Skip to main content

Hitting back at precarious work in the world of hipster capitalism

The world of tech start up ‘disruptors’ is as much a site of class struggle as any workplace, writes HARRY DOBSON in a letter from the oat-milk latte sector

AS THE industrial and “traditional” working class grows smaller, with young workers being pushed into service industries (call centres, customer service, administration, hospitality) rather than productive ones, the challenges this poses to the labour movement are blindingly obvious.

Precarious work, undefined job roles and the mass influx of the newly “fallen” middle classes have cultivated class unconsciousness. As well as this, huge staff turnover makes securing a solid body of organised workers very difficult. Call centres for example have an annual staff turnover of 26 per cent compared to the national average of 15 per cent and, even more shockingly, the hospitality sector has turnover exceeding 70 per cent annually.

Despite these challenges, unions set up specifically to target precarious workers such as UVW have made headway in organising these sectors. However, the area within this “precariat” sector that seems to be comparatively untouched by unions, possibly because of its difficulty, is the “hip” sector.

I think most will know what type of companies I’m talking about: think beanbags, beer pong on a Friday, “tech start-ups” in which all staff are required to adopt liberalism as a political philosophy and an obsession with coffee as a lifestyle.

The assumption amongst most people outside this sector is that these irritating cosmopolitans are raking it in whilst sipping their oatmilk brews, but when you’ve been at the heart of darkness, it becomes clear that like everywhere else, there is a class struggle going on, whether the craft beer brigade know it themselves or not.

Within this sector, the class conflict is soaked deep into the exposed-brickwork walls. A hierarchical structure exists in which the (usually) privately schooled boss and their directors adopt an informal, laid back approach with their subordinates in order to exploit a manufactured emotional connection with them.

The justification for low pay, extended hours, lack of structure or accountability is usually “this place is like a family” or often and even more bizarrely, an attempt to make the company seem inherently good or morally righteous, such as “eco tech.”

This righteousness is exemplified in the industry’s favourite wanky word — “disruption.” Put simply, “disruption” is doing something that hasn’t already been done, or doing something that is being done but differently. This phrase is bandied around by start-ups and the like, almost all branding themselves as “industry disruptors” and as well as being an obvious marketing technique, it’s also used as a means of control internally.

At companies where convincing employees their work is in the interest of humankind is harder, “industry disruptor” acts as a placeholder — implying your company or “family” is in direct, moral confrontation with the old, evil businesses we all hate.

Take new, trendy bank “Monzo’’ that boasts of disrupting the old, fuddy-duddy banking world with cool tech and liberal culture. They employ invigorated young people as customer service advisers, who — through intense cultural submersion — are inspired by Monzo’s “disruption” despite being paid on average £22,000 a year in London, roughly the same as counterparts at Lloyds, HSBC, Natwest and Barclays. In spite of the material conditions (pay) being the same as the old banks, employees feel a loyalty and stronger connection with their employer. Breaking this manufactured bond will be fundamental before any attempts at organising are possible.

Companies of this nature usually require a much larger degree of personal commitment than traditional employment. Most employees in tech start-ups for example report hours exceeding 50 per week, in which additional financial compensation is rarely given but “help yourself to snacks” is standard. Some employers have even stretched official work hours to 8:30 to 6 which seeks to set a new standard.

An even more insidious tactic is the “flexi-time” method being introduced across this sector. This is sold to staff as an amazing benefit by allowing flexible working hours. However, this actually benefits the employer not the employee.

Firstly, this contributes to the hegemonic “aren’t we different” and “we’re all family” culture and secondly, without defined hours, employees feel obliged to work vastly more hours than would be usually expected. With no boundaries workers are forced to commit to long and anti-social hours so as not to fall out of favour with the bosses.

I see a few small vulnerabilities in the armour of these companies to allow room for workplace organisation which can possibly be exploited once certain criteria are met.

Firstly, the superficial benefits to employees such as free coffee, snacks, social events and discounts are inevitably rolled back once the company reaches a certain size and is required to increase profit to shareholders: this reduction in work happiness weakens the internal cultural facade.

Secondly, companies often adopt a “loose” structure in an effort to save money and again reinforce the culture which often means employees are subject to illegal practices. This can mean no HR department to face off with workers or protect the boss from malpractice, often resulting in companies scoring own-goals.

Thirdly, achieving promotions and salary increases is typically harder than in traditional jobs, as the progression path is either obscured or non-existent. At an older company, salary will often increase year on year and promotion can be somewhat guaranteed based on years of service.

In the New Age company, no such guarantees are made and job titles vary so wildly that seeing any promotional path is nearly impossible. When a “Coffee Ninja” for example, imagines their career progression, they first have to identify, what’s one step up from Ninja? Coffee Shogun?

Finally, due to the intense emotional nature of the culture cultivated by the company, employees often have a much more visceral reaction when this curtain falls down, more similar to an abusive family relationship than a dispute with an employer. With employees across this sector reporting high levels of work-related anxiety and stress, this could galvanise workers into action once they are given the correct tools.

The sooner the labour movement adapts to this new enemy the better. The strategy will need to be aggressive, adaptable and radical but be well prepared for the nuances that make this sector unique. It’s also important for people within the labour movement to recognise these annoying hipsters as fellow workers. Yes it’s annoying when they call meetings “stand ups” or “scrums” but ultimately, a lot of these workers are in extremely precarious positions and are severely mistreated by employers. Be ready to support us, not dismiss us, when we get our backsides off our beanbags.

OWNED BY OUR READERS

We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing Society.

 

 

Become a supporter

Fighting fund

You've Raised:£ 13,288
We need:£ 4,712
3 Days remaining
Donate today