained that in your scenario)
Well, I didn’t explain it because in my experience unions always protect the 80% productivity workers, and indeed often the 50% productivity workers. My father ended up having to do the department secretary’s job for free at the community college he worked for because the state employees union which both he and she belonged to had ruled that it was unacceptable for her to be dismissed because she couldn’t figure out how to use a computer (except to read various newspapers online for a couple hours each morning). After all, she could use a typewriter!
I suppose the beauty of unions is that had he filed a complaint they would have ruled he didn’t have to cover for her, but the thing is that he actually cared about his department being able to function — something which she as an enthusiastic union member was not encumbered with. (And her story was more endemic than unique in regards to the union situations Dad dealt with.) Working with a lot of Michigan refugees, all the stories about working in union environments involve workers who cared far more about their smoke breaks than about whether their products were any good or their companies succeeded.
At issue here, though, is this basic concern: Price is generally an important piece of information about what a product or service is worth to others. As such, a union which successfully freezes wages at far above market levels effectively fools people into thinking that their work is far more valuable to other people than it actually is — which works fine so long as an industry is dominant (as Detroit was in the 60s) but is a recipe for personal and economic disaster when reality kicks in.
DC –
FYI — The pilots for Colgan Air are non-union.
[...] Protects the Worker? In the comments to my post last week on the minimum wage, reader Matt Talbot posed to me the following question: Blackadder, I’m expecting your answer to [...]
[...] Protects the Worker? In the comments to my post last week on the minimum wage, reader Matt Talbot posed to me the following question: Blackadder, I’m expecting your answer to [...]
One of the differences between the ALPA contract and the policies of non-union Colgan Air is that if a pilot discovers a safety problem that cancels the flight, he loses his pay for the flight. Under the union contract, pilots at least are given some flight termination pay.
Here is the latest:
WASHINGTON – The air traffic controller who handled Flight 1549 thought ditching in the Hudson River amounted to a death sentence for all aboard. Now the veteran pilot who pulled off the ditching safely says harsh pay cuts are driving experienced pilots from the cockpit.
“People don’t survive landings on the Hudson River,” 10-year veteran controller Patrick Harten told a House subcommittee Tuesday in his first public description of how he tried to land the jetliner that lost power in both jets when it hit Canada geese after takeoff from New York’s LaGuardia Airport.
“I thought it was his own death sentence,” Harten said of the moment when US Airways pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger radioed that he was going into the river. Defying the odds, Sullenberger safely glided the Airbus A320 down and all 155 people aboard survived the Jan. 15 water landing.
Sullenberger, a 58-year-old who joined a US Airways predecessor in 1980, told the House aviation subcommittee that his pay has been cut 40 percent in recent years and his pension has been terminated and replaced with a promise “worth pennies on the dollar” from the federally created Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. These cuts followed a wave of airline bankruptcies after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks compounded by the current recession, he said.
“The bankruptcies were used by some as a fishing expedition to get what they could not get in normal times,” Sullenberger said of the airlines. He said the problems began with the deregulation of the industry in the 1970s.
The reduced compensation has placed “pilots and their families in an untenable financial situation,” Sullenberger said. “I do not know a single professional airline pilot who wants his or her children to follow in their footsteps.”
The subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee heard from the crew of Flight 1549, the air traffic controller who handled the flight and aviation experts to examine what safety lessons could be learned from the accident.
Sullenberger’s copilot Jeffrey B. Skiles said unless federal laws are revised to improve labor-management relations “experienced crews in the cockpit will be a thing of the past.” And Sullenberger added that without experienced pilots “we will see negative consequences to the flying public.”
Sullenberger himself has started a consulting business to help make ends meet. Skiles added, “For the last six years, I have worked seven days a week between my two jobs just to maintain a middle class standard of living.”
Controller Harten riveted the hearing with his account of the 3.5 minutes during which he spoke with the crippled jetliner after the bird strike at an altitute of 2,750 feet.
When Sullenberger said he couldn’t make it either back to LaGuardia or to Teterboro Airport in New Jersey and would ditch in the the Hudson River that separates New York and New Jersey, Harten testified, “I believed at that moment I was going to be the last person to talk to anyone on that plane alive.”
But Sullenberger delicately glided the jetliner into the river in one piece near ferry boats that picked the passengers off the planes wings before it sank in the icy waters.
Harten, who has spent his entire career at the radar facility in Westbury, N.Y., that handles air traffic within 40 miles of three major airports, struggled vainly to help get the airliner safely to a landing strip.
Making lightning-quick decisions, Harten communicated with 14 other entities in the three minutes after the bird strike as he diverted other aircraft and advised controllers elsewhere to hold aircraft and clear runways for 1549.
First, Harten tried to return the plane to LaGuardia Airport, asking the airport’s tower to clear runway 13. But Sullenberger calmly reported: “We’re unable.”
Then Harten offered another LaGuardia runway. Again, Sullenberger reported, “Unable.” He said he might be able to make Teterboro Airport in New Jersey.
But when Harten directed Sullenberger to turn onto a heading for Teterboro, the pilot responded: “We can’t do it …. We’re going to be in the Hudson.”
“I asked him to repeat himself even though I heard him just fine,” said Harten. “I simply could not wrap my mind around those words.”
At that moment, Harten said he lost radio contact with flight and was certain it “had gone down.”
Afterward, Harten said he told his wife, “I felt like I had been hit by a bus.”