Chapter 6 exposed the environmental and social injustices felt by workers in Silicon Valley’s “clean room” work. The authors discuss the social issues leading to injustice in the workplace and some of the broader social effects of occupational hazards in this field. For instance, many of the managerial responses to employee concerns about work safety are “gendered and patronizing,” such as the “mass hysteria” ploy against women employees. These responses feed off of and perpetuate the institutional sexism inherent in male-dominated institutions like the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley. Additionally, the authors outline the problem of “corporate secrecy” in the workplace, which benefits the industry managers by keeping employees ignorant about the hazards to which they are frequently exposed, inhibiting communication in the workplace and thereby inhibiting organization amongst employees (ie, in the form of unions). In this chapter, the authors emphasize worker autonomy as the first step toward a more just work environment.
I agree that the corporate workplace must facilitate the right of employees to organize and communicate concerns between co-workers and managers, but change must occur on the state and federal levels in order to save lives in Silicon Valley. It’s not enough for “clean room” workers to say “not in my plant,” or Californians to say “not in my backyard.” That’s fine for California, but consider the corporations in neighboring states that will outcompete reformed corporations by profiting from less stringent ethical standards. Saving lives in Silicon Valley and beyond requires a large-scale movement on the part of a collective consciousness. To be global activists, we must organize under the presupposition that what is poisonous for one city is poisonous for us all.
For example, Raj Jayadev, the industry worker/activist discussed at the beginning of chapter 7, continued battling injustice in the workplace even after being fired from the aptly named Manpower, where he became aware of occupational hazards in Silicon Valley and began fighting for safety regulations. The authors explain that “few workers are able or willing to take such steps because of the very real likelihood that they will be banned from the industry and their entire family’s livelihood threatened.” Not only does this case speak to the severe disenfranchisement of certain groups in America, but it should communicate obligation to those of us fortunate enough not to be in that position. Those of us with job security ought to demand the same privileges to those without.
