Marginal Jobs and the Norms Expected of Work - Assignment Example

Identify and explain the four (4) ways in which marginal jobs deviate from the norms expected of work. Then explain which members of the labor force have the highest likelihood of working in marginal job and why. The current trend in the US and indeed globally, is the increase of marginal or informal labor to meet some of the economic hardships increasingly faced by individuals and their families. Marginal jobs or the informal labor sector is seen as a main source of income for those encountering economic desperation and as such, the norms governing this type of labor deviate from the norms of regular labor. Marginal jobs are considered "marginal" since their characteristics are not only very different from those of regular labor but they can be considered undesirable as well. The largest segments of the population engaging in such marginal labor are the working poor, recent immigrants legal and illegal and/or ethnic minorities with/without educational credentials from third world countries whose education is not usually recognized by developed countries' formal educational and social institutions. Four ways in which marginal jobs deviate from the norms of regular expected work are important to consider. Within a regular recognized work force, there are norms that are universally accepted. It is important to understand what these norms are since they shed light on the differences in the marginal or informal labor force. According to sociologists in the field, work relationships in the regular work force, are characterized by roles, expectations, and obligations of employees and responsibilities of workers and bosses to each other (Kendall, 2003; Hodson & Sullivan, 2008; Wharton, 2006). There are also four main characteristics of regular jobs are also characterized by a) job content which is legal, b) the job should be relatively stable, c) the job should be institutionally stable, and d) the job should provide adequate wages and hours so that the worker may be able to sustain an adequate living. For jobs that are considered marginal one must first define the social norms of that society as well as the historical time frame in order to understand the boundaries between formal and informal or marginal and regular labor. For instance, historical time period and culture or religion may affect how individuals and groups set up the boundaries between regular work and marginal work. Kendall (2003) cites the prohibition and illegal work as contemporary drug dealing as examples. Today prohibition of alcohol is not an issue but drug dealing still remains a marginal profession similar to prostitution. In countries such as Holland or Saudi Arabia there are very different norms and rules regulating these types of occupations. Sociologists of work commonly agree that individuals are commonly recruited into marginal forms of labor due to their inability to enter the regular workforce (Kendall, 2003; Hodson & Sullivan, 2008; Wharton, 2006). The above discussion illuminates how marginal or informal jobs differ from formal jobs but there remains a need to clearly outline the characteristics of the informal job market. First, marginal jobs tend to have little occupational power and their employees therefore usually endure poor working conditions. Secondly, to top this off, there are no unions or centralized forms of power representing the workers for them to mobilize themselves for better working conditions. Third, farm owners, construction workers for homes, and restaurants and hotels are constantly in need of laborers and even petition Congress as such, however Congress is unable to promise the high wages and stability for these jobs leading to high turnover rates in these sectors. Fourth, within the private sphere, housekeepers not employed by large corporations but still subjected to marginal work conditions. Similar to farm workers, housekeepers are also at the mercy of job irregularity, instability and inadequacy (Kendall, 2003; Hodson & Sullivan, 2008; Wharton, 2006). Not only does the disadvantage of upward social mobility affects these workers but unfortunately it is carried on to their children. Teachers see the children of this underclass as more likely to be ill-suited for professional jobs and through the workings of the hidden curriculum or the unwritten social norms of the classroom these children like their parents, are socialized to remain in the very same socio-economic classes and jobs as their parents. Hence the school acts as a factory reproducing the social inequities and stratification in society (Giroux, 2008). As discussed, the majority of the marginal workers employed and underemployed, in societies comprise the underclass, recent immigrants and the working poor among others. There are three main hypotheses for the increase in marginal workers they are: a shrinking middle class and related to this is the notion that the reproductive nature of the middle class is becoming non-existent in other words parents are unable to pass on their middle class status to their children. Secondly, offshore exportation of jobs to other countries and finally, job deskilling in which more and more jobs are requiring less human skills due to advancing technologies. Consequently, those groups most likely to be hired in marginal jobs and as mentioned earlier, are racial minorities, women in gender based jobs such as housecleaning, those with low or foreign educational credentials/birthplace origins, disability, previous work history, and geographical location. The likelihood that marginal jobs will only increase in the future is positively correlated to developed nations and their economic relations with the developing countries of the world. What is good for GM is no longer good for America. However as Domhoff (as cited in Kendall, 2003) has cautioned, "no one foresaw the New Deal [during the Depression] and no one expected the civil Rights movement [in the 1950s and 1960s]. If history teaches us anything, it is that no one can predict the future" (p. 430). 2. Contrast Skill Upgrading, Deskilling and the Mixed Effects positions and answer the question: Identify which of these theories best explains how technology has impacted the professions. Identify which of these theories best explains how technology has impacted workers in marginal jobs. Provide evidence to support your arguments. In the growing economic turmoil that currently pervades the global environment many sociologists debatably argue that skill upgrading, deskilling and mixed effects are critical antecedents to the current environment. Moreover, and most important for the purposes of this essay, these three factors are essential in understanding how they critically influence job quality. The skill-upgrading thesis holds that during the current technological era, skill upgrading is an essential ingredient in keeping workers up to date with the needs of their workplaces as well as the competition on a global basis. According to Applebaum (1999) the increasing technology serves to expand markets requiring a broader variety of skills and a greater variety of them. In this postindustrial period, he argues there are new skills required to effectively and efficiently handle the new tasks at hand. Examples of these new skills are the monitoring, adjusting and visualizing of the entire production process in case of emergency situations. An example of this would be the self-check out machines available at stores such as Walmart instead of workers manually checking out items customers can do this themselves with occasional help from workers. This means that many workers do not do the traditional jobs they used to but are relegated to teaching the customers how to check their own items out Conversely, the deskilling or downgrading thesis places emphasis on the quality of work since changes in the labor process such as technology is considered a key reason for the deskilling of jobs. For example, management requires and uses scientific management, numerical control, automation and the redesign of entire jobs that separates the carrying out of work from the conceptualization of it (Applebaum, 1999). According to Applebaum (1999) this has led to an increasing polarization within the workforce with unskilled and semiskilled laborers at the bottom and elite managers and professionals at the top. This deskilling process has changed the nature of the skill level required for workers so that education and skills are no longer prerequisites of such jobs and workers are paid less. Moreover, manual and white collared workers are seen as subject to the process of deskilling. Others see that crafts persons and white collared workers as individuals with a certain body of knowledge as critical to the work they do just as managerial and professional jobs. While the demands for these types of jobs have grown it has not offset the deskilling process. The third and final hypothesis used by sociologists to explain the changes within the workplace is known as the mixed-effects or mixed-change hypothesis (Applebaum, 1999). According to sociologists, the mixed-effects hypothesis describes the increasing polarization of skills brought on by the fast paced nature of technological change. This thesis argues that while some skills must be upgraded others need downgrading and therefore there is little room left in the middle since both surges cancel each other out therefore leaving no room for in-between skills. The upgrading of skills has been positively correlated with the increasing computerization in work places (Applebaum, 1999; Kendall, 2003; Hodson & Sullivan, 2008; Wharton, 2006). The influence of technology therefore is according to many sociologists is unlikely to represent a deterministic view of such change. Rather, when it comes to skill upgrading such a factor will give the employer a beneficial view on enhancing employee productivity while allegedly improving employee bargaining powers of bargaining groups such as unions. Yet the range of choices available to managers and employers seems to be increasing. Many sociologists of work are of the view that the current environment is one that emphasizes quantity over quality therefore leaving the job skills of employees to the wayside. They view this approach as wrong and one prone to backfiring as many argue is already occurring. Instead, and in order to ameliorate this, it is recommended that in work and school spheres, goals need to be redefined and immediate gratification delayed (Applebaum, 1999; Kendall, 2003; Hodson & Sullivan, 2008; Wharton, 2006). A workforce that is mentally, physically and manually prepared is what is needed for a dynamic and holistic workforce built for the challenges of the future and indeed should be seen as an investment in it. 3. Compare and contrast the role of employer, customer and worker in service interactions. Explain how the worker may manipulate the service interaction. Define emotional work and explain when and why "losing it" and "burnout" may occur Following a conflict/Marxian perspective on the nature of relations between those who own the means of production and those who produce the value necessary for the capitalist system to run smoothly, emerges the Labor Process theory that analyzes the relationship between the employer and employee. Harry Braverman (1974) closely analyzed the latter and like Marx, believed the relationship between employer and employee to be one of exploitation leading to worker alienation. Within Labor Process theory, similar to Marxist theory, the worker has no control over the value of the produce he/she creates nor working hours and work pay. Not only does this occur but it has become an unquestionable ideology or commonsensical norm within capitalist societies. However other sociologists like Grint (2005) that the workplace similar to other institutions, is not clear-cut in terms of relations between employers and employees. Rather he argues from a symbolic interactionist perspective, stating that any sociologist studying this sphere must determine what the actors themselves see as legitimate interpretation. He further states that even with this, i.e. the language of work does not ensure control over subordinates and that the language of superior-subordinate itself is not universally accepted just because it is represented as such. Watson states that the reason for this is that "human beings whose actions form the social science investigations are thinking, sense-making, decision making beings who could potentially defy the predictions of social scientists" (p. 14). This illustrates that workers may manipulate the service work they conduct since they are active in these interactions and do not necessarily follow all the rules and regulations or interpret them the same way. Within the service industry relationships between service employers, customers and workers are often complex depending on the situation and the nature of work and rewards for that work. In service work, employers set down the norms of work. These norms encompass "words, looks, moods facial expressions, feelings, patterns of thought, self-concepts" which are all controlled by the employer via "scripts, uniforms, regulations about appearance, interactive rules, incentives, surveillance, solicitation of customer evaluation, and programs of character transformation" (Korcynski, Hodson & Edwards, 2006, p. 37). According to sociologists in the field, service work is one type of labour in which there exists interchangeable work. It is important therefore to note that while in management circles what is perceived as upgrading is to the employee actually a form of degradation through stress (Korcynski, Hodson & Edwards, 2006; Grint, 2005). Being perceived and actually treated by managers, and supervisors as important to the job may serve to reduce the tendency of employees to manipulate their employers whether individually or through employee peers in consultation with one another. Within the above framework as described by Braverman and Marx is a discourse framed by Hothschild (1983) concept of 'emotional labor or work'. Unlike Braverman, Hothschild (1983) made no reference to Marx and instead drew upon Goffman's interactionist approach. Hothschild (1983) using an interactionist approach emphasized the importance of creating a positive public and bodily display at work. In many occupations where employees physically encounter customers or even by telephone there is a level of emotion that has to be regulated in consistence with the organization's rules and regulations and whether or not the employee is feeling these emotions is irrelevant to the duties of the job he/she must perform. According to Hothschild (1983) the discord between the act of pretending to be welcoming and happy and the actual feelings inside the employee is known as emotional dissonance which may lead to emotional exhaustion or burn out and even depression. Emotional labor is affected by three factors. First of all, and as mentioned previously, the societal norms and time period in which the work is being carried out have large impacts on the emotional atmosphere of the work. During the events of 911, it was socially acceptable for employers and employees to stop the work they were doing so as to focus on this tragic historical event. Secondly, some employees are better at expressing their emotions than others, known as career identity. For example some employees are able to contain emotions in the face of conflict when needed while others are not able to do so. Finally, supervisors and managers are known to regulate the emotions of their employees. The reason that employees use emotions in different work situations can be attributed to the emotion contagion theory which postulates that in high level anxiety situations such as riding an airplane or preparing to be operated on the smile and calm of the hostess or nurse respectively have a large impact on the clients which they serve. Emotional labor and the emotional dissonance that inevitably comes with it at times are likely to produce a sense of losing it or burnout (Hothschild, 1983; Hodson,, & Sullivan, 2008; Wharton, 2006). Since employees have lives outside of the workplace, and problems whether they be financial, familial or personal it is increasingly difficult to create an aura of positive emotions at the work place at all times. Moreover, the higher degree of positive emotion required in a workplace regardless of what is going on in the individual employee's life is thought to lead to more emotional burnout or losing it than other positions where such high positive emotion is not required. Also, there is much evidence illustrating that positive emotions at the workplace is not positively correlated with higher wages or benefits thereby increasing the levels of emotional exhaustion. 4. Identify and explain the four (4) hallmarks of a profession. Compare the hallmark approach (Structural Functional Approach) with the Conflict Approach on the issue of whether the professions constitute a meritocracy. North American and indeed Western societies generally embrace the notion that effort and hard work ultimately pays off and by one's merit one may attain the highest levels in education and the workplace. This meritocratic notion embraces the notion that even children and workers on the lowest end of the hierarchy can, with hard work, 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' and enjoy the fruits of success and even wealth. There are different debates within the field of sociology on the logic of such arguments. On the one hand, there is the structural functionalist approach in which society works like a human body with everyone performing necessary jobs for the smooth functioning of society and tailored to their skill set. The type of job one holds and has achieved through merit according to this perspective depends on the efforts they invested in education and/or the workplace. Society as such, needs its CEOs just as much as it needs its garbage collectors. On the other hand, is the conflict theory which postulates that meritocracy is an ideology put forth by the elite to maintain their control over the working class and to keep society running through capitalist exploitation of the working class. Conflict theory perceives capitalist society as an exploitative process where the laborers and fruits of their labor being exploited and that this contradiction in capitalism will ultimately lead to discord and revolution by workers against the capitalist class. An example of this exploitation is the farmer who works away through fluctuating economic and weather conditions at his harvest and yet at the end of the day, has no say in placing value on the end products that he/she produces. Such decisions are left to the professionals. These arguments are still ongoing today the Right - Structural Functional side of politics the Republicans or the Left Conflict side of politics, the Democrats who still form the basis of their arguments on these fundamental principles demonstrating that there remains no immediate right or wrong in these agendas but instead ongoing debates between the two. This brings the discussion to the nature of professional work and whether or not it is located in a meritocratic system that works according to the theories of structural functionalism and conflict theory. According to sociologists Hodson and Sullivan (2008) there are four main characteristics that govern the professions and indeed most workplaces. First, within any given profession there is a division of labor. Complex tasks performed by managers, lawyers, corporate executive officers are also no different. Each individual within a firm has a special skill set which is effective for completing part of the task at hand. Secondly, within such a framework although each individual's work is important and necessary for the whole to work but there is inevitably inequality in the process. Going back to the law firm, the lawyers who perform litigation and take on criminal or civil cases are not considered on the same level as a legal assistant. The legal assistant's job is necessary but it is more likely that she/he could be easily replaced than a head lawyer within the firm. Thirdly, bureaucracy is essential in a professional workplace. There are rules and regulations governing the order of things and the ways in which individuals communicate. Everyone in a law firm knows who is boss or top lawyer/s. These individuals receive different treatment than the secretaries or the legal assistants within that same firm according to written job responsibilities as well as education, knowledge and skill set. Finally and according to Hodson and Sullivan (2008) whereas in old times past, such as the agricultural age, work was seen as part and parcel of the burdens of everyday life, today work is central to one's identity. Knowledge gained through education for the legal student soon-to-be lawyer then ultimately leads to a certain higher level of respect than that of a legal assistant. This follows the assumption that there has been more work effort in education for a lawyer than a legal assistant achieved through going to law school, passing the bar exams, and finally standing and defending the innocent or trying the guilty. This according to conflict theorists contradicts the notion of structural functionalists that society values and respects different jobs equally as all the human body's organs are equally important. Clearly, there are some jobs that are perceived as more valuable than others and paid as such. The functions that accompany such work and the means necessary to obtain such work demonstrate the basic tenets on which professions today rest (Giroux, 2008; Hodson & Sullivan, 2008; Wharton, 2006). The above discussion on the four main tenets of the professions illustrate inherent problems and constitute the main reason for debate among the right or structural functionalists and the left, the conflict theorists. Unlike the structural functionalists, conflict theorists perceive the capitalist society as one in which inequality is inherent and meritocracy a myth. One of the institutions necessary to reproduce the inequities in society is the educational system (Giroux, 2008). Educators as much as they may perceive themselves as upholding meritocratic principles cannot afford to treat their students equitably but equally. By treating students equally educators give the same level of attention to the student from a lower socioeconomic class who may come from a family with a troubled background the same as a family that is from an affluent suburbia neighborhood. If the teacher was to act equitably, they would try to bring the level of the lower socioeconomic status child who does not have parental help with homework, or computers in the home, up to the higher socioeconomic students (Giroux, 2008). Because this does not happen and most teachers do not invest in all their students equitably, the school reproduces the inequities in society. This, according to conflict theorists, means that a student from a higher socioeconomic class will be socialized and streamed within the educational system to attend university while a more disadvantaged student will be socialized or streamed to a vocational school less valued in society (Giroux, 2008). Within society's workplaces such hierarchies exist within any given profession however according to structural functionalists, not all individuals have the same abilities and therefore not all individuals should have the same occupational roles or be paid the same. This is a necessary feature of this consensus theory that those in society and those at the bottom who work the meritocratic system will be rewarded. The problem with the structural functionalist perspective is that some groups in society are more underrepresented as high school graduates and university students and more overrepresented in unemployment statistics. A case in point would be African Americans. If one was to go by the structural functionalist argument, African Americans would simply be considered as lower in ability level. To overcome this explanation which obviously carries racist undertones, structural functionalists aim at reforms such as affirmative action, or no child left behind both of which have been criticized for furthering divides in society as well as reinforcing inequities by assuming a policy can ameliorate more serious structural problems. 5. Should sociologists be concerned with corporate power First, define monopoly and oligopoly power. Then address three (3) areas of concern that sociologists and/or the public should be critical of when considering the power of large corporations. Argue why or why not, we should pay attention to these issues. Sociologists are concerned with corporate power however different sociological theories have different interpretations on the issue. While conflict theorists believe that corporate power is out of control and exploiting the working class citizens and, in the current global environment, the shrinking middle class, consensus theorists are more likely to see corporate power as a necessary and healthy ingredient to capitalist society and one of the fundamental bases on which democracies rest. There are a few main distinctions between monopolies and oligopolies. Within a monopoly, one corporation has one fourth of the market power or more and is said to dominate the market, and this, therefore is considered by many critical sociologists to be a form of market breakdown. Within a monopoly only one corporation sells a product and others sell similar ones. For example, McDonalds may have a monopoly on Happy Meals but there are many fast food chains selling burgers and fries. Other examples of monopolies are utility companies. Conversely, in oligopolies there are several firms producing the same product and therefore each corporation has to consider the others when setting down product prices. There are also no legal barriers preventing oligopolies from entering the market. Corporations in oligopolies are said to have good sales and are able to forecast costs. Oligopolies are considered perfect competitors that are considered rare outside of the agricultural sector. However while good for capitalism, oligopolies have been criticized for its treatment of consumers and workers whereas monopolies are criticized for its alleged exploitation of consumers. As mentioned, whether in monopolies or oligopoly industries, the power of corporations in upholding or bypassing national or international laws has been hotly debated. As Clinard (1990) states regarding the most successful corporations, "some might say that the Fortune 500 corporations are so essential for maintaining and improving our high standard of living and so vitally linked to our capitalist political system that it is un-American to criticize them" (p. 1). This statement illustrates the controversy surrounding even the slightest critique of corporate power in the US and indeed capitalist societies generally. There are several areas of concern regarding corporate power that sociologists consider quite serious on national and global levels. For the purposes of this essay, three vital areas will be examined and they are: the power of oligopolies such as fortune five hundred to control and influence US national economy and global economic conditions, second, the manipulation by both monopolies and oligopolies of public sentiment via sources such as the mass media, and finally, the outsourcing of jobs to third world countries to bypass labor laws in the US and maximize profits. With respect to the first factor, the control of economic conditions, Clinard (1990) states that two thirds of all US corporate manufacturing corporations are highly concentrated with a few corporations dominating the market. This means that while there is no single corporation dominating the market a few come very close such as General motors which produces most of the diesel going to cars and Campbell manufacturing 95 per cent of the prepared soup in the US. Clinard (1990) also notes, that four firms control over 75 per cent of a large number of industries and wile twenty five years ago there were 375 breweries in the industry today there are less than thirty. This oligopoly therefore has enormous power over both output and pricing. The public and critical sociologists should be concerned since these corporations and their high degree of market competition, inevitably means decisions can be made by them without violating any anti-trust laws. Speculation on pricing is rampant and can be done without legal regulations such as investors allowing poor credit leading to the mortgaging crisis that sparked the current US and global economic crisis. A second major factor that the public and critical sociologists should be concerned about is that crises such as the above are interpreted from the perspective of big media or corporate media. Phillips (2006) reports that there are ten media corporations with only 118 individuals on the combined board of directors. These individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. Phillips (2006) further notes that eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other for example, NBC and the Washington Post both have board members who sit on Coca Cola and J. P. Morgan, while the Tribune Company, The New York Times and Gannett all have members who share a seat on Pepsi. It becomes apparent then, according to Phillips (2006) and others who are concerned about corporate media, that it is just that, 'corporate' and therefore represents the interests of big business over the public. Phillips (2006) states that corporate media represents their own interests therefore the term mainstream media is inaccurate as it implies a plural media which according to an increasing number of Americans, is virtually non-existent in the United States during the current era. Others however see the media as mainstream similar to capitalist economy, it is stimulated by big business and free market competition which is a necessary ingredient for democracies. Finally, the outsourcing of jobs by multinational or transnational corporations represents what this essay deems the third most important concern for the public. Structural functionalists see outsourcing as an opportunity for cross-cultural collaboration on corporate projects or the simple contracting of another company or individual to perform a particular function on the global level. They as such do not see such a process as threatening. Others such as conflict theorists perceive such a process as the furthering of corporate greed by exporting jobs abroad therefore cutting jobs within North America where retirement and benefits which are mandatory and exporting them to countries where labor laws are many times much less regulated and some conflict theorists argue virtually non-existent. The current global environment according to conflict theorists illustrates the inherent problems in the capitalist system. Corporations, multinationals and corporate media dominate the global environment to the disadvantage of the masses of people. Structural functionalists on the other hand, would see the current crisis as a problem of mismanagement and therefore requiring reforms or policies such as government bailouts. The current crisis illustrates that individuals and their human rights must be paid attention to, as part and parcel of a truly democratic environment and that corporations must consider. Whether this will happen remains to be seen. References Applebaum, A., (1999). The changing nature of work: Implications for occupational analysis. Washington: National Research Council. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital. New York: Monthly Review Press. Clinard, M. (1990). Corporate corruption: The abuse of power. New York: Greenwood Press Inc. Giroux, H., (2008). Against the terrorism of neoliberalism: Politics beyond the age of greed. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. Grint, K., (2005). The sociology of work. (3rd ed). Southern Gate: John Wiley & Sons. Hodson, R., & Sullivan, T.A., (2008). The Social Organization of Work. (4th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth. Kendall, D. Lothian M. J and Linden, R. (2003). Sociology in our Times (3 ed.). Scarborough: Nelson Publishers. Korcynski, Hodson & Edwards, (2006). Social theory at work. New York: Oxford University Press. Phillips, P. (2006). Big media interacts with corporate America. Retrieved on December 14, 2008 at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0624-25.htm. Wharton, A.S. (2006). Working in America: Continuity, Conflict, and Change. (3rd. ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Read More