In early April, 2020, Albertsons Companies, which at
the time owned Safeway, ACME Markets, Jewel-Osco, Vons, Pavilions and
Albertsons grocery stores, joined with United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union (UFCW) to get American governments to designate the workers
as first responders. The joint statement reads in part, “The temporary
designation of first responder or emergency personnel status would help ensure
these incredible grocery workers access to priority testing, have access to
personal protection equipment, like masks and gloves, as well as other
workplace protections necessary to keep themselves and the customers they serve
safe and healthy.”[1] Although keeping grocery workers healthy was
important, the focus on testing and equipment can be viewed as problematic in
that the company’s management was falling short on more crucial safety
measures.
If the masks being sought were merely surgical masks—and
in shopping in Safeway stores I saw many employees already wearing them—it is
important to remember that that type of mask (i.e., without a respirator) does not
keep the virus out; rather, the masks are designed to stop water droplets from
getting out so the risk of infection to other people nearby is reduced as such
droplets can carry virus. However, the virus can still go through and around a
mask even just by the person breathing. Stopping that would (hopefully
obviously) be worse than catching the disease.
I suspect that the typical worker was not aware that the mask does nothing to stop the wearer from getting infected; the purpose is more altruistic—namely, reducing the risk that the wearer infects other people. Because I did not see any Safeway workers going out of their way to keep at a physical distance from customers even after more than a month, I don’t believe that the workers wore masks for the good of the customers. Furthermore, I can say that Safeway’s management extending down to the store level was shirking the responsibility to keep customers as well as employees as safe as possible.
Why would a store manager watch employees pay little heed to keeping a distance from customers when such distance was possible? Why would an employee not even "hug" the other side of a hallway while passing a customer? Perhaps the employees, being used to putting policies to customers, took offense when the roles were reversed, with customers even just reminding employees of the store policy (and government guideline). I suspect that the employees were reacting to the reversal in power. When I asked employees to keep a distance, I saw facial expressions saying, in effect, I don’t have to take orders from you.
Regarding the store managers, they were doubtlessly not used to being embarrassed by customers pointing to blatant employee noncompliance. Perhaps the managers were not used to confronting noncompliant customers; perhaps the managers were scared. Perhaps the managers were not comfortable taking an active role with employees and customers in the stores. Perhaps the managers were used to the weaker form, passive management, even when they knew that noncompliance was ubiquitous. Such a situation would require a real manager, rather than a person behind a curtain.
One day in late March, I suggested to a store manager that he make an announcement reminding employees as well as customers that maintaining a physical distance was a store policy and government guideline. “Maybe I’ll have a store meeting on that,” he replied. Lest this be thought to be a sign of bureaucracy, I submit that the discretion involved rendered the choice a sign of weakness. No announcement for the customers ensued even as employees were clustering around customers at the cashier area where the manager was standing! Focusing on masks and testing can be viewed as of much less importance. In fact, the managerial judgment that prioritizes such a focus over keeping employees and customers safe in the first place is severely faulty.
So too is the judgment of a store manager who refuses to intervene when a customer insults another customer for asking for some physical distance between them. In mid-April, I observed a store manager refuse to intervene to ask two people to observe physical distancing, as they had been violating it, and even to confront them when he heard them insulting another customer for having asked them to keep at a distance rather than pass close by. This was a case of disgustingly incompetent, impotent store management.
Meanwhile, store employees were walking closely by customers with impunity and even lie, "I'm trying" to offended customers. Actually trying would mean keeping to the other side of an aisle or hallway rather than walking down the center. Real trying would mean not walking directly at customers, expecting them to back away. During the first months of the pandemic, I did not see one employee pause, back up, or take even a slight detour so to maintain physical spacing. The presumption that the customers should move out of the way if they want to take precautions is so toxic that the supervising management can also be condemned; the attitude is that bad.
In incessantly interrupting and failing even to acknowledge that her subordinate had provided bad customer service, the manager over that department demonstrated the attitude to me in early April. I had asked the subordinate at the desk to call another store to ask whether it had toilet paper. “No I won’t call,” the subordinate had stubbornly replied, “because I know what they will say.” It was still early in the morning, and she had not contacted the other store yet that morning, so she told me she would call. She quickly went into the back office. When she came out of the small office only seconds later, she told me that she had had a conversation with the manager inside instead. In the conversation that lasted just a few seconds, the manager told her subordinate that all of the stores would get deliveries of the product that night. "But that doesn't mean that the other store is out of the product now, which is why I asked you to call," I replied. Because the employee didn't understand how she had not answered my question (which alone is telling), I asked to speak with the manager.
The forthcoming conversation was even worse. After I stated that just because all the stores in the district would get shipments that night, we can't assume from this that the other store was out. Rather than attending to my point, the manager went into a monologue on how much of every other product impacted by the hoarding was doing in the store.
In retrospect, I would realize that the lack of concern for customers connected the bad customer service with the attitude of the management toward enforcing distance on the employees and reminding customers to keep a distance from each other. The failure or refusal to enforce physical distancing on employees demonstrates a lack of concern for not only them, but also the customers. So too does not making sufficient store announcements to customers when most are not maintaining physical distance from each other. Were physical distancing a priority of the store managers, then getting more masks and tests would have been much less necessary.
Proper management of employees and genuine concern for customers in real time (i.e., even stopping a noncomplying customer from lashing out at other customers who had asked for more physical space from that customer) would have done a lot more than lobbying for masks, which do not prevent the employee-wearer from being infected, and tests after-the-fact. If the company’s management was really concerned about employees, the distance policy would have been enforced. Lest the company's management tout corporate social responsibility programs in order to deflect attention from a lack of genuine responsibility for employees and customers, a peripheral program does not trump social responsibility directly in the line of business operations because the latter has more of an effect on customers and employees, who are more central to a business than are societal problems.
I suspect that in
American politics too, enabled by the media, secondary issues gain focus even
at the expense of vital issues. Within an issue, symptoms or manifestations get
more attention than does removing the cause. Redressing the cause of an illness
is better than merely alleviating symptoms. As in the case of Albertsons
Companies, focusing on a peripheral rather than a more central matter can be
relatively easy and easier to problem-solve. Focusing on peripheral matters can
thus make companies and governments look better than they actually are. How a company
or government is actually falling short in more crucial ways is not transparent
when the organizational and societal focus is on what the company or government
is doing even to make up for its falling short.
On Nietzsche's thought on weak management, see Skip Worden, On the Arrogance of False Entitlement: A Nietzshean Critique of Business Ethics and Management.
On Nietzsche's thought on weak management, see Skip Worden, On the Arrogance of False Entitlement: A Nietzshean Critique of Business Ethics and Management.
1. Aine Cain and Hayley Peterson, “A
Major Grocer Is Pushing to Classify Its Employees as First Responders, Giving
Them Priority for Testing and Protective Gear,” Business Insider, April 7,
2020 (accessed April 8, 2020).
