Wednesday, March 30, 2022

Amazon union election: Will this former worker make history?


By Natalie Sherman,
 BBC, Business reporter, New York

Published
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Chris Smalls has led protests against Amazon around the country - including in front of Jeff Bezos properties

When former Amazon worker Chris Smalls organised a small protest outside a massive Amazon warehouse in New York two years ago, he didn't intend to pick a years-long fight with one of the world's largest companies. He just wanted his team to be able to do their jobs safely.

"When the pandemic came, employees underneath me were getting sick," he says. "I realised that something was wrong."

Amazon fired him, citing quarantine violations. But his concerns caught the world's attention - an early sign of a much bigger labour battle brewing at the e-commerce giant.

In the following months, as its business surged thanks to the pandemic, Amazon faced accusations around the world that it neglected staff welfare - claims it denied.

In the US, the company now faces its most serious labour unrest in decades.

After walkouts and protests across the country, workers at three warehouses in New York and Alabama are deciding whether to join a labour union - which would be a first for Amazon in the US.

Mr Smalls is one of the leaders in the fight.

He says he's embracing a role the shopping giant set out in a leaked memo from 2020, which described Mr Smalls as "not smart or articulate" and argued that if he became "the face of the entire union/organising movement" it would help to undermine it.

Mr Smalls, who worked at Amazon for more than four years, starting as an entry-level worker before getting promoted, said he was blindsided by the memo, which some saw as racist, though Amazon told reporters at the time the author wasn't aware Mr Smalls was black.

"My whole life changed in one minute," the father-of-two says. "From there, I started to pretty much try to make them eat their words."

IMAGE SOURCE,REUTERS
Image caption,
Chris Smalls at an early protest against Amazon in 2020

For 11 months, the 33-year-old and his team have staked out a spot opposite his former workplace, the JFK8 warehouse on Staten Island, intercepting staff on their way home to make the case that they need a union to fight for them in negotiations with the e-commerce giant.

His team are seeking higher pay, longer breaks, more paid time off and paid medical leave, among other changes. They want to convince workers that a union will be a more effective way to raise complaints over rules like one that requires staff to work unscheduled overtime shifts.

Voting on the question began 25 March and the result will be announced in coming days. Amazon faces a second election at a smaller warehouse in the same industrial park next month.

Organisers say the stakes are nothing short of the future of the American worker, pointing to Amazon's rank as the second largest employer in the US.

"We need to take down Amazon. We need these workers to organise," says Derrick Palmer, who helped Mr Smalls organise his 2020 protest and was also disciplined (but not fired) by Amazon, which cited social distancing violations. "We need them to know they have the power."

Revival of US unions?

Amazon saw off a similar unionisation effort in Alabama last year, convincing workers to vote 2-1 against the idea.

The vote - the first the company had faced in the US since it was founded in 1994 - looked decisive. But regulators later called for a re-run, saying Amazon had violated rules that protect the right to organise during the campaign.

Officials started counting the results of that vote on 28 March.

John Logan, professor of labour and employment studies at San Francisco State University, says it's remarkable that activists have even got to the point of an election, given how much American laws favour employers.

Last year, union membership in the US sank again, continuing a decades-long decline despite a surge of activism leading to successful campaigns at Starbucks, media outlets and some smaller retailers.

"Something has definitely changed in the last two years, when it comes to the labour landscape in the United States, and... the Amazon union votes are a reflection of that change," Prof Logan says.

"It would be a monumental event if either of the unions [in New York] were to win. But even if they were to lose, if the results are close I still think it will result in more union activity at Amazon warehouses across the country."

'Earth's best employer'?

Last year, in the aftermath of the Alabama election, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos pledged that the company would do better by its workers, including addressing the firm's high injury rate.

IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Jeff Bezos told shareholders he wanted to make Amazon "earth's best employer"

"Despite what we've accomplished, it's clear to me that we need a better vision for our employees' success," he wrote in his final letter to shareholders before stepping down as chief executive.

Amazon - which US regulators have accused of retaliating illegally against labour organisers on their staff - remains staunchly anti-union.

The firm says it offers competitive pay and benefits and a union will only add a new layer of bureaucracy, while membership fees eat into workers' wages.

To fight the campaigns, the firm has inundated staff with texts, fliers and other materials and held repeated mandatory training meetings about the issue, where they cast doubt on the union's ability to secure improvements for its members.

"Our employees have the choice of whether or not to join a union," says spokeswoman Kelly Nantel. "As a company we don't think unions are the best answer for our employees. Our focus remains on working directly with our team to continue making Amazon a great place to work."

Amazon has been urging workers to vote, warning that if the election is dominated by pro-union forces and the union emerges victorious, it will represent everyone at the warehouses in question.

"Negotiations are always a give and take," an Amazon representative warns in audio of a meeting in New York supplied by organisers. "What's important to the [Amazon Labor Union] may not be important to you. They will be willing to trade your priorities for one of theirs."

A union victory in New York is far from assured.

IMAGE SOURCE,REUTERS
Image caption,
Officials will start counting the vote of the re-run election in Bessemer, Alabama on 28 March

Leroy Hairston, 22, who has worked at the JFK8 warehouse in New York for about two months - not unusual at a place with high turnover - tells the BBC he is leaning against the union. He thinks it is inexperienced and would struggle to make changes, making resolving staff issues more complicated,

"I don't see the point," he says. "Everything is prolonged instead of just going to HR."

Mr Smalls says he is hopeful that New York - where one in five workers belong to a union - offers better conditions for victory than Alabama, a notoriously anti-union state.

He also has contacts in more than a dozen other warehouses around the country that he hopes to unionise should he prove victorious.

"Once we get established here, we want to spread like wildfire," Mr Smalls says.

Over the last month, Amazon Labor Union volunteers have made a concerted final push to convince undecided workers.

Julian Mitchell-Israel, a 22-year-old community activist who took a job with Amazon to join the union effort, estimates their odds of winning at just over 50%.

Image caption,
Chris Smalls leads a rally outside Amazon

At a blustery cold rally in the Staten Island industrial park this month, Mr Smalls, in a red hoodie and trainers, seemed undaunted. Surrounded by workers, union activists and politicians he led the small crowd in a chant of: "We will win! We will win!"

Mickie Garson, 50, who has worked at Amazon for three years and drove in on her day off to hear the union make its pitch, surveyed the scene from the Amazon parking lot, divided from the speakers by several lanes of traffic.

She said she remained "on the fence" despite experience at previous jobs that made her confident a unionised workplace would be better.

"It's the pressure of knowing that we could make history," she says. "We're excited with the fact that it could happen but also, then what happens after that?"

Joe Biden signs anti-lynching bill in historic first

BBC

US President Joe Biden has signed legislation that designates lynching as a federal hate crime.

The law follows more than 100 years and 200 failed attempts by US lawmakers to pass anti-lynching legislation.

The Emmett Till Antilynching Act is named for the black teenager whose brutal murder in Mississippi in 1955 helped spark the civil rights movement.

Perpetrators of a lynching - death or injury resulting from a hate crime - will face up to 30 years in jail.

Mr Biden said: "Thank you for never giving up, never ever giving up.

"Lynching was pure terror to enforce the lie that not everyone, not everyone, belongs in America, not everyone is created equal."

He added: "Racial hate isn't an old problem - it's a persistent problem. Hate never goes away. It only hides."

US shuts Emmett Till investigation without charges


The bill was passed unanimously in the Senate earlier this month. The House had voted overwhelmingly in support of the legislation last month. Three Republicans voted no: Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Chip Roy of Texas and Andrew Clyde of Georgia. They argued that it was already a hate crime to lynch people in the US.

Lynching is murder by a mob with no due process or rule of law. Across the US, thousands of people, mainly African Americans, were lynched by white mobs, often by hanging or torture, in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Some 4,400 African Americans were lynched between 1877 and 1950, according to the Equal Justice Initiative. Those who participated in lynchings were often celebrated and acted with impunity.


Her ancestors enslaved mine. Now we're friends

"Lynching is a longstanding and uniquely American weapon of racial terror that has for decades been used to maintain the white hierarchy," the bill's sponsor, Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush, said ahead of its passage.

In 2020, following the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis, the House passed an earlier iteration of the bill, but it was blocked in the Senate.

Many racial justice advocates have described the death of Floyd, as well as the murder of Ahmaud Arbery - who was hunted down and shot by three white men in Georgia in 2020 - as modern-day lynchings.



What took so long?

By Chelsea Bailey, BBC News

One would be forgiven for thinking that lynching was already a hate crime in the United States. After all, it's been decades since Billie Holiday's haunting ballad, Strange Fruit, told of "black bodies swingin' in the Southern breeze", and mobs of white Americans no longer line up to take commemorative photos beneath hanging trees.

But that's exactly why the Emmett Till Antilynching Act is so significant. Lynchings may not look the same way they did in the past, but that doesn't mean they don't happen.

Many regard the murders of black Americans James Byrd Jr, Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd as modern-day lynchings.

The bill signed into law on Tuesday bears the name of a black teenager whose mother held an open-casket funeral to force the world to see the gruesome effect of racial violence in the US.

For many, the fact that it took Congress more than 65 years to pass the legislation would seem to speak volumes about America's tacit stance on the subject.

The first anti-lynching bill was introduced in 1900, by George Henry White, the only black man then serving in Congress. The bill failed and continued to fail for more than 120 years.

Lynching is not unique to America, but its use for racial terror and suppression is. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, more than 4,300 black Americans were lynched between the post-Civil War Reconstruction period and 1950. And those are just the murders that were documented.

Confronting America's gruesome past continues to be a subject of contention. Sometimes, it can take more than a century.

US President Joe Biden signs historic anti-lynching legislation

President Joe Biden has at last made lynchings in the United States a federal hate crime after more than a hundred years of delays.


US President Joe Biden enters the Rose Garden to sign into law the Emmett Till Anti-lynching Act

US President Joe Biden has signed into law the first federal legislation that makes racist lynching a hate crime, putting an end to over a century of delays in outlawing what he called "pure terror."

The Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act is named after a 14-year-old Black boy whose brutal murder in the southern state of Mississippi galvanized the US civil rights movement in the 1950s.

Biden signed the bill — which was passed by the Senate earlier this month — on Tuesday at a desk in the White House Rose Garden.

He was surrounded by Vice President Kamala Harris, members of Congress, top Justice Department officials, a descendant of Ida B. Wells, a Black journalist who reported on lynchings, and Rev. Wheeler Parker, a cousin of Till.

"Lynching was pure terror, to enforce the lie that not everyone, not everyone belongs in America, not everyone is created equal,'' the president said.

Those convicted under the law will face up to 30 years in jail.

The bill , which passed the Senate by unanimous consent and the House of Representatives by a vote of 422-3, ends a history of impunity over what researchers say were thousands of lynching between the the end of the Civil War in 1865 and 1950 — that often went unpunished.

Who was Emmett Till?

Till was visiting relatives in Mississippi where he was abducted and killed in August 1955.

A white woman had alleged that the boy had propositioned her in a store and touched her on the arm, hand and waist.

Days later, Till's mutilated body was found in a local river.

The boy's grieving mother had insisted on an open casket to show the world how her son had been brutalized.

The murder became a turning point in the civil rights era.

Two white men, Roy Bryant, Carolyn Bryant's husband, and J W Milam, his half-brother, were charged with murder but were subsequently acquitted by an all-white jury.

The men later admitted in an interview that they had murdered Till.

'Lynching not a relic of the past'


On Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris said that with the signing of the bill, the president was addressing both "unfinished business" and "horror" in America's history.

Harris, the nation's first Black and Asian American vice president, co-sponsored the bill while serving as a US senator from California.

"Lynching is not a relic of the past. Racial acts of terror still occur in our nation. And when they do, we must all have the courage to name them and hold the perpetrators to account," Harris said.

Biden also emphasized that forms of racial terror continue in the US, underlining a need for an anti-lynching statute.

"Racial hate isn't an old problem, it's a persistent problem,'' Biden said.

"Hate never goes away. It only hides.''

dvv/kb (AFP, AP Reuters)

 HE IS ALSO AN ARAB*

French LGBTQ groups accuse Jewish presidential candidate Éric Zemmour of denying Nazi crimes

DOES THIS IMPLY LGBTQ IS ANTISEMITIC
FOR OPPOSING A FASICIST

(JTA) — Several French gay rights groups have accused Jewish presidential candidate Éric Zemmour of denying Nazi crimes, a criminal offense in France, for pushing the view that homosexuals were not deported to concentration camps from French territory.

In a legal complaint, six groups highlighted a passage from his recent book, “France Has Not Said Its Last Word,” in which he endorses a view promoted by another right-wing French politician, Christian Vanneste.

Vanneste in 2012 said in an interview: “There is a famous myth on the deportation of homosexuals. We need to be very clear, too: [Nazi Heinrich] Himmler had a personal score to settle with homosexuals. In Germany there was persecution of homosexuals that led to the deportation of about 30,000 that did not happen elsewhere. Except for three annexed regions, there were no deportations on sexual grounds in France.”

Zemmour in his book wrote that Vanneste was “right.” Vanneste would eventually leave his UMP party over the controversy.

According to a 2007 report by the Foundation for the Commemoration of Deportations, a nonprofit dedicated to memorializing all the people forced out of France by the Nazis, a total of 62 people were arrested in France during World War II for their sexual orientation. Of those, 26 were deported. In total, five people have been confirmed to have been deported from areas of France that Germany did not annex for their sexual orientation, according to the Foundation. 

Zemmour’s campaign in a statement said the groups’ complaint, which is based on laws forbidding Holocaust and genocide denial in France, is “an instrumentalization of the justice system” in connection with the presidential elections next month… perhaps because Zemmour is the only candidate willing to fight their propaganda in our schools.” 

Zemmour, who is vehemently against increased immigration to France, has several past convictions for inciting hate speech, including by saying on television in 2019 that most drug dealers in France were Arab or African.

He has also said that Alfred Dreyfus, a French-Jewish army officer who was convicted and then acquitted of espionage charges, may have been targeted “for being German, not for being Jewish.”

The Dreyfus Affair, which played out around the turn of the 20th century, is widely seen as an antisemitic trial.

*His parents were Berber Jews from Algeria with French citizenship 

WIKIPEDIA

BOTH ARABS AND JEWS ARE SEMITES


 Opinion

The World Council of Churches must act with courage and expel Kirill, Russian Orthodox Church

Supporters of the effort to oust Kirill from the WCC believe he has disqualified the ecclesial entity he embodies by effectively endorsing Putin's military campaign.

Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill in the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, Russia, early Thursday, Jan. 7, 2021. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)


(RNS) — A growing number of global Christian leaders, including Pope Francis, Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and General Secretary Ioan Sauca of the World Council of Churches, has appealed to the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, to use his office to persuade Vladimir Putin to end his war against the Ukrainian people.

However, because Kirill hasn’t followed their counsel, some are going a step further, urging the WCC to expel Kirill’s Moscow-based church body for acting contrary to the WCC mission of fostering Christian unity, peace and justice.

Kirill was initially silent as Putin’s military campaign developed on the Russian side. However, once forces crossed over into Ukraine, Kirill seemed to justify the action blatantly. In a Feb. 27 sermon, he said the move was due to the West imposing secularism on Ukraine, including a requirement for the country to accept “gay pride parades.” He also dubbed the conflict “metaphysical” in nature, arguably turning it into a religious war.


RELATED: How Putin’s invasion became a holy war for Russia


Then, in a March 10 letter responding to the WCC’s Sauca, the Russian Prelate seemed to scold him, writing, “As you know, this conflict did not start today. It is my firm belief that its initiators are not the peoples of Russia and Ukraine, who came from one Kievan baptismal font, are united by common faith, common saints and prayers, and share common historical fate. The origins of the confrontation lie in the relationships between the West and Russia.” 

Kirill’s blame-shifting didn’t end with Europe and North America, however. He also faulted Bartholomew of Constantinople for granting Ukrainian Orthodox churches independence from Moscow, calling it a “schism” that has “taken its toll on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.” 

With distress about Kirill growing within the WCC ranks, Sauca, an Orthodox priest and acting general secretary, had written the Prelate on March 2, urging him “to intervene and mediate with the authorities to stop this war, the bloodshed and the suffering, and to make efforts to bring peace through dialogue and negotiations.”

Ioan Sauca, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, on June 24, 2021. Photo by Ivars Kupcis/WCC

Ioan Sauca, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, on June 24, 2021. Photo by Ivars Kupcis/WCC

After receiving Kirill’s defensive missive in response, the secretary posted a statement appealing for “an immediate end to such indiscriminate attacks, for respect for international humanitarian principles and the God-given human dignity and rights of every human being, and for a ceasefire and negotiations to end this tragic conflict.”

A day later, some 100 U.S. Christian denominational officers, institutional executives, academics and social influencers signed a letter to Kirill. They pled with him to “use your voice and profound influence to call for an end to the hostilities and war in Ukraine and intervene with authorities in your nation to do so.”


RELATED: US Christian leaders ask Kirill to speak out, ‘reconsider’ comments on Ukraine


While these initial communications with the Moscow Patriarchate were essentially congenial, prominent Czech theologian and ecumenical Protestant spokesman Pavel ÄŒerný, who, as a college student, lived through the Soviet invasion of his country in 1968, was much stronger. In an essay released to European and North American Christian publications on March 24, ÄŒerný decried Kirill’s mix of silence, implicit justification and tacit endorsement regarding Putin’s bloodletting: “If the WCC cares about peace, it must not allow such behavior among its members,” he demanded. “The ROC should not be permitted to continue as a WCC member until it turns away from this false path of religious nationalism.”

In support of ÄŒerný’s call for ROC expulsion, The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute, based in Washington, D.C., has launched a recruitment effort for help from the heads of WCC member denominations and the organization’s governing authorities. The institute is asking them to press for a vote at the octennial assembly in September terminating — or at the least, indefinitely suspending — the ROC’s membership. It has also posted a petition online that allows anyone to join the chorus of voices speaking to this massive humanitarian-cum-ecclesial crisis. In part, it reads, “Kirill persists in justifying Putin’s aggression by stylizing the invasion as a religious crusade. The scale of human suffering resulting from the unholy compact between Kirill and Putin requires the World Council of Churches (WCC) to take immediate action.”  

The World Council of Churches (WCC) logo. Image courtesy of WCC

The World Council of Churches (WCC) logo. Courtesy image

There are those who might see expulsion of the ROC as inconsistent with another dimension of WCC’s purpose, which is to mediate differences between religious groups. But Kirill’s use of his religious imprimatur to justify the unprovoked brutal military assault on non-combatants — displacing tens of millions, violently separating families, starving whole cities, grievously wounding small children and killing pregnant women, the disabled and the elderly — are not fine points to ponder, negotiate or find compromise on. Such a scale of terror and irreversible injury constitute Bonhoeffer’s “third possibility” of intervention: to “not just bind up the wounds of the victims beneath the wheel, but to seize the wheel itself.” The extreme consequences of the ROC’s actions or inaction require suspension of WCC norms. Proper procedure does not trump controversial action when the latter is in the interest of preserving human life and flourishing.

There are also more than moral reasons to demand the WCC rescind the ROC’s status. First, there is credible evidence Kirill has a long history of clandestine work for various intelligence-gathering agencies, beginning in the Soviet era. Ejecting him may cut off Putin’s inside source on worldwide religious cooperation and internal messaging on the Ukraine war. Second, the ROC is something of a propaganda tool for Putin. Kirill and his Council of Bishops tend to echo official Kremlin pronouncements, applaud its policies, and, as they have done with Putin’s war against Ukraine, sacralize even the worst government conduct by styling it as a spiritual pursuit. Removing the ROC’s access to the WCC platform would weaken one of Putin’s disinformation pipelines. Finally, there is the matter of military morale. Around 90% of Russian soldiers, sailors and airmen identify as Russian Orthodox faithful. Censoring their supreme spiritual shepherd on a global and ecumenical level could significantly reduce his popularity and credibility, demoralizing the warriors who see themselves as divinely deployed.

Supporters of the effort to oust Kirill from the WCC believe he has disqualified the ecclesial entity he embodies by effectively endorsing Putin’s military campaign to annex Ukraine and failing to oppose the attendant mass violence against a peaceful nation. Not only does Putin’s bloody and mostly Christian-on-Christian conflict subvert the WCC’s mission statement, but it stands in stark contradiction to and rejection of Jesus’ high priestly prayer to his heavenly Father, “that they may be one as we are one” (John 17:11b). 

Given Patriarch Kirill’s aiding and abetting of war crimes perpetrated by Russian forces in Ukraine, the World Council of Churches must act with moral courage, ethical responsibility and spiritual integrity and remove the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church from its membership.  

(Rev. Rob Schenck, D.Min. is president of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute in Washington, D.C., administrative bishop of the Methodist Evangelical Church USA and author of “Costly Grace: An Evangelical Minister’s Rediscovery of Faith, Hope, and Love” (HarperCollins 2018). The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.) 

How Silicon Valley’s ‘Techtopia’ turned work into religion

In her new book, 'Work Pray Code: When Work Becomes Religion in Silicon Valley,' Carolyn Chen examines how high-skilled workers have disinvested from organized religion and are instead finding belonging, identity, purpose and transcendence at the office.

Photo by Sigmund/Unsplash/Creative Commons

(RNS) — Americans have been abandoning religion for a long time. But much like the scientific principle that matter, though it changes forms, never disappears, so too, the religious impulse never quite goes away.

Carolyn Chen identifies where that religious impulse has reemerged — at work. In her new book, “Work Pray Code: When Work Becomes Religion in Silicon Valley,” she examines how high-skilled workers have disinvested from organized religion and are instead finding belonging, identity, purpose and transcendence at the office.

Chen, a sociologist and professor of ethnic studies at the University of California, Berkeley, spent five years interviewing tech workers at Google, Facebook and smaller startups to learn how and why they decided to give their undivided loyalty to the companies where they work.

She also interviewed managers who have invested in the health and spiritual well-being of their employees in an effort to boost productivity. In addition to meditation and mindfulness practices, many of these Silicon Valley firms offer executive coaching and a raft of services such as gourmet cafeterias, gyms, swimming pools, woodworking studios and video game rooms. At one company, she even found an outdoor walking labyrinth, like the medieval spiritual mazes of ancient European cathedrals.


RELATED: Why are people calling Bitcoin a religion?


One downside to tech’s embrace of wholeness and wellness is that it has forced many religious practitioners, especially Buddhists hired by these companies, to downplay the religious origins and traditions of their faith to make it palatable to a nonreligious workplace. Chen calls this a “whitened Buddhism,” stripped of its Asian origins and ethical teachings and minus its rituals of bowing, chanting and burning incense. Instead, many of these practitioners must emphasize the scientific evidence for mindfulness, which, she points out, is often inflated or circumstantial.

The larger problem with worshipping work is that it sucks up employees’ interest and energy in any kind of civic engagement in neighborhoods, cities, local and national politics. “Techtopia,” she writes, “is corroding the collective capacity to build and sustain the common good.”

Author Carolyn Chen. Courtesy photo

Author Carolyn Chen. Courtesy photo

Religion News Service spoke to Chen about her book and whether worshipping work has changed in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. The following interview was edited for length and clarity.

How did you get into this project?

My frustration being a scholar of religion in the Bay Area is that there’s a significant number of people who don’t identify as religious. How do you study them? I was interested in the presence of religion in secular spaces. I started looking at yoga studios because these are secular spaces with religious icons. In interviewing yoga practitioners the theme of work kept coming up: ‘I practice yoga and it helps me become a better teacher, lawyer, nurse.’ It became clear there was something going on. The thing that was sacred in their life was work. They were using yoga to support their work or relieve the stress of work. That’s when I thought, maybe I’m looking in the wrong place and I began to look at workplaces.

What is it about high-tech work that makes it so important to people? Is it the prospect of wealth or economic security or being the next Steve Jobs?

In the tech industry or the startup, there’s a high chance of failure. Nine out of 10 startups fail. So you go for broke. You invest your entire self into it. Someone told me, ‘Why the hell would I do this, if I didn’t think I’d be 1 out of 10 to succeed?’ That kind of intense gamble you’re making requires a kind of faith. It’s a spiritual fervor toward work.

You finished your research in 2019. How have things changed now that people are working from home? Has the Great Resignation affected Big Tech?

“Work Pray Code: When Work Becomes Religion in Silicon Valley" by Carolyn Chen. Courtesy image

“Work Pray Code: When Work Becomes Religion in Silicon Valley” by Carolyn Chen. Courtesy image

The companies are still caring for their employees and still practice a kind of corporate maternalism. They mail home snacks, they offer book clubs through Zoom, mindfulness meditation, executive coaching, therapy. These amenities are continuing. Work has become more demanding, if anything, because there’s no commute. But work doesn’t offer the same social and spiritual benefits you could get before. You’re not able to have lunch with your friends or do crafts with your friends or play video games with your friends. It also doesn’t offer the same spiritual benefits. That, on top of more hours, leads to burnout.

But the majority of workers who are quitting as part of the Great Resignation tend to be lower-skilled service workers. I’m really doubtful the place of work will change for high-skilled workers. This trend in people worshipping work is 40 years in the making. People have disinvested from social institutions, churches, synagogues, neighborhoods, schools, civic associations. You need to rebuild new institutions where you can find meaning, fulfillment and community.

You write a lot about the ambient Buddhism of the Bay Area. It’s a Buddhism stripped of its history, culture and rituals, even language. That’s been successful for these companies but at what cost to religion?

In Silicon Valley, Buddhist virtues, what are called “wholesome states,” are seen as work skills, means to an end. Compassion and empathy, which we might consider to be a virtue or a good in and of itself, becomes a way of making better product design or being more empathetic to consumers. Meditation teachers who taught in school or prisons found it wasn’t financially tenable anymore. The only way they can do it is to bring it to the Googles and Facebooks and LinkedIns. But in the process of doing that, they have to secularize the teachings to make it fit the goals of the workplace. They have to teach it as a productivity practice. It actually changes the religious experience itself. That’s bottom-line Buddhism. It has to change to be profitable. Or they have to remove the ethical teachings from Buddhism because they were not hired to teach about ethics or tell companies how to run more ethically. They were hired to make employees more productive.

Do these companies also have Christian or Jewish offerings for employees?

These are called employee resource groups. They’re like clubs organized by the employees themselves. You might have a Christian organization alongside the Chinese American Association or the knitting club. I talked to pastors who also face the same problem there. Churches draw from people of different walks of life. In the tech workplace, it only draws from an elite group of workers.

How should religious leaders respond to this worship of work? 

They could help by naming what they are offering — alternative and life-giving traditions and spaces for people to create lives, communities, meaning and fulfillment outside of work. What I’ve seen instead is that religions have simply accepted this and are finding a way to accommodate it. Some Christians are trying to figure out how to affirm the meaningfulness of work. There’s a danger to that. The first mention of work in the Bible is essentially a punishment. There’s no inherent goodness in work. There’s this striving to accommodate this. But when faith communities don’t name secular dangers, they’re totally missing the boat. There’s this other thing people are worshipping that they don’t see.


RELIGION AND THE RISE OF CAPITALISM TAWNEY