Interview with James Heintz

What does the WEI tell us about working conditions in the US that we didn't already know?

James Heintz: The value of the WEI is that it pulls together, in one place, measurements of the various aspects of decent work. And it does this on a state-by-state basis. We didn't generate any new data when creating the WEI. But we did synthesize information from established sources in a new way. The WEI provides a lot of information in an accessible, easy-to-interpret format. People can use the WEI to see where their state ranks relative to other states. They can immediately identify areas of strength, and those areas that need improvement. Since the WEI scores will be published on an annual basis, in the future states will be able to see where they've been, where they're going, and whether they're on track.

How did you decide which variables to use in constructing the index?

JH: Many factors contribute to a good environment for working people: quality jobs, adequate opportunities for employment, basic social protections, and being treated fairly. We wanted to pick a range of variables that capture the different dimensions of a good working environment. We investigated a wide range of different indicators and found that the variables included in the Work Environment Index did the best job of reflecting these diverse aspects of the U.S. work environment.

Of course, there were a number of other considerations. We wanted to avoid an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach – including so many variables that it becomes difficult to see what's going on. So we limited ourselves to a core set of indicators that contain a lot of information about the quality of the work environment. Data had to be available for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Also – since we want to produce new scores each year, we chose variables that could be up-dated annually. Finally, transparency and objectivity were important. Therefore, we used data from respected, publicly available sources.

Were there any states whose rankings surprised you (i.e. were much higher or lower than you expected)?

JH: To be perfectly honest, I would never have guessed that Delaware would come out on top. What was most interesting – and often surprising – to me was to see how different states scored in each of the components that make up the WEI – job quality, job opportunities, and workplace fairness. As we looked at the different facets of decent work, I was forced to re-think some of the preconceived ideas that I had when we started this project. For example, I expected a state like Michigan to come out shining, given its history of strong unions. Michigan does rank near the top in job quality, but it also faces an enormous challenge in terms of creating enough jobs for the people who live there.

The WEI helps us take into account such differences, by pulling together these different elements and providing a basis for comparison across states.

Why are two of the most populous states, New York and California, doing so badly?

JH: In many respects, New York and California have a lot in common. They are large states with diverse workforces and large immigrant communities. Both states have strong traditions of protecting labor rights and have well-organized workforces. Most people would assume that they should score better than they do. However, finding a full-time job is harder in New York and California than in many other states. Average job quality in the two states, particularly when adjusted for the cost of living, isn't spectacular. This is true for California, even with a minimum wage set well above the federal level. Although employees on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley frequently take home enormous paychecks, inequalities among working people are pronounced. Both states have large populations of low-wage workers.

In New York's case, it’s important to keep in mind that New York City suffered a major economic shock with the September 11th terrorist attacks. Unemployment increased significantly at that time and the problem hasn't yet been fully addressed.

The states that are doing worst in the WEI are historically slave/Jim Crow states and/or have high immigrant populations. What do you think labor history in these states has to do with the current environment provided for workers there?

JH: Racial and ethnic differences have always had a profound impact on the distribution of economic opportunities in the U.S. The WEI captures some of these dynamics in its assessment of the overall work environment. If a state fails to provide decent employment opportunities to African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, or immigrant communities, for example, this will tend to pull down its ranking. In some cases, unfair outcomes in terms of job opportunities are symptomatic of other inequalities – for instance, in terms of educational opportunities or the distribution of wealth. However, it could also be the case that the commitment among politicians to improve conditions for the most vulnerable workers simply isn't there when the workers belong to different racial and ethnic groups. Until states are able to overcome these barriers and make lasting improvements, they will tend to score lower relative to others.

This raises the question: why didn't we explicitly consider racial and ethnic inequalities when constructing the WEI? The difficulty we faced was that racial and ethnic differences vary enormously from state to state. Plus, the histories and experiences of particular racial and ethnic groups differ. If we focused only on one state – say, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, South Dakota, or Hawaii – we probably could develop a meaningful indicator. But this indicator would change from state to state. Instead, we can use the WEI to ask the question: how do racial inequalities influence the quality of the work environment? This is an area we'd like to explore in the future.

Do you anticipate any big changes in the rankings for next year?

JH: I'm sure that the rankings will change somewhat from year to year, but improving a state's work environment is a gradual process, something built up over many years. Therefore, I don't expect to see big changes from one year to the next. If we track changes over 5 years, or 10 years, then we might see some significant shifts.

Having said that, there are a few changes that should affect the scores of particular states next year. Florida will undoubtedly improve, since voters approved a new minimum wage law. Indiana and Missouri may slip down slightly, since their governors have decided to restrict the ability of state-level public sector workers to bargain over their conditions of employment.