The recent massive spill of the toxic chemical MCHM into West Virginia’s Elk River illustrates another benefit to corporate interests of high unemployment, economic insecurity and a safety-net shot through with holes. Not only are employees eager to accept whatever job they can get, but they are also unwilling to demand healthy and safe environments.
The spill was the region’s third major chemical accident in five years, coming after two investigations by the federal Chemical Safety Board in the Kanawha Valley, also known as “Chemical Valley,” and repeated recommendations from federal regulators and environmental advocates that the state embrace tougher rules to better safeguard chemicals.
No action was ever taken. State and local officials turned a deaf ear. The storage tank that leaked, owned by Freedom Industries, hadn’t been inspected since 1999.
But nobody complained.
Not even now, with the toxins moving downriver toward Cincinnati, can the residents of Charleston, W.Va., and the surrounding area be sure their drinking water is safe ― partly because the government’s calculation for safe levels is based on a single study by the manufacturer of the toxic chemical, which was never published, and partly because the West Virginia American Water Company, which supplies the drinking water, is a for-profit corporation that may not want to highlight any lingering danger.
So why wasn’t more done to prevent this, and why isn’t there more of any outcry even now?
The answer isn’t hard to find. As Maya Nye, president of People Concerned About Chemical Safety, a citizens group formed after a 2008 explosion and fire killed workers at West Virginia’s Bayer CropScience plant, explained to the New York Times: “We are so desperate for jobs in West Virginia, we don’t want to do anything that pushes industry out.”
I often heard the same refrain when I headed the U.S. Department of Labor. When we sought to impose a large fine on the Bridgestone/Firestone tire company for safety violations following the death of a worker at one of its plants in Oklahoma, the community was solidly behind us ― that is, until Bridgestone/Firestone threatened to close the plant if we didn’t back down.
The threat was enough to ignite a storm of opposition to the proposed penalty from the very workers and families we were trying to protect. (We didn’t back down, and Bridgestone/Firestone didn’t carry out its threat, but the political fallout was intense.)
For years, political scientists have wondered why so many poor and working-class citizens of so-called “red” states vote against their economic self-interest. The usual explanation is that, for these voters, economic issues are trumped by social and cultural issues like guns, abortion and race.
I’m not so sure. The wages of production workers have been dropping for 30 years, adjusted for inflation, and their economic security has disappeared. Companies can and do shut down, sometimes literally overnight. A smaller share of working-age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in more than three decades.
People are so desperate for jobs that they don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want rules and regulations enforced that might cost them their livelihoods. For them, a job is precious ― sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.
This is especially true in poorer regions of the country like West Virginia and through much of Southern and rural America, where the old working class has been voting Republican. Guns, abortion and race are part of the explanation. But don’t overlook economic anxieties that translate into a willingness to vote for whatever it is that industry wants.
This may explain why Republican officials who have been casting their votes against unions, against expanding Medicaid, against raising the minimum wage, against extended unemployment insurance, and against jobs bills that would put people to work, continue to be elected and re-elected.
They obviously have the support of corporate patrons who want to keep unemployment high and workers insecure because a pliant working class helps their bottom lines. But they also, paradoxically, get the votes of many workers who are clinging so desperately to their jobs that they’re afraid of change and too cowed to make a ruckus.
The best bulwark against corporate irresponsibility is a strong and growing middle class. But in order to summon the political will to achieve it, we have to overcome the timidity that flows from economic desperation. It’s a diabolical chicken-and-egg conundrum at the core of American politics today.
By Robert B. Reich
Robert Reich is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. His new film, “Inequality for All,” is now out on iTunes, DVD and On Demand. ― Ed.
(Tribune Content Agency)