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.