The Jobs Aren't Getting Done: How the Immigration Crackdown Is Hurting Business

BY Bill Saporito | June 30, 2025

The resistance to President Trump’s immigration crackdown began with dramatic street theater. The scenes got uglier by the day. Masked, heavily armed agents from the Immigration and Customers Enforcement (ICE) agency descended on workplaces where immigrants are employed and hauling them away, some in front of their terrified children. In Los Angeles, local protests over the sweeps prompted the White House to federalize California’s National Guard and dispatch U.S. Marines, purportedly to restore order and protect federal buildings. A U.S. senator was forcibly removed and arrested at a press conference by Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem.  

Now, however, resistance is coming from other quarters. Business owners—farmers, restaurateurs, meatpackers, hoteliers—are finding their operations under siege. And understaffed. They’re letting their Congressional reps know it; and alarmed farmers, with a shortage of workers to pick their crops, complained to Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins. In Florida, State Senator Ileana Garcia, co-founder of Latinas for Trump, labeled the raids as “unacceptable and inhumane.”

The us-vs.-them tension that has characterized America’s relationship with its immigrants has been a feature of national politics for centuries. Today it is a focal point of the second Trump administration. After all, making migrants the targets of MAGA helped get Trump elected.  But support for mass deportation is now being viewed in the harsh reality of its execution. And harsh may underestimate the level of cruelty involved in the detentions. No wonder there are some reverberations. 

That’s why Trump, no stranger to vacillation, briefly reversed course, ordering ICE to stop raiding farms, hotels and restaurants, tweeting that “Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace.” Days later, in the face of blowback from MAGA’s hard-liners, he reverted to TACO mode and ordered the raids to resume.

The friction is playing out within the Administration too. Weeks before, former First Buddy Elon Musk clashed with America Firster Steve Bannon over immigration: Musk wants to allow more tech emigres, while Bannon wants to tighten the screws on programs such as H-1B visas. Given that crypto bros like Mark Zuckerberg backed the Trump campaign with hundreds of millions of PAC money, the faceoff had a particular edge to it.

The internal politics aside, the heavy-handed ICE tactics are hitting a nerve with most people. Already, 54% of Americans are against increasing the raids, according to a recent Pew poll. More videos of parents being torn away from their children, or ICE agents arresting American citizens for being Hispanic, won’t play well. Nor should they: this is not the view of America that most Americans want to see. And it’s counterproductive.

A Long and Fraught Dependency on Immigrant Labor

The conflicted relationship with immigrants, who we have always relied on to do the actual work of building the nation and the economy, actually predates the nation. You can trace it all the way back to Peter Stuyvesant and New Amsterdam in the 17th century. Stuyvesant, the director general of New Amsterdam, initially resisted some non-Dutch immigrants but lost that battle to the practical priorities of developing New Amsterdam as a global trading hub. (Which, to be clear, included the slave trade.)

Our tortured history with new arrivals vacillates between exploitation and demonization, as befits the times and the politicians. The No Nothings, or “American” party, of the 1850s were anti-Catholic—and thus by definition anti-immigrant. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Gentleman’s Agreement of 1907 discriminated against Chinese and Japanese emigrants. 

Yet the exploitation of immigrant labor proved to be one of America’s great bargains: workers accepted low wages and sometimes brutal conditions because the U.S. did indeed promise far more opportunity than did their native countries. Immigrants labored in the steel mills of Pittsburgh (those of Slavic origin were referred to generically as “hunkies”), in the brass works in Connecticut, the thread mills in Massachusetts, the meatpacking plants in Chicago, the auto plants in Detroit,  and the coal mines in Pennsylvania, Kentucky and West Virginia. And on farms from Minnesota to Louisiana, New Jersey to California.  

New York City, where 40% of the population is foreign-born, could not thrive without immigrants, and that’s been true of most big U.S. cities for the last two centuries. (My family arrived in New York’s teeming Little Italy from Naples in the late 19th century.)

Within this pool of immigrants was a steady stream of entrepreneurs such as Amadeo Pietro Giannini,  who founded the Bank of Italy in San Francisco in the aftermath of the Great Earthquake. You may know that institution by its current name: Bank of America. Or Adolphus Busch and Eberhard Anheuser, Germans who formed what would become the great American beer company, Anheuser-Busch. Later came Andy Grove, the Hungarian co-founder of Intel; and Google’s co-founder, the Russian born Sergey Brin. And yes, the South Africa via Canada émigré Elon Musk, whose auto company is named after the astonishing Serbian immigrant Nicola Tesla, whose own genius paved the way for the electric grid that powers the device you are using to read these words.

Why America Needs Immigrants to Fuel Its Future Economy

Today, from a demographic perspective, the U.S. cannot achieve significant economic growth unless it increases the supply of people. GDP growth is proportional to population growth and population growth has declined from 1% in 2000 to 0.5% in 2025 and is projected to fall further. The current birthrate is at a record low. The demographics also tell us that the ratio of older people to the working-age population is expanding. We can’t solve the coming Social Security insolvency unless there are more working-age people. People who weren’t necessarily born here.

Immigrants help solve those demographic issues: they’re younger, have a higher birthrate than citizens, and are clearly willing to work and contribute to their communities. And while Congress debates the deficit, immigrants—legal or not—are paying taxes and contributing to Social Security. In fact, in 2023, households led by undocumented immigrants alone paid nearly $90 billion in taxes, according to the  American Immigration Council. Meanwhile, the median pay of immigrants was about 16% below native-born Americans in 2024, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s known as value for money.

And immigrants are not the people that Trump and his anti-immigration extremist Stephen Miller have so viciously characterized. Immigrants are less likely than American citizens to commit a crime. Despite claims that they suck up state and federal resources, their labor participation rate is higher than Americans. Immigrants, in fact, are more likely to start a business and create jobs. They are more likely to build your house or pick your vegetables. Or take care of your children or your aging parents. The greatest danger most Americans face from an immigrant is if you got hit by one who fell of your roof while repairing it.

While we need more special people like Steve Jobs, whose father was a Syrian immigrant, the greater demand is for people willing to fill the everyday jobs that make the economy go. What we currently lack, though, is better a path to citizenship, a middle way that balances the nation’s requirements against the overwhelming desire of non-Americans to get here. Yet bipartisan efforts in Congress to reform immigration law has repeatedly collapsed, at least partly because conservatives have found it to be such a powerful wedge issue.

The economic and social cost of the current immigration crackdown is going to become even more visible in the coming months. Summer is prime time for industries that rely on immigrants. Corn and tomatoes, peaches and peas, and plumbs and cherries have to be harvested nationwide. Hotels and resorts require staff to take care of vacationers. And at many rural hospitals, the July inflow of residents and medical students relies heavily on foreigners. This is also prime time for homebuilding, and we’re short of new homes. But the White House has created a double whammy that’s likely to make homes more expensive and less available by reducing the labor pool and increasing the cost of materials through tariffs.

Meanwhile, there are 7.4 million job openings as of April, according to the Jolts data from BLS. As for all those manufacturing jobs Trumps thinks he can reshore, he might want to inquire whether anyone wants them. Manufacturers are currently short 400,000 workers.

That doesn’t sound like a winning proposition; nor is our current immigration policy.  With his poll numbers declining across the board, it’s quite likely that Trump could soften his anti-immigrant stance and the ICE raids. Whatever Americans may think of the crackdown as social policy, if the economy weakens (which looks to be the case), we will once again realize that as an economic policy, xenophobia is a loser.

Bill Saporito is a veteran business journalist whose work has appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post. Previously, he worked as an editor at large at Inc. magazine, an assistant managing editor at Time, and as a senior editor at Fortune. He has written for From Day One on the power gap among labor unions, the myth of the “woke” corporation, and the perils of getting technology and people misaligned.

(Featured photo: Seasonal immigrants picking strawberries near Salinas, Calif. Photo by rightdx/iStock by Getty Images)

Related Stories

The Roots of the Rage Against the Healthcare Machine

Most of us, sad to say, realized last week that we can comprehend the anger that drove 26-year-old Luigi Mangione—a privileged Penn grad and tech whiz—to allegedly murder Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, as the executive walked alone to an annual investors meeting in Manhattan.UnitedHealthcare, part of United Healthcare Group, which ranks No. 4 on the Fortune 500, is what’s known in the industry as a payer. That’s a term that might enrage a lot of people, especially anyone whose claim has been turned down for any of seemingly a million reasons and therefore is on the hook for medical costs. The payers are even using AI to process claims and make denials, taking humanity out of the process of caring for humans. Doctors say they are fed up with fighting insurance companies about providing needed medical treatments to their patients. In a manifesto found in his backpack after he was arrested, Mangione proclaimed: “These parasites had it coming.”The source of the shooter’s motivation is complicated. A product of a wealthy, well-connected Maryland family, a computer-engineering graduate with a master’s from Penn, he was social, and loved playing computer games and designing them. But he also suffered from spinal problems and severe pain that had led to spinal-fusion surgery. His reading list included anti-corporate tomes, including Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s screed. Six months prior to the shooting, he cut himself off from family and friends. They begged him to get in touch but he apparently went someplace very dark instead. He emerged a murderer, police say.The coldblooded killing of a corporate executive triggered a similarly coldblooded wave of public vitriol directed toward Thompson and his company. Yelp reviews from hell itself. Wanted posters with pictures of health-insurance executives began popping up on Manhattan lamp posts.We know the drivers of this heartlessness toward Thompson and his peers. Healthcare bills are a leading cause of personal bankruptcy. And our money does not buy healthiness, which Mangione noted in papers found in his backpack. The U.S. spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation, yet in medical outcomes we are not even in the top 10. In a recent Gallup poll, the segment of Americans who rated healthcare quality as “good” or “excellent” dropped 10 percentage points since 2020, to 44%. Not surprisingly, respondents rated healthcare insurance coverage even worse: 28% rate coverage as excellent or good as opposed to 41% in 2012, the high point, says Gallup.One winner in all of this: UHG, which earned a net profit of about $6 billion. That was in the third quarter alone.The vicious response to Mangione’s alleged actions reflects both the state of social media and the state of corporate America. The former allows anonymous individuals to display the most vile aspects of human nature—and then amplifies them. The latter reflects industry concentration that leaves consumers with fewer choices, and to some degree, powerless and voiceless. And angry about it.That’s true whether you are buying eggs or chickens in the supermarket—and remember that food-price inflation helped drive voters to Donald Trump—cell-phone service or health insurance. The McDonald’s in Altoona, Pa., where Mangione was arrested after an employee called the cops on him was flooded with negative reviews, as if a fast-food chain was part of the corporate conspiracy to suppress consumer discontent. Et tu, Mickie D?The UnitedHealthcare headquarters in Minnetonka, Minn., lowered its flags to half-staff last week honor of CEO Brian Thompson, who was fatally shot outside a hotel in Manhattan. (Kerem Yücel/Minnesota Public Radio via AP)Mangione spoke for many of these disenfranchised consumers, and in the worst possible way. You know this feeling of being seemingly without options. I’ve witnessed it at airports, when an angry, disgruntled—and clueless—passenger loudly informs a gate agent that “I’ll never fly this airline again.” Fat chance. You will, in fact, fly this airline again or you can drive across the country because Delta, United, American and Southwest control 80% of domestic airline traffic.This frustration is one reason that assaults on airline employees skyrocketed in the “revenge travel” period that followed the Covid pandemic. People were jammed into full flights, hit with multiple charges for seat selection, checked bags, early boarding, or whatever else the carriers could dream up. Is it any wonder that a number of them lost their shit? The problem, once limited to an occasional belligerent drunk, became so acute that the Federal Aviation Administration had to crack down on the growing number of miscreants, in some cases fining passengers $36,000 for attacking airline personnel.The frustration is everywhere and employees are feeling it. Recently I showed up at my local Hertz station in Manhattan to pick up my rental reservation; there were no cars. So I started getting agitated—and I am now practiced at this because this wasn’t the first time Hertz came up short. I was in mid-harangue when the agent pleaded: “I’m just a minion; it’s not my fault.” Fair enough. “But who else am I going to yell at?” I asked her. We’d both been through this before. Hertz had hung us both out to dry. The shooting is also a grim new chapter in our heavily armed society. We’re all too familiar with workplace shootings—going postal–in which a disgruntled employee or former employees take lethal umbrage on his boss and co-workers for whatever bad treatment or perceived slights they might have endured. But now it is seemingly the customers who are raging for revenge.This corporate assassination is raising the risks for everyone, from customer-facing employees to the big boss. But the CEOs will be able double down on their security; the front-line people will be more or less on their own. UHG’s employees, who number about 440,000, tend to like the company they work for. Until last week, the headquarters team labored in relative anonymity in Minnetonka, Minn. Now many of them feel they are under siege, likened to criminal accomplices working for a nefarious company. As one employee said. “[W]e all do the best we can to do a good job in the system we are in.”UnitedHealth, and other health insurers, have argued for years that consumers are well-served, and satisfied, by the current system. They probably have customer surveys that endorse this view. So do airlines. So what? Clearly the status quo is unsustainable. The anger that UHG’s system has generated has done what few issues in America can do: united Democrats and Republicans. Bipartisan legislation was introduced this week to break up some of the largest healthcare conglomerates by selling off their highly profitable pharmacy-benefit managers (PBMs), the drug middlemen often blamed for high prescription prices. The three biggest ones—CVS Health’s Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts and UnitedHealth’s Optum Rx—control 80% of prescriptions in the U.S. “Critics complain that the conglomerates use their size and leverage to steer patients toward their own pharmacies, increasing costs for employers and government programs while driving independent pharmacies out of business,” the New York Times pointed out. Consider that the first round.This week I happened to have a lunch scheduled with the CEO of a healthcare-related tech startup, the source for a story I’m working on. He showed up without any security, and he didn’t plan to engage any. His company isn’t a “payer.” In fact, it helps corporate clients push back against the payers to lower their employee healthcare-insurance costs. Payers such as UHG hate me, the CEO told me, because he was attacking their profit machine. And Americans, as we now know, hate the payers even more.Bill Saporito is an editor at large at Inc. magazine whose work has also appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post. Previously, he worked as an assistant managing editor at Time magazine and as a senior editor at Fortune. He has written for From Day One on the power gap among labor unions, the myth of the “woke” corporation, and the perils of getting technology and people misaligned.Featured photo, top: alleged murderer Luigi Mangione is escorted into a Pennsylvania courthouse this week (AP Photo/Gary M. Baranec)

Bill Saporito December 14, 2024

If the Boss Wants You Back in the Office Five Days a Week, They Should Think Twice

In its heyday as the proto–Silicon Valley tech company, Hewlett-Packard innovated by what became known as the “next bench” syndrome. H-P was a company founded by engineers (Bill and Dave) for engineers and new products happened when one engineer asked a fellow practitioner sitting nearby if there might be something else the company could make that could be useful to him.While this ask-your-office buddy ideation might seem quaint—after all, innovation can and does come from anywhere—corporate America is now demanding a return of sorts to the days of white shirts and pocket protectors. After a long, pandemic-induced experiment with remote and then hybrid work, the people in the C-Suites are apparently lonely.More and more of them want your butt back in the office five days a week, and they are going to get their way, leaving some very unhappy employees to stew about it. According to a recent poll by KPMG, 79% of CEOs see all the professionals back at their office posts in the next three years–that’s up from 34% last year. This will be distressing news to people who moved away from corporate cities like Seattle to places such as Omaha, which tried to position itself as a low-cost haven for remote employees. At least companies are providing some perks for your five-day-a week return: unlimited amounts of hand sanitizer, for instance, and cleaning wipes. Maybe some more free food.Amazon CEO Andy Jassy is among the latest to announce that sitting in front of your laptop at home with your dog and your three year old no longer qualifies as getting it done. Some Amazon employees voiced outrage, even threatening to quit. “Go right ahead,” seems to be the response from HQ in what some have labeled a layoff by another name. Long before that, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon decreed that bankers and traders, who tend to operate in packs anyway, had to decamp from their Manhattan apartments and Manhasset manses to reoccupy the company’s pricey office buildings, especially its new HQ. Dimon’s argument is basically, “I’m not spending $100 a square foot to look at empty desks.” Nor does he believe that managers can lead effectively from home.Other financial industry bosses apparently concur. In Manhattan, where I work, office “busyness” rates reached 73.4% in August, a figure that compares occupancy to pre-pandemic levels of 2019. Nationwide, the rate is 60.4%, according to Avison Young, a real-estate advisory firm.What the Research ShowsFrom a productivity viewpoint, there doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to mandate a return to the office, at least not based on academic research. The data, for the most part, points the other way. In the largest study yet of working-from-home professionals, Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom found that employees who work from home two days a week are “just as productive, likely to get promoted, and far less prone to quit.” According to the job-finding site FlexJobs, employees who work at home at least part-time can save up to $6,000 annually on commuting and other costs—a back-door raise they are loath to give up.True, Bloom’s study was limited to an experiment on 1,600 employees at Trip.com, a Chinese travel agency. And an earlier study, of which Bloom was a co-author, determined that fully remote employees were 10% less productive than their office-dwelling counterparts.  Meanwhile, yet another study from the University of Essex in England notes that, while remote workers there put in more hours–including 18% more after normal business hours—their average output didn’t change much. “Therefore,” the study concluded “productivity fell by about 20%.”What Most Workers WantAny survey of employees, however, will deliver the consensus that, while they enjoy being with their colleagues, they love a workplace that can be molded to their needs. Parents with kids need the hybrid flexibility, and Gen Z kids may need the socialization of the office. They both want a little of both.The kind of CEOs who get driven to work and have large private offices don’t necessarily see it that way. Nor do they seem particularly interested in the workplace data that supports the benefits of hybrid work. They’re focused on another data set: current economic data, which is now turning in management’s favor. That data shows that layoffs are up, quits are down, and the unemployment rate is ticking up, if ever so slightly. (Recent hurricanes will boost unemployment, temporarily.) The pending election might also be causing people to lower their appetite for risk and stay put.There could be more than executive ego at work here, too. If you’re the big boss, you want to be able to see and hear, in person, all the people you are bossing, even if you recede to your office sanctuary for most of the day.Which means that job holders and job seekers are no longer calling the shots the way they did in the roll-your-own days of the pandemic.  In my shop, our CEO just upped the ante to three days a week in the office from two, citing the need for enhanced collaboration to tackle these particularly perilous times in the publishing industry. I get that need for collaborating on site, having worked as a print magazine editor for a couple of decades. But surrendering the now comfy confines of my home office for an additional day at the office feels like a loss.And for the germaphobically inclined, it’s not as though the pandemic is in the past; companies have just chosen to treat it that way.  When I pointed out to a colleague that Covid-19 cases are rising rapidly nationwide, the response was on the order of: Yeah, but the latest wave isn’t as severe as past versions and there are now vaccines and remedies such as Paxlovid. In other words, suck it up, cowboy.The 13 million Americans employed in manufacturing might find all this contretemps about office work a bit amusing. It might be possible to say, build a transmission in your living room, but the machining noise tends to be loud. Likewise for the people working in service industries from restaurants to retail to healthcare. Sure, you can consult with a teledoc, but that’s not going to help you when you need to be pried out of your wrecked car by firefighters and  EMTs. You want a first responder, not a chatbot. Nor will your garbage be picking itself up anytime soon.The Upsides of the OfficePart of me sides with the bosses. What the productivity studies can’t measure is that a significant benefit of going to the office is being at the office. Being social. Being part of a company’s culture, which is a living breathing thing, as opposed to being merely part of its labor pool. Sharing not just the work but the human interaction that attaches. Going to lunch with office friends. And yes, the water cooler gossip, even if water coolers have been displaced by kombucha or cold-brew coffee dispensers. Need we mention, too, that office romances can hardly be undertaken sans office?(One thing that isn’t coming back to the office is any semblance of a dress code. Want to show up for that meeting in shorts, a T-shirt and Crocs? Go right ahead, and I’ll try to take you seriously.)As for the office work itself, we’ve all experienced those moments when a bunch of people thrown together suddenly connect on a breakthrough idea or solve a vexing operational problem. Indeed, the power of in-person collaboration has been likened to having a free electron floating around the room, just waiting to give the particle of a fabulous idea the positive charge that gives it energy. That spark could come from a sideways glance, a brief, post-meeting chat, or simply by running into a colleague in the elevator or parking lot.There’s also a reason why companies brag about being a great place to work. Yes, you can be employed remotely, but that’s not remotely the same experience.Why We Need to Find a Creative SolutionThis current faceoff leaves office managers and HR in a bit of a quandary when top management demands to see butts in seats. Perhaps looking at the question from an either/or perspective is the wrong way to do it. What the studies on office vs. remote work can’t control for is an individual’s performance. A high-performing employee is likely to be high performing whether they are working from home, at the office or at the beach. The most successful employers will figure out the geography that suits them best.Some companies, such as the HR platform Workday, have tried to appease bosses and workers with a sort of hybrid-hybrid. The company’s “work from anywhere” approach allows workers to spend 30 calendar days in a 12-month period working from just about anywhere. They may be on to something. Think about benefits. In most firms, there’s a benefits “menu” that allows employees to select from, say, several health insurers and within those insurers a variety of plans.Maybe we need to offer menu options with remote and hybrid work–a variety of packages to people in different life stages. The parent package could offer maximum flexibility in return for extended work hours. Take your kid to soccer, but give us those two hours back when we need them. The Gen Z package could include an exercise program near the office or lunch at Chipotle; the older workers package could include a more private workspace or a wellness program. Or something called chronowork, based on a person’s’ own body rhythms, which suits someone like me, attuned to working vampire hours. Running through all of them is the option to demand that all of the people show up at the office some of the time—on demand, even.People worked in offices for centuries because a central location was the best way to organize and run a business. The advent of computer networks altered that universe, making a central location less relevant; the pandemic then completely severed the historic relationship between work and geography. Some CEOs are now trying to redraw the management map to match the 1985 version. It’s sort of like going back to fax machines. Yes, they still function, but new technology has rendered them obsolete.  The hybrid model, which is inclusive of the vast variety of people and work styles today, is the new tech of business organization. It’s work that can work for everyone.Bill Saporito is an editor at large at Inc. magazine whose work has also appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post. Previously, he worked as an assistant managing editor at Time magazine and as a senior editor at Fortune. He has written for From Day One on the power gap among labor unions, the myth of the “woke” corporation, and the perils of getting technology and people misaligned.(Photo by Sam Edwards/iStock by Getty Images)

Bill Saporito October 23, 2024

Why a Software Glitch Sent Delta into a Tailspin: The Perils of Getting Technology and People Misaligned

Customer-facing airline employees are some of the most remarkable people in business. How can they not be? The workers on the ground face the annoyed, the demanding, the delayed, the furious, the not-going-anywhere-today, and the inebriated. Then they get a lunch break. Those on the jets face the entitled in the front and the cramped-and-cranky in coach.My admiration for these folks has only increased over the last decade as their ranks have been thinned by technology (with a push from the pandemic) while their tasks have been made increasingly fraught by the air-travel system in which they now toil. And in which we frequently roil.We got to see this combination of imperfect technology meeting overwhelmed staffing earlier this summer during the great CrowdStrike meltdown. Until its cybersecurity upgrade blew up, CrowdStrike was a company  known mostly to sys-op jockeys and hackers. Then the company introduced a wonky software update that within hours crippled millions of servers that used Microsoft Windows and all hell broke loose.Around the world, operating systems gagged, including those of major U.S. airlines, bringing traffic to a near standstill. In the U.S., only Southwest, which seemingly still uses floppy discs to run its data systems, escaped the meltdown. With the CrowdStrike collapse, the scene soon became all too familiar: lines of people desperately trying to get somewhere, their options narrowing, their frustration widening as the hours passed. Some would be stuck for days.And among those carriers, Delta stood out for coming apart like a cheap suitcase tossed down a baggage ramp. The carrier canceled more than 5,500 flights, and at one point refused to board unaccompanied minors, creating major angst for lots of parents. Meanwhile, word got out that CEO Ed Bastian had jetted off—Ted Cruz-style—to Paris for the Olympics while his airline was frozen in place. Delta blamed CrowdStrike and Microsoft, and has threatened to sue to recover some $500 million in losses. Microsoft, in turn, blamed Delta’s outmoded technology. During the depths of the outage, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella emailed Bastian to offer assistance—talk about the ultimate Help Desk—but Microsoft says Bastian apparently didn’t respond. The carrier seemingly turned on its passengers, some of whom reported difficulty in getting hotels from Delta where they were stranded, as well as being low-balled by the refund offers being made to compensate them for lost flights and spoiled vacations. Delta’s service swoon seemed all that more severe given that the airline had reached cruising altitude in the post pandemic years, while rivals such as United and Southwest grappled more often with system freeze-ups.Using Technology to Supplant LaborYet Delta, as well as the other carriers, have been rolling the dice for years when it comes to matching people and technology. During the pandemic the carriers had to cut schedules (40% in Delta’s case) and jobs. As the nation and air travel recovered, they either didn’t—or couldn’t—rehire enough people who had left or were let go to match surging demand. (Remember “revenge travel”?) Increasingly, they relied heavily on technology to supplant labor. And they made us, the passengers, part of the labor force: encouraging carry on baggage by charging for checked bags, then introducing self-ticketing, self-check-in and self-bag-checks. Frontier even tried to eliminate its customer phone support.This latest air travel meltdown magnified an everyday incongruity that exists in the industry in that airlines are carefully configured to cope with the unpredictable—often to no avail. They try to plan for everything, from the catastrophic—a fatal crash—to the complex, such as a hurricane that threatens to spin the entire network into disarray. Then there are wars, revolutions, volcanoes, pandemics, strikes and assorted other calamities that are a regular threat to any global business, but to airlines in particular.At their vast flight operations centers, the carriers have teams ready for everything from a medical emergency on board to a rivet (or a door) coming loose on a 737 Max or a warning light on an Airbus 321 that won’t turn off. There are doctors, pilots, mechanics, meteorologists, Airbus specialists, Boeing specialists, avionics specialists, crew wranglers, airport and operations managers working 24/7 at the ops centers, and yes, people figuring out just who among us is going to get screwed when flights get delayed or canceled.Yet all of that preparation is no match for the way airlines are actually scheduled. They remain vulnerable to the phenomenon known as tight coupling, in which one unit in a system is highly dependent on the next. Cascading failure is almost a guarantee once the first fault is unleashed. Why can’t airlines prevent this from happening? The answer is that, despite the contingency planning, airlines are scheduled for optimum conditions, as though it’s always going to be sunny in Philadelphia, or Panama City or Paris. Which is not the case, of course. Worse, with load factors north of 85%, there’s little excess capacity, and little hope of a quick recovery once the system begins to implode.The contingency planning that airlines do can be undone by what they regularly come up against. Weather is by definition chaotic; technology is capable of catastrophic failure. Try building a service culture around that.Where’s the Service in the Service Economy?Although airlines are the most conspicuous examples of failing to balance people and tech, it seems to be creeping into all parts of the economy, as algorithms try to bring ever more precision to businesses. Especially in retail. The goal is to never have excess labor being employed for a single minute anywhere. In this frictionless world, there is always precisely enough help available to help you make your purchase or to get served.You know how that goes. We seem to live in a nation where there is always one fewer checkout lane open than needed (and don’t get us started on self checkout, which normally requires more than one self to operate). If you’re waiting in one of these lines, this understaffing can seem deliberate.Not too long ago, I was discussing airline operations with David Neeleman, founder of the highly successful new airline Breeze Airways (not to mention JetBlue, Azul, and WestJet) when he mentioned that he routinely passed by long lines of customers—or potential customers—at airport Starbucks. This frustrating level of service drove him to distraction—and this is a man who does not drink coffee. His point was that in an airport terminal, with scheduled flights, you can pretty much know how many people are going to be around your location at any given time. How can they not figure this out?, he asked, incredulously.Perhaps because they don’t want to: the obvious conclusion is that it’s better to be slightly understaffed than overstaffed, especially in businesses that ebb and flow during a day. In my nabe, the usual culprit is our CVS pharmacy, where the line gets 10 deep about the same time every day. Or at Chipotle, where 7 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. becomes a crap shoot as to whether your online order will be ready as the app promises. The problem? There are two hospitals nearby, and shifts are changing about then, something Chipotle’s scheduling software hasn’t seemed to have mastered. One more person-hour would do wonders, the difficulty being that you can’t schedule one person for one hour. So we wait.At Sephora, meanwhile, I seethed in a line on a Saturday afternoon with my wife as checkout terminals remained unpersoned even as the queue expanded. Spotting a manager, I asked, “Can’t you pull people off the sales floor? Isn’t everyone cross-trained?” She, of Gen Z, gave me that “okay, boomer” look before moving on. I’m still not sure whether she lacked the authority to shift salespeople to the front end, or the interest.Dissatisfied shoppers in brick-and-mortar stores are free to leave and not return, or to buy online. Dissatisfied fliers don’t have that option. How many times have I heard an angry passenger screaming, “I’m never going to fly this airline again,” at an agent and thought: Oh yes you are. And that includes Delta. The carrier may have burned some goodwill this summer, but there’s a still deep reservoir it can still draw on—at least for now.That includes its talent pool. As we have again experienced, when the technology chokes,  the front-line workers bear the burden for the company, because software doesn’t hear you when you scream at it. The airlines, and many other companies, either need to invest in more dependable technology—or they need to stretch their people a little bit less.Bill Saporito is an editor at large at Inc. magazine, whose work has also appeared in the New York Times and Washington Post. Previously, he worked as an assistant managing editor at Time magazine and as a senior editor at Fortune. He has written for From Day One on the power gap among labor unions and the myth of the “woke” corporation. (Photo by Panama7/iStock by Getty Images) 

Bill Saporito August 22, 2024