Choice vs. freedom

Up until recently, I made the mistake that many do, believing that choice and freedom were interconnected - that if someone had more than one option and the ability to choose between the two, then they were exercising freedom and thus were uninhibited. I know now that just because one seemingly has a choice does not necessarily mean that they are free, and there is a spectrum with "forced choosing" at one end and "free choosing" at the other, illustrating this discrepancy. What I would like to discuss a little more, though, is the idea of forced choosing. When one is faced with a choice where there is not a reasonable or acceptable alternative and thus they technically do not have a choice, it is a forced choice. But if you are to take a step back from that, and ask yourself the question, "why are these people faced with a situation where they do not have a reasonable or acceptable alternative?" it gets trickier. For example, the person who is faced with the "choice" (this word has a false connotation to it now for for me) of either working at a fast food restaurant or starving really does not have a option and will choose working at the fast food option, but it begs the question, why are there people out there who are faced with such a one-way street? I know that blaming people is never the answer, but I cannot help but blame out society for allowing people to be in such a situation where their only other option is starving. I understand that work is work, and that working at a fast food restaurant is better than not working at all, but to think that some people are put between such a wall and a hard place is truly terrible. I'm not saying that I know what the solution is, because I don't, but merely expressing my discontent with the idea of forced choosing and the consequent lack of freedom that goes along with it.

Technology reducing job opportunities and human interaction

The three stories listed all describe different ways that technology can be used in a way to benefit a company. Technology will benefit the firm by reducing the operation costs of employing a certain amount of labor. Technology can perform the same tasks as these employees and it can do it in most cases much better and more effectively. The question that arises from this is whether society is better off as a result. It is clear that those being replaced by technology are not better of because they are out of a job and their skill set has become practically obsolete. The other side of the coin is the general population and how they benefit greatly from these advances in technology. They experience lower costs and greater convenience so they are in favor of actions that will promote this. The airport example of replacing desks with kiosks is a perfect example of something that almost every consumer will favor if it will save time and promote efficiency. When a consumer visits an airport the last thing they want to worry about is communicating with some employee that is slow and marginal at what they do. Consumers will know what they can expect from this technology and as a result efficiency and moral of the consumer will improve. The next example cell phones and boarding passes is similar to the previous example in that the intentions are the same, the method is just slightly different. The final example of using text message to order food is quite remarkable, but in a different way. It basically sheds light on the fact that people are so against human interaction that they resort to sending a text message to place an order. It can be a very effective measure if it saves time and money for the company, but the message that people would prefer to avoid all human interaction in general is slightly disturbing.

Deskilled Work…What is the problem?

I have to admit even after our discussions in class about deskilled work, it is difficult for me to understand why deskilled work was a problem. I would rather have corporations divide the labor process into deskilled work so that computers and technology can complete the work for me. I enjoy the use of computers everyday. I am able to complete projects easier with assistance of software and the internet. I do understand that there is a negative to deskilled work. For example, jobs in service businesses like McDonald’s and grocery stores are decreasing their labor force with the aid of technology. Jobs in McDonald’s are being transferred to call centers. At first, I thought how great of an operations improvement. Workers do not have to multitask in restaurants and the orders are more accurate. But we also have to consider the ethics involved. The best way to highlight the problems with this is to examine is the employees are free. Are these employees free? If we are defining freedom as growth, then the answer is no. The employees deskilled work is not providing with means to grow intellectually. If we are defining freedom as participative, the answer is no again. The workers do have a say in how their jobs are formed or regulated. Management in their pursuit of M-C-M’ have the complete control over their employees. So, yes fast food orders are more accurate and efficiency I being accomplished with technology, but is that a good thing? Can the customer sacrifice a few seconds while waiting on their order? Can the corporation sacrifice money in order to keep their labor force in tact? As long as the capitalism and M-C-M’ are ruling our lives I do not see these outcomes happening.

Modern Times and the lack of control

The scenes from Modern Times highlight the issues presented by Braverman. Braverman argues that the workplace for blue collar employees exemplifies a lack of freedom because of the division of labor that exists in the factories. Various employees are treated differently and the idea presented in the scenes shows that those who do the most are treated the worst. The manager basically has no real value to the company because they seem to waste time while alienating the ‘lesser’ workers. These scenes also relate to Greenbaum with the idea that work is deskilled. The factory worker is shown performing the same repetitive task over and over again and their job requires action without thinking. The human capital element of the worker is deskilled because there is no use for thought in their job. They do not have the room for growth within this occupation for these reasons and thus they are not truly free in this occupation. The concept of employee monitoring is also present and seemingly exaggerated in this video. The manager exists to monitor the employees and that seems to be it. He has a large television screen where he has access to everyone in what appears to be every possible location, and that is too much. The employee cannot go anywhere in the factory without the manager having access to them and although that may improve productivity, it ruins moral and creates resentment in the factory. The idea that connects all of these readings with the movie is the lack of freedom within the workplace and it exists so that a company can be profitable, but the lines are often crossed and the employees suffer as a result.

The Need for Inequality

I would normally be an advocate for equality but in the case of work inequality is necessary. In capitalism, a system of separation of tasks and responsibility achieves productivity. With separate jobs unequal pay, power, and benefits are sure to follow. Why should a blue collar worker get be paid as much as a CEO? The CEO has probably been schooled to be the brain behind the operations of companies. They deserve to be rewarded for their intellectual and business direction. Also, inequality breeds competition thus incentive to ‘work hard.’ Employees have incentive to climb up the corporate ladder. Most people do not argue against inequality in the workplace but debate about how much inequality is suitable. I would like to see the gap between the rich and poor decrease in size but what methods would have to be taken to achieve this? Another issue might exist in the capitalistic system. In class we agreed M-C-M’. The rich are able to make more money with money. Even if we evened out the economic field, wouldn’t the rich be able to make their money back over time? If I took a billion dollars from Bill Gates and gave it to the poor, couldn’t he just make the billion dollars back? My issue isn’t that the rich are too rich. I would just like to see those living under or near the poverty line out of their situations. What can we do? Steal from the rich to give to the poor? Provide the poor with cheaper resources to live? Require corporations to raise their lowest salaries? Identifying the problem is easy in comparison to coming up with and installing a solution.

Hypermobility of capital

I was very interested in the movie we watched in class last week about how American companies such as Hanes and Tommy Hilfiger outsource their labor to countries like Jamaica, and the ways in which these companies go to extreme measures to control the workers and the cost of the workers. It really helped to put into perspective our recent readings, and to actually see how these workers' every movie is controlled and structured around creating the most goods in the cheapest manner, regardless of the well-being of the worker. The division of labor was also very apparent - for example, one woman's sole responsibility was to sew the pockets on Hanes t-shirts. This division of labor puts the power into the hands of the managers because they have control over the entire process. I was appalled that the Jamaican workers were paid mere fractions of what their products sold for, and to make matters worse, are not even paid in American dollars. It is a double-edged sword though, because even though the disparity between labor and wages is huge, the people who are working there are not in the position to refuse work - they have to take the work that is available, which in this circumstance is working for a company likes Hanes. It makes me feel that it is our responsibility to intervene, such as the people in the movie did, and do what we can to stop this unfair cycle. I was also very interested in the concept of a "Free Zone." The fact that American products can be brought to Jamaica via cargo ship, unloaded and produced in factories, then put back on the boat headed to the United States, and technically never touch Jamaican territory is absurd. Free Zones are just another way for companies to take advantage of their laborers. Free Zones assist in the hypermobility, or flight of capital, better, and the way in which capital is able to uproot itself and go elsewhere easily.

A System of Freedom

On Thursday we talked about this idea of freedom. But, Professor Perry showed that there are many different ideas of freedom. The way freedom was shown this time was through a video about outsourcing. To summarize, it talked about how companies would move from area to area finding where they could employ people for the least amount of money. Then when the demand grew for higher wages the company would just pack up and move to another area of poverty. So the question is, are these people free or are they enslaved by the system. It almost seems that the people are not free because of how the system works. If work comes to a place and offers you money for work, then you are most likely going to work because the money is a necessity. And most of the people that worked in these areas had families that consisted of an average around 7 to 9 people. And if these people decide that they don’t want to work then they can’t provide for themselves or others that depend on them. So I again I find that these people as slaves to the system. Another reason I think it seems like this is because companies target these people that live in these areas. So in a way the people that own the companies are employing these people before they even decide whether they want to work or not. Putting all these facts together it looks like these people freedom is in control of the companies that employ them. This freedom seems to be a decision. The freedom of making decisions and making life choices is being given to the people that own the businesses.