20

Subverting the system to help others

Lisa Dodson's new book, "Moral Underground: How Ordinary Americans Subvert an Unfair Economy."

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

TEXT OF INTERVIEW

TESS VIGELAND: Are you a teacher who's bought school supplies -- or maybe even lunch -- for a needy student? Or maybe you're a home health care assistant who fudged a line or two on an insurance form for a patient with little money. If you've done something like that in your workplace for a struggling employee, you're part of what Lisa Dodson calls the "Moral Underground." Dodson is a sociologist at Boston College. And she's written a new book about people who defy the policies of their employers, and, often, the "system," to help low-wage workers, their families, and others who have trouble making ends meet.

Lisa, thanks for joining us.

Lisa Dodson: Thank you very much. Glad to be here.

Vigeland: Who is the "moral underground"? What kind of people are we talking about here?

Dodson: Well, the moral underground is really a response to an economy that's just become so unfair that people, not only low-income people, but also middle-income people face these moments, when they just feel they have to make decisions and some of those mean that you just have to break the rules. And in a sense, you're joining an underground.

Vigeland: Let's give folks a couple of examples of people who are in this moral underground that you describe. An early example in the book is Andrew. Tell us what he did and how that could apply to others.

Dodson: Well, Andrew worked in the food industry, and he recognized that some of the people working for him work very hard, and yet, they go home at the end of the week, and they don't have enough money to feed their own children. He began to see his role in that -- not only because he handed out a check that was so small, but he also was supposed to punish parents if they weren't fulfilling all of their obligations as workers. And he told me that he padded paychecks; he would use overtime rates. So he quite literally was making a little, I think of it as a little market adjustment of his own, because they were people who weren't getting by on what they're being paid.

Vigeland: All right Let's give another example, I remember Bea. Tell us what happened there.

Dodson: Well, Bea was a manager in a large, big box business. She had a number of people working for her for quite some time and one was a woman named Nancy. She knew that Nancy had a daughter, Edy, who was planning to go to the prom. And she realized that Nancy was not going to be able to buy a prom dress for her daughter. She couldn't, because they simply didn't have enough money in the family -- based on the wages as Bea saw it, that she was handing out to them, not wages she set, but she felt she was very much part of that chain. And so she hesitated at first and then she told me that prom dresses often get over-ordered, some of them are returned. And she said that one managed to find its way into Nancy's hands, and Edy wore it on the prom night, and she told me that Edy knocked them dead.

Vigeland: Now one thing that she says to you is, "I couldn't help but feeling I was almost to blame, or partly." But as you noted, she doesn't own the store, she doesn't set the wages, she is not responsible for what's happening to this employee. But I suppose here is where you get to the argument of morality.

Dodson: There are some people who look beyond the rule or the standard or the work schedule, and they consider it their responsibility to recognize the humanity in this person, who isn't making enough money to get by and see themselves as, in some way, implicated, unless they do take a stand.

Vigeland: You also encountered plenty of bosses, administrators who didn't see any of this as a necessity. If their employees were absent to take care of their kids, or they didn't have transportation, that was pretty much put on the employee as having a bad work ethic. What do you think of that argument that it's personal responsibility?

Dodson: Well, I found in talking to people who were working hard at low-wage jobs, personal responsibility was an issue of great concern to them. And in fact, they were doing what they were supposed to do; they were doing the jobs of the nation. And in fact, a number of employers that I interviewed said that they really didn't see what else these working families could do; they were doing everything right. The issue really becomes, not only a work ethic, but also a wage ethic. Is it an ethical structure of our wages when people are doing jobs of the nation and raising their families, and they literally can't make ends meet every month.

Vigeland: Isn't there a risk, though, that they perpetuate the current system by kind of patching things up at the individual level?

Dodson: I want to really emphasize that the acts that I recorded could not possibly make up for the gap between what we pay millions of our families, working families and what they need.

Vigeland: Sure.

Dodson: I also know that these acts, in it of themselves, are just not going to make the difference. They need to be part of a much larger force, much bigger change. I think one of my main motivations for writing this book was when I came upon this and I came upon it in so many different places, I thought that it was a story that has not been told about the American character. And you know, it really recalls our very best American history, when people look at what's going on around them -- and in this case, issues of economic justice and make the decision that they are going to step up in their own way. In order to make change, there has to be much more than that, but we really need these people for that to every happen.

Vigeland: Lisa Dodson is author of "The Moral Underground: How Ordinary Americans Subvert an Unfair Economy." Thank you so much.

Dodson: Thank you very much, Tess. I enjoyed it.

Pages

john preus's picture
john preus - Sep 11, 2010

The conundrum that this story arouses is one that has been around for a long time; at what point is it moral to disobey the law for some greater good? This is an civil disobedience question. While i would venture to guess that many of the respondents here might support the actions of Ghandi, of the anti-apartheid movement, MLK, Thoreau... These are all stories of an individual deciding that the law itself was not just. These are people who have decided that the economy is unjust, and that the laws of property do not take into account basic structural inequities. Whether an equitable economy is possible, or there is such a thing as 'just wealth' (is not possibly always based on either the exploitation of laborers and/or the environment?) is another question.

Yes, it is theft. And so are any number of corporate and state practices when considered environmentally, or in relation to indigenous property issues vs. the "legal" trade of property. I don't think it can be so easily determined that the one is wrong and the other is not, as uncomfortable as that may be, especially when legal access is out of reach to many low-wage workers.

Frank Johnson's picture
Frank Johnson - Mar 2, 2010

I empathize with that supervisor completely and I go to a conservative church every Sunday! Maybe helping these poor folks is more important, not to mention the Supervisor is an agent of the corporation anyway. I am much more disturbed by today's corporations and have seen the waste and double standards from the inside while being as an accountant. Nothing trickles down my friend except more work although I have taken a few pens here and there!

Jason Gregory's picture
Jason Gregory - Feb 5, 2010

I don't think the average person is aware of the levels of corruption and theft, and "spending", and "buying" projects that go on at the upper levels of management at most larger corporations, which are, in all reasonable argument, in themsleves, theft. But since they are not legally or on paper ... stealing ... they go overlooked, unannounced, off the radar. A lot of it is wasted on politics, exhorbitant pay to already wealthy (supposed) brilliant minds to run things at the top. Which in the end is a huge system of payoffs, kickbacks, expense account floibles meant to justify next years budgets, etc. Shareholders usually get stolen from by the heads of companies and upper management than any petty stuff committed by the lower level employees. And then let's not even get into the more bureaucratic institutions out there, as well as tax and balance sheet frauds ... that again are not technically theft or illegal. So let's all try and gain some perspective a little bit. I think so many hard wroking honest Americans allow themselves to be brainwashed because it's hard to wake up and go to a job everyday or be a part of a system that you don't entirely believe in ... a symptom that leads to the middle-class Republicans that need some way to be appeased with their complaints also. Time to wake up, money=power=begets money.

Earl Lines's picture
Earl Lines - Feb 4, 2010

There is a large difference between a teacher buying a poor student lunch with her own hard-earned money, and an employee deciding unilaterally that he knows best and dipping into the figurative till to bestow favors and gifts on others. One act is kindness, the other theft. I am saddened that this program which holds itself out to be financially sophisticated would miss the obvious implications of Ms. Dodson's moral assertions. Since when does her moral decisions trump those of her employer. If we can all make these decisions for others, than I suggest that she take all the profits she earns from the sale of her ridiculously misdirected book and donate them to my favorite charity. Until she does that she will have demonstrated no higher moral standard than the heartless big box store of which she is so contemptible. You need disassociate yourself from this story and instead broadcast this James Russell Lowell homily: �In vain we call old notions fudge, And bend our conscience to their dealing, The Ten Commandments will not budge, And stealing still is stealing.� And that's what this is, stealing. Earl Lines

Eric Petrich's picture
Eric Petrich - Feb 3, 2010

I listened to this interview with growing disquiet. Leaving aside the question of theft, actions such as those described by Ms. Dodson put the supervisor into a position of secret power, whatever his or her intentions. Is the employee in a practical position to refuse such a gift? Having accepted the gift, the employee now "owes" the manager; that debt is secret, for how can it be made public without exposing the employee to punishment or termination?
I'm seeing a secret fiefdom, where a powerful boss doles out favors to those that he or she thinks are "worthy". I suppose everything old is new again.
Sorry, Ms. Vigeland, but I don't favor this idea at all.

A Martin's picture
A Martin - Feb 2, 2010

Since I listen to this on a podcast my comment is late and many have made the same point--that this is stealing, and adversely affects that business that is giving these people jobs. I'm especially disappoitned that Vigeland nevery even brought up that issue--on both moral grounds and the practical effect on the economy.

Adam E's picture
Adam E - Feb 2, 2010

I'm somewhat offended that you present this story as being on a 'higher moral ground' than just paying the workers what they have agreed to receive for their salary. Instead, the manager is replacing her/his personal opinion to decide who has more justifiable expenses. It sounds that those workers who are saving their money, waiting until they can afford a family, or are single without families are out of luck. Two workers who do the same amount of work for a similar job should be paid the same. To me, that is the moral thing to do. If the story was re-framed to state that the MEN at the store were being paid a higher wage than the WOMEN {simply because it would be assumed they are the bread winners for their family and they need the money to support their families}, which seems as arbitrary/worthwhile as a method outlined in this story, how moral would that sound?

Robert Kippola's picture
Robert Kippola - Feb 1, 2010

The managers have the ability to quit working for these companies if they feel the companies are evil. Wait, why am I arguing this point? Marketplace slipped when they chose to provide airtime to an author promoting a criminal activity. How about more rigorous standards people? Are you going to next air a segment on how to steal cable TV? Or how to not get caught taking towels from a hotel. Get some stories about how decent people are digging deep and making things happen in this economy. I am happy to be on the show and tell you how the company I work for just paid back the 10% wage cut we implemented last year, and gave out $3000 bonuses to all employees [every employee, that's right]. That is a real story about a small company doing something right. We cut back in 2008, and if we survived we told all the staff we would pay them their back wages. THAT is a story of something good you need to have on the show!

Jason Vergne's picture
Jason Vergne - Feb 1, 2010

At what point does an employer "steal" by taking advantage of workers with unfair pay and no benefits? People who have no other means of supporting their families work hard and can't even afford lifes basics. Is America a country that allows some to live like kings while others can barely even feed and clothe their children? The exploitation of the powerless by the powerful is as old as civilization itself; is this the system we want to leave our children?

Marcina Kreta's picture
Marcina Kreta - Feb 1, 2010

That was astonishing and appalling. Never once was it mentioned that the actions Lisa Dodsen champions were outright theft. So the appropriate,”moral” solution to low wages is embezzlement and fraud? Had these managers helped their employees out of their own pockets, then it would have been admirable. Instead they just showed how generous they could be with OTHER people's money.

Pages