CLASSISM IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR WORKPLACE By CYNTHIA …dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/download.php?filename=mais/... · 2020. 10. 18. · Classism in the Public Sector Workplace 5 5

CLASSISM IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR WORKPLACE

By

CYNTHIA GORDON

MAIS 701 Integrated Studies Project

submitted to Dr. Paul Kellogg

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

October, 2015

Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Class and Classism ........................................................................................................................ 5

Unions and the Labour Movement ................................................................................................. 8

Public Sector Unions .......................................................................................................... 9

Classism Research ....................................................................................................................... 12

Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 12

Participants ....................................................................................................................... 12

Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 13

Measurements .................................................................................................................. 13

Results .......................................................................................................................................... 14

Table 1: Reported Comments about Unions ........................................................ 14

Table 2 Frequency of Comments ......................................................................... 14

Table 3 Experiences of Discrimination ................................................................. 15

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 18

References .................................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix A – Letter of Introduction .............................................................................................. 21

Appendix B – Questionnaire ......................................................................................................... 23

Classism in the Public Sector Workplace 3

3

Abstract

“Classism is the differential treatment based on social class or perceived social class. Classism is

… the systematic assignment of characteristics of worth and ability based on social class” (Class

Action, no date). This project will investigate classism and its “close relative” – anti-unionism –

as they manifest themselves in the current economic climate of globalization and austerity. The

project will be based on both a literature review and a questionnaire filled out by employees at

one community college workplace. It will explore the link between an organizational ideology

that frontline labour costs must be minimized to avoid catastrophe, and an atmosphere in the

greater community that unions have driven wages up too high, causing job loss, high taxes, and

an economic burden on the country.

Given the current economic climate and recent government deficits, does the pressure on the

public sector to “do more with less”, including wage restraints, intersect with an experience of

economic insecurity in the private sector? This project will test the hypothesis that in these

conditions public sector workers will report experiencing “classist” attitudes which might well

coincide with an intensification of “anti-union”, more specifically anti-public sector union,

attitudes in society as a whole.


4

Introduction

What is social class? For centuries the class you were born into determined the course of your

life – landowner, monarch, merchant, slave. Each was a distinct and stable category that was

next to impossible to move out of, especially if that meant moving “up”. In 1931, James Truslow

Adams coined the iconic term “American Dream” (1931, p.xx) – a term that enormously

influenced perceptions of North American life in the 20th century – invoking an ideal society

where individuals can be anything they want and they are not tied to the class of their birth.

Adams point was not to argue for “the elimination of social class distinctions, but for mobility

through the ranks based on hard work” (Schneiderman, 2012, p.xi). In the 21st century, there is

growing scepticism about this “mobility through the ranks”, and a growing sense that social class

is a more important, and more rigid category than the “American Dream” would have us believe.

There is always a need to have people fill working class jobs. Such jobs are often critical to

organizations, require hard work, and receive little recognition. Stereotypes surround people in

low wage jobs – captured by adjectives such as “lazy, less intelligent, crude” – that facilitate the

false promise that hard work will elevate workers to be “respectable” members of the middle

class.

The labour movement and unions in particular have worked to redress some of the class-based

power-imbalances in modern societies – Canada’s included – advocating for fairer wages,

improved working conditions, and accountability for health and safety from employers. Because

these policies all divert money from profits, they are often painted as a threat to businesses and

the economy as a whole. Anti-union rhetoric focuses on this while reinforcing the class structure

that unions are trying to resist.

This project will look for a link between class based discrimination and anti-unionism in the

public sector workplace. “Class” in this study is being used to indicate a basic division in society,

where those in the working class have fewer resources and less power than those in upper

classes. This system is a necessity in a capitalist economy where wage costs need to be kept low

to increase profits for businesses. But is it replicated in the public sector where the mandate to

create profit does not exist? Does classism go beyond the issue of money and extend to

judgements of the worth of people based on their job?

A universal definition of classism is hard to determine. An individual’s social class is the product

not just of their occupation or their parent’s work, but also their wealth, social capital, and power

to affect change in their communities. According to the non-profit group Class Action: “Classism

is the differential treatment based on social class or perceived social class. Classism is … the

systematic assignment of characteristics of worth and ability based on social class” (Class

Action, no date). If the goal of the labour movement is to increase the power of the working class

and classism is discrimination that maintains the power of the upper class how do these two ideas

manifest themselves in the current economic climate of globalization and austerity? The project

will be based on both a literature review and a questionnaire filled out by employees at one

community college workplace. It will explore the link between an organizational ideology that

frontline labour costs must be minimized to avoid catastrophe, and an atmosphere in the greater

community that unions have driven wages up too high, causing job losses and putting an

economic burden on the country.


5

Class and Classism

A review of the literature highlights the fact that social class is related to more than just income.

Class is defined in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary simply as “a division or order of society”

(“class”, 2004). Other researchers have defined it in terms of the power or status individuals

have, as reflected in their position in society. Lott (2012) examined the social psychology of

class, and her definition of the term stated that, “these divisions denote status, expectations,

locations, and power”. Individuals are socialised as part of a class from birth and the

repercussions of that shape their worldview (p. 650).

Lott highlights the different life experiences of those in the working class or in poverty compared

even with those from middle income families, saying “low income families face problems that

are hard to imagine for members of the middle class” (2012, p.651). Those problems include

having to choose which bills to pay, and being able to afford only the least inexpensive food.

There is substantial evidence that people from different social classes have vastly different

experiences and these differences are not solely related to income level. Individuals from

working and poor classes are often prejudged to be lazy, crude, and uneducated (Appio et al.,

2013). They are more likely to face irregular work hours and precarious employment, especially

those who are not members of a labour union.

Appio, Chambers and Mao also talk about the non-monetary identifiers of social class that

contribute to individuals from a working or poor social class having more limited abilities to

access power. “These types of stereotypes persist despite the fact that poor people encounter

numerous hardships and marginalising institutionalizing practices that make it difficult to meet

societal expectations and political success” (2013, p. 153). That is because the working class

cannot access power – they cannot access the means to change the system that perpetuates

stereotypes and class based discrimination. Appio, Chambers and Mao go on to write that:

“Occupation is one of the most defining characteristics of class identity” (2013, p. 154) – or:

what you do is what you are.

It is, of course, possible for those with a working class background to access higher education

and acquire professional degrees. In her discussion of classism in medical school, Beagan (2005)

also argues that, “social class is not just about money. Class also operates on the more subtle

level of cultural capital and social capital” (p. 779). She found that students from working class

backgrounds were lacking in the networks and knowledge of how to be and how to fit in with

middle to upper class classmates and faculty. This highlights another way in which leaving the

confines of the social class of your upbringing is not a simple manner.

In a similar fashion, Lott defines classism as comprising the “beliefs and behaviours directed

towards those with less power who are socially devalued” (p. 654). It is this power that is the key

to influencing society and directing social policy. “Those who gain power and are more able to

influence policy are those who already have greater access to resources” (p. 655). That is, the

power stays with those in upper classes because they have the resources to maintain it.

The idea that class is a status that is determined by more than just financial worth is also

discussed by Gray and Kish-Gephart (2013) who use the model of “class work” to explore how

individuals negotiate class differences in organizations. They define social class at work as


6

“based on difference in their economic capital (i.e., wealth), social capital (i.e., networks and

connections), and cultural capital (i.e. cultural tastes and practices developed through educational

and personal experiences)” (2013, p. 671). They argue that people maintain their class regardless

of their position or relative power in any given situation; that is someone may “rise through the

ranks” but still maintain the markers a working class person.

In her essay on the need to challenge classism, Yeskel (2007) draws on her experience hosting a

cross class group discussion as well as the literature on classism. She argues that, “class is our

collective family secret. We pretend it doesn’t exist” (p. 12). Writing from the United States,

Yeskel discusses the “American Dream” perspective that a meritocracy exists, in which anyone

can become anything they want if they work hard enough. And yet although people believe this

to be true “in fact they are less able to succeed economically” now than 20 years ago (p. 13).

Gray and Kish-Gephart (2013) argue that the meritocracy – “which asserts that success is based

on merit or ability and all individuals have an equal chance of achieving success” (p. 677) – is a

myth, and this myth perpetuates the idea that the working classes don’t work as hard and aren’t

as intelligent, because if they were then they would no longer be in the working class.

Yeskel also looks at the harm caused by the prejudices people hold and the labels attached to the

working class, saying that “the same prejudice is manifested in the treatment of service workers;

underpaying them, disregarding their humanity and often creating unnecessary tasks for them to

do” (p. 14). Living in poverty creates not only economic hardships, but also extreme stress,

which can lead to poor health outcomes. Yeskel also argues class is determined by more than just

wealth or lack thereof; we judge class “based on our own class culture, which includes normative

behaviors such as language use, manner of dress and the ‘proper’ guidelines for conducting

ourselves” (p. 15). Our class is projected in how we do everyday activities wherever we go.

Although it might not be well studied, class based discrimination is an old phenomenon. Grove

(2015) outlines the history of classism in the United States as it relates to citizenship and the

right to vote. In the US in 1790 any “free White person” of “good character” had citizenship

rights. The racism of this formulation is self-evident. But embedded in the concept is also a deep

classism. Key to this is the phrase “of good character”. The only way to keep poor white men

from citizenship, which may lead to their revolt against the system that kept the upper class in

power, was to assault their character. Thus derogatory terms like redneck, white trash, and

hillbilly are used to reinforce the bad character of the working class (p. 137). This was

particularly effective when working class people were limited in their earning power as

sharecroppers or farm labourers. However, with the Industrial Revolution came an increased

ability to earn a greater income. Grove explains that, “industrialization allowed hard work alone

to supplant property as the path to prosperity” (p. 136). But industrialization was not to be the

great equalizer. As reported by other researchers class is about more than income. In interviews

with working class white men in the Appalachians, Grove says, “classism understood as the

unfairness of working excessive hours is the face of their oppression” (p. 141). Hard work is not

rewarded with increased power or social capital.

Drawing on his own experiences growing up, Grove defies the stereotype that the working class

can be categorized solely on the basis of poverty. “[T]he almost-not-poor work harder than

anyone, but when you’re generations deep it’s about impossible to get out in your lifetime” (p.

134). He also talks about the divided loyalties of leaving his working class roots explaining: “I

got an easier life to dull the pain and a load of imposter’s self-doubt and collaborator guilt to


7

make up the difference” (p. 134). Just as Beagan reported that medical school students from

working class backgrounds struggle to fit in with upper class colleagues and professors, Grove

highlights the difficulty of leaving the working class for “something better”.

While other researchers have referenced the social indicators of class, Pincus and Sokoloff

(2008) defined classism as the “undifferentiated hierarchy of economic inequity”. In their review

of class oppression Pincus and Sokoloff explore the history of classism and find it is a term that

has not been well studied. They outline three theories of classism:

1) Marxist theorists who deploy a “rational concept based on economic exploitation” where

the capitalists own the means of power;

2) Stratification theorists who identify society as having different stratifications based on

income distribution, but where there is “no clear concept distinctions between the

different stratifications”. Those with more money have more power and different

lifestyles, but stratification theorists offer no criticism of this point;

3) Finally, classism theorists who speak of dominant versus subordinate groups and

articulate a theory that is closer to stratification than to Marxist. However the authors

argue that “referring to capitalists as a dominant group doesn’t do justice to the power

and privilege of the capital class” (p. 17).

The authors go on to look at classism through the lenses of discrimination and exploitation,

contrasting the experience of being denied entry to a restaurant because of your race with the

experience of not being able to go to the restaurant because you aren’t able to pay for the meal.

The individual in the first case could file a legal complaint against the restaurant because of

discrimination. The person in the second case would be told to get a better job – that it is their

own shortcomings that deny them a meal at the restaurant. Although not being able to afford a

meal at a fine dining restaurant or a first class airline ticket is accepted as part of everyday life

for those who are in lower or middle classes, Pincus and Sokoloff make an interesting

comparison to race based discrimination. Capitalists work to maintain the status quo divisions

between the upper and working classes; this is not seen as discrimination: it is good business

practice, and is perfectly legal (Pincus and Sokoloff, 2008). Two conflicting ideas always co-

exist in this model, that it is the individual’s fault that they are poor and that there must be people

who work and are poor in a capitalist society. There is always opportunity for someone to move

out of the working class individually, but at the same time, there must always be a class of

exploited people.

Gray and Kish-Gephart (2013) discuss classism in the workplace. Whereas class is rarely

discussed, it is nonetheless a universal element of identity, and a driving factor of workplace

interactions. Habitus is “how social class differences manifest themselves in society” (p. 671).

When people interact they display these differences “through forms of institutionalized, class

specific behavior”. The authors refer to this as “class work”. Through this “class work

individuals are both conforming to class rules and also reinforcing the class distinctions that give

rise to them” (p. 671). Often the only time individuals of different classes interact with each

other is in the workplace, as neighbourhoods and social circles are generally class-segregated.

Working, middle and upper classes – when interacting in organizations – consistently perform

class work, which Gray and Kish-Gephart argue becomes “institutionalized through individuals’


8

collective behaviour” (p. 685) as a way to minimize anxiety resulting from challenges to the

meritocracy. This work becomes expected behaviour for all classes, and is the normal course of

interacting at work. The authors refer to this as discipline and argue that individuals have

internalized class work and believe they are acting of their own accord. “[D]iscipline innoculates

perceptions of inadequacy among low-status workers while affirming the value and privilege of

elites” (p. 685). Just as the myth of meritocracy reinforces the validity of classism, the continued

practice of class work in organizations normalizes the stereotypes associated with lower and

upper classes.

Gray and Kish-Gephart (2013) develop a theoretical framework to describe the behaviours

associated with class work. They look at both how individuals perform their class and how they

interact with each other. The strategies employed either attempt to deny the existence of class

inequality (such as when the boss invites the front line employees to a barbecue), justify their

existence (when middle class workers reference their education and position to differentiate from

the less “competent” working class), or create “firewalls” to avoid interactions (by establishing

separate lunch rooms and parking spaces).

In a for-profit business the drive is to have the greatest profits and one of the key factors in

increasing profits is the control of labour costs. This provides a purpose for class work which

reinforces the social “reasons” for class distinctions and differential treatment for the working

class in terms outside of company profit. In an organization where profits depend on the bulk of

workers being low paid regardless of their contributions to the company, their inferior status can

be explained by their failings to rise above their class. “Class work” reinforces the negative

stereotypes that justify exploitation of the working class. By contrast, public sector employers do

not have the same mandate to generate profits for shareholders. Without the need for profits to

enforce wage divisions and social hierarchies in the workplace do those hierarchies still exist?

How is this reflected in the public sector? The similarities and differences between the private

and public sector workforces, are highlighted by the similarities and differences in the labour

movements in each sector.

Unions and the Labour Movement

Power in capitalism has been historically exercised by elites or ruling classes. However, the

working classes have wrestled some power for themselves in part through the labour movement.

When workers united and took action together they had a power that the capitalist class could not

ignore: the power to stop their means of generating profits.

The labour-capital relationship structures the experience of labour in a manner which “crosses

borders” – perhaps nowhere more clearly than the long border between the United States and

Canada. While there are important regional stories in both countries – the particular cases of the

U.S. South, the Canadian West, the U.S. “rust belt”, and Quebec, just to name a few – there are

also histories and themes which are part of a common heritage. In all regions of North America,

the labour movement has a history of fighting for the eight-hour work day, fair wages, and safe

working conditions, all items that needed to be won from a capitalist class intent on maintaining

its profits. Grove (2015) argued that the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution were

not positive ones for the working class in the United States. A similar claim could be made for

the situation of labour in Canada. The struggle of the labour movement to establish a fair share of


9

the increased wealth for the worker was a common thread in both countries throughout the early

part of the 20th century. A classic example of this is the Flint, Michigan “sit down” strike of

1937.

In January 1937 10,000 General Motors (GM) workers went on strike for among other things the

“recognition of the union... increased minimum wage, a 30-hour 5-day week… and a slowdown

of the assembly line” (Mason, 2010, p.267). What followed was a massive standoff between GM

management who had the support of the local police and workers who had occupied the plant,

supported by their spouses, and other protesters outside. According to Paul Mason (2010) “Flint

had become not only a national symbol for the rise of industrial unionism but a practical rallying

point for the trade unionists across the state” (p. 268). In the end not only did the United Auto

Workers settle with GM but “in the two weeks that followed, 87 factories were occupied … each

subsequently signed deals with the CIO [Congress of Industrial Organizations]” (p. 269).

Thousands of workers were able to live better lives because of a change the actions these

workers took to shut down production at General Motors. By joining together the working class

was able to exert some power over the factory owners.

In both the United States and Canada, there has been an erosion in the power of unions. This has

been particularly noticeable in the United States, where rates of unionization have declined to

extremely low levels – from 20.1 per cent in 1983 to just 11.1 per cent in 2014 (U.S. Department

of Labor, 2015). At the same time, according to Michael Zimmer (2011), “economic inequality

at a worldwide level has been generally increasing” (p. 124). The Great Recession of 2008-2009,

has had an impact on the public’s opinions about unions. He says that “public support polling

since the start of the Great Recession demonstrates a sharp decline in public support for unions”

(p. 125). Zimmer goes on to explain that neo-liberal economic theory “assumes that labour

relations is a zero-sum game between two players, capital and labor: what one side wins the

other loses” (p. 130). Thus, when stock markets suffer steep losses, in order to regain those

losses labour must lose in the “game” of workplace negotiations. Many unions did just that as

they signed concession deals with their employers. Zimmer is referring to the United States,

however concessions were also made in contracts between unions and employers in Canada.

In Canada union density is also falling, if nowhere near as steeply as in the United States.

According to Jeff Noonan, “the percentage of unionized workers has fallen from 33.7 per cent in

1999 to 29.7 percent in 2011” (Noonan, 2013, p.9). Noonan argues that “neo-liberalism has

systematically targeted the gains made by working people and oppressed and excluded minorities

in the struggle for social justice” (p. 10). Noonan states that neo-liberalism has pitted different

groups of workers against each other “employed and unemployed, public and private sector,

unionized and non-unionized” (p. 11). These tensions are reflected in the political rhetoric

around the labour movement and, as this research will highlight, the experiences of people

working in the public sector.

Public Sector Unions

The story of the Great Recession was primarily a story of the private for profit sector, and seeing

the effect of a recession on the private sector is relatively straightforward. What was the effect on

the public sector? It is not charged with generating profits in an economic downturn, so the effect

is not direct. However, there is an indirect impact, through the weight of increasing public sector


10

deficits. The recession saw a loss in the tax revenue on which the public sector relies. In addition,

government stimulus spending – money spent to boost the economy – also contributed to fiscal

deficits – and cuts to public sector payrolls were an obvious solution to the deficits.

Historically, the narratives shared about public sector unions by politicians have helped shaped

public opinion towards unions. Specifically, one of the key determinants of public opinion of

unions is the manner in which the cost of labour is framed in government rhetoric. In their study

of the economics of the public sector, Free, Radcliffe, and White (2013) highlight that in 1977

the Government of Canada passed the Auditor General Act, an act which paved the way for the

Auditor General to use value-for-money auditing (p. 441). Citing Foucault, they argue that

political debates use idealised representation of issues, and they become more widely accepted as

they are repeated across different forms. The political sound bite is an example. “[T]hese

political rationalities serve to develop the scope of persuasive and acceptable debate and guide

the choice of which ideas…should become supported” (p. 443). In doing this, politicians are

setting the tone of discussion on any given topic, including the work conditions of their

employees. Value-for-money auditing “offered a solution to a government financial issues that

had been successfully problematized to the extent that they were routinely depicted as a crisis”

(p. 454). That is, the government – rather than focussing attention on the systemic sources of the

fiscal crisis, suggested that it was something that could be solved with new public management

and cutting public sector costs. A process that began in 1977 still shapes the discourse in the 21st

Century.

In a similar fashion Roberge (2014), discusses how the government uses narratives to support

public sector management and cutbacks. Narratives can be used “to analyse and to prescribe” (p.

131) – first by providing a “rich and thick” description to represent reality, then on this basis

“narratives can generate actions through ‘performativity’”. For example narratives can bring the

electorate around to supporting austerity measures brought about to counter the deficits created

by stimulus spending.

In his research of the response to the Great Recession in both Canada and the United States, Rose

(2013) highlights the similarities and differences in public sector employment between the two

countries. He outlines that in both countries the government responded to the recession with

economic stimulus packages that limited the short-term impact of the recession, but at the cost of

increased deficits. “As stimulus measures gave way to austerity programs, policy makers

increasingly focused on reducing expenditures and restraining public sector compensation” (p.

189). Because of less stringent collective bargaining laws and a lower union density in the US

public sector, the impact in the two countries was interestingly different. “Suffice to say, the US

approach attacked the legitimacy of public sector unions and undermined collective bargaining,

whereas the Canadian approach involved short-run modifications to the established bargaining

system” (p. 190).

Rose argues that the drastic response to the recession in the US, “fundamentally eroded or

eliminated collective bargaining rights” (p. 191), enacted a conservative vision of less

government, and generated a general anti-labour ideology. Additionally, the United States was in

a poorer fiscal position going into the Great Recession (p. 192). Austerity and job cuts were part

of the response to the deficits created by stimulus spending in Canada as well but “in contrast to

the United States, the emphasis was on constraining bargaining outcomes rather than eroding or

eliminating collective bargaining rights” (p. 192). By illustrating the differences in public sector


11

management between Canada and the United States Rose argues, correctly, that Canadian public

sector workers are in a better position. Better, however, is still not ideal.

Researchers like McDonough and Polzer (2012) and Murray, Lévesque and Le Capitaine (2014)

explore the effects of “New Public Management” (NPM) on public sector workers. Murray,

Lévesque and Le Capitaine describe NPM as exerting “cascading effects on work organization

and labor relations, with workplace union delegates on the front line of change” through its

“focus on cost reduction and the optimization of performance” (p. 178). In NPM the focus is on

efficiency especially on “front line” workers through job cuts and wage freezes. McDonough and

Polzer (2012) review how that impacts employees’ feelings about work and their performance. In

the private sector this focus on the working class as the cost drivers for business (that is labour

costs being a hindrance to the ability of a business to succeed) has been linked to classism, an

ideology the capitalist class needs to keep wages low in order to maintain their positions in the

upper class (Pincus and Sokoloff, 2008). In the public sector the narrative is focused on saving

taxpayer money and a bid to get more votes.

An example of the impact of neo-liberalism and New Public Management can be found in

Fanelli and Lefebvre’s (2012) research on the Ottawa and Gatineau Museum Workers’ Strike of

2009. Neo-liberalism, when applied to public sector workers, saw the move from the Standard

Employment Relationship that developed after World War II where one (white male)

breadwinner worked a reliable job which generated enough wages to support a family. As this

began to erode “the state’s role came to be seen as ensuring the institutional preconditions for

free trade, private property and “flexible” labour market conditions (p. 125). Flexible labour is

code for part time, contract, shift work that offers no stability to employees but allows employers

to adjust their labour costs to market conditions.

The Ottawa Museum strike illustrates the social cost of flexible work. It began September 21,

2009 and involved employees of several museums in the Ottawa-Gatineau region. The museums

had used “the recession as an excuse to freeze wages and contract out employees” (p. 129). In

order to keep employees in non-stable contract positions, the employer “regularly terminated

temporary positions days before they would reach the level at which they would become eligible

for a permanent position” (p. 130). This happened with such frequency and consistency that

some temporary employees had accumulated 20 years of experience. This type of work

arrangement is not isolated to the Ottawa museums, but is common to public sector employment

at both the federal and provincial levels.

Fanelli and Lefebvre link the state of public sector unions to a greater class war. “Current labour

struggles under the new Conservative majority of Prime Minister Harper are about … defending

public services, democratic control over resources and decision-making power… in short it is

about recognizing the Tory attacks as acts of class war” (p. 137). They call for unions to be the

flag bearers for the working classes in this war, “to be anchored in a politics that oriented its

struggles toward the emancipation of the working class as a whole and, therewith, the abolition

of class privileges” (p. 138). This call to action may sound radical, but as reported by participants

in the current study, tensions between classes and unionized versus non-unionised working class

members are part of daily life.


12

Classism Research

There have been limited research studies on the subject of classism. However, if as a topic it has

not been very visible, as a lived reality it is ubiquitous. Felice Yeskel is one of those beginning to

fill the void in research. According to Yeskel (2007): “walk into any hospital cafeteria and you’ll

seldom see the class lines broken…. There will be tables of nurses, tables of doctors, and tables

of working crews…The divisions aren’t only based on race or gender; they are based on class -

what Noam Chomsky calls ‘the unmentionable five-letter word’ “ (p.12). Outside of the work

environment people rarely interact with people from other classes, generally living in

homogeneous neighbourhoods and socializing only with those of a similar background.

In some other recent and promising research on classism, Thompson and Subich (2013) surveyed

college students about the barriers they have encountered as a result of classism. In their

development of a measurement tool to identify the effects of classism on college students

Thompson and Subich comment that “classism may influence how workers perceive and value

themselves and their work” (p.155) and suggested more research could explore the longitudinal

effects.

In their 2013 study of classism and college students, Thompson and Subich noted that “the

relative paucity of vocational research addressing social class and classism may be partly a

function of inadequate measurement tools” (p.140). Thompson and Subich argue that this may be

a reflection of the fact that classism has only recently been considered in psychological research

(p.140). Why is that?? Because it is a topic that just isn’t discussed.

Thompson and Subich address the lack of adequate measurements of classism by developing the

“Experiences with Classism Scale” (EWCS) using a measurement of racism as a starting point

and altering items to reflect class and not ethnic discrimination. Although their intention was to

develop a measure to be used to identify discrimination and psychological distress from that

discrimination they indicate, “the EWCS was designed to examine the experiences with classism

of students in higher education and present findings may not generalise to a broader adult

population” (p.154).

With this survey of theories of classism in mind, we can now turn to the results of the workplace

questionnaire.

Methods

Participants

Participants were recruited from the union membership of the Canadian Union of Public

Employees (CUPE), Local 349. This local represents full time permanent support staff at

Georgian College, a community college with several campuses in central Ontario, Canada. The

local has a total of 350 members. Of those 26 completed the questionnaire. Like all community


13

colleges in Ontario, only those who work full time are members of CUPE. Part time workers do

not have representation, working in contract positions that must be renewed annually or more

frequently, and have no company benefits (beyond some staff discounts etc.).

Procedures

An introductory letter and a link to the questionnaire were emailed to the secretary of the local

who then forwarded it to the union membership (see Appendix A). The letter clearly outlined

that participation is voluntary and in no way affiliated with their employment.

Measurements

The questionnaire consisted of questions relating to the participants’ perception of being treated

differently by virtue of their union membership and their class (referred to as the type of job they

do or “occupational group or income”). The questionnaire was developed using the model of

Thompson and Subich’s “Experiences with Classism Scale” (2013), referred to earlier. This scale

was developed in the United States for use with college students, so the questionnaire for this

study was modified to be applicable to working adults and to include measures related to union

membership as well. In order to judge for differences across social groups, participants were

asked to consider interactions with coworkers who are and are not union members, management,

and people outside of the workplace.

The questionnaire was delivered electronically on Google Forms. There was no requirement for

participants to answer every question.


14

Results

At the end of the collection period 26 people had participated in the questionnaire. This

represents less than one percent of the membership. A low response rate was expected due to the

nature of the study (classism is not a topic that many choose to talk about) and there were no

reminders or incentives to participate offered.

Table 1: Reported Comments about Unions

Table 2 Frequency of Comments

As Table 1 illustrates, respondents were more likely to have encountered comments about unions

from those outside of their workplace and those comments were more likely to be negative.

Table 2 also illustrates a greater frequency of comments about unions from outside the

workplace. Discrepancies in the numbers of “No” responses in Table 1 and the number of

participants who reported hearing no comments in Table 2 indicates some response errors.

In the past year have you heard comments about unions from…

Management? Non-union coworkers?

People outside of the workplace?

No 13 13 2

Yes - it was both positive and negative

10 10 15

Yes - it was negative 1 2 8

Yes - it was positive 2 1 1

How many times have you heard comments about unions…

Management? Non-union coworkers?

People outside of the workplace?

0 14 11 0

1-5 10 7 14

6-10 2 4 2

More than 10 0 2 8


15

Table 3 Experiences of Discrimination

Do you believe you have been discriminated against…

Because of your union membership?

Because of your occupational group or income?

By your employers, bosses, or supervisors 2 3

By your coworkers 2 4

By people in service jobs 1 5

By people in helping jobs 0 0

By institutions 1 1

By others in your workplace 4 3

More participants reported discrimination because of their occupational group or income than

because of their union membership. In a similar question, only four participants reported

criticisms about their physical appearance.

When asked to recall any workplace disputes, seven participants had experienced a dispute at

work and five of those indicated it was related to the type of work they do. Three of those

individuals felt they were not treated fairly. This preliminary research does not ask them for

more details about the nature of their dispute but further research into a link between feelings of

anti-unionism and workplace disputes would be warranted.

Two open-ended long response questions were also included; “Please give a specific example of

an interaction or incident you experienced that indicated to you that your occupational group or

income was an issue for the other person or an organization:” and “Please give a specific

example of an interaction or incident you experienced that indicated to you that your union

membership was an issue for the other person or an organization.”

Many of the responses to these questions highlight the tensions between Full Time (FT) and Non

Full Time (NFT) part time and contract workers. “Non-unionized friends criticizing my

workplace suggesting unionised members were protected from firing even though they were

‘lazy’ and not worth what they were paid” one participant stated as an example of an interaction

in the workplace. Another participant made a similar observation “I work directly with NFT

faculty and part-time support. They often complain about their pay rate, the instability of their

position and their gaps in employment or pay.” Another reported a feeling that non full time co-

workers seemed jealous when she/he returned from a leave of absence “although there are certain

privileges with our union contract…people don’t often like or appreciate when you utilize these

privileges”. Although participants have sympathy for the plight of non-full-time staff “part-time

employees are paid significantly less than unionized full timers - have no job security, no

benefits and often don't get paid for stat holidays”, they also note tension between employees

with more and less power; “this inequality has resulted in a number of comments / conversations


16

about unfair practises and workload”. The tension between full time and part time workers led

one respondent to say “I have also been made to feel guilty about individuals work hours, pay,

the need to arrange for transportation or childcare arrangements. It has appeared to me that the

hard work I have put into my career is overshadowed by the fact that I am a member of the union

in a coveted payband”. She or he feels that the differential treatment of part time staff has created

an atmosphere where positive working relationships are a challenge.

Another theme participant’s reported was a lack of ability to move up in the hierarchy and a lack

of respect from management. A participant noted that people give her/him more respect when

she moved up in pay scale, however also stated “I want to be recognized by my contributions and

expertise, not my hourly wage”. Respect was a common concern as another noted a change in the

level of respect from management; “management no longer include support staff in decision

making, actually they consciously exclude us”.

Participants also reported few opportunities to advance. One respondent reported that: “In

discussing career progression, it was indicated to me by a person in an HR role that because of

my membership in the union, my ability to progress to higher roles would be limited. It was not

said disprespectfully (sic), simply stated as a fact, that the union puts roles into boxes and we are

not able to move outside of the lines due to union rules”. Another respondent reported that: “the

one program that support staff can take to improve their chances of getting into part-time

teaching, the Teaching and Training Adults program, is no longer eligible for subsidized tuition”.

A third stated “unless we have a degree we cannot move up in the institution (which doesn't

speak highly of what management thinks of the programs we offer/our graduates given that we

primarily grant certificates and diplomas), I would actually be excluded from applying for my

own job and I have 30 years experience”.

A final theme in the comments revolves around the perception of public sector union jobs in the

public at large. One indicated that she/he, “often receive comments from those outside the

institution regarding having an ‘overpaid’ and ‘cushy government job’ which is far from the

truth”. Some of the comments echo the stereotypes ascribed to the working and middle classes.

“Non-unionized friends criticizing my workplace suggesting unionized members were protected

from firing even though they were ‘lazy’ and not worth what they were paid”, which is echoed

by a co-worker saying “people outside the organization seem to think that we are paid well for

doing little and that the union supports doing little for much”. The narrative that public sector

unions have driven up taxes and user costs was also mentioned, one respondent identifying the

“assumption that working at Georgian College means you are paid excessive $ (sic) on the backs

of the taxpayer and students”. Another participant described interactions with someone external

to the college “When describing my role at the college, the person to whom I was speaking said

'Oh, you aren't a teacher' (negative tone), as if to say what I did was not important and irrelevant.

The only role that mattered at the college was the faculty role” reflecting the increased esteem

placed on members of the middle class.

Discussion

The questionnaire was designed to generate some preliminary data on classism and anti-

unionism in one public sector workplace. The data indicates participants have encountered some

negative attitudes that are reflective of classism and anti-unionism but the response rate is too


17

small to generalize to a larger population. Future studies could include a greater number of

workplaces and efforts to increase the response rate.

Data indicates some response error as the number of people who answered “no” when asked if

they had heard comments about unions did not match the number of people who reported who

answered “0” when asked to report how many times they had heard comments about unions. To

account for this error, future versions of the research should only allow participants to answer the

frequency question if they answered that they had heard comments about unions.

As comments about unions were most frequently heard from people outside of the workplace,

further study should also investigate who outside of the workplace makes these comments –

family and neighbours, people who are more likely from the same class, or people on social

media or other fora with a more mixed class representation.

Few participants reported that they believe they had been discriminated against because of their

union membership or occupational group or income. “Discriminated” is a strong word. That even

a few participants believed this had happened is an indication of the attitudes that working class

people encounter on a daily basis. One measure of class is appearance. How an individual

dresses often indicates the status of his/her job as well as income level. For example lower status

jobs often require employees to wear a uniform, high pay and high status jobs give employees

the freedom to dress as they choose or may require business formal attire which signifies status

in the same manner fast food service uniforms do. Although only four participants noted

criticisms based on their appearance, in a culture where such comments are rarely made, that any

criticisms were noted suggests value in further study of the issue.

The answers to the open ended questions highlight the friction between non-union part time staff

and full time union members. People who work part-time often need the same qualifications to

hold the position as full time employees. Non-union members have precarious lower paid

positions often doing the same work as their full time counterparts. But rather than being equal

members of a working class they have a lower status and fewer privileges, causing tensions. It

reflects some of the goals of NPM and highlights the tensions that can develop in the work place

related to classism. Respondents referenced negative encounters with both those in lower status

positions and those in management or external roles.

There are also tensions related to management, as numerous participants indicated that they felt

their value in the eyes of management had decreased. There is not enough data from this study to

come to a definitive conclusion, but the pressures to conform to fiscal austerity measures may

mean an increased distancing between management and workers. Gray and Kish-Kephart review

a number of ways that social distance between classes is maintained in the workplace. They

argue that when members of the middle class feel threatened because “lower class gains in the

workplace often come at their expense” (p. 681) they will work to distinguish themselves from

the “masses”.

These instances provide anecdotal evidence of the working environment for public sector union

members. This suggests that anti-unionism and classism are perceived both from management

and from those who are in less privileged positions. Further research including part time staff

would be beneficial to measure whether the perceptions reported by participants in this study are

reflective of the feelings of part time workers.


18

Through classism the goals of new public management are being met. The double edged sword

of: a) privilege for the upper and middle classes; and, b) perceived lack of ability and effort of

the working class – coupled with the myth of meritocracy (that if you just work hard enough you

can advance as far as you want) reinforces neo-liberal ideology in public sector workplaces.

Conclusion

This study is a preliminary look at the issues of anti-unionism and classism in a public sector

work place. Although universal conclusions cannot be drawn from such a small sample size this

does give a window into the type of anti-unionism and classism that is experienced in a public

sector workplace. If workplace relations continue on the same trajectory what will the outcome

be?

The responses to the questionnaire are limited by responder bias. This must be taken into

consideration when evaluating the results. Several other class researchers commented that

classism is a topic that is simply not talked about. Many people feel it doesn’t exist or do not

want to admit its existence. That could be reflected in the number of responses generated here.

The results do support the findings of the literature that classism exists and colours the day to

day interactions in organizations and in the community. By naming and studying classism as a

phenomenon in Canadian society the myth of a direct relation between hard work and social

position can be challenged.

This study has not attempted to measure the long-term effects of classism, but rather to

investigate the existence of class or union based discrimination in one public sector workplace. It

cannot definitively answer the questions posed earlier in the paper. Is there a link between the

current climate of government deficits, pressure on the public sector to “do more with less” and

public sector wage restraint and the experience of economic insecurity in the private sector? Has

this environment contributed to perceptions of class and anti-union discrimination in the public

sector work place? But if no definitive answers are possible, the initial tentative impression from

this small sample size is a “yes” to both questions. At the very least, it suggests the need for

future research.


19

References

Adams, J. T. (1931) The Epic of America. Piscataway NJ: Transaction Publishers. 2012.

Appio, L. Chambers, D.-A. and Mao, S. (2013) Listening to the voices of the poor and disrupting

the silence about class issues in psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 69 (2),

152–161. DOI:10.1002/jclp.21954.

Beagan, B. L. (2005) Everyday Classism in Medical School: Experiencing Marginality and

Resistance. Medical Education. 39 (8), 777–784. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-

2929.2005.02225.x.

class. (2004). The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Class Action [no date] What Is Classism. Class Action. Available from:

http://www.classism.org/about-class/what-is-classism/ (Accessed 2 April 2015).

Available from: http://www.classism.org/about-class/what-is-classism/ (Accessed 2 April

2015).

Fanelli, C. & Lefebvre, P. (2012) The Ottawa and Gatineau Museum Worker’s strike: Precarious

Employment and the Public Sector Squeeze. Alternate Routes: A Journal of Critical

Social Research. 23121–146.

Free, C. Radcliffe, V.S. and White, B. (2013) Crisis, Committees and Consultants: The Rise of

Value-For-Money Auditing in the Federal Public Sector in Canada. Journal of Business

Ethics. 113 (3), 441–459. DOI:10.1007/s10551-012-1315-5.

Gray, B. & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2013) Encountering Social Class Differences at Work: How

‘Class Work’ Perpetuates Inequality. Academy of Management Review. 38 (4), 670–699.

DOI:10.5465/amr.2012.0143.

Grove, J. K. (2015) Unmarked and Unheard ‘Researching’ Working-Class White Men in an

Appalachian Borderland—A Narrative. The Journal of Men’s Studies. 23 (2), 123–146.

DOI:10.1177/1060826515582488.

Lott, B. (2012) The Social Psychology of Class and Classism. American Psychologist. 67 (8),

650–658. DOI:10.1037/a0029369.

Mason, P. (2010) Live Working or Die Fighting: How the Working Class went Global. Chicago:

Haymarket Books.

McDonough, P. & Polzer, J. (2012) Habitus, Hysteresis, and Organizational Change in the

Public Sector. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie. 37 (4),

357–379.

Murray, G. Lévesque, C. and Le Capitaine, C. (2014) Workplace Empowerment and

Disempowerment What Makes Union Delegates Feel Strong? Labor Studies Journal. 39

(3), 177–201. DOI:10.1177/0160449X14534732.


20

Noonan, J. (2013) The Historical and Contemporary Life-Value of the Canadian Labour

Movement. Labour / Le Travail. 71 (1), 9–27.

Pincus, F. L. & Sokoloff, N. J. (2008) Does‘ Classism’ Help Us to Understand Class

Oppression? Race, Gender & Class. 15 (1), 9–23.

Roberge, I. (2014) New Development: Canada’s Cutback Management. Public Money &

Management. 34 (2), 131–134. DOI:10.1080/09540962.2014.8875.

Rose, J. B. (2013) Austerity Blues: Public Sector Bargaining Rights in the United States and

Canada. Labor Law Journal. 64 (4), 189.

Schneiderman, H. (2012) ‘Introduction to the Transaction Edition’, in The Epic of America.

Piscataway NJ: Transaction Publishers. pp. ix – xviii.

Thompson, M. N. & Subich, L. M. (2013) Development and Exploration of the Experiences with

Classism Scale. Journal of Career Assessment. 21 (1), 139–158.

U.S. Department of Labor (2015) Union Members Summary. Available from:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm (Accessed 23 October 2015).

Yeskel, F. (2007) Opening Pandora’s box: Adding Classism to the Agenda. The Diversity

Factor. 15 (1), 11–16.

Zimmer, M. J. (2011) Unions & the Great Recession: Is Transnationalism the Answer? Employee

Rights & Employment Policy Journal. 15 (1), 123–158.


21

Appendix A – Letter of Introduction

August 10, 2015

Dear employees of Georgian College:

As part of the fulfillment of my Master of Arts in Integrated Studies at Athabasca University, I plan to do a final project on classism in the workplace. A core component of that project will be an anonymous on-line questionnaire addressed to unionized employees at Georgian College. As a former co-worker, I am excited to involve my colleagues in the research work and hope that the project description below will encourage you to become involved. The questionnaire is designed to elicit information regarding: the way in which power is expressed throughout the workplace; and the manner in which unions are perceived within the workplace. I will write a final paper that presents my analysis and conclusions – including an assessment of methodological strengths, weaknesses and limitations given the scope of the questionnaire.

The final paper will be sent via email to the executive to be shared with you.

Your participation in this is in a personal capacity, and you are not in any way representing either your employer or your union. You may choose at any time not to answer a question and at any time you are free to withdraw from participation in the project by not submitting the form. Consent to use your data is implied

You will not be asked to include any identifying information, however because the questionnaire will be completed using Google Forms (a company in the United States) the data is subject to the US Patriot Act. Although unlikely in this case all information stored on US servers may be inspected. The data from completed questionnaires will be downloaded every 24 hours and removed from the Google servers to my personal computer in Canada.

I am willing to answer any concerns or questions about the project. If you need to contact

me, my email address is [email protected]. Participation is, of course, voluntary.

The questionnaire is completely anonymous and no personal data will be collected. Click on

the link below to complete the survey. Once you have answered all the questions you choose to

answer, you consent to participation in the research by pressing the SUBMIT button at the end of

the survey. Once you have submitted your completed questionnaire, you cannot withdraw from

the study.

The Survey can be found at:

http://goo.gl/forms/hceF9AKv46

Thank you for your participation,

Cynthia Gordon

Athabasca University Graduate Student


22

Supervisor: Paul Kellogg, [email protected], 1-866-916-8664

Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies

Peace Hills Trust Tower

12th Floor, 10011 109 Street,

Edmonton, AB T5J 3S8

This study has been reviewed by the Athabasca University Research Ethics Board.

Should you have any comments or concerns regarding your treatment as a participant

in this study, please contact the Office of Research Ethics at 1-800-788-9041, ext. 6718

or by e-mail to [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


23

Appendix B – Questionnaire


24


25


26

Documents

CLASSISM IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR WORKPLACE By CYNTHIA …dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/download.php?filename=mais/... · 2020. 10. 18. · Classism in the Public Sector Workplace 5 5