TRB FEBRUARY 7, 2013
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
"Even Tim knows that [it's] not exactly my style," Andrew Sullivan writes, to desire "the replication of Downton Abbey in Pret-A-Manger." Correct. I never took Andrew for a Lord Grantham type. But in this instance he sure argues like one.
In case you haven't followed this pissing match: Sullivan says that because I am creeped out by the incursion of "emotional labor" into new areas of the low-wage economy, this makes me a "Marxist," one "filled with lefty condescension." It's perfectly acceptable, he argues, to be compelled to engage in "fawning" behavior (his word; also mine) if your boss is a private company or individual. Or rather, it is more than okay; it's "an actual virtue inculcated by capitalism." It is only degrading to be so compelled if your boss is the government.
Sullivan maintains that I recognize no distinction between oppression by the state and oppression by an employer. His evidence is my "nutty" statement that "Pret [a Manger] keeps its sales clerks in a state of enforced rapture through policies vaguely reminiscent of the old East German Stasi." But of course I do recognize, like any good New Republic liberal, that oppression by government is worse than oppression by a private employer. The historic evidence on this point would be hard to refute. That's why I said Pret's policies were "vaguely reminiscent" of the Stasi. If I felt otherwise I'd have said they were "precisely the same."
Totalitarianism: bad. Authoritarianism: bad. Freedom and democracy: good. Can we move on?
Where Sullivan and I part company is on the question whether recognition of these sterling principles constitutes a blank check for private employers. It would be worse for me to knife you in the heart than to punch you in the stomach. But if I were to punch you in the stomach, I wouldn't expect you to compliment my comparative leniency. I don't happen to like it when private employers compel their employees to fawn over customers like me—and again, "fawn" does not mean "behave in an appropriately friendly manner," it means "fawn." My characteristically "Marxist" method of expressing this distaste is to write an article about it for a brainy magazine. I don't think that puts America's democratic freedoms in significant danger.
Sullivan argues that my brief is worthless because if Pret employees don't like being compelled to fawn over customers and to touch each other all the time, they can always try to find a job somewhere else. But does the voluntary nature of employment (albeit in a slack labor market) condone—indeed, absolve from any criticism—every unreasonable demand a boss might ever make? For the eight people who toil in obscurity for a website devoted to the opinions and crotchets of one Andrew Sullivan, I certainly hope not.
5 comments
Ironic that about the same time both Sullivan and TNR launched new websites devoid of advertisements - if it's okay for employees to suffer the humiliation of forced fawning over customers, why shouldn't readers have to suffer the annoyance of all those capitalist adds. Sullivan doesn't practice the capitalism he preaches. Instead, Sullivan practices a form of voluntary capitalism: the annual subscription to his blog is $19.99 (keep the penny) but he asks his customers to contribute more if they will. Indeed, you have the feeling he keeps close tabs on who contributes what. While I would never object to criticism of Sullivan, it's too easy. It's like debating McArdle. Or Alabama playing Notre Dame.
- rayward
February 7, 2013 at 2:35pm
Right on. Sullivan is getting ridiculous. Say I work for a total asshole. (*Not* true.) I gripe about the fact that my boss is an asshole to my buddy Andy Sullivan, the theme being, my boss should stop being such a goddamn asshole all the time. I even compare him to, say, a Nazi, given his tyrannical disposition, hysterical manner, and unreasonable demands. To which Sullivan's idiotic response is, "I challenge your criticism, sir, not because I think your boss isn't an asshole, but because, unlike the Nazis, he's not actually the government and has a legal right to be an asshole and you're free to find employment elsewhere." Thanks for the sympathy, bro.
- JakeH
February 7, 2013 at 6:56pm
I had a friend who started med school with me but dropped out during/after a serious bout of depression. Feeling healthier and unsure whether or not she'd rejoin the program the following year, my friend needed a job. She applied for an entry-level position at Wellspring Grocery, an upscale organic-and-gourmet supermarket that has since been bought by Whole Foods and renamed. "They asked me what kind of 'light' I'd bring to the 'Wellspring family,'" she told me, rolling her eyes. "How am I supposed to answer that? I wanted to say, 'Listen, Toots, I'm applying to be a fucking GROCERY CLERK. If you want me to carry a flashlight, that's fine, but other than that I don't know that I have much 'light' to provide." Needless to say, she didn't get the job.
- AaronW
February 7, 2013 at 8:13pm
So, if you're Andrew, I guess it's okay too, if a private employer forced you to attend (under real or implied threats of being fired) political events, and give money to political causes that may not be in your best interests as an employee. Said employer may even make good on threats that not voting for the employers political views may cause termination due to 'economic slowdown', and then quietly start rehiring later. I guess that's what Andrew calls 'freedom' and is what's so great about America.
- jet
February 8, 2013 at 1:00am
Libertarians, even moderate ones, seem prone to conniption fits when others object to some exercise of employer power in the workplace. Where there is a choice, there is no coercion!!1! That is FREEDOM, you Commie!!1! The mistake is a false dichotomy: Either Pret A Manger is like the East German Stasi, or the exchange is completely free and between equals. Timothy Noah is right to say it is a matter of degrees. Just because an employer is not The State does not mean there is a perfect balance of power between them and their employees. For example, most of us who aren't libertarians would accuse a manager who asked their employee to screw them or be fired of being coercive. Libertarians, however, find room for debate on that one: http://www.unfogged.com/archives/week_2012_06_03.html#012211
- STTaylor
February 8, 2013 at 12:00pm