Now
We Are Human Commodities
By
Chris Maser
02 January,
2008
Culturechange.org
The corporation, it turns out,
is an invention of the British Crown through the creation of the East
India Company by Queen Elizabeth I in 1600, which, being the original,
transnational corporation, set today’s precedence for big businesses.
The East India Company, "found India rich and left it poor,"
says author Nick Robin. The corporate structure of the East India Company
was deemed necessary to allow the British to exploit their colonies
in such a way that the owner of the enterprise was, for the first time,
separated from responsibility for how the enterprise behaved.
This conscious
separation of personal responsibility from the act of looting is not
surprising because "looting" is, theoretically as least, considered
immoral in Christian circles. The corporation is thus a "legal
fiction," that lets the investors who own the business avoid personal
responsibility whenever the business dealings are unethical or even
blatantly illegal, despite the fact that such unscrupulous behavior
profits them enormously.
A corporation,
after all, has but one purpose—to make money for the owners. Economist
Milton Friedman gave voice to this pinhole vision when he answered his
own rhetorical question: "So the question is, do corporate executives,
provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business
activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as
possible? And my answer to that is, no they do not." In fact, the
"corporate system," say analysts, "has no room for beneficence
toward employees, communities, or the environment," a notion endlessly
demonstrated on a daily global scale.
Founders
of the United States, such as Thomas Jefferson, recognized the dangers
of corporate greed, which accounts for why the founding fathers believed
corporate charters should be granted only to those entities willing
to serve the greater public interest. Throughout most of the 19th century,
therefore, states typically restricted a corporation they chartered
to the ownership of one kind of business and strictly limited the amount
of capital it could amass. In addition, states required stockholders
to be local residents, detailed specific benefits that were due the
community, and placed a 20- to 50-year limit on the life of a corporation’s
charter. Legislatures would withdraw a corporation’s charter if
it strayed from its stated mission or acted in an irresponsible manner.
Although
the power of modern corporations dates back to this era, it has been
greatly augmented by two major legal dodges aimed at giving them unencumbered
authority to serve only the self-interest of a few people. This was
accomplished first by the piecemeal removal of those restrictions imposed
to protect the welfare of the public from the self-serving interests
of the few.
The second
change came in 1886, when the U.S. Supreme Court made the corporation
all but invulnerable by decreeing, in a case brought by the Southern
Pacific Railroad against Santa Clara County, California, that a corporation
has the right of "personhood" under the 14th Amendment (originally
intended to protect the rights of freed slaves) and, as such, enjoys
the same constitutional protections that you or I do as individuals.
This second change was reaffirmed in 1906, when the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that, "The Corporation is a creature of the state. It is
presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public." Within
a century, the corporation had been transfigured into a "superhuman
creature of the law," that is legally superior to any American
citizen because the corporation has civil rights without civil responsibilities.1
When
People become Commodities
We, as a
society, are losing sight of one another as human beings—witness
the Wall-Street money chase in which numerous, large corporations discount
human value as they increasingly convert people into faceless commodities
that are bought and sold on a whim to improve the corporate standing
in the competitive marketplace. After all, market share translates into
political power, which translates into higher profit margins, both of
which exacerbate the corporate disregard for people, the rampant destruction
of Nature, and the squandering of natural resources.
There was
a time when people were valued for what they were as individuals. Although
American workers have long had an enforced workweek of 40 hours, there
currently is an insidious infringement into personal life due to pagers
and cell phones, which allow corporations to "own" employees
24 hours a day. Businesses seem to have no moral compunctions about
calling employees whenever they choose—"for the good of the
company." For those who would choose to live by the corporate proverb,
"for the good of the company," the Families and Work Institute
said that in 2001 employees are more likely to:
• lose
sleep
• have
physical and emotional health problems
• make
mistakes on the job
• feel
and express anger at employers
• resent
co-workers who they perceive are not pulling their weight
• look
for different jobs
In the workplace,
these feelings translate into more injuries and thus more claims for
workers’ compensation, increased absenteeism, higher health insurance
and health-care costs, impaired job performance, and greater employee
turnover—all of which are counterproductive and costly not only
for employees but also for employers.2
At home,
these feelings are often converted into a sense of not enough time to
care for once-loved pets. About four million pets were brought each
year to 1,000 shelters surveyed during 1994, 1995, and 1996, the vast
majority of which were dogs. Of those, about 64 percent were killed.
Only 24 percent were adopted; others were primarily lost pets that were
ultimately reunited with their families. Most of the owners who gave
up pets were under 30 years of age. When asked why they were giving
up their pet, many said that the hours they were being required to work
disallow time to adequately care for their animal.3
Moreover,
if American workers want more time with and for their families, the
corporate response is: "If you aren’t willing to do the job
the way we want, we’ll find someone who will." This attitude
raises the question of what comes first today in our land of opportunity,
where supposedly one is free to seek liberty and the pursuit of happiness—love
or money? This question seems all the more relevant in light of the
Enron debacle.
The collapse
of Enron highlights how some corporations are using people simply as
commodities to boost company earnings. While Enron’s employees
were both forced to purchase and simultaneously prohibited from selling
company stock in their Enron-heavy 401(k) retirement accounts, Enron
executives cashed out more than $1 billion in stocks when it was near
its peak in value. Regular employees, however, had to watch helplessly
as their Enron stock plummeted in value and their life savings disappeared.4
Clearly,
the punishing free-for-all of globalization and open markets has not
invited love into its house and thus is as much about the fear of lost
opportunity as it is about maximizing profit. And now, as fear enters
into the monetary counting houses, one must realize that any rosy face
painted on the economy is done so with far too many temporary and dead-end
jobs in the service sector.
The growing
use of long-term, temporary workers by American businesses has created
a new kind of employment discrimination, but not across the board because
some people actively choose such an arrangement. Employers typically
hire contingent workers, such as independent contractors and temporary
workers, to fill gaps in personnel, especially to meet high seasonal
demands in business. Because, technically, they are not "company
employees," long-term, temporary employees or "permatemps"
can work at a job for years without being entitled to paid vacations,
health insurance, pensions, and other benefits (such as rights and protections
under federal labor statutes) enjoyed by permanent employees who do
the same work.5 Although not all corporations operate this way, the
arrangement is, nevertheless, desirable from the employer’s point
of view because it holds down the cost of labor, which means higher
profits.
The result
is millions of employed people in the United States who cannot afford
the basic necessities of food, housing, clothing, and medical care.
This problem is well depicted in the movie "Hidden in America,"
which shows that below the image of shining prosperity is a hidden layer
of poverty with its desperate but proud parents and hungry children.
There is
also a kind of sweatshop alive and well in the United States—faster
and faster with no time to slow down. A Gallup Poll in the summer or
1999 found that 44 percent of working Americans referred to themselves
as "workaholics." Yet, 77 percent said they enjoyed their
time away from work more than they did their time while working. In
fact, our American quest for material wealth—the money chase—leads
to profound unhappiness, emotional isolation, and higher divorce rates
because we are so busy striving for income there is no time for normal,
human relationships.6
Our American
ration of irony, however, is that the more connected we become electronically,
the more detached and isolated we become emotionally because we are
losing the human elements of life: the sight of a human face, the sound
of a human voice, a smile, a handshake, a touch on the shoulder, a kind
word. In essence, we’re losing the human dimension of scale in
terms of time, space, touch, sound, and size; we are physically and
emotionally losing one another and ourselves. Nothing makes this clearer
than such things as home fax machines, laptop computers, cell phones,
beepers, Palms, BlackBerrys, and iPods.
People are
now "on-line" at home; in transit to work; at work; in transit
to home via cars, planes, trains, and on foot. In other words, people
are virtually tethered to work. Such workaholism is not only expected
by employers, it’s often demanded if one wants to keep their job,
which has added "24/7" to our lexicon.
This kind
of workaholism is especially hard on women because they are increasingly
expected to work outside the home, juggle childcare, school activities
for their children, and also maintain the home as though they had to
nothing else to do. In addition, the 24/7 phenomenon hit the American
work scene shortly after woman became a major part of the workforce.
As things
pile endlessly upon one another, the whole of life seems to melt down
into a gigantic obligation that becomes increasingly difficult to meet
because there simply is not enough time to get everything done, let
alone done well. A standard greeting today is: "I’m so busy."
This greeting
is worn like the "red badge of courage" was in the past, as
though our exhaustion is proof of our worth and our ability to withstand
stress, which, in turn, is a mark of our maturity. In fact, we seem
to measure our importance by how busy we are. The busier we are, the
more important we feel to ourselves and, we imagine, to others, which
is reminiscent of the underlying theme of the British television program
"Keeping up Appearances."
If we do
not rest, however, we will lose our way because action without time
for reflection is seldom wise. Rest nourishes our minds, bodies, and
souls, which are poisoned by the hypnotic trance of perpetual motion
as accomplishment and social "success." Therefore, we never
truly rest, especially many who are self-employed.
In the quarter
century following World War II, giant corporations like Ma Bell, General
Motors, General Electric, and Westinghouse were the place to be, representing,
as they did, the pinnacle of what capitalism had to offer workers: extraordinary
job security and a cornucopia of benefits. In fact, college graduates
tripped over one another seeking life-time careers with these bedrock
corporations because they could expect a comfortable house, a generously
financed retirement package, lifelong health insurance, and, more often
than not, a 9 to 5 job that allowed an organized man to form a healthy
balance between work and family.
That was
the era when job security formed the underpinnings of the corporate
operating principle. In 1962, Earl S. Willis, manager of employee benefits
at General Electric, wrote, "Maximizing employee security is a
prime company goal." Later, he wrote, "The employee who can
plan his economic future with reasonable certainty is an employer’s
most productive asset." In recent times, however, General Electric’s
John F. Welch, Jr., was known as "Neutron Jack" for shedding
100,000 jobs at the company.
Job security
has vanished at numerous companies. Today, chief executives dump thousands
of workers in the blink of an eye, hoping such moves will please securities
analysts and thus investors, so their stocks will inch up 5 percent
on the stock exchange. In addition, corporate managers slash away at
employee benefits as though employees have suddenly ceased to be humans
and have become commodities that can be forced into a more efficient
mode of production with less cost to the corporation. They also phase
out "defined benefit" retirement plans in favor of the far-less
expensive 401(K) "do it yourself plans."
Many employees
of the post World War II era, until the latter part of the 1960s, were
true believers in their companies. They were also exemplary employees
who worked 12 and 14 hours days, six and even seven days a week, whatever
it took to ensure their company’s success. They did this enthusiastically
because their company’s success was the foundation of their job
security, and hence their success as family providers.
Then things
changed. The corporate mind-set closed and corporate attitudes hardened.
Now, despite their dedication, despite all the birthdays, bedtimes,
and school events they have missed as their children grew up, many have
been chopped from their company’s payroll in a "merger,"
"re-engineering," "rightsizing," "downsizing,"
and "re-deployment." Bitter at the callous way they have been
treated, many workers regret having been so dedicated, only to be treated
like commodities that are discarded at will.7
"In
a personal sense, it hurts, but in a macro sense, it is the action we’ve
got to take to remain competitive," says Joel Naroff of Naroff
Economic Advisors in Holland, Pennsylvania. "Ultimately the adjustments
that the economy is making is going to set us up for the next strong
period of growth." What Naroff seems to be saying between the lines
is: While it hurts to be fired, it’s not personal; it’s
business.
Others contend,
however, that companies may well harm themselves by firing the people
who purchase their products, potentially damaging the economy in ways
that cannot be rectified with quick fixes, such as tax cuts or lowering
the interest rate. In other words, layoffs (especially large, continuous
ones) can only hurt the economy.
An economist,
on the other hand, would counter with the notion that what really matters
is how consumers view the situation. Some would even suggest that workers
have become relatively used to being fired for the market convenience
of their employer, as though that makes it "acceptable," even
"okay." One could also rationalize that many of the job cuts
will be less painful than they sound, in part because companies in a
tight labor market have scores of unfilled jobs that are easy to eliminate.
And then there is the argument that many other cuts would be spread
over years, and some might not even occur.8
While this
all sounds very "rational," workers and consumers act on emotions,
not what passes for economic "logic," and announced layoffs
can lead them to panic, because uncertainty and fear of the unknown
are powerful allies when it comes to irrational thinking and the often-unwise
actions it spawns. Thus, even if nothing in a person’s own job
changes, the fact that their company has fired people to increase the
economic bottom line can, and often does, drastically change an employee’s
attitude about the wisdom of loyalty to the company and thus cripples
the company’s real wealth—the allegiance and imagination
of its employees.
No wonder
it ‘s called "downsizing." The end result is that a
worker’s dignity levels out near zero! And what does the corporation
lose when employees are fired—especially older, long-term employees?
The corporation loses its collective memory and its history, both accrued
through years of loyal service.
All of this
revolves around consumption and consumerism. Consumption to the economist
is the "end-all and be-all" of production. It means economic
growth. Consumption is the heart and soul of capitalism itself. The
rate of consumption by a populace is also the standard economic measure
of human welfare.
Consumption
as an end it itself arose with the conceptualization of "the economy"
as a macro-social entity and "economics" as a macro-social
science—rather than as household management, which is the true
meaning of the word economy. To this end, Adam Smith wrote: "Consumption
is the sole end and purpose of all production."
Because consumption
and consumerism dominate social discourse and political agendas of all
parties, consumerism hogs the limelight at center stage as the prime
objective of Western industrialized societies, which, in the collective,
are known as "consumer societies." Within these consumer societies,
the purpose of consumption is: variety, distraction from daily stresses,
pleasure, power, and the status that one hopes will bring with them
a measure of happiness and social security. None of this comes to pass,
however, because people themselves are increasingly seen as economic
commodities. How can a commodity find security from another commodity?
In this sense, the marketplace satisfies only temporarily our collective
neuroses, while hiding the values that give true meaning to human life.9
Author James
B. Twitchell puts it nicely: "Once we are fed and sheltered, our
needs are and have always been cultural, not natural. Until there is
some other system to codify and satisfy those needs and yearnings, commercialism
[consumerism]—and the culture it carries with it—will continue
not just to thrive but to triumph."10
In the final
analysis, it is doubtful many people really subscribe to the economist’s
notion that human happiness and contentment derives solely from, or
even primarily from, the consumption of goods and services. It’s
therefore surprising that such a notion has come to hold nearly dictatorial
power over public policy and the way industrialized societies are governed.
We are today
so ensnared in the process of selling and buying things in the market
place, that we cannot imagine human life being otherwise. Even our notion
of well-being and of despair are wedded to the flow and ebb of the markets.
Why is this so much a part of our lives? It is largely because people
have yet to understand the notion of conscious simplicity, which is
based on the realization that there are two ways to wealth: want less
or work more. Put differently, true wealth lies in the scarcity of one’s
wants—as opposed to the abundance of one’s possessions.
Endnotes
1. The discussion
of corporate beginnings is based on: (1) Jim Hightower. 1998. Chomp!
Utne Reader. March-April: 57-61, 104, (2) Nick Robins. 2001. Loot. Resurgence
210:12-16, and (3) David C. Korten. 2001. What to Do When Corporations
Rule the World. Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures. Summer:48-51.
2. Diane
Stafford. 2001. Workers feeling overwhelmed. Knight Ridder Newspapers.
In: Corvallis Gazette-Times, Corvallis, OR. May 21.
3. Dru Sefton.
1998. Busy owners are abandoning pets. Knight-Ridder Tribune News Service.
In: Corvallis Gazette-Times, Corvallis, OR. June 7.
4. The Associated
Press. 2001. Enron retirees: Collapse wiped out life savings. Corvallis
Gazette-Times, Corvallis, OR. December 19.
5. Tony Pugh.
1999. Sad Ballad of the Long-Term Temp. Knight Ridder Newspapers. In:
Corvallis Gazette-Times, Corvallis, OR. December 7.
6. The Editors.
2000. No time to slow down. U.S. News & World Report. June 26:14.
7. The preceding
four paragraphs are based on: Steven Greenhouse. 2001. After the Downsizing,
a Downward Spiral. The New York Times. April 8.
8. The preceding
three paragraphs are based on: Adam Geller. 2001. Economists fear cuts
will affect consumer spending. The Associated Press. In: Corvallis Gazette-Times,
Corvallis, OR. February 1.
9. The preceding
three paragraphs are based on: Paul Ekins. 1998. From Consumption to
Satisfaction. Resurgence 191:16-19.
10. Christopher
Lehmann-Haupt. 2001. Sales Pitches That Put the M (for Mega) in Madison
Ave. The New York Times. January 3
This essay is condensed from Chris Maser's 2004 book The Perpetual Consequences
of Fear and Violence: Rethinking the Future. Maisonneuve Press, Washington,
D.C. 373 pp.
Chris
has written several books that are showcased on his website, chrismaser.com.
Chris lives in Corvallis, Oregon. He is a consultant on environmental
land-use development, sustainable communities and forestry.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.