The New Workday: 9 to Never

After listening to the NPR interview in class on Thursday, I was very intrigued. According to the author in the interview, the average workday is lengthening due to technology. The old days where people would come home after a rough 9 to 5 workday are over. Now, when people come home, they are constantly in work mode because of new technology like blackberries and email. Leisure time has been devalued as middle to upper class workers are always “on call,” constantly receiving and sending emails after leaving the office. While I was not alive during the days of the old standard, I can completely agree that this is the new standard for the middle to upper class worker. It is difficult to argue that this is not the case. Unfortunately I do not like this trend and wish the United States labor culture would regress to what it was in the past. Our jobs should not dominate us so much as to the point to where we are on the clock every waking second of our lives. Another alarming point brought up by the author was that now more than ever people are associating the essence of their being with their jobs. For example, when introduced to strangers more and more people are saying, “Hi. My name is (insert name here), and I’m a (insert job here).” There are more important characteristics to oneself than one’s job. While I dislike these trends, I am worried that they will continue and perhaps get even worse. Unfortunately, technology is adding to this new culture, and we are not doing much to stop it.

Robot Takeover: Not as Bad as All That?

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, many jobs have become increasingly simple and mechanical in nature due to the detailed division of labor. This applies, as we have discussed in class, not only to assembly-line style factory jobs, but also to customer service and clerical jobs as well as jobs once considered inherently creative such as computer programming. Many of these jobs, broken down into chunks of labor digestible by the principles of automation, now require almost no human work at all and are performed exclusively by robots or computer code. Even seemingly managerial tasks such as product inspection and supervision of employees (robot or human) are now done by robots in many cases, and of course M-C-M' means that no one should be paid to do what a robot will do just as well for free. Even our military, it seems, is on the verge of depending on combat robots like BigDog, pictured below.

Though I do not subscribe to the Kurzwelian notion of an impending "singularity", I do ask myself what direction the ever-increasing technological capabilities of modern humanity will be taking the world in terms of labor and culture. What will happen when most of a society's undesirable tasks can be done by robots instead of "wage slaves"? I think we are already seeing the beginnings of the answer to this question, which certainly has a positive and a negative side for humanity.

The negative side has been pretty well covered by popular science fiction. Perhaps robots, human-controlled or not, will make a bid to take over the world (as if they hadn't already). Perhaps we will all become utterly absorbed in virtual reality simulations. Perhaps humanity will be reduced to a bunch of lazy, fat good-for-nothings.

On the other hand, I think it's very possible that humanity, along with its conceptions about time management and labor, will simply adjust to the new environment in a positive way. Educational standards will continue to rise, as they have in current years, meaning that people will stay in school longer, marry later, and may have less children. In this way, improved food production and health care will be kept from causing a "population explosion". Since almost all menial labor jobs will be performed by robots, real people will be freed up for either more interesting or simply more lazy tasks. Call me optimistic, but I think that many people will transcend the modern "couch potato" phase of humanity – a world with almost no work of any sort – and become a society of post-modern artisans and artists. In a techno-utopia, people will be free as never before to pursue artistic lifestyles – not only because their needs are taken care of by robots, but because technology will offer an unprecedented quantity and quality of creative outlets such as VR sculpting or (just possibly) sky surfing.

Is this stuff really going to happen? Maybe not, but it's worth thinking about why technological progress isn't all bad for labor and culture both.

Downside of Downsizing

The term downsizing has become a lot more prevalent in current times. The advancement of technology coupled with the pitiful state of the economy has made it the norm to downsize in large companies. Tasks and duties in the workplace can be consolidated to a lower number of positions, which is not always the most efficient option. The company may be saving some money however, the employee may feel more overwhelmed with the new tasks they are assigned and may not be able to handle the workload. As mentioned in the Greenbaum readings programmers are doing a lot more work because the programming language used is based on tools and languages from previous years. Thus, they are able to do more cutting the need for some specialists. This downsizing has lead to a lower amount of job security and technology, as Greenbaum mentions, has a lot to do with it. Many companies that cannot afford to have a secretary really feel that they do not have the need for one or eliminate the position due to technological advances such as voicemail or email. Instead of creating more positions, technology has provoked more downsizing. Companies want to save money by buying technology to reduce the amount of workers needed, workers may feel overwhelmed, and some may possibly leave the position. However, times are so tough right now that people have no choice and are stuck with doing the extra work or be left without a job. That brings up a second point that workers really have no choice to take on the extra workload. The choice is either do the work or be without a job. Thus, downsizing in times of harsh economic conditions really puts pressure on the workers to complete the extra work or lose the job all together.

Problems with Labor

Greenbaum states in her preface that her children accused her of complaining about old jobs, and then complaining when they were taken away. She assures the reader that she is going to avoid such complaints in Windows on the Workplace, but in my opinion, she fails. She neglects to present a solution to problems with modern jobs.

Braverman abhors the over-division of labor. He complains that tasks are broken into more and more specialized tasks, which allows management more control over the work process. Super-division of labor stifles creativity of the worker, allows management to drive the worker to work faster, and so on and so forth. Tasks in the past were very divided; indeed, there were separate workers to answer a phone, type a document, or sort the mail. However, in recent days, many workers are expected to take on more than one of these tasks. Workers must perform less-divided tasks. Workers rejoice, right?

Greenbaum points out many issues with less-divided labor. Admittedly her focus is on technology and its effects on work, but a major focus is how workers are expected to complete more diverse tasks. According to Greenbaum, this is erasing jobs and displacing workers who find themselves suddenly underskilled and unable to compete in the current job market. This may be a result of uber-division of labor, but Greenbaum wonders what happens if workers are asked to complete more and more varied tasks. Furthermore, she provides no solutions for problems with labor.

The sad fact of the matter is that any form of labor presents a problem. Divided labor is boring, controlled, and exploitative; undivided labor is stressful, competitive, and leaves many workers out of a job. People have disliked aspects of their jobs since the beginning of time. And while our current labor system has problems, and may not be the best system; I guarantee that whatever the next system is, people will have endless complaints about it.

Response to "Computers and self-service" NPR stories

It is clear after listening to the three "Day to Day" NPR stories that computers are taking over many tasks that have been traditionally executed by people. In "Seattle Airport Swaps Counters for Kiosks" it is discussed how the traditional, long, linear, employee-run ticket counters are being replaced by small computer-run kiosks, which allow passengers to check themselves in. This system even allows passengers to put their own luggage on the conveyer belt. In the “Cell Phone Boarding Passes” story, it was explained how airlines are considering a ticket distribution system in which the airlines text their passengers a link to an image of their ticket bar code, so that they are able to just scan their cell phone on the screen upon boarding. The last story “Text Message Food Order”, introduces the idea of ordering Papa John’s pizza via text message.

Although in each of these industries computers are clearly replacing/eliminating tasks traditionally done by employees, Greenbaum would argue that the technology being employed, here, is not the sole culprit, but rather these new technological changes are also a result of managerial objectives. For instance, in the“Seattle Airport Swaps Counters for Kiosks" story it was mentioned that in 1970 the Seattle airport saw 4 million passengers and now 30 million people travel through the Seattle airport per year. The airport is assisting over 7 times as many traveler as it did 37 years ago (the article originally aired in 2007). The new computer technology is a solution to the crowd issue, a result of such an increase in travelers. The kiosks save time, in that it allows for a number of shorter traveler lines. The small lines also help everyone, even airport employees, remain calm during increased traffic times. It was discussed how even allowing passengers to place their luggage on the conveyer belt, themselves, decreases the number of employee injuries.

In the “Cell Phone Boarding Passes” story it was discussed how sending travelers their ticket bar code via text message would save the airline $3.50-$5.00 per passenger, which could result in lower ticket prices. Saving money is traditionally a managerial objective. Not only would this save money, but it would also save paper, and thus is also a greener alternative to paper boarding passes. What is important to keep in mind is that not everyone has a cell phone or uses text messaging, so the traditional paper boarding passes would still be available to the traditional passengers.

In “Text Message Food Order” customers utilizing the text message order option must have already established their “fav’s” (favorite pizza and toppings) online so that they can just text FAV1, FAV2, etc. Therefore, this ordering option only targets a specific consumer group. This group would consist of young, local customers who order pizza often enough to have their favorites ready on their phone.

Although the new computer technologies in all three of these industries would eliminate certain jobs, it is a result of changes and new needs within the industries, and thus are a result of managerial objectives, as discussed in the Greenbaum readings. It is also important to keep in mind that there is still a need in all three industries for employees to do it (whatever that may be) the traditional way, for the traditional customers. In a way, the new computer technologies will also create jobs in that they will need to be created, produced, and maintained. These jobs do employ a more educated class, though.

Exploitation: Who is to blame?

Many people dislike companies who move their factories and plants to third-world companies in order to exploit cheap labor. Many claim that this is exploitation. And it is. But is it solely the fault of evil capitalist companies? Is big business to blame?
While businesses would ideally pay everyone a living wage, everyone knows that businesses stay competitive while cutting costs everywhere. I’m not trying to say that this makes exploitation right; I’m just expressing that all companies within any form of government are going to cut costs wherever possible. No system will change that. That said, socially aware companies might choose to pay higher wages to third-world labor and advertise their product as socially responsible. Of course, that would also be a form of exploitation. Most of us can agree that companies should pay people more fair wages, but what would that lead to in the end?
Companies are exploiting cheap labor in third-world countries. But what would happen if they were forced to pay workers a living-wage? If that were the case, what incentive would companies have to move their plants to other countries, where high shipping prices, and dealing with foreign governments may drive their costs up? If companies have to pay higher prices on labor, it may well be just as economically wise for them to stay in America. Many citizens like the idea of American-made products, and companies could exploit this advantage. If companies stayed in America for labor, where would foreign workers be? Certainly, the jobs they have don’t pay enough, but the fact remains that they are lining up for such jobs and every position in factories is filled. The fact that such little pay keeps people lining up for jobs says nothing about American factories and everything about governments of countries that allow such exploitation. If foreign companies and governments could provide jobs with living wages for people, they would not be dependent on exploitative American companies.
In summation, the root of the problem lies in foreign countries. While American businesses are being exploitative and socially irresponsible, the solution to the problem lies in governments taking a stand against such companies. The problem runs two ways; and it isn’t fair to cry foul only on companies, who are doing what companies are known to do, cut costs. Governments are in place to protect their citizens. In this case, they aren’t doing their jobs. It’s time to cry foul on them.

Workers and Freedom

The discussion of whether or not workers are free has come up a number of times in our class discussions. It was initially introduced through the Braverman reading, and then again in the “Modern Times”, “Life and Debt”, and Honduras movie clips. Within our class discussion we created a list of factors which affect a worker’s freedom. For instance, it was discussed that workers do have the right to choose where they want to work and therefore can choose which specific freedoms they will give up. But society forces them to make a decision—a forced choice, and once they make that choice the worker may be giving up their freedom as growth, an idea discussed earlier in the course in the Boisvert and Dewey readings. One factor that I think would significantly affect the discussion of whether or not a worker is free that was not brought up in the class discussion was a society or individual’s economic status. Perhaps it is so obvious that it was just assumed, but workers become increasingly less free as their economic status depreciates. In other words, workers give up (as opposed to directly lose) their freedom to choose where to work when it is a choice between freedom and starvation. Or a choice between freedom and providing for one’s self and family. We saw this in the “Life and Debt” and Honduras clips. We even saw this in the “Modern Times” film clip, although it was not as obvious. The film was made in 1936, which was during the 1930’s depression, and thus would naturally represent how workers were treated and how workers felt as a response to the economic status of the country.

Braverman and Life and Debt

Free trade zones are special areas inside of a country which ban or lower many of its home country’s trading and manufacturing laws. For example, a country may open a free trade zone in an area by removing certain tariffs in hopes of attaining greater foreign investment. Also, most free trade zones are located in developing countries. This past week in class we watched a portion of Stephanie Black’s documentary, Life and Debt. In the film, Black depicts a free trade zone in Jamaica. Here, thousands of Jamaicans are employed in what seem like sweat shops helping produce products for such well known companies as Tommy Hilfiger, Burberry, and Brooks Brothers. The depictions of the free zone tie in well to the writings of Harry Braverman. One example of this is the breakdown of labor to very detailed non-complicated tasks. According to Braverman, capitalism has lead to the division of labor into smaller and smaller tasks, and this can be seen when watching the factory workers in Life and Debt. Instead of sewing an entire shirt, workers at the Jamaican free zone only do one small portion of the job (like sew on a pocket) repetitively over the entire day. While this becomes incredibly boring for the worker, it is seen as the most efficient method and is therefore used by capitalists. This leads me to the second way in which Life and Debt ties in with Braverman.

As Braverman describes, capitalism has led to an increase of the capitalists control over labor. Life and Debt provides many examples of this control over the work force. For instance, the companies controlled if and when the employees could work. When the workers began to complain about poor working conditions, the companies brought in replacement workers from Asia and eventually ended up closing down shop. The companies also controlled whether or not and how much the workers would get paid. Many of the employees complained about receiving pay checks 3 weeks late and only made about 3 dollars a week. In addition, the companies controlled more bizarre aspects of the labor like forbidding eating and bathroom breaks. Overall, this division and control over labor helps show a horrifying real world example of Braverman’s theories.

Big Brother @ Work

The above clip is from Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, a 1936 comedy starring and written, directed, produced, and party scored by our friend with the mustache. The film takes a slap-stick satirical approach to many aspects of "modern" (1930's) life as Chaplin's misfit character has [relatively] silent adventures through factories, dance halls, jail, and the world of his imagination.

A little bit of research showed me that Chaplin was himself a socialist; big surprise, coming from something we watched in C&E (perhaps we should call the class "communism and ethics"?) While I do not plan to address Mr. Chaplin's political views any further, I do want to talk about something from the factory sequence of his movie, pictured above.

In the factory of Modern Times, there is a highly detailed distribution of labor typical of 20th-century factory work; each person only has a small and repetitive task to perform, and production is overseen by a heirarchy of seemingly lazy managers and company executives. The big guy in the suit seen on-screen above (ala Big Brother) is in charge of the entire factory and can appear at will on giant TV screens to monitor and yell at unproductive employees. He also tells a bare-chested worker we might call the Lever Operator when to crank up conveyor belt speeds to increase output. In short, Big Brother knows exactly what you're doing, how you're doing it, and whether you ought to be doing it faster.

I hope that this situation does not sound far-fetched to you, the reader. According to Sara Baase, the leading CS professor of San Diego State University, computers have allowed the intensive monitoring of employees to extend far beyond factory work and into white-collar (professional) jobs. Many employers now feel free to read emails, listen in on phone calls, and even remotely monitor the computer screens of employees in the name of increased productivity. Some employers even do the unthinkable by secretly keylogging their workers. This means that any password used on a company computer may then be stored and saved in the records of that company which, thanks to exponentially increasing data storage capabilities, may be held indefinitely. Talk about invasion of privacy - yikes!

Many contend that these practices, while implemented to ensure productivity, may actually hurt it more often than not. According to Baase, the effect of automatic monitoring in fields such as phone-based customer support may be to lower employee effectiveness by placing quanitity of above quality of service. More generally, surveillance of employees tends to lower their morale, commitment to doing a good job, and overall effectiveness. It is thus held by some that restrictions on employee monitoring may simply be good business and eventually win out in many cases whether or not any proposed worker privacy legislation is actually passed.

Even so, those finding new jobs in a white-collar work environment would do well to investigate their employers' policies and track record on employee monitoring. Google isn't the only one laying claim to your personal life.

It’s hard not to wear them…

High fashion and name brand clothing are a must in today’s society. Everywhere you look you see people wearing name brand clothes such as Tommy Hilfiger, Lacoste, Burberry, Express, Guess, Nike, etc. People wear these brands to show a social status or to be “in/cool.” I am not going to lie and say that I don’t own these brands because I do. Mostly all of these brands make use of sweat shops. Even though everyone is so opposed to sweatshops people continue to purchase and wear these products. People making these products earn barely even a percent of what the item is sold for. There is little regulation that can be placed on these companies because they are not operating in the United States. Even though some argue that these multinational companies come in and help the local economy by improving infrastructure and producing tax money for the country, the worker is still treated harshly and paid meagerly so they can barely survive. Once the company comes in the citizens are thrown in a vicious cycle that draws workers in for a low wage. First, the workers are attracted to working for a wage instead of farming or creating good to sell. They then are paid a very low wage. Soon they are barely able to afford to live and try to get more money. The company denies and threatens to leave or hire lower wage worker to replace them. Thus, those sweatshop workers are stuck and are controlled to stay there. Many people advocate against these product but still use them because a lot of the clothes out there are made in sweatshops. It is hard to avoid wearing something that is made in a sweatshop maybe that is why the only way protesters make their point is by being naked.

G.M.: Guilty Motives?

Recently in class, we watched a documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car, on the experimentation and consequent destruction of a General Motors electric car named the EV1. According to the documentary, a number of Californians were leased the car in the late 1990’s for real world experimental purposes. After a brief stint on the road, the cars were snatched up by General Motors, and almost all were destroyed. The documentary presented several of the “test drivers” and their discontent with General Motors’ actions. Many of these test drivers had found complete satisfaction with the EV1 and were quite puzzled when General Motors prohibited them from purchasing their electric cars. The film then insinuated that the EV1 was destroyed due to ulterior motives, more specifically: evil oil and car companies colluded to stop production of the electric car in order to ensure maximum profit for the oil companies. While the movie may suggest this, I would like to offer a possible explanation to why production of the EV1 was really terminated.

For one, General Motors stated that the demand for the car was not great enough to support its production and sale. The film attempts to depose this idea with interviews from former owners of the EV1. Each owner enthusiastically supported the car, and a number of them had actually created a protest group to bring it back. As convincing an argument as these people may make, they do not represent the American domestic automobile market in the least. All of them are Californians who voluntarily signed up to test an electric car. Their opinions, as a group, cannot be extrapolated to the greater public. Furthermore, the only group that truly had a grasp on the car’s potential demand is probably GM itself who spends millions of dollars a year testing automobile market demand. The fact is that the car was extremely expensive to produce and market demand did not justify its production. According to GM product development czar Bob Lutz, “they [EV1’s] cost us well over $80,000 to produce, and, being a two-seater, we could only sell 800 in four years. We lost over one billion dollars on that experiment." If GM were looking to save the environment, it would have continued selling the EV1’s; but, GM exists to produce profits and returns for its shareholders. For this reason, the EV1 was not continued. However, looking at GM’s current economic prospects, who knows if a little more research into the EV1 technology could have altered their current fate.

What killed the EV1?

So what killed the EV1? One of the first electrically powered cars, the EV1 was popular in Southern California, so much so that when their EV1s were taken away, many former owners tracked them down and found them crushed in junk yards. Many consumers were outraged and many drew the implication that big oil companies pressured the car companies into withdrawing their electric vehicles.
Car companies are massive. They pull just as much weight as oil companies. There is no reason that a car company should be intimidated by big oil. There is really nothing that oil can do to car companies, anyway. Furthermore, it is in the car companies’s best interest to develop a greener, more sustainable car. So why was the EV1 scrapped?
Perhaps the car was scrapped because it was ahead of its time. There is no infrastructure to support it, after all. In order to fully support electric cars, most parking lots would have to be torn up, electric grids placed down, and the lots repaved. Machines to collect payment would be installed, because electricity certainly isn’t free. Furthermore, the entire electric grid would have to be revamped to support a mass number of cars. Yet, this cannot be the reason the cars were scrapped, because car companies were not planning on a massive market penetration. Their main cars were still gas burning.
Perhaps the car was scrapped because it was quite an unfinished product. After all, the battery could last for about 70 miles at best. They were considered unreliable. And after the disaster with ethanol (which, by the way, the government funded and lost massive amounts of taxpayer money on), car and fuel companies were gunshy and prefer to do more product testing and refining. So maybe the car companies just want to test electric cars more before allowing them to be on the market. But then again, the people were happy with their cars and did not seem to mind that they could only travel 60 miles at a time.
There were a lot of issues with the EV1, but it doesn’t make any sense for the car companies to destroy existing cars. Except for that pesky law. A government law requires companies to provide service for 15 years after sell date on cars. And car companies do not want to spend the money to provide it. Here is a clear example of how excessive government laws infringe upon the lives of citizens. Otherwise, there would be no reason that the car companies would spend money to round up all of their existing vehicles. Furthermore, precedents have been set allowing ridiculous law suits to be pressed upon companies who allow imperfected products on the market. While a customer may have bought an EV1 with the understanding that they could not travel more than 60 miles at a time, if a customer were to be stranded and irritated, they might decide to sue the car company. And would inevitably win. Thus, car companies must take extreme measures, such as the destruction of cars, in order to protect themselves from both the government, and consumers.