Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Monday, April 7, 2014 6:59 pm

Do peons dream of loyalty?

I spent my 16th, 17th, and 18th summers working in food service at the Carowinds amusement park on the N.C./S.C. line near Charlotte. It was hard, hot, sticky, messy, occasionally dangerous work — hot frying fat is nothing to mess with, which doesn’t keep teens from messing with it, and I once got knocked back 10 feet into a stream cabinet when I accidentally touched a bare wire on a 440-volt grill I was trying to unplug. (Had I not been wearing rubber-soled shoes, an electrician told me, I might’ve been killed.) When I finished my first full day of work — 9 hours in a steamy kitchen on a humid April Saturday — I was in outstanding physical shape and still as physically tired as I would ever be in my life until I got E. coli food poisoning two decades later.

We had all kinds of rules about customer relations, grooming (sideburns no lower than the earlobe), our itchy-ass polyester uniforms, not sitting while on duty, and so on.

So when I read this post on working in retail by ex-journalist Joseph Williams, I didn’t find a whole lot that was new to me, other than the vastly increased amount of theft-prevention activity. But a lot of it was new to him, or forgotten since his last stint in retail 30  or so years ago. And there’s a small part of me that wants to criticize his ignorance, because retail and restaurant work is one of the fastest-growing segments of the labor force in an economy that is not, generally, creating enough new jobs even to match growth in the working-age population, let alone bring down the un- and under-employment rates. If journalists know nothing else about the economy, they need to know that, and what the ramifications are for the growing numbers of Americans for whom this is real life.

Obtaining work in retail had changed a lot since the 1980s. What used to require a paper application and a schmooze with the manager has turned into an antiseptic online process where human interaction—and the potential for an employment-discrimination complaint—is kept to a minimum.

That put me at a distinct disadvantage.

In person, thanks to good genes, people often assume I’m younger than I am. On paper, however, I’m just another overeducated, middle-aged, middle-class refugee whose last retail experience dates to the Reagan administration.

Not to mention retail employers these days have their pick of applicants: the Great Recession added countless numbers of desperate workers like me to the annual labor-market influx of college students and high schoolers. According to an Economic Policy Institute report, “In 1968, 48 percent of low-wage workers had a high school degree, compared to 79 percent in 2012.” Likewise, the percentage of people in these jobs who have spent some time in college has skyrocketed, jumping from under 17 percent to more than 45 percent in the same time. All of us are in a race to the bottom of the wage pool.

Although older job candidates bring experience and skills to the table, their job applications typically blink like red warning lights to retail managers: overqualified, overpaid, and probably harder to manage than some high school or college kid. In a word: trouble.

“Think about it, Joey—that’s why there are online applications,” my sister, a veteran human-resources professional, told me. “If you apply online, and you never hear back, they don’t have to tell you why they rejected you and face a discrimination lawsuit.”

I soon realized the only way I’d have a shot in retail is if I dumbed down my job application, met directly with the person in charge before applying, and used my journalism story-telling skills to sell myself, stretching the truth past the breaking point.

He also discusses how “wage theft” — essentially, employers ripping free labor from employees, works, and this, too, I remember from Carowinds:

Working in retail takes more skill than just selling stuff. Besides the mindless tasks one expects—folding, stacking, sorting, fetching things for customers—I frequently had to tackle a series of housekeeping chores that Stretch never mentioned in our welcome-aboard chat. Performed during the late shift, those chores usually meant I’d have to stay well past the scheduled 9 p.m. quitting time.

Mop the floors in the bathroom, replace the toilet paper and scrub the toilets if necessary. Vacuum. Empty the garbage. Wipe down the glass front doors, every night, even if they don’t really need it. It was all part of the job, done after your shift has ended but without overtime pay.

In at least one respect, I had it better than this guy: Once in a while, I actually did get overtime pay. Not always. Not often. But once in a while.

This guy was paid $10 an hour in a state where the minimum wage is $7.25. He has an interesting take on whether the minimum wage should be raised, and once again, it involves wage theft (highlighted text below):

Proponents [of a minimum-wage increase] argue that three extra dollars an hour can lift hundreds of thousands of workers out of poverty. Opponents say a raise for hourly-wage workers would keep some businesses from hiring and force others to make layoffs to stay in the black.

As a worker who earned $10 an hour, I say: Neither argument is entirely true.

Sporting Goods Inc., I came to realize, was fine with paying me a few dollars more than the minimum wage—officially $7.25 an hour in Maryland—because it had other ways to compensate itself, including disqualifying me from overtime or paid sick days. Requiring me to play Cinderella on the closing shift also saved management the money it would have had to pay a cleaning company to maintain the store. Yet even $10 an hour—about $400 a week before taxes—can barely keep a single adult afloat in a city like Washington.

A modest studio apartment in a safe neighborhood would easily consume an entire month’s pay. Meanwhile, depending on circumstance, an annual salary of roughly $20,000 might not automatically qualify a retail worker for government assistance. One of my co-workers, a young single mother I called Flygirl, lived with her mom and commuted 40 minutes, one-way, from a far-flung suburb to make ends meet. Most of my co-workers, in their early 20s or 30s, had roommates, spouses, or second jobs. None of them seemed to be making it on their retail salaries alone.

Even though I was living rent-free in a guest bedroom, my every-other-Thursday paycheck couldn’t help me climb out of my hole, particularly after the state took half my pre-tax, $300 weekly salary for child support payments. Grateful just to have a job, I didn’t think twice when I noticed Stretch sometimes cut me from the daily crew and kept my hours under 30 per week—until Mike, a longtime friend and a former union shop steward, explained.

“You’re part-time,” he told me. “If you work 40 hours or more, they’ll have to give you benefits.”

Because I live across town, meanwhile, I had an hour-long commute that cost as much as $10 a day round-trip on public transportation.

“Dude,” my best friend Jamie said. “After taxes, you’re making just enough to get to and from work each day.”

And when the writer finally finds a new job, one that pays a living wage, he tells his boss, who promptly criticizes his work ethic and  loyalty.

We seldom get to pick either the messages we receive or the messengers from whom we receive them. And it would have been nice if this guy hadn’t landed in poverty through his own doing, at least in part. But his story matters no matter his personal failings, because his story is pretty much the story of everybody who works in retail.

As was discussed in the Ideas section of Sunday’s News & Record, North Carolina still has about three unemployed people for every available job opening, and that doesn’t even count the so-called “discouraged” workers who have stopped looking for work and therefore are not counted as unemployed. Nor does it count the people who, though qualified for better jobs, are working part-time or minimum-wage jobs because that’s all they can find.

Their experiences are not hugely different from this guy’s. If you’re not one of them, you probably know many people who are. The American economy is screwing them to the wall, and it’s happening because of conscious and intentional decisions made by lawmakers in thrall to large corporations. It’s 21st-century peonage. And it needs to stop.

There is dignity and morality in honest work, even in retail, as long as workers are paid and treated fairly. But there is no dignity for the worker, and no morality for the employer, in taking from the worker what is rightfully his and debasing and degrading him while doing so.



  1. From the anecdotal link I am not at all convinced that those conditions are found universally throughout the fast food industry

    Is raising bthe minimum wage the answer to that problem , if in fact does exist.?

    Tell it to the NY Times

    From The People We Look To For Business Advice

    “The NY Times blurbs their latest attempt to resuscitate the Obama agenda:

    Business and the Minimum Wage


    Paying workers more can help companies lower turnover and improve productivity.

    We hope the Times publishers take this advice to heart as we contemplate these headlines at the Huffington Post:

    NYT Editor Speaks Out About ‘Painful’ Layoffs

    NYT Lays Off ‘Far Fewer People’ Than It Expected

    Top New York Times Editor Stepping Down

    Layoffs Approaching At NY Times

    Major NYT Layoffs

    New York Times Layoffs Begin

    New York Times Panic: Staffers Told To Rein In Spending While They Await The Bloodbath

    Clearly the Times could improve morale and workplace stability by giving their employees a 40% raise. Or does the advice they are so happy to dole out to others only work for real businesses?”

    Then there is this

    Fun With The Minimum Wage

    “The folks at do not support increasing the minimum wage. Their full-page ad in the NY Times today is a bit of a classic as economist brawls go. Some flavor from their website:

    About Those 600 Economists Who Support a $10.10 Minimum Wage

    Posted on February 27, 2014 by The Team

    [‘Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report estimating that 500,000 jobs would be destroyed if the minimum wage was raised to $10.10. Suddenly on defense, the White House turned to a list of 600 economists who support an increase in the minimum wage and disagree that it would harm the labor market.

    This list of 600 minimum wage-supporting economists (602 to be exact) was organized by the labor union-backed Economic Policy Institute (EcPI), and has been referenced widely by supporters of the policy, including President Obama, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and The New York Times editorial board. But how credible is the list?

    …A number of the signers — whether or not they have experience in labor-related topics — have research interests that are considerably outside the economic mainstream. Specifically, at least 40 of the signers are specialists in or have done considerable work in the economics of Marxism or Socialism, or are affiliated with the “radical” study of economics. Predictably, some of these signers have made extreme statements, labeling the United States “the world’s number one rogue,” lauding Hugo Chavez as a “great leader,” or praising the “particular model of socialism pioneered by the Soviet Union.” One of the signers is even a well-known advocate for “9-11 Truth.” ‘]

    I should note that Team MinimumWage is affiliated with that other EPI, the Employment Policies Institute, an entity which, hmm, does not have argument-ending credibility on the left. To be fair (and balanced) let’s say it does not have as much lefty cred as, for example, Media Matters.

    Still, Marxist quotes are Marxist quotes and 9/11 Truthers are 9/11 Truthers”

    Lex wrote: ” The American economy is screwing them to the wall, and it’s happening because of conscious and intentional decisions made by lawmakers in thrall to large corporations. ”

    And who do we blame for the state of the economy for the last 5 plus years ?. God, don’t tell me Bush !

    There has been marginal improvement but it has been a slow and painful recovery for Joseph and millions of others.

    “The non-Fox media have spent years deliberately and relentlessly inoculating people against the facts, training them to mindlessly blame Bush for being in charge when Democrat policies destroyed the economy. So here we sit, to this day, still watching Obama excuse and shrug off endless economic failures, illegal government takeovers and utter national bankruptcy with zero accountability.”

    Forgive the excess but I thought it had to be said.


    Comment by Fred Gregory — Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:22 pm @ 6:22 pm

  2. Fred, just one problem with this scenario.

    As it happens, I took a pretty thorough look at several years’ worth of New York Times Co. finances during my management class in grad school last spring. Long story short, financially there’s not a thing wrong with that company that curbing the greed of the Sulzberger family, most or all of whom are now out of the business, wouldn’t cure.

    In one of the years I looked at, the dividends they paid themselves (and, remember, they hold Class B stock, which gets a disproportionate share of all dividends paid even though there are only about four dozen such shareholders) totaled more than the company’s net income. That’s not a problem with economic theory; that’s a problem with one company’s inefficient allocation of resources.

    Obviously, the company’s 10-Ks are online, so you can see this for yourself. I believe the years we looked at were FY10, 11 and 12, although it might have been 09, 10, 11.

    Comment by Lex — Saturday, April 12, 2014 8:53 am @ 8:53 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: