The Church and the Working Poor, Part 2

Our society uses work to define people.  Last week, I recalled that while I worked in a call-centre that was closing, I received a new job.  This job was as the manager of the public library in McAdam, a New Brunswick village southwest of Fredericton.  Because I do not have a Master of Library Science, I was not technically a librarian.  This technicality did nothing to stop people from saying things like, “He is the town librarian,” however.  I did my best to use correct terminology, but that still required phrases like “I am a library manager.”  That our society defines people by their work – regardless of whether it should or not – demonstrates the importance that we give to our work.  Where does this leave people identified as the working poor?   The first stage of answering that question is to develop a theological and biblical understanding of work.  I will then compare this with the working lives of the working poor to make it clear that our society is coming up short.

I believe that work is a good gift from God.  John Stott, Dorothy Sayers, and John Stackhouse all contributed to me developing this understanding.  Stott contends that work has four characteristics.  First, work should be purposeful.  Second, work exists for the fulfillment of the worker because we are working creatures.  Third, work exists for the service of community.  Fourth, work exists to glorify God because it acknowledges God’s humility in making the rest of creation dependant on our labour rather than simply His own.

I also want to add a few characteristics of work suggested by others.  Sayers notes that work should be creative because it is a means that people, as the image of God, reflect His image.  This means that work is expressive, complimentary to the worker’s identity, and something a worker can be proud of doing.  Stackhouse contributes the final characteristic I would like to include in my definition.  Work should be a threefold blessing.  The worker, employer, and consumer should all be blessed by the work that is performed.

By using the above characteristics as an ideal, I now want to highlight the characteristics of the work done by the working poor.  First, the working poor have little opportunity to find work that is either fulfilling or creative.  They are merely what Sayers calls “cheap labour.”  I want to be careful to avoid confusing cheap labour with being unable to generate wealth.  Wayne Stumme and Beth Shulman both comment on this.  Stumme notes that using people as cheap labour is particularly problematic when we consider the amount of wealth this group can generate for their employers.  It is not like there is no money to be made.  It is simply that some employers are greedy.   In addition to being a source of wealth for others, Shulman notes that being cheap labour also results in fear.  A person who is working poor is not motivated by fulfillment or self-expression.  She or he instead finds motivation in the fear that a tiny infraction like being a couple minutes late after a break may result in dismissal.

Second, while the working poor are typically finding work that provides a service, this service is often demeaning, poorly remunerated, and at the expense of joyfulness.  If we accept that community service is a characteristic of ideal work, we must ask what community the working poor are a part of and how their work affects this community.  For many people, the closest community they have is family.  For the majority of the working poor, their working conditions and pay negatively influence their family lives.  Beyond this, it is nearly impossible to escape the classification of “working poor”.  Lorenzo Cappellari’s research found that the majority of the working poor – between 55 percent and 70 percent – can be “trapped” below the poverty line.  Cappallari speculates that having a low-paying position stifles long-term opportunities to find higher-paying work.  Mae Elise Cannon notes that being trapped can impact all aspects of a person’s life, including education, future employment and income, health, and where a person lives.

Third, the work performed by the working poor can be dehumanizing as employers take advantage of the situation this group finds themselves in.  Carol Haywood notes that executives, management, and other white-collar employees are thought to be crucial for a business’ well-being.  This is probably a true thing to think.  The workers who make up the working poor are thought to be easily replaced, however.  Sadly, this is often also true because of the amount of people looking for any type of work available.  The problem lies in that the people who generate product, provide customer service, etc. – those most directly involved with generating income – are the least important people in a working culture.  This means there is little if any power to seek better conditions.  

At this point in my series, I do not want to suggest conclusions.  I will do that over the next two essays, predominantly in two weeks’ time.  For now, I simply want to summarize my research for us to use as a guide for over the next couple of weeks.

I want to claim that work should have eight characteristics:	I also want to claim that for the working poor, work has these six characteristics:
1.    It is purposeful. 2.    It is fulfilling.  3.    It is service. 4.    It is God-glorifying. 5.    It is expressive. 6.    It is compliments the worker. 7.    It is a source of pride. 8.    It is a blessing.	1.    It is uncreative. 2.    It is a source of wealth for others. 3.    It is fearful. 4.    The service it provides is demeaning. 5.    It is something to escape, but doing so is difficult. 6.    It is dehumanizing.