washingtonmonthly--2020-01-13--Why Today’s Shopping Sucks

Why Today’s Shopping Sucks

Shoppers hate waiting .
If they ’ ve made the effort to go shop at a brick-and-mortar store , rather than stay home and order something online , they hate not finding what they ’ re looking for .
They hate not finding assistance .
They hate bad service .
Unfortunately , bad service is often the norm .
Research from MIT ’ s Sloan School of Management finds that large shares of shoppers can ’ t find anyone to help them .
They ’ re put off by jumbled piles of unfolded clothes or misplaced items .
Many walk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , costing , in one estimate , between 5 percent and 15 percent in lost sales , potentially more if people are frustrated enough to take to social media .
To understand why stores appear dysfunctional , look at how chaotic life is for their workers .
Consider the experience of former Target employee Adrian Ugalde .
Sometimes , during the holiday rush of Christmas or at back-to-school time , Ugalde received the full-time hours he was promised when he was hired .
But outside of that , his hours bounced around , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assigned 20 hours of work .
The next week , 12 .
Sometimes he would be on the closing shift until 12:30 a.m. , take an hour bus ride or expensive rideshare home to the one-bedroom apartment he shares with four other people , only to be back on the job the following morning at seven .
In order to keep his health insurance , the 37-year-old routinely had to beg coworkers to give up their shifts so he could cobble together enough hours of work each week to stay eligible for full-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the product of the exploitative use of a sophisticated , “ smart software ” computer algorithm .
For the past several years , these programs have been determining how many retail , food-service , or other hourly service workers are needed per shift ; what hours these workers are given each week ; and which days and which shifts workers get .
The algorithms use big data—previous sales trends , weather patterns , consumer preferences—to predict how many customers are likely to be in a store at a given time , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected demand .
More rain predicted ?
More customers are likely to dash indoors to buy stuff ; more last-minute calls are made to weary workers to come in .
Or , when the rain doesn ’ t bring in the expected rush , more workers are called in at the last minute and then sent home , often without pay .
Algorithmic scheduling has wreaked utter havoc in the lives , health , financial stability , and future prospects of millions of service workers .
Now , 16 million retail workers ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States ) , 12 million food-service workers , and scores of other hourly workers and their families are trapped in a never-ending cycle of precarious and unpredictable low-wage labor .
“ A computer decides when I work and how much I work and whether I work , ” said Ugalde , who made $ 10 an hour at Target .
“ It ’ s just trying to fit me in like a puzzle piece .
A computer doesn ’ t know your life .
It only knows what you input.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driven by one goal : increasing efficiency to increase profits .
In a capitalist economy , that ’ s hardly surprising .
Especially in an era dubbed the “ retail apocalypse , ” when brick-and-mortar stores are under increasing pressure from online retail , it sounds brilliant .
Use big data to better track customer demand , then come up with a smart-software algorithm to figure out how many workers you need and when to most efficiently deploy them .
The cost of labor is the single largest controllable expense for retailers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the first place they look to cut .
The push to use new technologies to wring as much value from workers as possible isn ’ t exclusive to this era , or even to brick-and-mortar businesses .
New surveillance technology has turned truckers into America ’ s most-watched workers .
Amazon—the death star for physical stores—uses algorithms in its warehouses to track and time worker movements .
But it doesn ’ t have to be this way .
In fact , it shouldn ’ t be this way .
The software is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human beings .
Some companies already have programmed software to be humane .
And they ’ ve found that when they do , it isn ’ t just employee health and well-being that improve .
Customer satisfaction does , too .
Research shows that better , more predictable schedules for staffers means happier workers .
That means better customer service and more sales .
And that ’ s better for business .
Nevertheless , U.S. corporations have overwhelmingly chosen to program software to do the opposite .
As the data scientist Cathy O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Weapons of Math Destruction , “ It ’ s almost as if the software were designed expressly to punish low-wage workers and to keep them down.
” Scheduling software debuted in many companies right around the time of the Great Recession , just when a spike in involuntary , poorly paid , part-time hourly work took root across the economy .
As retail and service companies began transitioning from employing mostly full-time to mostly part-time staff , they began to demand that workers have “ open availability.
” Algorithms programmed to closely match @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assigning these part-time , always-available workers increasingly erratic hours .
For years , this problem was largely invisible , subsumed by research on the impact of post-recession unemployment and pay cuts .
Experts stumbled on it almost accidentally .
In 2014 , Daniel Schneider , a demographer and sociology professor at the University of California , Berkeley , and his colleague Kristen Harknett , a sociologist at the University of California , San Francisco , were studying how the 2008 recession had affected families .
Much had been written about plummeting birth rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marital quality .
Many attributed that family instability to the loss of a job and the devastation of unemployment .
But Schneider and Harknett began to find lasting negative effects beyond job loss .
Even among those who kept their jobs , or found new ones , they found an enormous and enormously debilitating sense of everyday uncertainty .
Many workers reported that they didn ’ t know when or how much they would work , if they ’ d be asked to stay late , or if they ’ d be called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the problem , Schneider and Harknett quickly realized that there was no data about what was going on .
“ We ’ re so focused on wages in our labor-force surveys in the United States , ” Schneider said .
“ This is different .
This is about time.
” In 2016 , what began as Schneider and Harknett ’ s informal interviews with hourly retail and service-sector workers in the San Francisco Bay area grew into the Shift Project , which is now the largest source of data on work scheduling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 84,000 workers in the retail and fast-food sectors from across the country .
The data includes worker schedules , economic security , and the health and well-being of workers and families .
Half of the workers in the Shift Project ’ s database say their shifts change from day to day and week to week .
Since the recession , working hours have begun to swing wildly from one week to the next for low-wage workers with less than a college degree .
Two-thirds of the workers reported that they have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work day or night at the drop of a hat .
Two-thirds of workers in the survey get their schedules less than two weeks in advance .
Sixteen percent said they have less than 72 hours ’ notice .
Eighty percent said they either have no input or limited input in making their schedules .
These workers tend to be among the most invisible and powerless .
Previous research has found that the workers who are disproportionately more likely to have nonstandard hours are women , people of color , young people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September 2019 analysis of General Social Survey data on schedule volatility found that workers who are “ black , young , and without a college degree appear to be at highest risk.
” Research released in October shows that nonwhite workers are as much as 30 percent more likely to have precarious work schedules than white workers .
When Schneider asked one young single mother what kind of schedule she ’ d prefer , she sighed , and said it would be “ amazing ” if she could work a predictable night shift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with her child , instead of having to frantically call around for help or park her child in front of the TV of whichever relative , friend , or neighbor is available at the last minute any time of the day or night .
“ I thought it was really sad that a stable night shift was her big dream .
It shows how limited workers see the realm of possibility , ” Schneider said .
“ But she ’ s right to dream for a stable shift , because it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That variability in schedules , the Shift Project and other research has found , is associated with higher levels of depression and psychological distress—feelings of nervousness , hopelessness , worthlessness , and being overwhelmed—than other low-wage workers with stable schedules .
Nearly three-fourths of the workers with erratic schedules reported poor sleep .
It ’ s not hard to imagine the stress , anxiety , and sleepless nights—not to mention financial hardship—that result when your income swings more than 30 percent each week , while your bills don ’ t .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the researchers tested whether higher wages or more predictable schedules would make a bigger difference in their lives .
Time strain , they found , had twice the impact .
“ It ’ s really stressful , ” Schneider said , “ to have no control over disorganized time.
” Try making appointments for the doctor or dentist or parent-teacher conference when you get your work schedule with only a day or two of notice .
As Sam Hughes discovered , attempting to make time for medical necessities can lead to retribution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as nonbinary and prefers a gender-neutral pronoun ) got a job at a Fred Meyer deli in Salem , Oregon , in 2018 , they made clear they needed four hours a week for doctors ’ appointments and wouldn ’ t be able to have open availability .
But instead of the 30 predictable hours a week Hughes asked for , they got 20 erratic hours .
When Hughes asked for two additional hours off one week to make it to an unexpected doctor ’ s appointment , their weekly work hours were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and service workers , Hughes made so little and had such an unstable work schedule that they qualified for public benefits like food stamps and Medicaid .
They wound up working odd jobs for the landlord to pay rent and make ends meet .
When we met , Hughes held out their arm to show me scars in the hollow of their elbow .
“ I was selling my plasma , ” Hughes told me .
The stress of disorganized time carries into the next generation .
In another new paper released in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher levels of anxiety , stress , and depression in children whose parents work unpredictable hours compared to those whose parents have set schedules .
It ’ s easy to see why .
Research shows that at a time of rapid brain , cognitive , and social-emotional development , children need stability and attachment to a warm , responsive caregiver .
Parents ’ unpredictable schedules disrupt that .
The study found that these parents ’ children have multiple caregivers , are constantly changing schedules , and are more often in informal care settings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disadvantage to the children of better-educated parents with more control over their time , reinforcing inequality .
Disorganized time can also impact the previous generation .
Ashley Worthen , for example , a 30-year-old single mother , would get her schedule for her cashier ’ s job at an Albertsons grocery store one day before her workweek was to begin .
If the computer assigned her weekend hours or early mornings or evening shifts when her son ’ s daycare was closed , she was forced to rely on her mother for help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Worthen had to be always available and on call on short notice , Worthen ’ s mother , Ruth , had to be always available and on call to watch her grandson .
That meant Ruth Worthen was held hostage to her daughter ’ s unpredictable schedule and couldn ’ t get her own job .
“ In order for workers to work these crazy schedules , so many other people have to put their lives on hold , ” Schneider said .
“ It ’ s a hidden subsidy to companies—all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these unpredictable schedules work.
” In just the past five years , even at a time of historically low union membership , stories of millions of workers like Ugalde , Hughes , and Worthen have sparked a newly energized worker movement .
Last February , workers won a successful class-action lawsuit in California , arguing that on-call scheduling amounted to abusive wage theft .
Unions like Ugalde ’ s Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy and Worthen and Hughes ’ s United Food and Commercial Workers ( UFCW ) have been organizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that low-income workers have more schedule volatility in states with smaller union membership . )
Already , the cities of San Francisco , Emeryville , San Jose , Seattle , New York , Philadelphia , and Chicago , as well as the entire state of Oregon , have passed fair-scheduling laws to give workers more notice and to guarantee some pay if they come in to work and are sent home After years of worker agitation , in 2018 , Walmart began to offer workers the ability to choose “ core hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began giving them two and a half weeks of advance notice of their schedules .
They now give workers nine hours of rest between shifts and lock down shift changes 24 hours in advance to avoid last-minute disruptions .
Walmart also recently began offering the “ My Walmart Schedule ” mobile app so workers can more easily swap shifts , pick up extra hours , and have more control over their time .
The changes have led to reduced absenteeism and turnover rates , said Michelle Malashock , the company ’ s director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walmart isn ’ t alone in seeing business upsides to employment stability .
Research into unpredictable worker schedules shows that such schedules , rather than the cost-saving efficiency boon that many businesses expected , are quite the opposite .
A 35-week-long , randomized controlled trial at select Gap Inc. stores , for example , found that the health , sleep , and well-being of workers vastly improved at the stores with more stable schedules .
In addition , predictable schedules increased productivity and sales .
Labor productivity and sales were both about 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it turns out , the algorithms are fairly easy to reprogram with a different set of values , beyond cutting labor to the bone .
Companies in Australia , the United Kingdom , continental Europe , and other capitalist countries use some of the same scheduling software .
They just configure it differently , to comply with more robust labor laws and corporate norms , or to account for the humanity of workers .
Some U.S. companies , including Costco , also employ worker-friendly scheduling-software programs .
For the Gap study , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to start with schedules from the prior week .
“ Predictable schedules are easy to achieve with today ’ s scheduling systems .
It ’ s all about how you use them , ” said Bob Clements , president of the Axsium Group , a global workforce-management consulting company , who likened U.S. companies ’ approach to scheduling workers to the game of 52 Card Pickup .
“ The retailer is really responsible for the configuration , which is going to refine or drive the software.
” Susan Lambert , a professor at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Gap study ’ s coauthors , said that much of what drives schedule instability isn ’ t just the software per se .
Instead , it ’ s that the software doesn ’ t account for the unexpected—shipments that come in suddenly , new promotions handed down at the last minute from headquarters , or a surprise visit from an executive , all of which require more staff than the algorithm predicted .
That , and what Lambert calls “ management by fright.
” Managers are driven to both meet strict sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s forecasts , and keep to tight labor budgets .
“ So what ends up happening , ” Lambert explained , “ is a manager will say , ‘ We were supposed to sell 60 sweaters by now , and we ’ ve only sold 30 !
Someone has to go home !
’ ” That ’ s the situation that David Sciaudone , 49 , found himself in repeatedly as the former manager of a Sears automotive center in Waterbury , Connecticut .
His supervisors told him to tightly schedule his staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got slow , he ’ d have to send people home .
“ It was really horrible , ” he said .
“ But if you didn ’ t get under budget , you ’ d get a phone call , screaming .
.
.
.
They ’ d say , ‘ You have 45 seconds , or you ’ re going to be on the unemployment line.
’ ” The cut-labor-at-all-costs mind-set , which keeps schedules so erratic , ignores the fact that good workers are retail ’ s unsung secret weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could lead not only to a lost sale but also to the potential loss of a lifetime customer , and , if they ’ re angry enough , their personal networks .
“ Understaffing costs are potentially large but can ’ t be measured easily , ” said Saravanan Kesavan , a business professor at the University of North Carolina and coauthor of the Gap study .
“ On the other hand , overstaffing may be a smaller cost , but it ’ s highly visible.
” Yet despite the increase in health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Gap didn ’ t change scheduling and management practices once the study ended .
( Spokespeople from the Gap did not respond to phone and email requests for comment . )
Why ?
Wharton School professor Marshall Fisher blames businesses ’ cognitive bias—a business school mentality that they have to keep labor costs low at all costs , and a belief that this requires unstable schedules .
Both assumptions are false .
But they are pervasive .
Rachel Deutsch , who heads the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take a Fair Workweek pledge , and offers to work with them to implement it .
Has anyone taken them up on the challenge ?
“ The short answer is .
.
.
not yet.
” Adrian Ugalde has since quit working for Target .
“ I couldn ’ t take it anymore , ” he said .
He ’ s found a new position making more money working full-time hours at a smaller drugstore chain that programs its scheduling algorithms for humans , not puzzle pieces .
He has a set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s cross-trained to work both on the floor and in the back room to account for fluctuating demand so he won ’ t be sent home early .
“ To these big retailers , they never get to know you .
You ’ re just a slot they have to fill , ” Ugalde said .
“ Here , I feel they care about me as an individual .
I love my schedule.
” Sam Hughes supported the passage of the first statewide stable-scheduling law in the nation .
It passed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hospitality , and food-service companies with more than 500 workers worldwide are now required to give a “ good faith ” estimate of monthly work hours to employees at the time of hire .
Starting in 2020 , they must give workers their schedules two weeks in advance , a right to rest at least 10 hours between shifts , a right to have input into their schedules , and compensation for any last-minute schedule changes .
Workers can sign up for a “ standby ” list and be contacted if extra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s incredibly helpful , ” said Hughes , who quit the Fred Meyer deli to work full-time as the social-media coordinator for the UFCW union in Portland , Oregon .
“ Workers can plan , have lives , make doctor appointments .
And if they call you at the last minute , you don ’ t have to come in.
” Ashley Worthen changed jobs to work a regular schedule as a bookkeeper at Albertsons .
She tracks employee hours and shifts .
What she ’ s noticed since the law went into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more input into schedules , workers aren ’ t frantically canceling at the last minute or madly scrambling to swap shifts like before .
“ Everyone is happier .
Everyone sleeps better .
The atmosphere at the store is so much better for workers and managers , ” she said .
With her more predictable hours , her mother has been able to get a job washing dishes in a rehab facility , helping boost the family ’ s income .
Of course , not all companies need changes in law to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MIT research on strategies to make all jobs good jobs—which includes giving workers schedule stability—Mud Bay , an employee-owned natural pet food and supply store with nearly 60 locations in Oregon and Washington State , seeks to give each employee the number of work hours they want , create schedules with their input , and publish these schedules three weeks in advance .
To respond to staffers who want more hours than any one store has available , Mud Bay is beginning to create “ packs ” of nearby stores so they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them .
“ We spend a lot of time thinking about different accommodations .
For example , if someone is struggling with their mental health or struggling with sleep and a morning shift isn ’ t best , we ’ ll set up an afternoon shift for them , ” said Michelle Markus , the company ’ s chief people officer .
Right now , managers painstakingly schedule every “ Muddy , ” as employees are called , by hand in an Excel spreadsheet .
But Mud Bay is now rolling out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re hoping it will help stores become more efficient—not by using sales data and customer information to cut labor , as other companies do , but by saving managers ’ time , giving employees better visibility to available hours , and ensuring that the company is complying with fair-scheduling legislation in Oregon and Seattle .
“ We want to stay grounded in our mission , our values , and our beliefs about what ’ s important for us , our customers , and as business owners contributing to the community , ” Markus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the technology isn ’ t essentially running our business.
” As with any technology , that will depend on the humans who program it .

Shoppers hate waiting. If they’ve made the effort to go shop at a brick-and-mortar store, rather than stay home and order something online, they hate not finding what they’re looking for. They hate not finding assistance. They hate bad service.
Unfortunately, bad service is often the norm. Research from MIT’s Sloan School of Management finds that large shares of shoppers can’t find anyone to help them. They’re put off by jumbled piles of unfolded clothes or misplaced items. Many walk out the door without dropping a dime, costing, in one estimate, between 5 percent and 15 percent in lost sales, potentially more if people are frustrated enough to take to social media.
To understand why stores appear dysfunctional, look at how chaotic life is for their workers. Consider the experience of former Target employee Adrian Ugalde. Sometimes, during the holiday rush of Christmas or at back-to-school time, Ugalde received the full-time hours he was promised when he was hired. But outside of that, his hours bounced around, sometimes wildly. One week he was assigned 20 hours of work. The next week, 12. Sometimes he would be on the closing shift until 12:30 a.m., take an hour bus ride or expensive rideshare home to the one-bedroom apartment he shares with four other people, only to be back on the job the following morning at seven. In order to keep his health insurance, the 37-year-old routinely had to beg coworkers to give up their shifts so he could cobble together enough hours of work each week to stay eligible for full-time status.
Ugalde’s chaotic schedule is the product of the exploitative use of a sophisticated, “smart software” computer algorithm. For the past several years, these programs have been determining how many retail, food-service, or other hourly service workers are needed per shift; what hours these workers are given each week; and which days and which shifts workers get. The algorithms use big data—previous sales trends, weather patterns, consumer preferences—to predict how many customers are likely to be in a store at a given time, and then assign staffing levels to match that expected demand. More rain predicted? More customers are likely to dash indoors to buy stuff; more last-minute calls are made to weary workers to come in. Or, when the rain doesn’t bring in the expected rush, more workers are called in at the last minute and then sent home, often without pay.
Algorithmic scheduling has wreaked utter havoc in the lives, health, financial stability, and future prospects of millions of service workers. Now, 16 million retail workers (one out of every 10 employees in the United States), 12 million food-service workers, and scores of other hourly workers and their families are trapped in a never-ending cycle of precarious and unpredictable low-wage labor. “A computer decides when I work and how much I work and whether I work,” said Ugalde, who made $10 an hour at Target. “It’s just trying to fit me in like a puzzle piece. A computer doesn’t know your life. It only knows what you input.”
Scheduling software uses big data—previous sales trends, weather patterns, consumer preferences—to predict how many customers are likely to be in a store at a given time, and then assign staffing levels to match that expected demand.
The rise of scheduling algorithms has been driven by one goal: increasing efficiency to increase profits. In a capitalist economy, that’s hardly surprising. Especially in an era dubbed the “retail apocalypse,” when brick-and-mortar stores are under increasing pressure from online retail, it sounds brilliant. Use big data to better track customer demand, then come up with a smart-software algorithm to figure out how many workers you need and when to most efficiently deploy them. The cost of labor is the single largest controllable expense for retailers and other labor-intensive businesses. So it’s the first place they look to cut.
The push to use new technologies to wring as much value from workers as possible isn’t exclusive to this era, or even to brick-and-mortar businesses. New surveillance technology has turned truckers into America’s most-watched workers. Amazon—the death star for physical stores—uses algorithms in its warehouses to track and time worker movements.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, it shouldn’t be this way. The software is easy to program to treat employees like human beings. Some companies already have programmed software to be humane. And they’ve found that when they do, it isn’t just employee health and well-being that improve. Customer satisfaction does, too. Research shows that better, more predictable schedules for staffers means happier workers. That means better customer service and more sales. And that’s better for business.
Nevertheless, U.S. corporations have overwhelmingly chosen to program software to do the opposite. As the data scientist Cathy O’Neil writes in her book, Weapons of Math Destruction, “It’s almost as if the software were designed expressly to punish low-wage workers and to keep them down.”
Scheduling software debuted in many companies right around the time of the Great Recession, just when a spike in involuntary, poorly paid, part-time hourly work took root across the economy. As retail and service companies began transitioning from employing mostly full-time to mostly part-time staff, they began to demand that workers have “open availability.” Algorithms programmed to closely match predicted customer demand and labor then began assigning these part-time, always-available workers increasingly erratic hours.
For years, this problem was largely invisible, subsumed by research on the impact of post-recession unemployment and pay cuts. Experts stumbled on it almost accidentally. In 2014, Daniel Schneider, a demographer and sociology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleague Kristen Harknett, a sociologist at the University of California, San Francisco, were studying how the 2008 recession had affected families. Much had been written about plummeting birth rates, higher divorce rates, and lower marital quality. Many attributed that family instability to the loss of a job and the devastation of unemployment.
But Schneider and Harknett began to find lasting negative effects beyond job loss. Even among those who kept their jobs, or found new ones, they found an enormous and enormously debilitating sense of everyday uncertainty. Many workers reported that they didn’t know when or how much they would work, if they’d be asked to stay late, or if they’d be called in at all. Despite the scope of the problem, Schneider and Harknett quickly realized that there was no data about what was going on. “We’re so focused on wages in our labor-force surveys in the United States,” Schneider said. “This is different. This is about time.”
In 2016, what began as Schneider and Harknett’s informal interviews with hourly retail and service-sector workers in the San Francisco Bay area grew into the Shift Project, which is now the largest source of data on work scheduling for hourly service workers, with reports from 84,000 workers in the retail and fast-food sectors from across the country. The data includes worker schedules, economic security, and the health and well-being of workers and families.
Half of the workers in the Shift Project’s database say their shifts change from day to day and week to week. Since the recession, working hours have begun to swing wildly from one week to the next for low-wage workers with less than a college degree. Two-thirds of the workers reported that they have to keep their schedule open and be available to work day or night at the drop of a hat. Two-thirds of workers in the survey get their schedules less than two weeks in advance. Sixteen percent said they have less than 72 hours’ notice. Eighty percent said they either have no input or limited input in making their schedules.
These workers tend to be among the most invisible and powerless. Previous research has found that the workers who are disproportionately more likely to have nonstandard hours are women, people of color, young people, and people with children. A September 2019 analysis of General Social Survey data on schedule volatility found that workers who are “black, young, and without a college degree appear to be at highest risk.” Research released in October shows that nonwhite workers are as much as 30 percent more likely to have precarious work schedules than white workers.
When Schneider asked one young single mother what kind of schedule she’d prefer, she sighed, and said it would be “amazing” if she could work a predictable night shift, and have someone she trusted sleep with her child, instead of having to frantically call around for help or park her child in front of the TV of whichever relative, friend, or neighbor is available at the last minute any time of the day or night. “I thought it was really sad that a stable night shift was her big dream. It shows how limited workers see the realm of possibility,” Schneider said. “But she’s right to dream for a stable shift, because it’s pretty uncommon. Variability is the rule.”
That variability in schedules, the Shift Project and other research has found, is associated with higher levels of depression and psychological distress—feelings of nervousness, hopelessness, worthlessness, and being overwhelmed—than other low-wage workers with stable schedules. Nearly three-fourths of the workers with erratic schedules reported poor sleep. It’s not hard to imagine the stress, anxiety, and sleepless nights—not to mention financial hardship—that result when your income swings more than 30 percent each week, while your bills don’t.
These workers are already poorly paid, and the researchers tested whether higher wages or more predictable schedules would make a bigger difference in their lives. Time strain, they found, had twice the impact. “It’s really stressful,” Schneider said, “to have no control over disorganized time.” Try making appointments for the doctor or dentist or parent-teacher conference when you get your work schedule with only a day or two of notice.
As Sam Hughes discovered, attempting to make time for medical necessities can lead to retribution. When the 26-year-old Hughes (who identifies as nonbinary and prefers a gender-neutral pronoun) got a job at a Fred Meyer deli in Salem, Oregon, in 2018, they made clear they needed four hours a week for doctors’ appointments and wouldn’t be able to have open availability. But instead of the 30 predictable hours a week Hughes asked for, they got 20 erratic hours. When Hughes asked for two additional hours off one week to make it to an unexpected doctor’s appointment, their weekly work hours were cut to 14.
Like many hourly and service workers, Hughes made so little and had such an unstable work schedule that they qualified for public benefits like food stamps and Medicaid. They wound up working odd jobs for the landlord to pay rent and make ends meet. When we met, Hughes held out their arm to show me scars in the hollow of their elbow. “I was selling my plasma,” Hughes told me.
Researchers tested whether higher wages or more predictable schedules would make a bigger difference in the lives of low-wage workers. Time strain, they found, had twice the impact.
The stress of disorganized time carries into the next generation. In another new paper released in October, Schneider and his coauthors found higher levels of anxiety, stress, and depression in children whose parents work unpredictable hours compared to those whose parents have set schedules. It’s easy to see why. Research shows that at a time of rapid brain, cognitive, and social-emotional development, children need stability and attachment to a warm, responsive caregiver. Parents’ unpredictable schedules disrupt that. The study found that these parents’ children have multiple caregivers, are constantly changing schedules, and are more often in informal care settings. That puts them at a further disadvantage to the children of better-educated parents with more control over their time, reinforcing inequality.
Disorganized time can also impact the previous generation. Ashley Worthen, for example, a 30-year-old single mother, would get her schedule for her cashier’s job at an Albertsons grocery store one day before her workweek was to begin. If the computer assigned her weekend hours or early mornings or evening shifts when her son’s daycare was closed, she was forced to rely on her mother for help or to cancel her shift. And because Worthen had to be always available and on call on short notice, Worthen’s mother, Ruth, had to be always available and on call to watch her grandson. That meant Ruth Worthen was held hostage to her daughter’s unpredictable schedule and couldn’t get her own job.
“In order for workers to work these crazy schedules, so many other people have to put their lives on hold,” Schneider said. “It’s a hidden subsidy to companies—all these broader networks it takes to make these unpredictable schedules work.”
(Target declined to comment for this article. Spokespeople for Fred Meyer, Albertsons, the Chamber of Commerce in San Francisco, and the Oregon Business and Industry did not return several emails and phone calls.)
In just the past five years, even at a time of historically low union membership, stories of millions of workers like Ugalde, Hughes, and Worthen have sparked a newly energized worker movement. Last February, workers won a successful class-action lawsuit in California, arguing that on-call scheduling amounted to abusive wage theft. Organizations like Ugalde’s Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy and unions, including Worthen and Hughes’s United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), have been organizing to pass stable-scheduling legislation. (Research shows that low-income workers have more schedule volatility in states with smaller union membership.) Already, the cities of San Francisco, Emeryville, San Jose, Seattle, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, as well as the entire state of Oregon, have passed fair-scheduling laws to give workers more notice and to guarantee some pay if they come in to work and are sent home
After years of worker agitation, in 2018, Walmart began to offer workers the ability to choose “core hours” instead of open availability, and began giving them two and a half weeks of advance notice of their schedules. They now give workers nine hours of rest between shifts and lock down shift changes 24 hours in advance to avoid last-minute disruptions. Walmart also recently began offering the “My Walmart Schedule” mobile app so workers can more easily swap shifts, pick up extra hours, and have more control over their time. The changes have led to reduced absenteeism and turnover rates, said Michelle Malashock, the company’s director of media relations and corporate communications.
Rather than the cost savings that businesses expect from on-demand scheduling, research shows the opposite. A randomized controlled trial at select Gap stores found that predictable schedules increased productivity and sales.
Walmart isn’t alone in seeing business upsides to employment stability. Research into unpredictable worker schedules shows that such schedules, rather than the cost-saving efficiency boon that many businesses expected, are quite the opposite. A 35-week-long, randomized controlled trial at select Gap Inc. stores, for example, found that the health, sleep, and well-being of workers vastly improved at the stores with more stable schedules. In addition, predictable schedules increased productivity and sales. Labor productivity and sales were both about 5 percent higher in these shops.
And, it turns out, the algorithms are fairly easy to reprogram with a different set of values, beyond cutting labor to the bone. Companies in Australia, the United Kingdom, continental Europe, and other capitalist countries use some of the same scheduling software. They just configure it differently, to comply with more robust labor laws and corporate norms, or to account for the humanity of workers. Some U.S. companies, including Costco, also employ worker-friendly scheduling-software programs. For the Gap study, one key intervention simply entailed asking managers to start with schedules from the prior week.
“Predictable schedules are easy to achieve with today’s scheduling systems. It’s all about how you use them,” said Bob Clements, president of the Axsium Group, a global workforce-management consulting company, who likened U.S. companies’ approach to scheduling workers to the game of 52 Card Pickup. “The retailer is really responsible for the configuration, which is going to refine or drive the software.”
Susan Lambert, a professor at the University of Chicago and one of the Gap study’s coauthors, said that much of what drives schedule instability isn’t just the software per se. Instead, it’s that the software doesn’t account for the unexpected—shipments that come in suddenly, new promotions handed down at the last minute from headquarters, or a surprise visit from an executive, all of which require more staff than the algorithm predicted. That, and what Lambert calls “management by fright.” Managers are driven to both meet strict sales targets, based on big data’s forecasts, and keep to tight labor budgets. “So what ends up happening,” Lambert explained, “is a manager will say, ‘We were supposed to sell 60 sweaters by now, and we’ve only sold 30! Someone has to go home!’ ”
That’s the situation that David Sciaudone, 49, found himself in repeatedly as the former manager of a Sears automotive center in Waterbury, Connecticut. His supervisors told him to tightly schedule his staff with demand, so when the garage got slow, he’d have to send people home. “It was really horrible,” he said. “But if you didn’t get under budget, you’d get a phone call, screaming. . . . They’d say, ‘You have 45 seconds, or you’re going to be on the unemployment line.’ ”
The cut-labor-at-all-costs mind-set, which keeps schedules so erratic, ignores the fact that good workers are retail’s unsung secret weapon. Poor customer service or disorganized merchandise could lead not only to a lost sale but also to the potential loss of a lifetime customer, and, if they’re angry enough, their personal networks. “Understaffing costs are potentially large but can’t be measured easily,” said Saravanan Kesavan, a business professor at the University of North Carolina and coauthor of the Gap study. “On the other hand, overstaffing may be a smaller cost, but it’s highly visible.”
Yet despite the increase in health, well-being, productivity, and sales, the Gap didn’t change scheduling and management practices once the study ended. (Spokespeople from the Gap did not respond to phone and email requests for comment.) Why? Wharton School professor Marshall Fisher blames businesses’ cognitive bias—a business school mentality that they have to keep labor costs low at all costs, and a belief that this requires unstable schedules.
Both assumptions are false. But they are pervasive. Rachel Deutsch, who heads the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy, said her organization challenges companies to take a Fair Workweek pledge, and offers to work with them to implement it. Has anyone taken them up on the challenge? “The short answer is . . . not yet.”
Adrian Ugalde has since quit working for Target. “I couldn’t take it anymore,” he said. He’s found a new position making more money working full-time hours at a smaller drugstore chain that programs its scheduling algorithms for humans, not puzzle pieces. He has a set morning shift that he chose. He’s cross-trained to work both on the floor and in the back room to account for fluctuating demand so he won’t be sent home early. “To these big retailers, they never get to know you. You’re just a slot they have to fill,” Ugalde said. “Here, I feel they care about me as an individual. I love my schedule.”
Sam Hughes supported the passage of the first statewide stable-scheduling law in the nation. It passed with bipartisan support. In Oregon, retail, hospitality, and food-service companies with more than 500 workers worldwide are now required to give a “good faith” estimate of monthly work hours to employees at the time of hire. Starting in 2020, they must give workers their schedules two weeks in advance, a right to rest at least 10 hours between shifts, a right to have input into their schedules, and compensation for any last-minute schedule changes. Workers can sign up for a “standby” list and be contacted if extra hours become available.
“It’s incredibly helpful,” said Hughes, who quit the Fred Meyer deli to work full-time as the social-media coordinator for the UFCW union in Portland, Oregon. “Workers can plan, have lives, make doctor appointments. And if they call you at the last minute, you don’t have to come in.”
Ashley Worthen changed jobs to work a regular schedule as a bookkeeper at Albertsons. She tracks employee hours and shifts. What she’s noticed since the law went into effect is that, with more notice and more input into schedules, workers aren’t frantically canceling at the last minute or madly scrambling to swap shifts like before. “Everyone is happier. Everyone sleeps better. The atmosphere at the store is so much better for workers and managers,” she said. With her more predictable hours, her mother has been able to get a job washing dishes in a rehab facility, helping boost the family’s income.
After years of worker agitation, in 2018, Walmart began to offer workers the ability to choose “core hours” instead of open availability, and began giving workers two and a half weeks of advance notice of their schedules.
Of course, not all companies need changes in law to treat employees like humans. Inspired by MIT research on strategies to make all jobs good jobs—which includes giving workers schedule stability—Mud Bay, an employee-owned natural pet food and supply store with nearly 60 locations in Oregon and Washington State, seeks to give each employee the number of work hours they want, create schedules with their input, and publish these schedules three weeks in advance. To respond to staffers who want more hours than any one store has available, Mud Bay is beginning to create “packs” of nearby stores so they can boost their hours by working at any of them. “We spend a lot of time thinking about different accommodations. For example, if someone is struggling with their mental health or struggling with sleep and a morning shift isn’t best, we’ll set up an afternoon shift for them,” said Michelle Markus, the company’s chief people officer.
Right now, managers painstakingly schedule every “Muddy,” as employees are called, by hand in an Excel spreadsheet. But Mud Bay is now rolling out scheduling software. Markus said they’re hoping it will help stores become more efficient—not by using sales data and customer information to cut labor, as other companies do, but by saving managers’ time, giving employees better visibility to available hours, and ensuring that the company is complying with fair-scheduling legislation in Oregon and Seattle. “We want to stay grounded in our mission, our values, and our beliefs about what’s important for us, our customers, and as business owners contributing to the community,” Markus said. “It’s paramount that the technology isn’t essentially running our business.”
As with any technology, that will depend on the humans who program it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-13--What the Next President Can Do to Save Our Alliances with Europe

The transatlantic relationship has suffered a series of near-fatal blows in recent years .
President Trump has openly questioned America ’ s Article 5 commitment to defend any attacked NATO member , dubbed the European Union a “ foe , ” and repeatedly disparaged some of America ’ s closest allies—for example , calling Germany “ captive to Russia.
” The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union .
France and Germany , instead of joining forces to chart a future course for the European project , have spent years trapped between President Emmanuel Macron ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assertive Europe and Chancellor Angela Merkel ’ s caution and paralysis .
Meanwhile , Russia and other adversaries have become increasingly creative in finding ways to undermine transatlantic unity and resolve .
And populist forces on both sides of the Atlantic are bringing new leaders to power who lack an interest in or exposure to Europe and America ’ s shared history and values .
While it would be premature to issue last rites to the transatlantic relationship , there ’ s no question that it is ailing .
The next U.S. president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serves far too many of America ’ s political , economic , and security interests to allow it to deteriorate further .
Over the last 70 years , the United States and Europe have established the rules-based order through an array of multilateral institutions and alliances , from NATO to the United Nations , that have protected and promoted shared values .
We have , at different times , tackled global challenges ranging from Ebola to climate change to Iran ’ s nuclear ambitions .
While the U.S. brings the most military assets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribution is substantial ; its economic might is hefty ; and it invests disproportionately in diplomacy , humanitarian assistance , and other forms of “ soft ” power .
Breathing fresh life into the relationship won ’ t be easy .
Electing an American president who refrains from name calling , supports the rules-based order , and brings stability to the alliance would be a good start .
But that won ’ t be enough to put the transatlantic partnership on a more sustainable and constructive course and restore America ’ s credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a new president could take to begin the rebuilding process .
In the first 100 days , he or she should travel to Germany—the country that has been perhaps most relentlessly and unfairly criticized by Trump—and deliver a public address .
The normal framing for such a speech is to tick off all the ways in which the two sides of the Atlantic can create a shared agenda .
This speech needs to be different .
Instead of promising cooperation , the president should redefine the transatlantic agenda around the concept of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritarianism globally .
The target audience would be both Europe , which is experiencing its own illiberal slide , and China , which is increasingly brazen in its efforts to promote its political model and values .
In the longer term , the new U.S. president will need to focus on two separate tracks .
The first involves fortifying the traditional building blocks of the transatlantic relationship .
Inside NATO , that means issuing a promise to uphold our Article 5 commitments and bring fresh ideas to the table , such as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In addition , the new president will need to reassure Europeans that he or she doesn ’ t see the EU as an enemy but as a partner .
At least some Europeans will listen to such statements with skepticism .
Many Americans will too .
It wasn ’ t that long ago when President Obama—a president most Europeans adored—tried to negotiate an ambitious trade deal , the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership , with the EU .
They never got there .
Convincing both Europeans and Americans to give it another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening a new front , the next president will need to arrest the deteriorating U.S.-EU trade relationship and stop the tariff wars both sides have been waging for the last few years .
In doing so , the new U.S. president should remind Americans and Europeans that one of the best ways for Europe and the United States to compete with a rising China and to set global standards is to strengthen their collective hand .
That ’ s not to say the next administration should focus only on repairing existing damage and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to think about preparing transatlantic partners for the future .
The president should discuss how mass migration will shape our shared agenda , future elections , and economies .
He or she should explore if we need new institutions to thwart attempts to undermine our democracies , and how Europe and the United States can both harness and manage a wide array of disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence .
But that ’ s a long list , especially for a president who will be consumed with an equally long list of pressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assist .
Now would be a good time for European leaders to start thinking about where they are willing to lead and how they can help .
The American people may very well put a president in the Oval Office who wants to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords and try to salvage the Iran nuclear deal , two decisions that Europeans would no doubt celebrate .
But that same president will also likely ask our European allies to commit more to defense spending and to stand up to China .
Europe should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transatlantic relationship , they aren ’ t talking about returning to the pre-Trump era .
They are looking to rebalance the relationship for a new era .
Let ’ s hope we ’ re all up to that challenge .

The transatlantic relationship has suffered a series of near-fatal blows in recent years. President Trump has openly questioned America’s Article 5 commitment to defend any attacked NATO member, dubbed the European Union a “foe,” and repeatedly disparaged some of America’s closest allies—for example, calling Germany “captive to Russia.” The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. France and Germany, instead of joining forces to chart a future course for the European project, have spent years trapped between President Emmanuel Macron’s unbridled desire to lead a more assertive Europe and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s caution and paralysis.
Read the entire U.S.-Europe trade symposium here.
Meanwhile, Russia and other adversaries have become increasingly creative in finding ways to undermine transatlantic unity and resolve. And populist forces on both sides of the Atlantic are bringing new leaders to power who lack an interest in or exposure to Europe and America’s shared history and values. While it would be premature to issue last rites to the transatlantic relationship, there’s no question that it is ailing.
The next U.S. president will need to revitalize this critical partnership—it serves far too many of America’s political, economic, and security interests to allow it to deteriorate further. Over the last 70 years, the United States and Europe have established the rules-based order through an array of multilateral institutions and alliances, from NATO to the United Nations, that have protected and promoted shared values. We have, at different times, tackled global challenges ranging from Ebola to climate change to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While the U.S. brings the most military assets to the alliance, Europe’s contribution is substantial; its economic might is hefty; and it invests disproportionately in diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and other forms of “soft” power.
Breathing fresh life into the relationship won’t be easy. Electing an American president who refrains from name calling, supports the rules-based order, and brings stability to the alliance would be a good start. But that won’t be enough to put the transatlantic partnership on a more sustainable and constructive course and restore America’s credibility.
There are certain steps, however, a new president could take to begin the rebuilding process. In the first 100 days, he or she should travel to Germany—the country that has been perhaps most relentlessly and unfairly criticized by Trump—and deliver a public address. The normal framing for such a speech is to tick off all the ways in which the two sides of the Atlantic can create a shared agenda. This speech needs to be different. Instead of promising cooperation, the president should redefine the transatlantic agenda around the concept of defending democratic values given the surge in authoritarianism globally. The target audience would be both Europe, which is experiencing its own illiberal slide, and China, which is increasingly brazen in its efforts to promote its political model and values.
In the longer term, the new U.S. president will need to focus on two separate tracks. The first involves fortifying the traditional building blocks of the transatlantic relationship. Inside NATO, that means issuing a promise to uphold our Article 5 commitments and bring fresh ideas to the table, such as a joint NATO-EU summit—the first of its kind. In addition, the new president will need to reassure Europeans that he or she doesn’t see the EU as an enemy but as a partner.
At least some Europeans will listen to such statements with skepticism. Many Americans will too. It wasn’t that long ago when President Obama—a president most Europeans adored—tried to negotiate an ambitious trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, with the EU. They never got there. Convincing both Europeans and Americans to give it another go will be challenging. Instead of opening a new front, the next president will need to arrest the deteriorating U.S.-EU trade relationship and stop the tariff wars both sides have been waging for the last few years. In doing so, the new U.S. president should remind Americans and Europeans that one of the best ways for Europe and the United States to compete with a rising China and to set global standards is to strengthen their collective hand.
That’s not to say the next administration should focus only on repairing existing damage and preventing future blows. It will also have to think about preparing transatlantic partners for the future. The president should discuss how mass migration will shape our shared agenda, future elections, and economies. He or she should explore if we need new institutions to thwart attempts to undermine our democracies, and how Europe and the United States can both harness and manage a wide array of disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence.
But that’s a long list, especially for a president who will be consumed with an equally long list of pressing domestic priorities. Europe will have to assist. Now would be a good time for European leaders to start thinking about where they are willing to lead and how they can help. The American people may very well put a president in the Oval Office who wants to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords and try to salvage the Iran nuclear deal, two decisions that Europeans would no doubt celebrate. But that same president will also likely ask our European allies to commit more to defense spending and to stand up to China. Europe should be prepared.
When Democrats talk about revitalizing the transatlantic relationship, they aren’t talking about returning to the pre-Trump era. They are looking to rebalance the relationship for a new era. Let’s hope we’re all up to that
challenge.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-13--Europe and America Must Redefine Security

Since the aftermath of World War II , foreign-policy practitioners have seen trade agreements as good for security regardless of their content .
They were confident that trade deals strengthened political ties and ideological ties , made security agreements more credible , and made conflict less likely .
Anything that tied pro-Western democracies to each other , and other countries to them , was thus good .
During the Obama presidency , officials made this argument while unsuccessfully negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership , a sweeping would-have-been U.S.-Europe trade agreement .
Today , security strategists make similar claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successor to keep trying for a deal .
Yet the core logic behind this argument has fallen apart .
The past 20 years of globalization , including trade deals , have raised inequality and insecurity in the United States and Europe .
The post–Cold War explosion in economic activity was distributed unevenly within economies , going to elites and urban regions to an unprecedented degree .
That has spurred frightening levels of cynicism about democracy and support for extremist politicians in both places , putting immense strain on the democracies we intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extreme narrowness of the economic gains of post–Cold War globalization is destabilizing the planet .
Promoting these kinds of deals is thus a form of security malpractice .
Instead , policymakers should work with Europe to redefine security—with the goal of reversing both threats to democracy at home and the decline in transatlantic engagement .
The next administration ( or even this one ) should open or expand discussions with Europe across new economic and technological domains .
They should look to identify how we shape common interests and a common identity while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the health of our democracy .
Rather than reigniting struggles over economic traditions such as agricultural subsidies , as current transatlantic trade negotiations do , these discussions should focus on industries that have a proven impact on security and a clearer impact on growth .
President Trump has defined security as synonymous with the strength of domestic heavy industry and the jobs that go with it .
But his approach has failed to improve economic security and made no appreciable dent in China and Russia ’ s military gains .
Instead , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yard ” of high-tech research , development , and manufacturing , where data suggests it will be possible to grow and sustain high-wage jobs in the future .
Europe and the United States can collaborate to protect this limited number of military-relevant or cutting-edge technologies , particularly developments in artificial intelligence , from theft or copying by China or others , on the grounds that they provide both the U.S. and European economies and militaries with irreplaceable advantages .
What kinds of initiatives might that entail ?
Samm Sacks , a cybersecurity expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international standards to govern collaborations on artificial intelligence , limiting China ’ s ability to acquire technology it uses to oppress its Uighur minority and then sells to other governments and movements that want to track opponents .
The research partnership NordicWest Office has proposed a transatlantic accord on data sharing and privacy as a core element of defining and defending shared values .
Such negotiations would be every bit as challenging as a traditional trade deal .
But by paving the way for high-tech and high-value industries to remain and grow in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create more good-paying jobs in both regions , fighting inequality and bolstering the middle class .
In addition , U.S. and European planners need to find a way to deal with pressing environmental concerns .
Military experts have made it clear that a warmer planet will lead to escalating security risks , as people are displaced en masse by natural disasters and forced to fight over frighteningly scarce critical resources like water .
But while American security thinkers have gotten into the habit of genuflecting at climate change , they have done so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strong response demands we do differently .
The new European Commission , by contrast , has pledged to impose a border tax on imports from countries that don ’ t have a price on carbon in place .
This poses a fundamental challenge to current WTO rules , and so U.S. policymakers might consider partnering with the commission to propose WTO reforms .
Alternately , the U.S. and the EU could both join an effort to eliminate all barriers to trade in green goods and services .
Either way , American security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these issues than by pressing European political systems to open their health-care systems further to American drug companies and their food to the GMOs and chlorine-treated chicken that are so neuralgic for European publics .
The way to rebuild strong U.S.-European security ties is not to gin up another U.S.-EU trade agreement with side provisions on the environment , labor , or anything else .
Instead , it ’ s to identify the issues that challenge security on both sides of the Atlantic—the use of technology by autocrats to undercut democratic society , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in democracy , and the devastation of unchecked climate change—and work directly on them .
Doing so will produce stronger democracies and better cooperation in the economic and military realms .

Since the aftermath of World War II, foreign-policy practitioners have seen trade agreements as good for security regardless of their content. They were confident that trade deals strengthened political ties and ideological ties, made security agreements more credible, and made conflict less likely. Anything that tied pro-Western democracies to each other, and other countries to them, was thus good.
Read the entire U.S.-Europe trade symposium here.
During the Obama presidency, officials made this argument while unsuccessfully negotiating the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership, a sweeping would-have-been U.S.-Europe trade agreement. Today, security strategists make similar claims in encouraging the Trump administration or its successor to keep trying for a deal.
Yet the core logic behind this argument has fallen apart. The past 20 years of globalization, including trade deals, have raised inequality and insecurity in the United States and Europe. The post–Cold War explosion in economic activity was distributed unevenly within economies, going to elites and urban regions to an unprecedented degree. That has spurred frightening levels of cynicism about democracy and support for extremist politicians in both places, putting immense strain on the democracies we intended to secure. In other words, the extreme narrowness of the economic gains of post–Cold War globalization is destabilizing the planet. Promoting these kinds of deals is thus a form of security malpractice. Instead, policymakers should work with Europe to redefine security—with the goal of reversing both threats to democracy at home and the decline in transatlantic engagement.
The next administration (or even this one) should open or expand discussions with Europe across new economic and technological domains. They should look to identify how we shape common interests and a common identity while supporting our military security, but also the health of our democracy. Rather than reigniting struggles over economic traditions such as agricultural subsidies, as current transatlantic trade negotiations do, these discussions should focus on industries that have a proven impact on security and a clearer impact on growth.
President Trump has defined security as synonymous with the strength of domestic heavy industry and the jobs that go with it. But his approach has failed to improve economic security and made no appreciable dent in China and Russia’s military gains. Instead, we should focus on cultivating a “small yard” of high-tech research, development, and manufacturing, where data suggests it will be possible to grow and sustain high-wage jobs in the future. Europe and the United States can collaborate to protect this limited number of military-relevant or
cutting-edge technologies, particularly developments in artificial intelligence, from theft or copying by China or others, on the grounds that they provide both the U.S. and European economies and militaries with irreplaceable advantages.
What kinds of initiatives might that entail? Samm Sacks, a cybersecurity expert at New America, has argued for international standards to govern collaborations on artificial intelligence, limiting China’s ability to acquire technology it uses to oppress its Uighur minority and then sells to other governments and movements that want to track opponents. The research partnership NordicWest Office has proposed a transatlantic accord on data sharing and privacy as a core element of defining and defending shared values. Such negotiations would be every bit as challenging as a traditional trade deal. But by paving the way for high-tech and high-value industries to remain and grow in Europe and the U.S., they would create more good-paying jobs in both regions, fighting inequality and bolstering the middle class.
In addition, U.S. and European planners need to find a way to deal with pressing environmental concerns. Military experts have made it clear that a warmer planet will lead to escalating security risks, as people are displaced en masse by natural disasters and forced to fight over frighteningly scarce critical resources like water. But while American security thinkers have gotten into the habit of genuflecting at climate change, they have done so without really addressing the question of what a strong response demands we do differently. The new European Commission, by contrast, has pledged to impose a border tax on imports from countries that don’t have a price on carbon in place. This poses a fundamental challenge to current WTO rules, and so U.S. policymakers might consider partnering with the commission to propose WTO reforms.
Alternately, the U.S. and the EU could both join an effort to eliminate all barriers to trade in green goods and services. Either way, American security would be better served by progress on these issues than by pressing European political systems to open their health-care systems further to American drug companies and their food to the GMOs and chlorine-treated chicken that are so neuralgic for European publics.
The way to rebuild strong U.S.-European security ties is not to gin up another U.S.-EU trade agreement with side provisions on the environment, labor, or anything else. Instead, it’s to identify the issues that challenge security on both sides of the Atlantic—the use of technology by autocrats to undercut democratic society, the growth of inequality that undermines faith in democracy, and the devastation of unchecked climate change—and work directly on them. Doing so will produce stronger democracies and better cooperation in the economic and military realms.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-13--The Trading System FDR Envisioned

The Trading System FDR Envisioned

For years , advocates of globalization have argued that spreading capitalism , by itself , breeds stability .
As the German sociologist Erich Weede declared in 2004 , “ capitalism and economic freedom promote peace , ” and globalization is “ the universalization of capitalism.
” But as the rise of populists makes clear , this isn ’ t the case .
Without regulation , spreading capitalism leads to the arrogation of power and money to the few at the expense of the many .
It results in an authoritarian backlash , as citizens endorse nationalists who promise to restore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The founders of the multilateral trading system , including Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes , saw these risks .
That ’ s why they attempted to craft an order that would not just provide for tariff cuts—as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade does—but also hem in the excesses of capitalism through a broader agreement negotiated in Cuba and called the Havana Charter .
These rules included worker rights , anti-monopoly provisions , and protections against abusive foreign-investor behavior .
Fifty-three countries signed the Havana Charter , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and independent countries from the Global South .
But the charter didn ’ t survive .
American industrialists rejected constraints on their behavior , and by early December 1950 , they persuaded Congress to snub the agreement .
Instead , we ended up with the trading system we have now : one that lowers tariffs without providing any disciplines on capital .
It is therefore no surprise that we see widening income inequality within countries .
The surge in nationalism , and the resentment of globalization , is logical .
It is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the European Union and the United States .
We can seize on it to reconceive the way trade agreements are done .
We can bring much of the Havana Charter back .
The charter ’ s rules are well suited for today .
The visionaries behind the agreement , working in the aftermath of the Great Depression and World War II , confronted the same issues of inequality and nationalism .
They have provided us with a road map to create a more balanced global economic system .
It will help us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the benefits of trade to the many rather than the few .
But the charter will need updating .
Rules from the 1940s do not address more modern crises , the most pressing of which is climate change .
The World Trade Organization has no enforceable environmental standards .
Many U.S. treaties do , but they have been too modest .
Similarly , globalization has created a race to the bottom when it comes to taxes , as rich corporations look to park themselves in cheaper jurisdictions .
The EU has rules that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. states use to lure big companies like Amazon , rules that could be considered a model for addressing beggar-thy-neighbor policies across the Atlantic .
Implementing such a deal will not be easy .
Large business interests will fight to shunt provisions that would harm their bottom lines , and to include rules that will help them .
But we must resist .
Giving in will make for a deal that ’ s not just worse but also has little chance of success .
Fights over big-money commercial disputes , like the safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state funding for Boeing and Airbus , date back decades .
They have not been resolved because they can not be resolved .
Trying to solve them will do nothing but allow narrow parochial interests to swallow the much broader goal of creating an equitable trading framework .
Instead , the agreement between the Europeans and the Americans should set out important , enforceable principles that govern the overarching economic relationship between the countries—like the Havana Charter would have done .
These principles should be set forth in a trade deal passed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoting fair competition , high labor standards , and robust environmental regulations , rather than the race to the bottom our rules currently incentivize .
Succeeding in this task will be hard , but not impossible .
The newly elected European Parliament—entered into office in July—is marked by a renewed attention toward a well-functioning trade relationship with the U.S. , and it is willing to use sustainable development as a tool for global growth .
That is why it may be more willing to press for a new approach to these agreements .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his confirmation hearings that he intends to improve the trade relationship across the Atlantic and to use trade to fight climate change .
But our vision is broader .
The world is struggling to discern a way forward on trade .
The WTO has no answers .
Regional negotiations are based on the old model .
In the meantime , China is expanding its own authoritarian reach through the Belt and Road Initiative and concerted forays into Africa .
The European Union and the United States can work together to demonstrate that there @ @ @ @ @

For years, advocates of globalization have argued that spreading capitalism, by itself, breeds stability. As the German sociologist Erich Weede declared in 2004, “capitalism and economic freedom promote peace,” and globalization is “the universalization of capitalism.” But as the rise of populists makes clear, this isn’t the case. Without regulation, spreading capitalism leads to the arrogation of power and money to the few at the expense of the many. It results in an authoritarian backlash, as citizens endorse nationalists who promise to restore past glory, channeling xenophobia as needed.
Read the entire U.S.-Europe trade symposium here.
The founders of the multilateral trading system, including Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes, saw these risks. That’s why they attempted to craft an order that would not just provide for tariff cuts—as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade does—but also hem in the excesses of capitalism through a broader agreement negotiated in Cuba and called the Havana Charter. These rules included worker rights, anti-monopoly provisions, and protections against abusive foreign-investor behavior. Fifty-three countries signed the Havana Charter, including the United States, much of Europe, and independent countries from the Global South.
But the charter didn’t survive. American industrialists rejected constraints on their behavior, and by early December 1950, they persuaded Congress to snub the agreement. Instead, we ended up with the trading system we have now: one that lowers tariffs without providing any disciplines on capital. It is therefore no surprise that we see widening income inequality within countries. The surge in nationalism, and the resentment of globalization, is logical.
It is also frightening. But it creates an opportunity for the European Union and the United States. We can seize on it to reconceive the way trade agreements are done. We can bring much of the Havana Charter
back.
The charter’s rules are well suited for today. The visionaries behind the agreement, working in the aftermath of the Great Depression and World War II, confronted the same issues of inequality and nationalism. They have provided us with a road map to create a more balanced global economic system. It will help us fight against modern-day robber barons and disperse the benefits of trade to the many rather than the few.
But the charter will need updating. Rules from the 1940s do not address more modern crises, the most pressing of which is climate change. The World Trade Organization has no enforceable environmental standards. Many U.S. treaties do, but they have been too modest. Similarly, globalization has created a race to the bottom when it comes to taxes, as rich corporations look to park themselves in cheaper jurisdictions. The EU has rules that help stop the kinds of tax incentives U.S. states use to lure big companies like Amazon, rules that could be considered a model for addressing beggar-thy-neighbor policies across the Atlantic.
Implementing such a deal will not be easy. Large business interests will fight to shunt provisions that would harm their bottom lines, and to include rules that will help them. But we must resist. Giving in will make for a deal that’s not just worse but also has little chance of success. Fights over big-money commercial disputes, like the safety of GMOs and chlorinated chicken, or state funding for Boeing and Airbus, date back decades. They have not been resolved because they cannot be resolved. Trying to solve them will do nothing but allow narrow parochial interests to swallow the much broader goal of creating an equitable trading framework.
Instead, the agreement between the Europeans and the Americans should set out important, enforceable principles that govern the overarching economic relationship between the countries—like the Havana Charter would have done. These principles should be set forth in a trade deal passed by Congress, and they should focus on promoting fair competition, high labor standards, and robust environmental regulations, rather than the race to the bottom our rules currently incentivize.
Succeeding in this task will be hard, but not impossible. The newly elected European Parliament—entered into office in July—is marked by a renewed attention toward a well-functioning trade relationship with the U.S., and it is willing to use sustainable development as a tool for global growth. That is why it may be more willing to press for a new approach to these agreements. Incoming trade commissioner Phil Hogan said during his confirmation hearings that he intends to improve the trade relationship across the Atlantic and to use trade to fight climate change.
But our vision is broader. The world is struggling to discern a way forward on trade. The WTO has no answers. Regional negotiations are based on the old model. In the meantime, China is expanding its own authoritarian reach through the Belt and Road Initiative and concerted forays into Africa. The European Union and the United States can work together to demonstrate that there is a better way.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-13--Washington and Brussels Need a New “Special Relationship”

Since 2016 , the Trump election , Brexit , and right-wing challenges across Europe have revealed an economic crisis of extraordinary proportions .
Decades of laissez-faire economic policy have yielded a collapse in financial security for workers and farmers and a concentration of economic power at the very top .
Now , China ’ s state capitalism has emerged to challenge the liberal economic and political order , with similar implications for workers and corporate concentration .
Sadly , the nationalist response in the United States since 2016 has largely made the problems worse , while Europe is often left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principles of broadly distributed economic power .
In 2008 , the world faced a global financial crisis of similar proportions , but it responded together with extraordinary actions .
Instead of our current , failing nationalist approach , America and the European Union must work together again .
They can do this by building a new “ special relationship ” between Washington and Brussels , in which they commit to domestic reforms in flexible coordination with one another .
This would have two economic aims : to combat corporate monopolies and to boost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreements like these rely on political will , the new relationship would work best in combination with a progressive trade deal , as Daniel Block proposed in his piece for this magazine last summer .
Block correctly argued that the United States and the European Union must address the collapse of labor power , tax evasion by companies , climate change , and related progressive concerns .
But his proposal , bold as it is , is only part of the response .
That ’ s because a trade agreement , with limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic standards , not a replacement .
To that end , the U.S. and the EU should agree to adopt a set of domestic reforms , akin to the international response led by President Obama after the 2008 financial collapse .
In the wake of the recession , the U.S. rallied the G20 around a common set of principles to guide financial reforms in each country .
The reforms covered everything from standards for how many reserves large banks should maintain to protect against insolvency , to how countries could best manage the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that happened .
But the principles were flexible enough to permit countries to do more—such as a ban on high-risk “ proprietary trading ” in the U.S. and a cap on banker bonuses in the EU .
None of this was done through a trade agreement , but rather through political commitments from each country .
The urgency of the crisis was the driving force for action , and while more could have been done ( and still must be ) , U.S. leadership was critical to driving progress .
Today , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , coupled with attacks on our democracies by Russia and the rise of China , has given a similar urgency to our politics .
The next progressive administration will have a chance to negotiate dramatic reforms that seemed impossible only a few years ago .
We could use a process similar to the post-financial-crisis reforms to increase the power of workers and farmers and rein in monopolies .
To boost the economic power of workers , this U.S.-EU agreement would include commitments to raise or secure union density against the range of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the U.S. , under a progressive administration and a progressively minded Senate , this would be achieved through a host of domestic reforms to undo 40 years of conservative attacks on unions , including enhanced strike rights and penalties for lawbreaking employers , as well as by adopting sector-wide bargaining .
In addition to giving more power to workers , the new U.S.-EU agreement would combat monopolies .
It would begin by both the U.S. and Europe welcoming antitrust enforcement efforts by the other jurisdiction .
And it would go one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work together on antitrust investigations to maximize their resources and effectiveness .
Much like attorneys general in different states in the U.S. are working in conjunction to investigate big tech companies , different countries who had signed onto this agreement could work together when investigating multinational companies or concentrated sectors .
This wouldn ’ t bind countries to the same exact outcomes , lest that result in lowest-common-denominator enforcement .
But pooling limited government resources can help us tackle enormously complex global companies and international supply chains .
Farmers in both the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monopolies , and they could benefit from the new agreement as well .
On one end , farmers are forced to take high prices from their suppliers .
The four largest suppliers—firms such as Bayer , which owns Monsanto—control 85 percent of the corn-seed market , up dramatically in recent decades .
On the other end , commodity-trading companies and massive food processors , like JBS and Tyson Foods , use their market dominance and oppressive contract terms to force farmers and ranchers to sell their products at unfairly low prices .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatly by enforcing antitrust laws that are already on the books , which would be supported through a U.S.-EU commitment to dismantling agriculture monopolies .
These reforms would best be complemented by the progressive trade agreement outlined by Block .
The forces of globalization have shifted bargaining power in favor of mobile capital and against domestic workers—but a progressive trade agreement could help mitigate that .
Harking back to the Havana Charter ’ s vision , it should add standards to ensure fair competition , like clear labeling for domestically raised products , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trade deal could help enforce labor , environmental , and other standards by slapping duties on , or blocking at the border , products from any country that violates them—say , by denying workers collective-bargaining rights or permitting the emission of industrial toxins .
A coordinated anti-monopoly effort is also critical to meeting the challenge posed by China , where state-subsidized companies are angling to monopolize global markets and critical infrastructure ( think Huawei gunning for dominance in 5G ) .
A tough application of U.S. and EU antitrust law can supplement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pose security risks , as well as other tough trade action against Chinese companies that get unfair state subsidies .
And as the U.S. and the EU take steps to rein in the dominance of their own multinational companies , that may also reduce the pressure that China feels to build its own monopolies to compete with ours .
In the Trump era , the international economic response to the problems facing workers and farmers has not gone smoothly , leaving everyone worse off .
But a more progressive administration in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address shared challenges and rebuild economic relationships with allies .
After all , progressive priorities in the U.S.—like raising labor and environmental standards and countering monopolies—are shared by Europeans and many other countries around the world .
Counteracting the forces fueling economic distress for working families , the concentration of economic power , and the ensuing deep distrust in government would be a solid foundation around which to organize transatlantic economic and political relations .
And with the rising challenge of China , it would help secure freedom and democratic self-government in @ @ @ @

Since 2016, the Trump election, Brexit, and right-wing challenges across Europe have revealed an economic crisis of extraordinary proportions. Decades of laissez-faire economic policy have yielded a collapse in financial security for workers and farmers and a concentration of economic power at the very top. Now, China’s state capitalism has emerged to challenge the liberal economic and political order, with similar implications for workers and corporate concentration.
Read the entire U.S.-Europe trade symposium here.
Sadly, the nationalist response in the United States since 2016 has largely made the problems worse, while Europe is often left on its own in defending the liberal principles of broadly distributed economic power.
In 2008, the world faced a global financial crisis of similar proportions, but it responded together with extraordinary actions. Instead of our current, failing nationalist approach, America and the European Union must work together again. They can do this by building a new “special relationship” between Washington and Brussels, in which they commit to domestic reforms in flexible coordination with one another. This would have two economic aims: to combat corporate monopolies and to boost worker power globally. And since principle-based agreements like these rely on political will, the new relationship would work best in combination with a progressive trade deal, as Daniel Block proposed in his piece for this magazine last summer.
Block correctly argued that the United States and the European Union must address the collapse of labor power, tax evasion by companies, climate change, and related progressive concerns. But his proposal, bold as it is, is only part of the response. That’s because a trade agreement, with limited exception, is a complement to fixing domestic standards, not a replacement.
To that end, the U.S. and the EU should agree to adopt a set of domestic reforms, akin to the international response led by President Obama after the 2008 financial collapse. In the wake of the recession, the U.S. rallied the G20 around a common set of principles to guide financial reforms in each country. The reforms covered everything from standards for how many reserves large banks should maintain to protect against insolvency, to how countries could best manage the failure of large banks if and when that happened. But the principles were flexible enough to permit countries to do more—such as a ban on high-risk “proprietary trading” in the U.S. and a cap on banker bonuses in the EU.
None of this was done through a trade agreement, but rather through political commitments from each country. The urgency of the crisis was the driving force for action, and while more could have been done (and still must be), U.S. leadership was critical to driving progress. Today, the rise of illiberal nationalism on both continents, coupled with attacks on our democracies by Russia and the rise of China, has given a similar urgency to our politics. The next progressive administration will have a chance to negotiate dramatic reforms that seemed impossible only a few years ago.
We could use a process similar to the post-financial-crisis reforms to increase the power of workers and farmers and rein in monopolies. To boost the economic power of workers, this U.S.-EU agreement would include commitments to raise or secure union density against the range of political interests and economic forces pressing against it. In the U.S., under a progressive administration and a progressively minded Senate, this would be achieved through a host of domestic reforms to undo 40 years of conservative attacks on unions, including enhanced strike rights and penalties for lawbreaking employers, as well as by adopting sector-wide bargaining.
In addition to giving more power to workers, the new U.S.-EU agreement would combat monopolies. It would begin by both the U.S. and Europe welcoming antitrust enforcement efforts by the other jurisdiction. And it would go one step further—countries in this new agreement would work together on antitrust investigations to maximize their resources and effectiveness. Much like attorneys general in different states in the U.S. are working in conjunction to investigate big tech companies, different countries who had signed onto this agreement could work together when investigating multinational companies or concentrated sectors. This wouldn’t bind countries to the same exact outcomes, lest that result in lowest-common-denominator enforcement. But pooling limited government resources can help us tackle enormously complex global companies and international supply chains.
Farmers in both the U.S. and the EU are being squeezed by monopolies, and they could benefit from the new agreement as well. On one end, farmers are forced to take high prices from their suppliers. The four largest suppliers—firms such as Bayer, which owns Monsanto—control 85 percent of the corn-seed market, up dramatically in recent decades. On the other end, commodity-trading companies and massive food processors, like JBS and Tyson Foods, use their market dominance and oppressive contract terms to force farmers and ranchers to sell their products at unfairly low prices. In the U.S., farmers could be helped greatly by enforcing antitrust laws that are already on the books, which would be supported through a U.S.-EU commitment to dismantling agriculture monopolies.
These reforms would best be complemented by the progressive trade agreement outlined by Block. The forces of globalization have shifted bargaining power in favor of mobile capital and against domestic workers—but a progressive trade agreement could help mitigate that. Harking back to the Havana Charter’s vision, it should add standards to ensure fair competition, like clear labeling for domestically raised products, which could strengthen farmers too. And the trade deal could help enforce labor, environmental, and other standards by slapping duties on, or blocking at the border, products from any country that violates them—say, by denying workers collective-bargaining rights or permitting the emission of industrial toxins.
A coordinated anti-monopoly effort is also critical to meeting the challenge posed by China, where state-subsidized companies are angling to monopolize global markets and critical infrastructure (think Huawei gunning for dominance in 5G). A tough application of U.S. and EU antitrust law can supplement the screening of Chinese investments that might pose security risks, as well as other tough trade action against Chinese companies that get unfair state subsidies. And as the U.S. and the EU take steps to rein in the dominance of their own multinational companies, that may also reduce the pressure that China feels to build its own monopolies to compete with ours.
In the Trump era, the international economic response to the problems facing workers and farmers has not gone smoothly, leaving everyone worse off. But a more progressive administration in the United States could kick off an international process to address shared challenges and rebuild economic relationships with allies. After all, progressive priorities in the U.S.—like raising labor and environmental standards and countering monopolies—are shared by Europeans and many other countries around the world. Counteracting the forces fueling economic distress for working families, the concentration of economic power, and the ensuing deep distrust in government would be a solid foundation around which to organize transatlantic economic and political relations. And with the rising challenge of China, it would help secure freedom and democratic self-government in the 21st century.