Reconciling market and moral logics on a minimum wage: Supermarket work in Australia during the first two years of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SSM. Qualitative research in health Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2024.100495
{"title":"Reconciling market and moral logics on a minimum wage: Supermarket work in Australia during the first two years of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2024.100495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Essential workers generate and maintain basic services that populations must receive, without interruption, to sustain a healthy, functional society. When SARS-COV-2 spread around the world, mundane low-paid work in essential non-healthcare industries such as supermarkets, became high risk, makeshift and unpredictable. Drawing on recent scholarship in the sociology of work, we conducted 32 interviews to capture how supermarket workers in Australia navigated the trade-offs and moral choices entailed in performing essential roles in non-health settings during a pandemic. We found that, as key assumptions about the resilience of globalised modernity and its supporting systems were tested, supermarket workers found themselves at the centre of experiments and public debates about the effectiveness and appropriateness of different infection control measures. Compensating for a lack of preparedness by governments and corporations, they were forced to accept, and then tasked with resolving inconsistencies between the political economy of low paid work and the moral economy of social provision. Given the experiences of those who found themselves in essential roles outside healthcare, there is an urgent need to reconceptualize what ‘successful’ pandemic preparedness and response entails. Reflecting on their experiences, these workers told us that expressions of solidarity and concern, from those not sharing their position of biological and financial precarity, were of little value. Drawing on the market logics that define their employment as essential and replaceable, the workers we spoke to observed that fair renumeration for risks and better protections were the most important considerations in recasting how societies prepare for future pandemics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321524001045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Essential workers generate and maintain basic services that populations must receive, without interruption, to sustain a healthy, functional society. When SARS-COV-2 spread around the world, mundane low-paid work in essential non-healthcare industries such as supermarkets, became high risk, makeshift and unpredictable. Drawing on recent scholarship in the sociology of work, we conducted 32 interviews to capture how supermarket workers in Australia navigated the trade-offs and moral choices entailed in performing essential roles in non-health settings during a pandemic. We found that, as key assumptions about the resilience of globalised modernity and its supporting systems were tested, supermarket workers found themselves at the centre of experiments and public debates about the effectiveness and appropriateness of different infection control measures. Compensating for a lack of preparedness by governments and corporations, they were forced to accept, and then tasked with resolving inconsistencies between the political economy of low paid work and the moral economy of social provision. Given the experiences of those who found themselves in essential roles outside healthcare, there is an urgent need to reconceptualize what ‘successful’ pandemic preparedness and response entails. Reflecting on their experiences, these workers told us that expressions of solidarity and concern, from those not sharing their position of biological and financial precarity, were of little value. Drawing on the market logics that define their employment as essential and replaceable, the workers we spoke to observed that fair renumeration for risks and better protections were the most important considerations in recasting how societies prepare for future pandemics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
协调最低工资的市场和道德逻辑:SARS-COV-2 大流行头两年澳大利亚的超市工作
基本工人创造并维持着人们必须不间断地获得的基本服务,以维持一个健康、正常运转的社会。当 SARS-COV-2 蔓延到世界各地时,超市等非医疗保健行业的平凡低薪工作变得高风险、临时性和不可预测。借鉴工作社会学的最新研究成果,我们进行了 32 次访谈,以了解澳大利亚的超市员工如何在大流行病期间,在非医疗机构中扮演重要角色,并在其中做出权衡和道德选择。我们发现,随着对全球化现代性及其支持系统的复原力的关键假设受到考验,超市工人发现自己处于实验和公共辩论的中心,辩论的主题是不同感染控制措施的有效性和适当性。为了弥补政府和企业的准备不足,他们被迫接受了低薪工作的政治经济学和社会供给的道德经济学之间的矛盾,并承担起解决矛盾的任务。鉴于那些发现自己在医疗保健之外扮演重要角色的人的经历,迫切需要重新认识 "成功的 "大流行病防备和应对措施的内涵。在反思自己的经历时,这些工作人员告诉我们,那些不认同他们在生理和经济上的不稳定状况的人所表达的声援和关心并没有什么价值。市场逻辑将他们的工作定义为基本的和可替代的,与我们交谈过的工人认为,公平的风险报酬和更好的保护是重塑社会如何准备应对未来流行病的最重要的考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
期刊最新文献
A methodological review of solicited diaries as a qualitative tool in health research in low- and middle-income countries Reconciling market and moral logics on a minimum wage: Supermarket work in Australia during the first two years of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic Social networks and stigma: The experiences of African immigrants living with HIV in the United States Racial and ethnic differences in patient psychological safety: A qualitative patient narrative study Conceptualizing precarious employment through the lens of social reproduction: Potential implications for health research and action
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1