If you’ve ever been to a coworking space, you know that DWYL is ubiquitous. But DWYL is much more than aspirational knick-knacks: it’s also been adopted by HR departments and incorporated into software designed to manage employees’ satisfaction with their jobs.
What are the political implications of DWYL? This tote offers a sharp answer:
And what if you don’t love what you do? How is your work valued then? A recent Media Diversified piece provocatively demands that you pay your cleaner what you earn or clean up yourself:
if somebody saves you time by doing your cleaning, and you don’t pay that person what your time is worth, it must be concluded that you value your time above theirs. In that case, outsourced cleaning is a moral problem because it is a nod to a system in which some people’s labour is worth less than other people’s leisure, and that’s a recipe for all manner of inequalities. While this disparity is true of many jobs, the difference is that you aren’t employing those people; your cleaner is your employee, and you have a chance to do things differently.
And if you’re still mulling over the Weeks chapter, here’s an interview with her that covers the same material in a more conversational style. To tie into our discussions from last week, here she is on the “feminization of labor”:
It’s not my favorite term, but what I understand by it is a way to describe how in neoliberal post-Fordist economies more and more of waged jobs come to resemble traditional forms of feminized domestic work. This is particularly evident in the rise of precarious forms of low-wage, part-time, informal, and insecure forms of employment, and in the growth of service sector jobs that draw on workers’ emotional, caring, and communicative capacities that are undervalued and difficult to measure.