In many global manufacturing settings, especially those involving low-wage labor, managers often frame their relationships with workers using familial metaphors. Our most recent reading talked about how these managers called themselves the “father” of the factory and referring to female workers as “daughters”. On the surface, this may just seem like an attempt to establish a relationship of care and protection, but in reality, it often serves to justify authoritarian control and exploitative practices.
This kind of paternalistic framing creates an illusion of mutual care, implying that the managers are acting in the best interest of their workers. It positions the company as a “family” where workers are protected and guided. However, these managers and companies use the “family relationship” to their advantage. They have ultimate control over the workers, and even intrude into workers’ personal lives. This framing also reinforces gender norms, portraying female workers as docile and obedient – qualities often associated with the traditional role of a daughter. It reinforces the idea that these women’s primary function is to serve the company’s interests only. The myth of “protection” serves to mask the realities of exploitation, where workers are treated as temporary assets and disposable once their labor becomes less valuable. This paternalistic rhetoric allows for a system where power imbalances and exploitation are rationalized as part of the care workers are receiving. You may believe that this kind of behavior does not happen in corporate America, but there are actually a lot of smaller companies and groups who try to set up a “family” aspect in their work place. This kind of environment should be avoided at all costs.