The Failure of Workforce Darwinism

Not too long ago I was in a checkout line at Publix, buying cigarettes. Yes, I am an evil smoker, but to my credit I have been trying repeatedly to quit – I’ll get there soon. Anyway, the cashier looked to me and asked “you still smoke these?” I replied yes, which prompted this woman to decide that it was her duty, her mission in life to inform me that cigarettes were terrible for me. Wow, what a revelation. What would ever I have done without such insight? Sarcasm aside, if the cashier is capable of this type of judgment call, what other judgment calls does she make on a normal basis?


Just a few weeks ago a coworker of mine, Dawn, was in a Starbucks drive-through. Starbucks was having a two-for-one promotion that day, so Dawn decided to take advantage. Once at the window, she was asked for a coupon for the promotion. Dawn was not aware she had to bring it with her, but all parties present were aware of the deal. At this point I understand if it’s necessary for an outlet to submit coupons for redemption, but in this case it was apparently acceptable for Dawn to pull up the online information on her phone and show it to the cashier. Okay, so no physical coupon was necessary. Why then was it necessary for Dawn to prove that she had seen this ad, when all parties present were aware of its existence?

Two days ago, at 4:30pm, I called a group contact and asked about a contact arrival time. It was a day before the event. She mentioned to me almost in passing that the number of attendees had jumped from 151 to 175. She also decided to mention that the balloon arch and deejay would be at the hotel between 9 and 10. A Deejay. Mind you, I have board meetings taking place all around the ballroom this group had rented, so needless to say I was concerned about the noise. More to the point, I was just a little perturbed that she may not have told me any of this had I not called her. I won’t even get into the next morning when the on-site contact decided to go from buffet to plated, added coffee in the morning (that I was told previously was not in their budget) and audio-visual equipment (that I was told they owned). I also won’t talk about the contact’s somewhat snippy reaction when I informed her of the billing changes.

These are just three examples. I cannot be alone in observing a continuation (and in some cases decline) of the quality of goods and services since before the recession. The people in the examples cited have seemingly defied employment redundancy, cheated survival of the fittest. With the current unemployment rate, it’s amazing who actually does still have a job. So then, why do they? Employers have a staggering amount of choice right now, so why choose for less than the very best? It would seem that one of the few good things that could come from an economic downturn would be the increase of quality in good and services. One would think that competition would be at its healthiest. Why does this not seem to be the case right now?

Maybe it’s too difficult for some employers to fire people. It could be that they’re afraid to let go of anyone else while likely running on skeleton crews. Once someone has been let go, there isn’t always a guarantee their position will remain in place. When others take up the slack, and stretch themselves past their limits, some employers take that to mean it’s possible to function without that position in place. Maybe this is where some of the quality has declined.

Then I had to wonder if unions had an impact on this. As much of a Democrat as I am, I strongly feel that workforce unions had their place back in the days of Norma Rae, but those days are long over. Nowadays unions primarily force people into joining them, take their wages, lower the quality of many establishments and wield artificially-inflated political power over many Democrats (and a few Republicans). I then wondered if unions were having an impact on the apparent absence of workforce Darwinism. Below is a list of so-called right-to-work states, which for obvious reasons tend to be less unionized:

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Iowa

Kansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Nebraska

Nevada

North Carolina

North Dakota

Oklahoma

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Wyoming

I decided to check the unemployment rates by state, and cross reference:

Unemployment Rates for States

Monthly Rankings, Seasonally Adjusted
Aug. 2009
Rank State Rate

1 NORTH DAKOTA 4.3

2 SOUTH DAKOTA 4.9

3 NEBRASKA 5.0

4 UTAH 6.0

5 VIRGINIA 6.5

6 MONTANA 6.6

6 WYOMING 6.6

8 IOWA 6.8

8 OKLAHOMA 6.8

8 VERMONT 6.8

11 NEW HAMPSHIRE 6.9

12 ARKANSAS 7.1

12 KANSAS 7.1

14 HAWAII 7.2

14 MARYLAND 7.2

16 COLORADO 7.3

17 NEW MEXICO 7.5

18 LOUISIANA 7.8

19 MINNESOTA 8.0

19 TEXAS 8.0

21 CONNECTICUT 8.1

21 DELAWARE 8.1

23 ALASKA 8.3

24 MAINE 8.6

24 PENNSYLVANIA 8.6

26 WISCONSIN 8.8

27 IDAHO 8.9

28 NEW YORK 9.0

28 WEST VIRGINIA 9.0

30 ARIZONA 9.1

30 MASSACHUSETTS 9.1

32 WASHINGTON 9.2

33 MISSISSIPPI 9.5

33 MISSOURI 9.5

35 NEW JERSEY 9.7

36 INDIANA 9.9

37 ILLINOIS 10.0

38 GEORGIA 10.2

39 ALABAMA 10.4

40 FLORIDA 10.7

41 NORTH CAROLINA 10.8

41 OHIO 10.8

41 TENNESSEE 10.8

44 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 11.1

44 KENTUCKY 11.1

46 SOUTH CAROLINA 11.5

47 CALIFORNIA 12.2

47 OREGON 12.2

49 RHODE ISLAND 12.8

50 NEVADA 13.2

51 MICHIGAN 15.2

As of September 18th, 2009 – source: United States Department of Labor, bls.gov

According to the Department of Labor then, the national average unemployment rate is 9%. Right-to-work states average 8.27%. Though it’s interesting that RTW states have a lower unemployment rate, I don’t feel it’s significantly lower to the point of drawing any conclusions. (I am interested in the seeming lack of impact on heavily unionized states, but much more research would be needed to draw any conclusions on this as well).

So if union versus non-union, at first glance anyway, seemingly has little impact on the multitude of shining resumes in line for work, and the apparent lowering of quality of goods and services, what is it?

Could it be that cost-cutting has lead to lower wages, the use of cheaper materials and general corner-cutting? The old saying is that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, but if peanuts are the only available food, would the strongest most able bodies not reach them first?

Could it be that Darwinism is negated by disgruntled workers who function more efficiently and make better judgment calls when not over-worked and deprived of the tools needed to do their jobs? If this is true, then maybe the cream really is rising to the top, and then spoiling.

I’m not saying there aren’t goo workers out there. I’m just wondering why, in a time when so many skilled, well-qualified, experienced workers are willing to anything to just get their foot in the door, Starbucks associates asking to physically see a coupon before offering their promotional goods.

I think more research would be needed, but it seems like I would be dealing with fewer scattered, disorganized individuals if something weren’t amiss.