By this point in the coronavirus pandemic, youβve probably heard a lot about βessential workers.β Theyβre the people working in hospitals and grocery stores, on farms and in meatpacking plants. Theyβre keeping public transit, shipping and utilities running.
But is βessentialβ describing the workers themselves? Or only the work they do?
Right now, many donβt feel like theyβre being treated like theyβre essential, and workers at Amazon, Walmart and other companies have organized strikes to protest unsafe working conditions.
There seems to be a disconnect between how some low-wage workers are being described and what theyβre experiencing on the ground.
As an expert in sociolinguistics, I canβt stress enough the importance of framing β how we emphasize perspectives and priorities through our wordings β during a situation like this pandemic. Approaching the phrases βessential workersβ and βessential workβ with a linguistic eye can help explain why the people doing the work feel cut out of the frame.
Why weβre even saying βessentialβ
Usually, when we say something is essential, we say itβs essential to or for something β for example, βProper gear is essential for completing this mission.β
Normally, almost everyone would say their work is essential for some reason. But because of the pandemicβs immediate threat to human life, essential work is now widely understood as work deemed necessary to meet basic needs of human survival and well-being β food, health, safety and cleaning.
And yet many of the people on the front lines completing this essential work β the so-called βessential workersβ β have experienced a lack of adequate safety measures, supplies and risk compensation. Health care workers donβt have enough face masks, and poultry packing plants are crowding workers too close together. Thousands in each sector have contracted COVID-19 β disproportionately people from already disadvantaged groups like African Americans and immigrants.
It makes you wonder whether some of these workers are considered all that essential. Might βexpendableβ be a more fitting term?
What weβre seeing with the phrase βessential workerβ is what linguists call βmacrocosmic synecdoche,β which happens when we refer to a bigger thing or group than what we mean. For example, you might say βThe U.S. has negotiated a trade deal.β In reality, this means the president, the secretary of commerce and their staffs participated in the negotiation, but not every member of the U.S. population.
What some essential workers are feeling is a case of macrocosmic synecdoche, in which βessentialβ is only really applying to the βworkβ part of βworker.β
Essential to what?
Other workers are questioning why their work is even being described as βessential.β
In some states, construction has been deemed essential work. But some construction workers think their work isnβt really meeting a basic human need; theyβve decided to stay home and avoid the risks of showing up at the workplace, despite sacrificing potential income.
Many others, like those working in liquor stores and automotive manufacturing plants, wish they could shelter in place but canβt afford to miss out on the income. They feel their work is really only βessentialβ to their employers to βhelp them make money,β as one Walgreens worker put it.
What theyβre perceiving is what linguists call βmetonymyβ: when you say something thatβs associated with what you mean to refer to but doesnβt actually represent it. Our pandemic-era meaning of βessential workβ refers to work thatβs needed to meet basic human needs and safety while sheltering in place. Many people feel theyβre putting themselves at risk to do jobs that are sustaining economic vitality but labeled by the government and their employers as βessentialβ to human vitality.
The tension between human vitality and economic vitality is clear in the ongoing discussions and recent protests about reopening the economy and more in-person business. Many are concerned that economic vitality is at risk if shelter-in-place measures continue too long, framed by concerns that the human vitality of many depends on their economic vitality.
These discussions ought to be centered on how the people on the front lines are affected, and how to best ensure theyβre well-compensated and protected. Once people are treated as essential, the more accurate the βessential workerβ moniker becomes β and the more likely these workers can continue doing the jobs that sustain the rest of society.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/we-call-workers-essential-but-is-that-just-referring-to-the-work-not-the-people-137460.