Exploitation and Profit at Stew’s Dairy, Term Paper Example

All in the family

Stew Leonard, Sr., was turned in by a disgruntled worker who had recently been fired.  While the reasons for the firing were not made clear, it is well within the realm of possibility that this individual could have fit Marx’s illustration of the worker alienated by his labor.  Leonard’s was a family-first business, admittedly one that practiced nepotism, a situation Leonard, Sr., fostered because it put more potential “bosses” in place to supervise non-family employees.

As the company’s value grew, as it became more prosperous, it is likely that it evolved along the lines described by Marx.  For instance, that things increase in value at the same time human worth is devalued.  A worker may unload more eggs, or stock more cartons of milk than ever before but isn’t likely to see a dime more, particularly if he is working for a company that practices nepotism so openly.

A fired worker may or may not indicate an environment rife with employee dissatisfaction, but turning a former employer into federal authorities would seem to indicate, at the very least, that here was a disgruntled worker.  The fact that Stew’s Dairy encouraged a policy of nepotism could well indicate a classic source of worker unhappiness.

Nepotism was a key figure of Stew’s business “model.”  The prevalence of family members not only as corporate officers but as supervisory employees dispersed throughout the company can be seen as a measure designed to further secure the family’s hold on profits.  It’s difficult to imagine that this wouldn’t have contributed something to dissatisfaction among the

The Dangling Carrot rank and file and may have had something to do with the disgruntled employee who evidently felt like he had a score to settle.

Stew’s Dairy had implemented an extensive list of perks for employees who performed well, embodied the company’s mission statement and commitment to customer service. On the surface, this system of rewards seems generous.  On further examination, they amount to little more than the proverbial “dangling carrot” in light of the fact that Stew’s had become the world’s largest dairy and, as such, must have realized massive profits.

The idea behind offering such a variety of perks is that the more productive the employees, the more prosperous the business.  Employees of Stew’s Dairy could expect anything from a $500 bonus for contributing an idea that was implemented, to a polo shirt for winning the “Above-and-Beyond” award.  Stew periodically placed additional money in employee paychecks.

These measures ultimately do nothing more than enrich the company’s bottom line, meaning that the more employees do to earn essentially small rewards the more productive they are and the more goes into the owner’s coffers.  As Marx said, the more workers produce, the less they truly earn and the more beholden they become to their employers.

“Alienated labor turns the species life of man into an alien being and into a means for his individual existence” – Karl Marx (Donaldson and Werhane, 169).

What’s good for the company Marx also pointed out that the more time workers must spend producing for an exploitative employer, the less they belong to themselves.  Marx claimed that workers reach a point where they have little time for anything other than animal functions, such as eating, sleeping and procreating.

Stew kept his employees quite busy, requiring them to work on holidays and at various times through the day, 364 days a year.  This “company first” culture was encouraged by an system of employee rewards that held the promise of bonus money for employees who agreed to come in on their day off.  With so much time invested in the company, it’s no wonder that many would be caught up in a mindset that said what was good for Stew’s was good for them.

The bulk of these profits went to Stew’s immediate family, who owned homes in the Caribbean.  As well, the family benefited from not having to make public profits, issue an annual report or answer to a board of directors.  This lack of transparency not only helped the family prosper but ultimately contributed to their downfall.

It’s interesting to note that Stew’s had “only” a 60 percent turnover rate.  As noted, that may have been low for the industry, but 60 percent still represents an inordinately high number when weighed against the overall.  It’s worth noting that the dairy was in a relatively small community, where a 60 percent turnover might be fairly significant.

Summary – Stew Leonard had established a highly successful business that owed much to a clever and subtle exploitation of the workers to whom he owed much of his success.  By satiating his large workforce with a smokescreen of rewards, which amounted to little in comparison to thehuge profits earned by family members, he was able to encourage workers to maximize their productivity, which speaks to Marx’s precept that the more a worker produces, the less valuable he becomes relative to the object produced.  And the less he belongs to himself.

References

Marx, K.  “Alienated Labour.” From Ethical Issues in Business, a Philosophical Approach. Thomas Donaldson and Patricia Werhane. New York: Prentice Hall (2007).