Jenny’s Pennies

In the arts section of yesterday’s Dagens Nyheter, there is an article called “The glamorous prostitution” (Den glamorösa prostitutionen). It starts: “They say sex sells. And the luxurious and happy whore sells even better. Now the Swedish books are here. But why is everyone so happy?”

Well, after reading that intro, I just knew what was coming.
The article then talks about pseudonymous London call girl Belle de Jour and Tracy Quan’s “Diary of a Manhattan call girl”. Now, a former Swedish stripper, Caroline L Jensen, is telling her story in “Champagneflickan. En svensk strippa berättar” (The champagne girl. The story of a Swedish stripper).

The author is (predictably) critical of the subject. In the end, the not so objective article reads (my translation):

Publishers are thus putting out books that portray prostitution and stripping as exotic occupations - but without caring about what signals they are sending out. A lot of the themes addressed in the books (buying sex, exploitation, the “happy whore”, free choice and so on) are of course pure mine fields. Behind the tough girls in luxurious packaging lays a lot of unanswered questions. As a reader you have to be careful not to be tricked by the glamour and the shiny covers.

You know, I have nothing against critical examination of the sex industry (or the publishing industry). I have read neither of the books, but I can buy that they might have been published more for cheap thrills and money than for their actual literary qualities. But then, isn’t that true of a lot of books?

To me it seems as if the article writer, Matilde Sköld, doesn’t want voices like those of Belle de Jour or Tracy Quan and Caroline L Jensen to be heard. Should the books include a mandatory chapter about the downsides of the sex industry? Advisory stickers on the covers? Or should they not have been published at all, because they don’t fit Sköld’s understandings of how sex workers are supposed to behave and feel?

And since then does publishing houses have to care about what “signals they are sending out” by publishing one book or another? You know, there are a lot of books out there which in detail describes sadistic murders and torture. In which sick and twisted individuals are portrayed without much, if any, criticism. In which the bad guy is getting away. And people that have done pretty awful stuff have published memoirs and biographies. Should books like those also be questioned on what “signals they are sending out”?

Belle and Tracy and Caroline have the right to tell their stories and to own their experiences and feelings (just as those who have terrible experiences of being sex workers have the right to their feelings and experiences). If they say they are happy, who are you to question them?

In Germany, discount food chain Lidl has accused of spying on its employees, using secret cameras and private detectives. German weekly Stern
has gotten hold of protocols from the food chain which described the habits and even appearance of employees in detail.

Now, my German is a bit off at the moment, so I haven’t read the original articles. Here, however, is what Spiegel Online International reports:

Stern claims to have obtained hundreds of pages of transcripts that document the movements and conversations of employees, for example: “Wednesday, 4:45 p.m.: Although Ms. N. has not accomplished much in the food and reduced wares department, she takes her break right on time. She sits together with Ms. L.; they talk about their wages, bonuses and paid overtime. Ms. N. hopes that her pay has been transferred already because she desperately needs money for this evening (reason = ?)”.

The transcripts also get into employees’ private lives (”Her circle of friends consists mainly of junkies”) and appearances (”Ms. M. has tattoos on both lower arms”). In their tone and detail, the observation logs invite comparison to those of the Stasi, the East German secret police.

Particularly controversial is a report from the Czech Republic where, according to Stern, female employees were allegedly prohibited from going to the bathroom during work hours — unless they had their period, which they were to indicate outwardly by wearing a headband. While Lidl denies the report, it has yet to issue an injunction on a citizen’s group or a newspaper that are publicizing the case widely.

Although Lidl has not denied the existence of the transcripts, Lidl spokesperson Petra Trabert told Stern they were not intended as “employee observation but rather to detect possible misconduct.”

This is disgusting. And what does Trabert mean by saying that the transcripts were not intended as employee observation but to detect possible misconduct? Spying is spying, no matter what your intentions are. If they monitored all employees in order to pick out the “bad apples”, they still have spied on their workers. There are sure better ways to ensure good worker conduct than blanket monitoring - how about good management, an open workplace atmosphere where workers are listened to and respected, and decent pay and benefits for starters? (Yes, you may say I’m a dreamer.) One thing I learned when working in customer service was that it didn’t matter that I went out of my way to solve the customer’s problems - the guy who had taken 120 calls that day (because he lied to the customers, didn’t finish the administration properly and made a half-assed effort overall) was the one who was applauded during staff meetings and whose name was circulated in mass e-mails from the management as an inspiration for all of us. Such is the nature of the service industry. Read Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed. On (not) getting by in America. Sure, it deals with the USA, but read the Wal-Mart chapter and compare that to the news about Lidl. Also, read here.

Swedish magazine ETC online had an interesting article a whole ago on how a high production pace within the industry are making workers ill. Lean production, as it is called (also renamed management-by-stress by critical voices) was partly developed by Taichi Ohno, chief engineer at Toyota. His American workers called it the Oh No! system - each department manager was given 90 percent of the workers needed to reach the production goals. They were left on their own to figure out how to manage that, and when they did, the workforce was reduced by another 10 percent. In the Kawasaki factories, each work station has lights - a green light when everything is running smoothly, a yellow light if the worker has indicated that he needs help, and a red light if the assembly line needs to be stopped. Contrary to what you might think, the management does not want green lights everywhere, they want yellow lights. Why? Because then the workers are really making an effort. If there are green lights everywhere, that means they can cut some workers. And in the Volvo factory in Torslanda in western Sweden, the conveyor belt runs faster and faster until the computer shows that some station is above the limit. The line then stops for a while but then slowly speeds up again until a station is again unable to keep up. Bathroom breaks, breaks to catch your breath, to shift your position - all of that will affect productivity (and profit) negatively and are thus to be eliminated as much as possible.

Of course such systems will make the workers ill, mainly in musculo-skeletal disorders (back pain etc) and stress related diseases. And of course, such illnesses can easily be dismissed as not work-related, thus relieving the employer of any responsibility.

Within the service industry (call centers, customer service etc) and within the manufacturing industry, surveillance, control and measurement of workers are commonplace. But within administration and office work, it’s not as common. But Microsoft are on to something - according to the ETC article they have developed a system for office use which will, by using wireless censors in the worker’s computer, measure heart rate, blood pressure, sweat, body temperature, facial expressions and other bodily functions. According to developers, the system can be used to “send the employee the help he or she needs”. The real intent is of course to monitor the employees and pressure them to work harder. Not enough sweat, not high enough heart rate, then the help you are given are probably the “advice” to start looking for another job. Dare to complain about it to your co-workers? You better not - someone might be listening.

Very interesting product which may help solve some of the problems raised in the previous post!

A Swedish company called Peepoople (cute name!) has developed a self-santizing single use biodegradable toilet - the “peepoo bag”. The concept is simple: you do your business in the bag, seal it, and it will be odourless. The contents of the bag are hygienized within a period of 2-4 weeks by a mix of chemicals which inactivates the dangerous pathogens (i.e. the bacteria which spreads stuff like cholera and dysentery). The bag can be thrown away or the contents used as fertilizer, which makes the bag have economic value and opens up the possibility of small business systems to develop. Trials are on their way in Kibera, a giant shanty-town in Nairobi, Kenya. Very cool innovation and a great idea!

Peepoople website (in English).

(Quote in title from Gil Stern)

Tomorrow, March 22nd is World Water Day. Water is one of those things you often don’t reflect over, if you live like me. It’s just there, when you turn on the faucet. You bathe, wash your clothes, do dishes, water your lawn or plants, flush the toilet… it’s just there. But for about one in six people in the world, getting water is not that easy. Water is one of the most pressing issues when it comes to global environment and climate change, and water shortage and water access disparities can lead to mass migration, epidemics and conflicts in the future.

The world market price for water has never been as high as it is now. To collect, clean and distribute water takes a lot of investments. Before, it was taken for granted that the government would handle the water. Water is, after all, a public good and something that everyone should have the right to. But today, water distribution is increasingly privatized by multinational corporations like Suez, Veolia and RWE, although not to the extent that was believed in the 90s. Today, 5-10 percent of the world’s population buy their water from private companies. Some private corporations even own the rights to the rain falling from the sky. As I said above, it is expensive to collect, clean and distribute water. And I don’t trust private corporations, whose foremost goal is to make profit, will build the infrastructure necessary to distribute water in very arid and poor areas - there is not enough money to be made from that. Therefore local, public, democratic solutions are needed.

In El Salvador, privatization of the water distribution has lead to that many poor people doesn’t have access to clean drinking water. The pipes are there, but the water is not on. Therefore, many have to buy their water from tank trucks, without knowing where the water comes from. A woman who works seven days a week selling vegetables at the market lay up to half of their salary on buying water. Of course, some people can’t afford that, so they are stuck with polluted water from rivers and lakes. The child mortality rate in El Salvador is 30 percent, most of those from water related diseases such as diarrhea. It is estimated that by drinking water, a person in El Salvador consumes one cup of human faeces per year (yes, that is gross, but it’s the reality). Last year, many people demonstrated against the water privatizations, but the demonstrations were brutally cracked down and some participants were accused of terrorism.

In China, a 50 year old dream of Mao’s are now being realized - to build a gigantic pipeline system to lead water from the Yangtzee river in the south to the arid areas in the north. Of course, Beijing needs reliable water supply for the Olympics (to give the Olympics to China seems like a worse and worse idea every day), so villages in the south, who themselves doesn’t have enough water to sustain industries like wheat farming and fishing, are forced to send their water up north. One in four people in China are lacking access to clean water.

Two thirds of the world’s population is expected to run short of clean drinking water by the year 2025! And the thing is, there is really is enough water. Mismanagement, waste, pollution and uneven distribution is the problem, not supply. We in the rich countries can’t keep watering our golf courses or waste liter upon liter doing dishes in running water (I confess to being guilty of that). I’ve been for extended periods in countries with water shortages (Venezuela and Israel), and being able to shower in hot, clean, constantly running water when I got home was a delight. I don’t want to loose that, but then we need to find solutions to the world’s escalating water crises and that probably means giving up some of our unreflecting attitudes towards water usage.

To learn more:
Food and Water Watch
Water Partners International
Vattenportalen (Swedish)
UN Water
Stockholm International Water Institute

Outsourcing is normal in today’s globalized economy. But now the global south are not only offering services such as customer support and low skilled assembly work to their wealthier counterparts. From the New York Times:

An enterprise known as reproductive outsourcing is a new but rapidly expanding business in India. Clinics that provide surrogate mothers for foreigners say they have recently been inundated with requests from the United States and Europe, as word spreads of India’s mix of skilled medical professionals, relatively liberal laws and low prices.

Yes, it’s wombs for rent. For about 25.000 US dollars, you get payments for the surrogate mother, medical procedures, plus plane tickets and hotel nights for two trips to India, one for the fertilization and one for collecting the baby. The egg donor and the surrogate are different women, as it is said to be less likely for the surrogate to bond with the baby if there is no genetic connection.

The surrogacy business in India has made a sharp upturn in the last years, and people in the business are afraid that less scrupulous providers will smell the money and leave ethics aside.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development said in February that it was weighing recommending legislation to govern surrogacy, but it is not imminent.

An article published in The Times of India in February questioned how such a law would be enforced: “In a country crippled by abject poverty,” it asked, “how will the government body guarantee that women will not agree to surrogacy just to be able to eat two square meals a day?”

Some people might argue that we should view this as any business transaction, but I’m not at all comfortable with the idea of viewing reproduction as a commodity, especially when there is such huge power differentials in play.

“Surrogates do it to give their children a better education, to buy a home, to start up a small business, a shop,” Dr. Kadam said. “This is as much money as they could earn in maybe three years. I really don’t think that this is exploiting the women. I feel it is two people who are helping out each other.”

Mr. Gher agreed. “You cannot ignore the discrepancies between Indian poverty and Western wealth,” he said. “We try our best not to abuse this power. Part of our choice to come here was the idea that there was an opportunity to help someone in India.”

In the Mumbai clinic, it is clear that an exchange between rich and poor is under way. On some contracts, the thumbprint of an illiterate surrogate stands out against the clients’ signature.

This kind of globalization makes me very uncomfortable, and I think the practice should be examined with a critical eye. That does not mean that we should pass judgment on the persons on either side of the transaction - the couple who can’t conceive for whatever reason (Mr. Gher and his partner who are featured in the article are gay), and the woman who by carrying someone else’s baby can make a lot more money than she would on a normal job.

But there are so many issues here: what if the surrogate changes her mind? What if the couple changes their mind? What if the surrogate mother wants out? In India, this is regulated with contracts, but once again we have to look at the wealth and power differential here. As far as I can tell from quickly researching the subject, in the US, while surrogacy may not be illegal, contracts relating to it have been declared unenforceable. In Sweden, surrogacy is illegal, while in neighboring Finland, it’s legal. However, no money is allowed - the surrogate is doing it for altruistic reasons.

One thing which also makes me uncomfortable about the whole thing is that one reason why Indian surrogates are increasingly popular (besides the relatively cheap costs, good medical professionals and favorable legislation) is that Indian women are easier to “police”. As it says in the article:

Dr. Naina Patel, who runs the Anand clinic, said that even Americans who could afford to hire surrogates at home were coming to her for women “free of vices like alcohol, smoking and drugs.” She said she gets about 10 e-mailed inquiries a day from couples abroad.

Just how much say should the couple using the surrogate have to say over what the surrogate mother does to her body? You’re using her womb, yes, but the whole body is affected by the pregnancy, and so is the mind. No drinking, smoking or drugs during pregnancy - perfectly fine and reasonable of course, but what else can you compel the surrogate to do? I think with this international reproductive outsourcing there is more potential for abuse and for using the power/money leverage to make unreasonable demands.