March 11, 1965

Help Wanted: 100,000 Office Boys

What this country needs is 100,000 office boys.

It wasn't so many years ago that every business establishment had a young fellow in his early teens who made little pay but cheerfully swept floors, emptied waste baskets, sharpened pencils and ran errands for the rest of the workers who applied themselves to more important tasks.

Those were the days when juvenile delinquency, drop outs, party crashing, gang fights, drag racing and similar symptoms of floundering youth were unknown.

The ubiquitous office boy was too busy learning to be useful and productive to become frustrated and resentful. He exchanged his menial labor for pocket money and a meaningful place in society.

It is true that many children were exploited and their low wages used as a wedge to drive down the earning power of adults. I submit, however, that in our zeal to correct past economic short comings we have pushed the pendulum too far. Our present child labor laws — though important safeguards — are not so badly needed today. The demand for unskilled workers is dwindling with automation.

An easing of restrictive labor laws as they pertain to high school youth would do wonders in curbing social misbehavior and creating new jobs. Consider how much public money we are preparing to spend for youth job training. The employment of one part-time boy in one-fifth of the nation's general business offices would accomplish the same objective and cost the taxpayers nothing.

How many offices or stores have you visited recently that had an office boy? He has disappeared from the city scene and is a rarity even in small towns. He is the victim of government red tape, the minimum wage law and unemployment compensation taxes.

The AFL-CIO came up recently with its contribution to the War on Poverty — a proposal to raise the minimum wage from the present $1.25 an hour to $2.

Employers of skilled craftsmen have little serious objection to the proposed "wage floor." By and large, their employees already make this much or more. Some office workers and semi-skilled workers would get a forced raise, and this would tend to inch up the higher wage brackets as a relative balance between craft groups was sought.

The additional costs of higher wages would be met partly by raising prices to consumers and partly by replacing employees with labor saving machines.

The big losers in any production cost adjustments occasioned by a higher minimum wage would be the unskilled workers who now do the gathering, carrying, sorting, stacking and pushing which modern machines can do better.

And it is precisely these categories of workers which already are a great economic problem.

It seems to me that unions are short sighted when they plug for minimum wages. If the government is to set pay scales then there is no need for unions. Artificial hindrances to the natural laws of supply and demand hasten automation, increase unemployment, create competition for jobs, reduce the premium on skills, increase taxes and put strains on the national economy. Under these conditions, the public becomes indifferent or even hostile to more important union activities such as the drive for a 30-hour work week.

Another drawback to full employment of the unskilled worker is unemployment laws, both state and federal, as usually administered.

In concept, the principle of partial pay for forced layoffs is sound. I, for one, am heartily in favor of it. In its application, however, there are a number of restrictive practices which tend to freeze out the unskilled and part time worker.

Not many non-employers, including workers, know that unemployment compensation taxes are paid ENTIRELY by the EMPLOYER, His tax rate is set within his industry by his record of layoffs -- full employment means a low rate. To hire too many employees and later cut back, or to suffer a sharp loss of business and lay off employees, can run up unemployment taxes dangerously.

For these reasons, an employer is loathe to take on an employee he feels is marginal in ability. A subsequent layoff after a 13-week probationary period will increase his tax rates. Part time workers to help out in unexpected or seasonal rushes are bypassed for the same reason.

The State of Ohio, has attempted to remove the barrier to the part time employment of full time students by exempting them from unemployment compensation rules.

It is ironic that this gesture has been nullified by conflict with the federal unemployment compensation fund. Exemption of an employee from the state fund INCREASES the tax rate into the federal fund.

It is possible, theoretically, to hire short-term "casual labor" for three or four days without penalty provided an employer asks for and receives permission BEFOREHAND from the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. The difficulty of foreseeing casual labor needs and the reports and bookkeeping involved in putting any employee on the payroll work to discourage other than full-time employment.

I feel strongly that some way of providing part time employment for teen age youths is essential for development of a trained, capable work force.

A few halting steps are being made in this direction, but under the heavy hand of government. A state-supervised school-industry training program is being tried in Ohio, but with uncertain results - so far.

A federal Job Training Corps will spend a great deal of money to try and rehabilitate school drop outs, draft rejects and "culturally disadvantaged."

All of this fumbling can be eliminated easily by cutting the fetters holding back private businesses. For example, allowing each business establishment in the U.S. just one exemption from the labor laws for a young man or woman 16 years of age to 19 would wipe out unemployment of this age group overnight. It also would give them the only kind of training that really works — on-the-job experience.

Author: Lindsey Williams