Home >> Class >> The few controlling the many

The few controlling the many

by Jennifer Kesler on May 23, 2011

Someone sent me an interesting article about how US workers get so little vacation compared to workers in other developed nations. The article makes the usual points: US workers get typically 2-3 weeks, at best, while Germans get 6 weeks and loads of countries provide four. Part of the reason, of course, is that other nations’ laws require businesses to provide paid time off, while US laws do not. Many workers get no paid time off in the US – not even sick time, and I think too few middle class Americans are aware of this fact. Retail workers, customer service workers, temp workers, contract workers – quite a few jobs only pay you if you show up, so bring your nasty flu and come on down if you want to afford the doctor you have to pay out of pocket because you also get no health care. Viva America!

But the article asks the question: why?

“There is simply no evidence that working people to death gives you a competitive advantage,” said John de Graaf, the national coordinator for Take Back Your Time, a group that researches the effects of overwork.

He noted that the United States came in fourth in the World Economic Forum’s 2010-2011 rankings of the most competitive economies, but Sweden — a country that by law offers workers five weeks of paid vacation — came in second.

This is nothing new. We’ve known for a while that longer hours don’t equate to heightened productivity, and can even correlate to a drop in productivity as stressed-out employees take sick leave to deal with stress-induced ailments. Employees working long hours should suggest to a CEO not that everyone’s motivated and productive, but that a lot of time is being wasted.

We know these things. Law makers know these things. If CEOs don’t know these things, they are not paying attention. The human brain cannot focus in high gear for a neat 8 hours a day with a lunch break. We can’t be productive five days a week and then rest on the other two. Our work and everything else in our lives is all jumbled together in our brains, which haven’t evolved to compartmentalize for pre-arranged blocks of time. So why does American culture value working long hours and taking little time off as a signal of good work getting done?

Answer: because that myth furthers the real goal behind a job-based economy.

Employment isn’t about enabling people to fend for themselves more comfortably than our ancestors had to. It might seem like a much nicer arrangement than having to grow crops and hope the weather doesn’t wreck them, and hunt meat and grow livestock and worry all the time about whether it’ll be enough. And it can be. But employment merely shifts your dependency on Mother Nature to dependency on some company continuing to employ you – and in some cases, your chances would be better with Mother Nature.

And even good companies who nurture and respect employees have to lay people off sometimes, and employees know this. The dependency on the job is always in the back of your mind, coloring your thought processes and decisions about your entire life.

The net effect of employment is not to empower you, but to make you dependent. That dependency ensures a few things:

  • You’re less likely to whistle blow than you would be if you had another way to make ends meet.
  • You’re less likely to complain if you’re mistreated, which can give your company a significant unfair advantage against other companies.
  • If you’re harassed, you probably know complaining is more likely to result in your being let go than your harasser being let go, so you just take it. Nice perk for the company’s pet bullies!
  • You have less time to devote to family and community, let alone grass roots movements that might challenge the establishment. That’s good for the establishment!
  • You’re probably too stressed out to do anything but take shit and convince yourself it’s not so bad.

I’m not suggesting every company takes full advantage of this dependency – they don’t. My point is that the system is engineered to create a dependency that works out really well for those few people who are living most luxuriously at the expense of the vast majority. How do you oppress a huge majority of people? Keep them exhausted. Keep them dependent. Keep them frightened. It’s what family abusers have known for years – how else would one person ever manage to abuse a spouse and one or more kids? It happens all the time, because abusers intuitively know the rule: keep them exhausted, dependent and frightened.

I’m also not saying that employment is a bad thing. It doesn’t have to be. But the way we go about it, especially in the US, it functions primarily to reinforce classism and only secondarily to get stuff done. We need to reverse that order.

No related posts.

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Stella May 23, 2011 at 1:10 pm

How do you oppress a huge majority of people? Keep them exhausted. Keep them dependent. Keep them frightened.

And keep them divided, and convince them that labor unions are economy-destroying beds of corruption.

  (Quote)  (Reply)

2 Gabriella May 23, 2011 at 8:01 pm

I read somewhere that most people CAN’T work efficiently after 8 hours or so, and making them working longer is false economy; they’ll only work less efficiently.

Australia has paid holiday and sick leave (four and two weeks/year, I believe) in F/PT work. But some industries, like hospitality, work almost exclusively on casual. (I should say, though, that the casual minimum wage is higher than the permanant one; you basically get paid more hourly to offset the fact that if you don’t work, you don’t get paid.) While there’s actually a degree of practicaltity involved for something like hospitality, it does tend to lead to the come-in-sick mentality that you’re talking about. One place I worked was really bad about it and staff morale was chronically low while staff turnover was chronically high. I was all of 18 at the time and still grasped the idea that it was stupid to invest all this time in training and advertising only to treat your employees like crap; wasn’t it better economics to treat them decently in the first place?

  (Quote)  (Reply)

3 Lori May 23, 2011 at 8:45 pm

My friends who are in the pipefitters’ union are complaining about the mandatory overtime. It seems to be a common complaint among those who still have industrial jobs; every year fewer in number but working more hours. Meanwhile I never managed to get my ‘career’ out of the temp agency rut. Right now I can’t -buy- a job. During better times I couldn’t buy a full time job, or at best, my assignments were under an overtime freeze, and I usually need the money more than the time.

I think it parallels retirement, technically another form of rationed leisure. Some are forced out of careers they love by mandatory retirement age or the like, while some work (to live) until they die, at unfulfulling jobs. The question as I see it whether work is better than leisure or vice versa, or whether early retirement is better than late or no retirement, or vice versa, but whether one can allocate their time ON THEIR TERMS.

  (Quote)  (Reply)

4 Sylvia Sybil May 27, 2011 at 6:40 am

Not to mention on the hourly system, if you do call in sick there’s often the hassle of finding someone to work your shift. Which can stress you out more, which can stress out your managers who place the blame on you, which can stress out whichever coworker had to come in on short notice to cover for you. I often find it much easier to just suck it up and go in sick. Most of my working life has been spent in the food industry. I’m sure it’s not good for the customers to be eating food prepared by someone with a running nose, but my alternative is to take a hit in my paycheck and strain my working relationships besides.

  (Quote)  (Reply)

5 Jennifer Kesler May 27, 2011 at 5:53 pm

Sylvia, I used to work in the food industry, and I totally know what you’re talking about. I had managers imply they were going to have to find a replacement for me when I really didn’t even call in sick very often.

  (Quote)  (Reply)

6 Alyson May 29, 2011 at 8:31 am

YES. I love these points that you are making. The place where I work (I’ve been there 8 months now) actually has a relatively good sick day/paid vacation system, and after working there for three months, I took some time to go on a vacation with my family. Prior to this vacation I had been feeling some burnout, tiredness, exhaustion, and had been making some small errors that no one actually got angry with me about, but I certainly beat myself up about enough. Plus I knew I wasn’t absorbing everything I should have been due to tiredness. But after a week away over New Years…it’s been pretty smooth sailing. I never realized before how important vacations can be to everyday functioning–this is my first full-time post-collegiate job, everything else I’ve ever done has been part-time and never for full eight-hour days. Everyone deserves a break every now and then.

  (Quote)  (Reply)

7 Sylvia Sybil May 29, 2011 at 10:46 pm

Mmm hmm. Or say that they won’t “let” you take off unless a replacement is found. I’ve had managers tell me it’s my responsibility to find a replacement and that if I can’t, I’m not “allowed” to call in sick.

  (Quote)  (Reply)

8 Sylvia Sybil June 4, 2011 at 4:45 pm

Connecticut Service Workers Get Paid Sick Leave (NYT)

Governor Malloy said, “This is good public policy and specifically, good public health.” He added: “Why would you want to eat food from a sick restaurant cook? Or have your children taken care of by a sick day care worker? The simple answer is — you wouldn’t. And now, you won’t have to.”

  (Quote)  (Reply)

9 Jennifer Kesler June 4, 2011 at 5:51 pm

Awesome! I hope this sweeps the nation.

  (Quote)  (Reply)

10 Gategrrl June 5, 2011 at 2:38 pm

WTG, Connecticut! And Malloy! Seriously, it sucks when you feel shitty, and have to get a replacement, or take the knock in your pay. Like people in that position (having to work these shitty jobs) can take all the sick time they want and not the take home pay. No, they can’t afford it. Unless they’re slacker college kids taking those jobs who have moderately well-heeled moms and dads to back them up with the missing rent. Or who live at home to begin with.

  (Quote)  (Reply)

11 maggiemay December 28, 2011 at 12:28 pm

you know if families could actually learn to get along and stop being shitty to each other, we could defeat the system by living communally—but thats not gonna happen anytime soon because were all 2 damn selfish

  (Quote)  (Reply)

12 A Real Black Person April 6, 2012 at 5:27 am

Maggiemay says “you know if families could actually learn to get along and stop being shitty to each other, we could defeat the system by living communally—but that’s not gonna happen anytime soon because were all 2 damn selfish”
That’s what capitalists want, anyway. ten people living in a two bedroom apartment.
That’s why they embrace illegal immigrants. They don’t complain about squat and don’t aspire to a living wage.

Communalism comes at the expense of individual rights . Unless the majority of people in a communal system or family are exactly the same personality wise, and abilities-wise, there will be differences, cliques and tensions.

  (Quote)  (Reply)

Leave a Comment

READ THIS FIRST: By submitting a comment, you agree you have read our Discussion Guidelines and understand we reserve the right to post only those comments we see fit to post. If you want to submit a link or inform us about something you feel needs editing in the article, please use the email form.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Previous post:

Next post: