Examining the Frontline Retail Work Through a Marxist Lens

           Beginning with Williams and Connell (2015), I believe it would be possible to read their findings under a Marxist lens. In the case of Marx, workers no longer own the means of production as the bourgeoisie have the proletariat use their means of production. For retail work however, there are two masters: employers/managers and their customers. I wonder what implications this would have regarding alienation. Does the worker feel more alienated from their work than an individual working menial labor in a factory? Do laborers that practice the use of aesthetic labor and soft skills sell more or less of themselves than the factory laborer? Or perhaps the two laborers sell themselves equally as Marx recognizes that the worker is treated and looked upon as a commodity—to be bought and sold—and retail front-line workers face the “commodification of workers’ corporeality” (Williams and Connell 2015:170). So long as the laborer does not own the means of production, they will be commodified for their skills and output or productivity.

            Further, while Marx does not touch on the topic of worker discrimination as far as I know, I think his concept of the worker being a commodity can encompass why discrimination is employed by companies. In the case of retail, the front-line laborer is in direct contact with the customer. The company relies on the customer’s purchases of their products and the front-line laborer is a conduit or a means to aid the customer purchase the products. The soft skills and aesthetic labor of the front-line laborer is a means to raise the customer’s opinion of the company—to persuade them to continue their patronage. If one’s soft skills, aesthetic labor, or habitus is seemingly influenced by one’s race, class, or gender, then it is for the better of the company that they pick out those whose race, class, and gender positively influences their soft skills, aesthetic labor, and/or habitus. The target and major demographic the company is aiming to please may prefer a certain habitus which also would lead the company to discriminate. The laborer is of course a commodity from the perspective of the company and not a person that should have rights and the likes. Whatever commodity proves most efficient and profitable is the one that the company would like to have in their front-line. The methodology of recruiting laborers into the company is also discriminatory.

            By “vetting creative talents, hiring customers off the floor, offering discounts instead of higher wages, and prolonging interviews and manipulating schedules”, recruiters and management perpetuate discriminatory practices (Williams and Connell 2015:172). Vetting creative talents is a way of vetting for one’s habitus and not much else. Hiring customers off the floor is a way of finding people who look aesthetically pleasing and would likely purchase merchandise from the store. Many of the respondents in the study reported they felt like they were recruited off the floor because “they deeply identified with the brand” (Williams and Connell 2015:173). Recruiting customers off the floor and offering discounts takes advantage of those who really want to work for the store for a while and would like to have more of the merchandise. In a way, this looks like the customers recruited off the floor often work for merchandise instead of wages. Those that would like to work for wages and benefits are not often to be found in certain retail stores—especially upscale—because of the practices employed in hiring. This further ensures a certain habitus of the employee. The middle-class and higher or those that do not need the money provided in wage by the company are targeted with these recruiting methods. Lastly are the prolonging interviews and manipulating schedules. Prolonging the interviews ensures that those that do not need the money are recruited as well as ensures that those who really want to work for the store are recruited. Manipulating schedules also ensures that those that do not need the money stay in the job, because the amount of money made in a week can drastically change every week. If someone were to rely on a certain amount of money made in a week, they may be in financial trouble soon. All the ways of recruiting certain employees is a way of seeking out a certain quality of a commodity, in other words.

            The vetting of front-line retail workers applies also the those that work in the back of the store. In the case of Sam from Williams and Connell’s (2015:179) study, his ethnicity, looks, and English likely influenced his employer’s decision to employ him as a stock associate. He did not have what the employer wanted in a front-line worker: the right aesthetic and habitus. This is largely due to the primary focus on appealing to the consumer’s interest. Also, in the case of Sam, he blamed himself for not meeting the requirements of front-line retail work and not the discriminatory practices of the employer. As Williams and Connell (2015:179) mention, “Bourdieu’s argument that cultural style obscures the workings of power and domination.” There are other cases of discrimination as well such as African Americans not embodying the correct habitus and thus not being hired.  

            The article written by Patricia Cohen highlights how the people who need a steady source of income are not getting it despite having a job. One of the examples of work mentioned is work a Victoria’s Secret. The hours are not constant and the person working the job actually needs the income from the job. However, it is arguable the job is not tailored for those that need the income. If workers are a commodity to be bought and sold, what would possess a company to extend enough hours and wage for the job to be stable?

References

Cohen, P. (2017, June 1). Steady Jobs, With Pay and Hours That Are Anything But. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/business/economy/volatile-income-economy-jobs.html.

WHARTON, A. M. Y. S. (2017). Working In America: continuity, conflict, and change in a new economic era (Vol. 4). Place of publication not identified: ROUTLEDGE.

The Sandwich Generation

                Many adults in the United States are faced with task of caring for one of their elderly parents, and/or a minor child, and/or a grown child. Nearly half (47%) of adults between 40 and 59 are likely to have an elderly parent and either a minor or grown child (Kim, Parker and Patten Eileen, 2013). The Sandwich Generation is characterized largely by the number of parents that have an elderly parent and a child. These parents are sandwiched between two generations. Having both a child and elderly parent may appear to be a significant stressor to the sandwiched generation as they may provide some sort of assistance to either elderly parent, child, or both while also caring for themselves. However, 31% of the sandwich generation reports feeling very happy and 31% report feeling always rushed compared to 28% and 23% of other adults respectively (Kim, Parker and Patten Eileen 2013). Why some adults provide some sort of support to their grown children is in part explained by the boomerang kid phenomenon: kids who move out from their parents’ house at one time and return home after failing to manage on their own. California has seen nearly 31% of all children aged 18 upwards living in their parents’ place (Hannah, Dreier and Burgarino Paul 2011). My interviewee did not have a boomerang child at the time I interviewed her, but she has two college kids. She also has her mother staying with her. This qualified my interviewee to be a part of the Sandwich Generation with the potential of having one or two boomerang kids. My interviewee’s responses to questions I had asked generally reflect the broader social and cultural norms in 21^st century America.

            Boomerang kids are now a reality for a lot of parents and my interviewee acknowledged the possibility of having one of kids coming back to live with her, “cause you hear about boomerang children.” Ideally, she would prefer her children to be successful in moving out, but she would not deny them the ability to return home if they are not successful. She points out that there are many factors that may make her or anyone’s child have to return home with “the way that, you know, the workforce is today…It’s not that easy any more to make it on your own.” “The job market is just so tight” and this may be reason alone for many young adults to return home (Hannah, Dreier and Burgarino Paul 2011). Financial situations are not the only reasons for young adults staying or returning home to their parents. There are cultural or household situations that may influence young adults to stay with their parents. Nonetheless, 63% of parents provide some financial support to their adult child with 52% of adults believing that parents have a responsibility to provide financial assistance to an adult child who needs it (Kim, Parker and Patteen Eileen 2013). Some parents are cautioned to implement an exist strategy for their adult children that return home (Hannah, Dreier and Burgarino Paul 2011). An exit strategy includes an estimated time allowed for that child to remain back home. My interviewee noted “that you do have to set ground rules” if they do return home. She did not explicitly state that an exit strategy should be in place but that the returned stay be on a “temporary basis” and until “they get back on their feet” if her children do return home. The changes in the workforce and growing precarity of work likely has some correlation with the rising trend of boomerang kids. This is noted by my interviewee as well. Most, if not all, of her reasons as to why her adult children may return home revolved around the economy, job market, and income. Despite acknowledging the possibility of having a boomerang kid and being willing to financial support her grown child, her outlook on work and savings remain unchanged.  The Sandwich Generation has not only adult children to worry about. They also have or care some sort of assistance to their own elderly parent.

            The majority (75%) of adults believe that an adult child has the responsibility to provide financial assistance to elderly parents when needed and 63% of adults do say they are providing some financial support to their elderly parents; 68% of adults have their elderly parents turn to them for emotional support (Kim, Parker and Patten Eileen 2013). My interviewee is one with the majority and believes that one should care for their elderly parent if needed; but she would prefer not to have to be cared for by her children if she can help it. With 75% of adults believing that it is a responsibility to provide financial assistance to their elderly parent, but only 63% saying they do provide financial assistance, there is the chance that the elderly parent does not need financial assistance. This was noted by my interviewee. She also notes that caring for an elderly parent involves helping them from “point A to B.” Thus, physical assistance may be required of an adult caring for their elderly parent. With care and emotional attachment comes stress. When asked whether caring for an elderly parent is a stressor, benefit, or both, my interviewee answered with both. If the elderly parent in the adult’s care suffers from a disease like my interviewee says, the more the disease impacts the elderly parent, the more of a stressor caring for them is. On the bright side, she notes, is that knowing where and how the elderly parent is, is a benefit.

            Further, it should be noted that the economy as an institution has played a significant role in determining my interviewee’s responses. She felt—and rightly so—that her adult children are subject to the workforce regarding whether they will be able to survive without her financial assistance. As her economic situation stands, she feels she will be able to provide them the ability to return home if needed. Though she has no plans to allow their return home to impact her outlook on work and savings. The boomerang kid phenomenon is a recent change to the face of the family in 21^st century America. Though not examined in this essay, there is a growing diversity in familial arrangements. Here, with the boomerang kids, we can see how the family is able to include grown children in the household when two or so generations ago, it was less common for grown children to return or stay home with their parents. This may in part coincide with the coining of the term “emerging adulthood.” Those emerging into adulthood are aged 18-25. In this phase of life, they have greater independence, but are not totally independent yet. Perhaps we will see emerging adulthood encompass a wider age-range if boomerang kids continue as a national trend.

             

Resources

Kim, Parker and Patten Eileen. 2013. “The Sandwich Generation.” 09/29/2019 (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/01/30/the-sandwich-generation/).

Hannah, Dreier and Burgarino Paul. 2011. “Lean Times Force Many Bay Area “Boomerang Kids” To Return Home As Adults.” Pp. 402-404 in Families as They Really Are, edited by B.J. Risman and V.E. Rutter. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.