Justin J. Bain
PhD Student in Composition and Cultural Rhetoric
Syracuse University
315-443-1412
jjbain@syr.edu
Projects: Literacy of Physical Labor
Literacy of Physical Labor: A Brief Study
This past summer I applied for and accepted a position at FedEx Ground as a package handler where my main job was to load and unload tractor-trailers filled with packages. At orientation I was presented with a handbook and instructed to learn the language of FedEx, to become literate in their terms. Not surprisingly, I spent little time with the obvious list of supposedly specialized terms, but to my surprise, I learned that being literate at FedEx had more to do with the actualities and physicalities of literacy than with the mundane academic definitions.
That is, many of the terms presented in the list of specialized vocabulary were literally not special in meaning. "Cart," for instance, is defined as a large four-wheeled metal conveyance for transporting packages, and "metamore" is defined as a type of tractor-trailer designed for holding pallets. None of the other terms listed stands out as more specialized than either of these. While the discourses and definitions of these terms struck me initially as unimpressive, those functionally literate package handlers at FedEx found very important information in these terms. Carts, for instance, were just what they implied, large metal carts for transporting packages from the unload side to the load side. Yet functional literacy at FedEx meant that package handlers were always aware of the presence and capacity of carts, as well as the mention of carts by supervisors. If the line of carts at the bottom of the unload side became full and there was a choice between running off carts and unloading, the carts would be chosen by experienced workers. Unloading carts required less work and allowed for time to be killed by pushing the cart around the factory floor, and if a supervisor mentioned carts it was a chance to basically take a break from unloading the trailers.
In a similar fashion but on the other end of the spectrum, the mention of metamores bespoke of extra hard work. The first night I was assigned to a metamore I expected the usual sort of trailer—eight feet floor to ceiling filled with packages ranging in weight from one to 200 pounds with an additional four feet of packages secured beneath the floorboards. Instead of this sort of trailer, however, I found one twice as long and twelve feet high filled with pallets loaded from floor to ceiling with shutters. This would not have been such a bad thing if the shutters had not been between four and eight feet long and banded together in groups of four or more, making them both heavy and awkward to handle. Eventually I learned how to identify metamores and attempted to steer clear of them, as did the other package handlers. Both this example and the preceding one are relatively simple instances of the differences between applied and learned literacy. That is, literacy for its own sake is both non-existent and relatively useless. They also go to show that there is a difference between the discourses of literacy (as presented in the training handbook) and literacy per se (as the act of reading and reacting to the world).
Perhaps more importantly, the previous examples demonstrate a seldom-discussed aspect of literacy, namely its physicality. For package handlers, this means literacy is directly related to the physical body, and being illiterate at FedEx means more work for the same pay, as I was quick to learn this lesson. The physicality of literacy is perhaps one of the most significant reasons for the high turnover rate for package handlers: approximately six new people were hired per week during my three months employment. And this physical literacy is a factor for a great number of people; FedEx employs "more than 94,000 employees" (AMA 7) and of those, about half, or 40,000, are "front line contacts," those delivery people and counter service personnel that interact with the public. This leaves about 54,000 employees to endure a physical literacy. FedEx employees are of course not the only ones to encounter physical literacy. Michael Perelman’s description of the use of short-handled hoes by migrant farm workers in California (so that overseers could see when people were not working) is a good example of the expansive reach and accepted presence of physical literacy, a topic that needs to be addressed in Composition.
Because FedEx is a company engaged in a battle with time—their motto is, after all, "the world on time"—it would only make sense that FedEx would have no time for illiteracy or inactivity. To prevent this, the company institutes a discourse of inspiration, one "crafted and positioned to build a . . . quality conscious culture," one which comes into direct contact with workers lives and jobs (AMA 7). Among the most noticeable aspects of this discourse are the following statements:
1) "there are no secrets at FedEx" (AMA 11)
2) "an ounce of inspiration is worth a pound of control" (Wetherbe 17)
3) "empowering others is really what the FedEx story on leadership is" (AMA 22)
I stated that these aspects of the discourse are most noticeable because they are continually emphasized on the factory floor. Each night before each shift begins, the supervisors gather the workers and discusses the state of affairs, explaining how many trailers have to be emptied before we can go, who needs to be where and why, what reward we last received and what reward we are working towards, and how each of us is an integral part of the FedEx team. To a certain extent, we all know this is bullshit, and it comes across as the smarmy boss talking to the illiterate workers. Yet everyone keeps track of the rewards and counts the trailers as we unload, and despite attempts to avoid the harder jobs, individuals rarely appeared to slack off once assigned a trailer. Supervisors were always sure to reward the hardest workers with on-site cash bonuses, ice cream, pizza, or the chance to work more hours. In one sense these activities can be viewed as typical for any similar job situation, and yet as my shift walked from the parking lot to the factory floor we all talked about, among other things, how good it was to work here and how Gabe and Coop, our supervisors, were guys of their words, and both were always sure to shake our hands at the end of a shift.
I would argue though, that if these experiences and discourses are typical of these sorts of jobs, then there must be literacies in which workers participate that make the typical appear both typical and acceptable. I would argue that part of this literacy is a class-based one. Basil Bernstein and others have argued language use (codes) is class-related, but what I think occurs on jobs such as these is more closely tied to the physical literacy described above. That is, there is something about doing a physical job and getting a firm handshake at the end of a shift that makes me feel good about what I have done. I am basing this almost entirely on my own experience, but I come from a working class family and labor and handshakes and one’s word are important things in that culture, so I do not think my experience is atypical. My father lays streets for the city of Fresno, and when he shakes someone’s hand it is not the shake of "nice to meet you" but of an earned comradery. My dad’s dad was a factory worker, my mom’s dad a self-taught mechanic: labor, dirty ripped jeans/overalls, and sweat are a part of my life. They are a part of the world I see and understand. I realize I am slightly digressing here, but the point I wish to make is that there is a discourse of physicality that informs working class life, and such a discourse implies the need to be literate in it. I do not think such literacy is being discussed or addressed in my field, and yet contingent labor is a huge part of Composition. There is also a way in which the management is literate of these discourses, and is therefore able to take advantage of them, and there is a way in which the workers do not seem to be, though this assertion surely needs to be more thoroughly tested.
In my proposal for this project I contended that no literacy exists in isolation, and that studying worker talk or worker terms in isolation would really not accomplish much except the production of an equally useless vocabulary list. What I have presented above is a small step towards understanding how discourses manifest themselves on bodies and how illiteracies are identified and acted upon. I have also meant that my writing about this subject appear as not typical academic discourse. I think this is necessary to disrupt an unconscious privileging of such discourse and to insert other voices into the academy. I also hope, though with more time I would attempt a more persuasive presentation of this, that I have presented literacy as not from the top down and not only as dominating in the situations described. Given the time, I would also liked to have discussed the ways in which FedEx Ground is panoptic in its physical structure, and the ways in which being literate of this structure enables/disrupts dialogue between workers and supervisors. I would also have liked to include the voices and stories of fellow workers, as inter-worker discourse is also important.
Works Cited
AMA Management Briefing. Blueprints for Service Quality: The Federal Express Approach. New York: AMA Membership Publications Division, 1991.
FedEx Ground. Pre-Employment Orientation Program.
Sigafoos, Robert A., with Roger R. Easson. Absolutely Positively Overnight! The Unofficial Corporate history of Federal Express. Memphis: St. Luke's Press, 1988.
Trimble, Vance H. Overnight Success: Federal Express and Frederick Smith, Its Renegade Creator. New York: Crown Publishers, 1993.
Wetherbe, James C. The World on Time: The 11 Management Principles that Made FedEx an Overnight Sensation. Santa Monica: Knowledge Exchange, 1996.