March 8, 2010 The Postman’s Uniform
Life as a sociologist of work isn’t inevitably amusing, but Friday’s news that a group of French postal workers had taken La Poste to court for recompense for the labour involved in cleaning their uniforms made me smile. I did enjoy the challenge this court case makes to the idea that all labour that (re-)produces the working body is most appropriately done in the private sphere.
I have done some writing on the subject of ‘aesthetic labour’, the work of producing and presenting an acceptable working body, seen very clearly in Dawn’s post. In clothing retail in the UK, the cost of work clothing is usually borne by the employee and often has to come from current stock. Although employees may get a discount, the need to stay in fashion can be a burden to a worker on low wages; conceptually we can read this as showing how workers are implicated in consumption work as well as the labour market (Pettinger, 2008). Organisations’ demands for aesthetic labour reflects their presumptions about the importance of protecting and enhancing their ‘specific’ brand values (Pettinger, 2004), and marks a similarity between the postal worker and the sales assistant: both are configured as the embodiment of the corporation.
These postal workers will now be getting 5 euros a week for keeping themselves tidy; retail sales assistants are unlikely to start a similar campaign, tending instead celebrate the chance to “live it, love it, be the brand”, by buying themselves a nice new frock.
References
-
Pettinger, L. (2008) ‘Developing aesthetic labour: the importance of consumption’. International Journal of Work, Organisation and Emotions. 2 (4): 324–343.
- Pettinger, L. (2004) ‘Branded stores, branded workers: service work and aesthetic labour in fashion retail.’ Consumption, Markets and Culture 7(2): 165–84.