A couple of years ago, while still living in Austin, TX, I decided to have lunch at Chipotle. Perhaps due to my immersion in a sociological theory class I had been taking, this visit was unlike previous ones; it changed the quotidian experience of buying a burrito into real life illustration of subtle worker exploitation.
Although the location was inundated with burrito-craving customers, the line moved rather quickly; this encouraged me to stay. As I ate, I could not help but to notice the efficiency and alacrity of the lunch shift workers. The burrito-making process resembled a factory assembly line; in fact, the assembly and sale of my burrito had taken four people, excluding the cooks. It was obvious that the intensity of the process and the productivity of each worker increased significantly at lunch time, while their low, hourly wage did not.
Accustomed to the economic rationale under which businesses nowadays operate, we may not think much of this, if any. To us, it is just a burrito. However, absorbed in theoretical readings, which included Marxist theory, I noticed that these workers satisfied Marx’s maxim that “the worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent” (in Alienated Labor). The number of burritos they produced per minute, per hour, or whatever measure, was not positively correlated to their hourly wage, which remained constant. Hence, each additional unit of output translated into diminishing earnings per unit of input effort. To illustrate, while the restaurant owner profited from forty burritos the first hour and from one hundred the second, the workers continued to make the same hourly wage throughout, but worked harder.
Despite our proclivity to view this as a triviality of the labor market, one should consider that in other jobs, employee compensation increases with the amount of input effort, measured in some specific way, such as number of insurance policies sold or number of baskets of tomatoes collected. In a profit-driven world, the employer’s choice between hourly wage and fixed compensation per unit of something is economically rational: reduce costs, maximize profit. Usually, the worker, limited by his/her immediate skills and trade, abides by the method chosen without his/her best interests in mind and enters an exploitative relationship.
At the time of Marx’s writings, the world economy was dominated by the manufacturing industry, the factories; hence Marx mainly discussed physical labor or labor that can be externalized and objectified into a tangible good. However, with the rise of the tertiary sector in the world economy, other aspects of labor first overlooked my Marx must be taken into account to clearly understand how this current exploitative relation also encroaches on what we consider our non-marketable humanity.
Biting once more into my burrito, I thought of Arlie Hochschild’s work on the commercialization of human feeling and the growing service sector. Sitting in my booth, with Hochschild in mind, I noticed that some of the workers not only made burritos but offered smiles, kindness and thanked patrons. They in fact conveyed an emotion for a wage. As noticed by Hochschild in other studies, what the worker ought to feel is decided in advanced by the company. Already not entitled to directly benefit from their labor and productivity, the burrito workers, as other service workers in America and worldwide, have also given up part of their humanity, of their private life, for the economic gain of the owners. Not being tangible, I must note, emotions remain non-measurable in units of output and therefore subject to subjective compensation, subject to exploitation.
While writing this piece about what I know should have been a trivial experience, I feel as if I should ask the reader not to reach conclusion I am not in exploring this area of everyday life. While I recognize that many workers would not consider their employment relations as exploitative, that many workers consider their compensations fair and that many workers do have some level of choice, I am noting that many can find themselves exploited, if subtly, and lacking a choice. If a worker voluntarily enters an exploitative relationship, is this any less exploitative? Is this any less of a human right violation? I do not yet have a concrete answer to this question and leave it open to discussion. However, whether having a burrito, a hamburger or a pizza, one should not forget that something as ostensibly trifling as a lunch choice can have significant human rights implications.
Although the location was inundated with burrito-craving customers, the line moved rather quickly; this encouraged me to stay. As I ate, I could not help but to notice the efficiency and alacrity of the lunch shift workers. The burrito-making process resembled a factory assembly line; in fact, the assembly and sale of my burrito had taken four people, excluding the cooks. It was obvious that the intensity of the process and the productivity of each worker increased significantly at lunch time, while their low, hourly wage did not.
Accustomed to the economic rationale under which businesses nowadays operate, we may not think much of this, if any. To us, it is just a burrito. However, absorbed in theoretical readings, which included Marxist theory, I noticed that these workers satisfied Marx’s maxim that “the worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent” (in Alienated Labor). The number of burritos they produced per minute, per hour, or whatever measure, was not positively correlated to their hourly wage, which remained constant. Hence, each additional unit of output translated into diminishing earnings per unit of input effort. To illustrate, while the restaurant owner profited from forty burritos the first hour and from one hundred the second, the workers continued to make the same hourly wage throughout, but worked harder.
Despite our proclivity to view this as a triviality of the labor market, one should consider that in other jobs, employee compensation increases with the amount of input effort, measured in some specific way, such as number of insurance policies sold or number of baskets of tomatoes collected. In a profit-driven world, the employer’s choice between hourly wage and fixed compensation per unit of something is economically rational: reduce costs, maximize profit. Usually, the worker, limited by his/her immediate skills and trade, abides by the method chosen without his/her best interests in mind and enters an exploitative relationship.
At the time of Marx’s writings, the world economy was dominated by the manufacturing industry, the factories; hence Marx mainly discussed physical labor or labor that can be externalized and objectified into a tangible good. However, with the rise of the tertiary sector in the world economy, other aspects of labor first overlooked my Marx must be taken into account to clearly understand how this current exploitative relation also encroaches on what we consider our non-marketable humanity.
Biting once more into my burrito, I thought of Arlie Hochschild’s work on the commercialization of human feeling and the growing service sector. Sitting in my booth, with Hochschild in mind, I noticed that some of the workers not only made burritos but offered smiles, kindness and thanked patrons. They in fact conveyed an emotion for a wage. As noticed by Hochschild in other studies, what the worker ought to feel is decided in advanced by the company. Already not entitled to directly benefit from their labor and productivity, the burrito workers, as other service workers in America and worldwide, have also given up part of their humanity, of their private life, for the economic gain of the owners. Not being tangible, I must note, emotions remain non-measurable in units of output and therefore subject to subjective compensation, subject to exploitation.
While writing this piece about what I know should have been a trivial experience, I feel as if I should ask the reader not to reach conclusion I am not in exploring this area of everyday life. While I recognize that many workers would not consider their employment relations as exploitative, that many workers consider their compensations fair and that many workers do have some level of choice, I am noting that many can find themselves exploited, if subtly, and lacking a choice. If a worker voluntarily enters an exploitative relationship, is this any less exploitative? Is this any less of a human right violation? I do not yet have a concrete answer to this question and leave it open to discussion. However, whether having a burrito, a hamburger or a pizza, one should not forget that something as ostensibly trifling as a lunch choice can have significant human rights implications.
No comments:
Post a Comment