MOONLIGHTING

Problem Born of Prosperity

ONE of the paradoxes--and problems --of the U.S. full-employment prosperity is moonlighting, i.e., holding two jobs at once. Despite record wages, the number of workers who have one job in the daytime and still another at night or on days off, has risen from 1,800,000 to 3,700,000 in the past six years. Now one in 18 U.S. workers is a moonlighter--not counting the 14 million working wives who, in effect, hold two jobs. The practice is increasing so fast that management, doctors, social workers and even columnists advising the lovelorn denounce it. Said a Cleveland union leader: "Moonlighting is morally wrong. We believe a man should get a decent wage for a regular day's work, and if he doesn't, it is our job--and his--to fight for it."

To Columnist Abigail Van Buren a wife complained about her moonlighting husband, who was "gone all day and three or four nights a week; leaving the whole responsibility of raising the family on the mother. When the man is home nobody dares to open a mouth because he is tired and grouchy. If these men would get used to living on one paycheck and spend more time with their families everyone would be better off." Abby agreed.

In some lower-salaried groups, or those with short hours, moonlighting is already traditional. Many schoolteachers have always had other jobs. So have firemen, postal workers and policemen. In one New Jersey community the police station is practically a hiring hall for housewives who want seasonal help in putting up storm windows or cleaning cellars. What is new is the rapid spread of moonlighting into high-paying fields where it did not exist before, or was not important. In Akron, where 30,000 rubber workers are on a six-hour day and a six-day week, 50% have more than one job. One in five of these actually works two full shifts in a rubber plant.

Not all moonlighters are in subordinate jobs. In Chicago recently an office worker went to his suburban shopping center to buy a suit. The clerk who fitted him was his boss.

The amount a man makes on his regular job does not necessarily determine whether he moonlights. It is the amount he wants to spend. Said a Chicago white-collar worker who drives a cab as a second job: "If you want to have a family and kids and a car and a house and TV, either your wife works or you work double." The California Teachers Association studied moonlighting among 17,000 male teachers under 30, found that 10,000 held other jobs, checking in supermarkets, clerking in clothing stores, selling insurance, etc. Among the married, the proportion ranged up to 75%. No matter how much, within reason, teacher salaries were raised,; the officials concluded, there would still be moonlighting. But most moonlighters stop when they have the extra money they need.

Cleveland industrialists conducted a survey, found that half of the city's employers frowned on moonlighting. They pointed out that moonlighters had a higher rate of absenteeism, lower productivity. In many cities, operators of unionized companies complain because their men insist on time and a half for overtime, or double time on Sundays, but will cheerfully work in back-alley, nonunionized shops for less than scale.

Most unions fight moonlighting," fear that it will trip up the drive toward the shorter day or the four-day workweek. They argue that if workers simply use their extra days to take on a second major job, there will be no work-spreading effect to counter either automation or the flood of war babies expected to join the work force in a few years. Furthermore, moonlighting is a powerful argument in itself against the shorter week, and against short hours v. the acquisitive nature of man. At an A.F.L.-C.I.O. conference on the shorter workweek in Washington, George Brooks, research director for the Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, attacked the idea that workers themselves want shorter hours.' Said Brooks: "The evidence is all on; the other side. Hundreds of union officials have testified that the most; numerous and persistent grievances are from men deprived of a chance to make overtime pay. Workers are eager to increase their income, not to work fewer hours."

For this reason, moonlighting is likely to increase with shorter hours. For the economy as a whole, moonlighting helps ease the tight labor market, steps up purchasing power. And despite their campaigning, unions have not been able to whip up much enthusiasm for a drive against dual jobholding on health grounds. In Los Angeles this spring, a Western Industrial Medical Association declined to condemn dual jobholding, instead voted to give the problem more study after several members hailed moonlighters as heirs to the spirit of the nation's founders, insisted that hard work never hurt anybody.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.