Keeping the store running, a lot of hardworking people did that even before Corona without receiving recognition or adequate wages. Announced performer: inside they call the sociologists Nicole Mayer-Ahuja and Oliver Nachtwey. Her anthology of the same name paints a gloomy overall picture – but one that contains a spark of hope. Because the downward spiral that has existed since Helmut Kohl’s time is made politically – and can therefore be turned politically.
Friday: Ms. Mayer-Ahuja, who exactly are the “misunderstood service providers”?
Nicole Mayer-Ahuja: The employees we examined have in common that their activities are all related to the reproduction of labor and social structures. These are so diverse areas as child-rearing, nursing, parcel services or food supply, all of which do not receive sufficient social and financial recognition despite their high relevance for the capitalist economic system and the high workload of the employees.
How can it be that hard-working people are not recognized in our society? Have we not heard the mantra “Performance must be worthwhile again” for decades?
This mantra from the time of Helmut Kohl actually led to the fact that the work of very many, very hard-working people is less and less worthwhile. This has to do with the fact that the service providers are no longer workers and employees, but bankers and managers. For these high earners, wages rose and taxes fell – companies were relieved anyway – while wages, social security, health care and social recognition continued to decline for most of the others. This development reached its sad climax with the labor market reforms of the early 2000s, with Hartz IV and the creation of a huge low-wage sector.
In this context you also speak explicitly of class society. That was actually once over.
The fact that one could get the impression of a classless or, as Helmut Schelsky called it, “leveled medium-sized society” in the post-war decades was also due to the enormous economic growth that increased social mobility and overall prosperity. The ideological assumption, however, that social classes no longer play a role at all, was refuted in the 80s at the latest, when stagnating growth and increasing social inequality caused the contrasts between capital and labor to become more prominent again. This is also now becoming clear again, where after the corona lockdown many companies have long been making profits again, while many dependent employees are still suffering from the economic consequences. And it is precisely this class of those who have to sell their labor in order to live that is bigger than ever today.
At the same time, many precarious workers were suddenly recognized as “systemically relevant” during the pandemic. Surely a lot has improved for these people since then, right?
There was indeed a strong symbolic appreciation of the employees who kept the shop going, which was expressed, for example, in the evening clapping on the balconies. In terms of substance, however, not much has changed, there have been neither wage increases nor better working conditions. On the contrary, during the pandemic the question arose of how access to systemically important workers could be increased – working hours were massively extended, pressure to perform increased, even service obligations were discussed. One ray of hope last year was the collective bargaining round in the public sector, which brought disproportionate growth, especially for the lower wage groups.
The industries you examined differ greatly in terms of employment relationships and employee rights. In which areas does it look particularly bleak?
The conditions are usually particularly bad where female and migrant employment come together, for example in seasonal work in agriculture, activities in the meat industry or in logistics centers. The problem here is not only the alarmingly poor wages or workloads, but often also the precarious legal situation of the employees, such as the residence status of refugees, which in many cases is linked to gainful employment. This increases the pressure to accept bad working conditions as well as the risk in the event of labor disputes.
Nicole Mayer-Ahuja, born 1973, is professor for the sociology of work, business and economics at the University of Göttingen. She received her doctorate in 2002 with the thesis Learn to serve again? From West German “normal employment” to precarious employment since 1973 . She has just finished the book with sociologist Oliver Nachtwey Announced performer: inside. Reports from the class society published by Suhrkamp Verlag.
What can be done about it?
Basically, only political regulation helps here. This was most recently seen in the meat industry, where after years of demands, temporary work and work contracts have finally been dealt with. In the pandemic, cynically, this had more to do with the health protection of the local population – as Armin Laschet as NRW Prime Minister frankly admitted – but it will also improve a lot for temporary workers and migrant workers. Political regulation does not come by itself, however. That is why union organization is very important, but it is difficult in many industries, such as cleaning and building security, because many employees have little contact with one another. There is hope here that progress is being made with delivery services and flight attendants.
What is going better there?
An important basis for successful labor disputes is always a shared work and life reality. When delivery services boomed in the past pandemic winter, a large number of people were hired there on very poor terms. These conditions and the lack of responsibility on the part of companies aroused outrage and solidarity among employees who were able to network well via digital platforms. There was also very good press work here. Or another example: even before the pandemic, positive developments began in the care area at Berlin’s Charité. One problem for labor disputes in the social sector is generally that the employees fear that they will hit the people to be cared for more than the companies. The Charité has succeeded in resolving this dilemma and combining the interests of employees with those of patients: “More of us is better for everyone”. This insight has become even more widespread due to increased awareness during the pandemic.
Your book states that the poor working conditions of those employed in the food industry resulted in low food prices overall. So don’t we all benefit from it?
There is indeed a systemic connection. The low cost of living in Germany is primarily necessary to maintain the largest low-wage sector in Europe here. In the end, however, the companies are more likely to benefit from this, while the precarious employees are only played off against each other. Instead, it would be important to pay living wages in all industries, then cheap products would no longer be needed. Instead of the downward spiral of recent years, there could then be another upward spiral.
Don’t we, as consumers, also have a share of the responsibility?
In fact, it is sometimes the case that workers stay afloat at the expense of other workers. Take, for example, the area of cleaning staff in private households: Here, every customer could ensure himself to pay fair wages, to create regular employment and good working conditions. At the same time, this area is growing mainly because more and more people in better-paid professions are also under increasing pressure to perform with longer and more flexible working hours. This also applies increasingly to women, who usually do the household chores but now outsource these tasks to other, often migrant women, who also have to accept poor conditions. The pressure is then passed on among different groups of employees instead of upwards, to politicians and companies, which are actually responsible for creating livable working conditions.
One often hears: If the minimum wage had to be paid across the board in domestic care, which is dominated by migrants, the sector would collapse because no one could afford it anymore.
The employers’ associations in the care sector are currently arguing similarly. Rainer Brüderle from the bpa, the federal association of private providers of social services, thinks that the regulation that public contracts should only go to companies with collectively agreed wages would mean the end of the industry. But it is absurd that companies have been worsening wages and working conditions for years and rejecting collective bargaining. What we actually need here is a reform of the care sector that ensures that the immense material resources that we all make available to the health insurers every month really reach the employees and those who need to be cared for, instead of in a system of increasing profitability to ensure increasing corporate profits.
.