I agree with the central point the author makes: Starbucks baristas are indeed engaged in productive labor when they make coffee drinks for customers. They do, in fact, produce surplus labor value. As do many workers in the service sector, for that matter. This includes fast food workers and many or most other workers employed in food service. It could also be argued, just to provide one other example that comes to mind, that grocery store stockers produce surplus labor value through the act of transporting groceries from the loading dock (and from the freezers and stock rooms) to the store shelves.
A shortcoming with the analysis in this article is that the piece has nothing to say about variations in the amount of surplus labor value produced by different segments of workers.
The thing to emphasize is that the amount of surplus created by Starbucks workers (or fast food workers) — or, to put it another way, the rate of exploitation in these sectors — is quite low. (In business parlance, it would be said that these are “low-margin” industries.) By comparison, industrial workers — particularly those employed in heavy and capital-intensive industries — tend to produce a tremendous amount of surplus labor value. This stems from the extremely efficient and capital-intensive nature of production processes in manufacturing.
Just to provide a case in point:
In September 2021, a group of industrial workers at the Dairy Farmers of America plant in Ventura, California voted in an NLRB election to unionize with Teamsters Local 186. The plant employs around 50 workers who “make Starbucks premade coffee products sold in retail stores,” according to the union press release. While I don’t have the statistical information relating to production volumes in front of me, I think it’s safe to assume that the workers at the Dairy Farmers of America plant in Ventura produce far, far greater volumes of drinks — and far greater amounts of surplus labor value — than their fellow workers employed in Starbucks coffee shops. This stems, again, from the capital-intensive, highly-efficient nature of the production process in such segments of manufacturing.
It is on this basis that industrial workers tend to have much more power than our brothers and sisters in retail.
It occurs to me that this line of analysis will be important in order to understand the developments that take place in the union movement that’s currently unfolding at Starbucks coffee shops.
Jules, this is excellent. I only have a superficial exposure to Marxist economics and analysis, but this was easy to read and made ideas I've come across quite clear.
Can you elaborate on how the idea of PMC plays into all of this? I'm not really familiar with Ehrenreich's definition, but I'm unsure of how middle managers and C-suite executives who rely on high wages fit into the Marxist model.
This is a very interesting article.
I agree with the central point the author makes: Starbucks baristas are indeed engaged in productive labor when they make coffee drinks for customers. They do, in fact, produce surplus labor value. As do many workers in the service sector, for that matter. This includes fast food workers and many or most other workers employed in food service. It could also be argued, just to provide one other example that comes to mind, that grocery store stockers produce surplus labor value through the act of transporting groceries from the loading dock (and from the freezers and stock rooms) to the store shelves.
A shortcoming with the analysis in this article is that the piece has nothing to say about variations in the amount of surplus labor value produced by different segments of workers.
The thing to emphasize is that the amount of surplus created by Starbucks workers (or fast food workers) — or, to put it another way, the rate of exploitation in these sectors — is quite low. (In business parlance, it would be said that these are “low-margin” industries.) By comparison, industrial workers — particularly those employed in heavy and capital-intensive industries — tend to produce a tremendous amount of surplus labor value. This stems from the extremely efficient and capital-intensive nature of production processes in manufacturing.
Just to provide a case in point:
In September 2021, a group of industrial workers at the Dairy Farmers of America plant in Ventura, California voted in an NLRB election to unionize with Teamsters Local 186. The plant employs around 50 workers who “make Starbucks premade coffee products sold in retail stores,” according to the union press release. While I don’t have the statistical information relating to production volumes in front of me, I think it’s safe to assume that the workers at the Dairy Farmers of America plant in Ventura produce far, far greater volumes of drinks — and far greater amounts of surplus labor value — than their fellow workers employed in Starbucks coffee shops. This stems, again, from the capital-intensive, highly-efficient nature of the production process in such segments of manufacturing.
It is on this basis that industrial workers tend to have much more power than our brothers and sisters in retail.
It occurs to me that this line of analysis will be important in order to understand the developments that take place in the union movement that’s currently unfolding at Starbucks coffee shops.
https://teamster.org/2021/09/workers-in-california-who-make-starbucks-coffee-products-vote-to-join-teamsters-local-186/
Jules, this is excellent. I only have a superficial exposure to Marxist economics and analysis, but this was easy to read and made ideas I've come across quite clear.
Can you elaborate on how the idea of PMC plays into all of this? I'm not really familiar with Ehrenreich's definition, but I'm unsure of how middle managers and C-suite executives who rely on high wages fit into the Marxist model.