I finally read the much-discussed paper by Conservative Rabbi Jill Jacobs on the living wage, which was recently adopted by the (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (link, download – PDF). I was fairly impressed with the care with which the author read the sources and did not try to infer more than the texts allow. There is, to my surprise, no attempt to say that halakhah requires us to pay a living wage or hire union workers. Rather, the author tries to show that these actions are mandated by the underlying values of halakhah. She also does not romanticize unions and, in my opinion, adequately deals with their problems and points out that they are still necessary to safeguard very basic workers’ rights. In my admittedly unqualified opinion, almost all of the conclusions are self-evident as desideratum, even if not halakhically obligatory.
The rishonim almost unanimously point out that halakhah attempts to protect workers’ rights. R. Gersion Appel writes (A Philosophy of Mitzvot, pp. 123-124):
Though the essential laws governing employer-employee relations are to be found in the Talmud and the later codes, the spirit underlying them is already evident in the Torah, as noted by the Hinnukh. While the employer is entitled to benefit in due measure from the work of his employee and to receive an honest day’s work, special consideration under the law is accorded the worker in order to protect him from exploitation and to safeguard his material and human rights. He is to receive his wages at the stipulated time, the employer being biblically enjoined from withholding it, "for he is poor and setteth his heart upon it" (Deuteronomy 24:15). The Halakah gives the worker the advantage when claiming his wages. While, ordinarily, the law provides that one can deny a disputed claim and be freed of the obligation by taking an oath, in this case the employee has the right to take the oath and receive his wages.
Significantly, the law guards his rights due him as a free agent. In exercise of this freedom the Rabbis allow the worker to quit his job on the principle, "For unto Me the children of Israel are servants" (Leviticus 25:55), and not servants of servants. This right is limited, however, in consideration of equity, to prevent injustice and undue loss to the employer. The welfare of the common worker merits the Hinnukh’s special consideration. Thus, he advocates that we should follow the practice today of granting severance pay to one who has provided service for a period of time, even though the law was, strictly speaking, limited to the Hebrew servant in the time of the Temple.
One thing that I found surprising in the paper is the claim that Jewish employers are obligated to follow even unenforced American laws based on the concept of "dina de-malkhusa dina – the law of the land is the law" (p. 45 of the paper). My understanding of this concept is that we are only obligated to follow laws that are enforced. There are all sorts of antiquated and ignored laws on the books and there is no reason that Jews should be the only people following them. I don’t supposed the author of this paper would advise people living in states with sodomy laws that they must follow them. Similarly, I feel free to, and have personally seen great Torah authorities, cross against a red light when no cars are coming (in NY City, where these laws are not enforced).
Additionally, while I support the concept of a living wage, the paper defines a living wage as "the amount of money a person needs to earn in order to support him/herself on a single forty hour/week job" (p. 28) and then goes on to give more specifics on "support him/herself". I don’t know who sanctified the 40 hour workweek but I don’t think it has any standing in halakhah. If we are forcing employers to pay a certain wage, why not make employees work a 50 hour workweek? Or a 6 day/60 hour workweek? Yes, it is difficult. But it isn’t, in my opinion, unethical to ask employees to work that hard.
