Today we heard word of a scandal overtaking the modern Tokyo phenomenon of AKB48. Their 14th most popular member, Minegishi Minami, was caught by a journalist leaving the house of a “boyfriend,” a 19 year old member of some random boy band (compared to AKB48, the boy band in question is largely irrelevant). The pictures were published in some scandal rag, Shukan bunshun (週刊文春), a magazine which basically makes its income from printing shit. As a result of this indiscretion, Miss Minegishi has been demoted to research student (kenkyusei) status, meaning a massive loss of pay and that in the strange heirarchy of AKB48 she will have to climb back up the ranks to reclaim her position as an enormously popular public figure.
The heart bleeds, doesn’t it? Actually the apology is a beautiful and heartfelt thing, and it’s clear that Miss Minegishi is under a lot of pressure, as one might expect if one were published leaving the house of one’s lover the morning after a trist and published in a magazine read by millions of people, in a country where everyone (well, not me!) is watching you and discretion in sexual encounters is paramount. This is a nation where holding hands in public is still frowned upon by many young people, and kissing generally avoided at all costs. Being photographed the morning after a shag is obviously going to be very embarrassing.
AKB48 sold $200 million of records alone in 2011, and endorse everything from elections to instant coffee. They are the very definition of a household name, and getting into the top 48 of this weird little business enterprise is a license to print money for the young women involved. It’s also not easy: their recent documentary carries the subtitle no flower without rain, which draws on an old saying about how beauty and/or success depend on suffering. The structure of the AKB48 system is redolent of university and the early years of the corporate system: it is intended to reproduce the sense of having to strive to make it, being indebted to one’s seniors, and being vulnerable in the face of life’s challenges. In many ways, AKB48 are perfect representatives of the Japanese notion of gaman, of having to suffer through adverse circumstances to achieve: this is the same spirit of gaman that enables Judo masters to bully their charges[1], but which makes a Sumo wrestler like Takanoyama enormously popular because he tries so hard. Two sides of the same coin … I don’t know if it could be said that Miss Meinegishi is being bullied in this instance, though … what she did do is fall foul of a contractual obligation not to go on dates. That’s right – AKB48 girls are not allowed to go on dates! The Guardian article makes it appear as if this rule is based on “the strict rules to which Japan’s young pop stars must adhere to project an image of unimpeachable morals” but this isn’t the reason at all – that’s just bullshit western misinterpretation of east Asia’s so-called conservatism. The real reason that Miss Minegishi has to live a sexless (or at least secret) life until she “graduates” from AKB48 is that her band is idolized by nerds and pre-sexual teenage girls, and to both groups of fans they have to appear pure and single. These are girls next door who are struggling through a metaphorical high school/university/early corporate life, and girls like that don’t get DP’d in love hotels.
Miss Minegishi’s extreme haircut is also not forced on her by her contract: she did this all by herself, to symbolize her abasement. This means she’s going to be trying extra hard to regain the favour of her fans, and my prediction is that this little cock up is going to be a goldmine for her and for the AKB48 business: she’ll soon be returned to the top ranks, fans will love her more for having fallen and strived, and there’ll be another documentary with tears and struggle – a genre that AKB48’s fans love.
Which brings me to my William Gibson-esque point: these girls are Japan’s modern shrine maidens, the modern equivalent of western nuns of yesteryear. They’re required to swear themselves to celibacy, live lives of constant self-flagellation and torment, and simultaneously have to symbolize everything that is admired in the women of their time: chastity, beauty, sexiness, innocence and endurance. They also have to tread the line of hypocrisy that characterizes modern attitudes towards young women: at the same time as they are making swimsuit videos and soft porn, these girls will get demoted if they are caught having sex. And because it’s Japan they also have to be educated: there’s currently a TV show about some of these girls going to college and trying to get a qualification. William Gibson has a few short stories about these kinds of characters in the cyberpunk world (I think Idoru is the most apt, though I haven’t read it): women whose celebrity depends on their embodying all of the ideals of femininity of their time, and whose personal lives are warped or ruined as a result of it. So let’s hear it for Minami Minegishi, embodiment of all the trials and tribulations of modern womanhood – and of the complexities of the cyberpunk era. Ganbare, Minegishi san! The hopes of a generation, and the weight of an entire society’s sexist expectations, are resting on your skinny shoulders …
—
fn1: though maybe not anymore: watch the video of the coach apologizing and listen to the cameras – the girls he bullied weren’t willing to tolerate it and his humiliation is pretty much complete. These guys’ world is changing, and it’s apparent that they aren’t catching up…
Compromise and Conceit 
February 2, 2013 at 7:32 am
Nice post! Not even a fan but when I saw the video pop up, I had to take a look because I have noticed certain AKB members but to shave her hair off in an act of forgiveness to the public does seem extreme from a Western view. I do not believe for one second she shaved her hair off according to her, there must have been some “influence” from her company.
The demotion is really sad because I heard she is a 1st generation member as well. I heard this AKB member and the EXILE member are getting treated the same by idol fans but obviously with the girl’s video and how in most idol relationships, the girl seems to get the blame and negative treatment more than the male, the attention seems more on her not only in Japan but also in the West. The BBC and the Guardian over here in the UK have picked up on this story since it’s seen as human rights in the West. To be honest it deserves to have international attention and pressure but only if international media do not make assumptions and read up from a translated Japanese article.
Japan (and Korea too) need to fix that when idols hit certain ages, they would like to date, meet the other (or same) sex and go even further in their relationships. Idols are people too. The media and immature fans need to grow up and realise the idols are humans too.
February 3, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Thanks for your comment NyNy. It’s nice to hear that the male idol is being treated badly too, from a gender equity point of view, but the whole thing is kind of crazy. It’s really sad too that these young people are singing songs about love and sex but are basically banned from experiencing these things themselves. This makes the whole system even more like a weird form of modern cyber-monastery.
I’m willing to believe that Miss Minegishi shaved her hair volutnarily. She said on the video that her first thought upon being caught was that she didn’t want to quit AKB, and previous members who have been caught have always resigned, so I think she’s sending a signal that she wants to not just resign as others have, but start over and do it better. Which again, is almost exactly the same as being sequestered away in some kind of monastery as punishment for being a loose woman. It’s modern nunnery.
The worst person in all of this, of course, is the journalist who got the scoop. That journalist’s decision to take the photo and release it was made knowing it would destroy this girl’s career. Just for doing what every other girl in Japan does, and what her songs are all about. That’s really wrong, and the jouranlist involved should be taking a long, hard look at the empty place where everyone else has a soul. But then, they are a journalist, so I suppose it’s par for the course in that industry …
February 4, 2013 at 11:02 am
This really is just an economic relationship that imposes stuffed up behavioural constraints on the participants. It’s no different to prostitution or pole dancing. We can either:
1) accept women’s ability to make a buck off accepting wierd rules that drive profit [1] subject to a requirement that they understand and accept those rules and trade-offs [2], or
2) determine that individual women are too fragile to make such decisions and organise society to protect them from the predators around them
It’s not much of a choice.
“jouranlist involved should be taking a long, hard look at the empty place where everyone else has a soul”
I ❤ this phrase.
[1] No sex, or lots of sex depending on whether we're talking AKB48 or prostitution
[2] Which this lady appears to, given she's shaved her head to keep obeying them…
February 4, 2013 at 1:49 pm
I don’t think the situation quite compares with prostitution, because a sex worker’s contract only specifies sexual obligations during her work hours, whereas Miss Minegishi’s contract puts conditions on her personal life. I’m not a fan at all of any kind of contractual obligations that extend into personal life, though obviously sometimes they are necessary, and I think as much as is reasonably possible these kinds of contractual obligations should be illegal. Certainly, I don’t think “our fans are stupid and we don’t want to upset them” is a reasonable basis for getting a girl to sign away 5 years of her love life[1]. I think I stand on reasonably solid ground when I say that if such a contract were legal, so too would be a contract requiring employees to vote for the Socialist Workers Party, or not to attend church.
I’m not sure exactly what Miss Minegishi’s contract says she’s allowed to do, though. However, today at lunch my colleague told me of a man who has attempted to sue the AKB company for financial loss and emotional damages after his idol’s sexual depravity was revealed. He wants, apparently, to recoup the cost of all the CDs he bought, as well as some emotional damages too. I know no more about the court case than that, it’s probably all hearsay, but that kind of fandom really does not need to be appeased, in my opinion.
Having said that, if such a contract exists and a woman wants to sign it, and is then willing to shave her head as part of an effort to retain her license to print money, I think we should all respect her decision (while, obviously, feeling sorry for her and for all the men who might otherwise have got to play with her). I also think it’s safe to say that Miss Minegishi is a damnsight smarter than those of her fans who have been taken in by this strange form of public celibacy!
—
fn1: Though I think she’s now 20 years old, so legally she’s only signed away 2 years of her love life so far, at least while she’s in Tokyo where the age of consent is 18
February 4, 2013 at 7:16 pm
“I’m not a fan at all of any kind of contractual obligations that extend into personal life”
Some contracts do. It’s a little unusual, but it’s basically part of the deal with celebrity (i.e. constant press intrusion). Some, like priesthood, as are massive impost, and don’t even come with a good remuneration scheme (in this life at least).
In a case that reverses the onus of the obligation, Australian law has discovered that employers are liable when an employee’s sex life gets too frisky while on company travel [1]. Given that, we can safely assume the company is meant to have a position on employee sex during work trips [2].
“I think I stand on reasonably solid ground when I say that if such a contract were legal, so too would be a contract requiring employees to vote for the Socialist Workers Party, or not to attend church.”
Under the Gillard government’s proposed discrimination, it is legal for contracts to require employees to attend church. Presumably voting or non-church attendance would also be options [3].
“feeling sorry for her and for all the men who might otherwise have got to play with her”
Yeah, but I presume her cut off hair will be raffled off. So maybe we should focus on how lucky the stalker-y winner will feel? 🙂
“I also think it’s safe to say that Miss Minegishi is a damnsight smarter than those of her fans who have been taken in by this strange form of public celibacy!”
Everyone knows that women are like Sampson. Once their hair is cut off they lose all the sex powers till it grows back. Why do you think there’s no porn with cancer sufferers? [4]
[1] http://www.news.com.au/business/worklife/worker-injured-during-sex-wins-compo/story-e6frfm9r-1226538131527
[2] Presumably that position is “Missionary only. Or better yet none.”
[3] Though maybe only for religious reasons, But I think we can all agree that the Socialist Workers Party is basically a religion.
[4] Contrary to my expectations, cancer sufferer porn doesn’t seem to get any relevant Google hits. [5] There’s an unexploited market…
[5] Though I did learn a new term: Cancer Porn: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cancer%20porn
February 5, 2013 at 9:42 am
I note that in response to my concerns about contractual obligations that extend into personal life you quote the priesthood, who have pretty much the same conditions as Miss Minegishi (though impunity in breaching them, it appears, even non-consensually). My position is that these contracts are wrong, and should be avoided at all costs. I think any contract that requires a young woman to eschew sex outside of work should be flat out illegal.
Anyway, I think Sinead O’Connor has proven that there is a career to be made by sexually frustrated young women with no hair. Miss Minegishi just needs to learn how to scream mournfully about dead ex-boyfriends!
February 5, 2013 at 10:08 am
“I think any contract that requires a young woman to eschew sex outside of work should be flat out illegal.”
I’m unwilling to accept such a blanket ban as I fundamentally feel that a contract should be able to agree pretty much anything as long as it’s entered into willingly and knowingly and it offers appropriate recompense.
The reasoning for this is that contracts are basically just a way of formallising human interaction, and given that we’re not talking about a crime here there should be no limit to what consenting adults can get up to. Moving away from a policy of accepting whatever sexual rules you want seems like arbitrarily imposing a limit people’s interaction. The fact that it meets your sensibility now isn’t a defence against it being used as a precedent to punish unwed mothers when the Tea Party gets elected. Better to hold a firm line that people can sort out their sexual activities themselves. And that needs to apply equally to barring sex in the scenarios.
Simultaneously, I feel the Australian court case is ridiculous as it actually imposes a duty of care on one party in the contract (the employer) that leads to policies about sex while on company travel. On this my policy is much closer to yours that the company can get stuffed when it comes to employees genitals outside work hours, but that clearly suggests that the company also has no relevant duty of care.
February 5, 2013 at 10:31 am
While I agree with you about the importance of keeping contracts free, the problem with employment contracts is that they are special: everyone needs to work. When you allow the people with the power (the employers) to set conditions such as apply to Miss Minegishi, you run the risk that – if their power grows too much in comparison to the workers’ – employment law will begin to give employers the power of a political party or church, rather than simply an employer. The Australian court case you reference is an unfortunate example of an attempt to balance that power going wrong.
There is a big problem in Japan with employment law being too heavily focused on contracts rather than industry-wide bargains, and not enough statutory power used by the government to balance the two sides. Miss Minegishi is an unusual example because she is an elite, with other options that give her the ability to walk away from this contract, but for people who lack her choices, this focus on contracts really leads to some nasty workplace situations – especially amongst part time and casual labourers, and in high pressure jobs. Real estate agents, for example, can have punishing working conditions for junior staff that would surely be illegal in Australia (e.g. working until 10pm on a Sunday with no overtime pay, getting one day off a week, no entitlement to a lunch break, etc). I think Japan shows what happens when the government steps back from its statutory responsibilities and allows employers and employees to negotiate directly over the conditions of their employment: workers lose out, and young women who want to get ahead need to sign contracts that ban them from having sex.
Interestingly, however, these contract-law-based systems don’t necessarily lead to discrimination against women in the workplace. The only workplaces in the world where my partner has been guaranteed conditions that are equal to a man’s have been Japanese employers: all her foreign employers have either openly paid men more, or have had the option there if the boss wanted to use it. In her Japanese workplaces, the same contract applies to everyone and pay and conditions are set by your qualifications and length of time in the workplace, and they are quite scrupulously applied. Again, in lower end jobs this tends not to happen (I have seen signs openly advertising different pay opportunities for men and women at convenience stores, for example). Japan is also very equal in terms of pay, with a much smaller wealth gap than in the west. As I’ve said in a previous post, I’m waiting for someone to come up with an argument for Japan as a neo-liberal workers’ utopia, but strangely enough it doesn’t seem to happen…
February 5, 2013 at 2:00 pm
“employment contracts is that they are special: everyone needs to work.”
This is an argument from ideology rather than logic. Logically speaking the argument that every employer needs to employ people is just as strong, which balances it out in theory. [1] The system should be setup to support the theory and ensure that it can achieve it’s objectives [2].
What you’re talking about is actually just an example of why I said the contract should be entered into willingly, with full knowledge and be properly recompenced. If those conditions are fulfilled then it precludes coercion of the type your talking about.
[1] For example, there are numerous examples of workforces imposing unfair payments on employers, such as the BLF and their standover tactics in Australia, or the payments that were made to the Australian PMs dodgy ex-boyfriend. It just depends on how strong the union is versus the employer (after factoring in the structural things like whether there is an wage arbitration system and how it works).
[2] Which is really just saying the theory sets out what is regarded as a fair way of running things and then there needs to be pressures/checks in place to prevent rorting it.
February 5, 2013 at 2:32 pm
It’s not an argument from ideology or logic, it’s an argument from fact. Everyone needs to work, so the employer controls access to an important resource. It’s not ideological to say that employers hold the power: this is also a statement of fact. Stating that employers and employees are able to negotiate as equals, on the other hand, is a strongly ideological statement, being divorced from 150 years of labour market history.
A contract between an employer and employee is highly unlikely to be entered into “willingly” or “be properly recompensed” without a balancing social power (either arbitrage- and/or union-enforced) because the employer has the power. If the employer didn’t have the power, they wouldn’t be an employer. Unions didn’t form and go on strikes because workers were bored of sitting around earning too much money, and just wanted to get up to a bit of rabble rousing. They formed because of unequal power relations between employers and employees.
Your footnote [1] is wrong on the terms you have set for it. If employers and employees are equal in power there is no such thing as an “unfair payment on employers,” since if an employer thought a payment wasn’t worth it, they wouldn’t pay it … in the world of free and willing contracts that you suppose exists in the labour market. Also your facts are wrong: the payments made to Gillard’s dodgy ex-boyfriend (forthwith, Gillard’s DEB) were a payment imposed on the union members, and not on employers. They were funds transferred from a worker’s association to a representative of that association, ostensibly for activities in defense of the members of that association. There is no impost on the employer of any kind in that setup, and if used for its stated purpose, nothing at all wrong with it[1].
Your footnote [2] I entirely agree with, though. And in Japan this system is unbalanced, because there is very little statutory power available for workers’ redress, and they just have to negotiate whatever contract they get faced with. Which is why Miss Minegishi had to sign a contract promising not to get any for 5 years, because a few of her dumber fans hold out insane hopes of one day marrying her, and her sexual freedom is worth less to her employer than the marginal benefit of pleasing those fans’ insane daydreams. Her “choice” in this case was a life of surreptitious sex, or not pursuing a specific career. There’s a clear power imbalance there that an employment tribunal would stomp on in about 3 seconds.
—
fn1: there’s an interesting recursive arbitration issue here. Presumably when the union members signed up to the union they signed a contract, but the union has much more power than the individual member signing the contract, so they would have to agree with statements like “we’ll siphon off your funds for political activity and you can suck it up!” or not get the protection the union offers. Perhaps union members should form unions.
February 5, 2013 at 7:52 pm
“Stating that employers and employees are able to negotiate as equals, on the other hand, is a strongly ideological statement, being divorced from 150 years of labour market history.”
It’s a statement that doesn’t hold true in a large number of scenarios that I can think of. But the statement that the employers always has the power also doesn’t hold true [1]. In the face of Australia’s full employment over the last 15 to 20 years, it’s actually pretty fair to say the employee is in a relatively equal bargaining position (obviously added by the structural things like minimum wage, etc).
“employer has the power”
You seem to keep assuming that we’re all working for massive banks. The fact I am doesn’t change the fact lots of people actually work for small businesses. If your a plumber employing another plumber your negotiating position starts somewhere around fair and tends to move towards crap pretty quickly when the other guy works out all he needs is a yellow pages ad to compete with your business.
“They formed because of unequal power relations between employers and employees.”
True. But we’re also not speaking of a world where unions are a lovely theory that is compulsively crushed by facists. We’re speaking of a world where they’re listed in the phone book and have political parties they use as cats paws to grant favours to the people running unions. [2]
“Also your facts are wrong: the payments made to Gillard’s dodgy ex-boyfriend (forthwith, Gillard’s DEB) were a payment imposed on the union members, and not on employers. They were funds transferred from a worker’s association to a representative of that association, ostensibly for activities in defense of the members of that association. There is no impost on the employer of any kind in that setup, and if used for its stated purpose, nothing at all wrong with it”
That doesn’t match my reading of the situation. The trail of payments I’ve heard was DEB approached a company (i.e. employer) and requested a payment be made to the fund he controlled. I have not seen any reason for the payment, and given the actions of the company since then (declining to push charges) I’ve interpreted it as piss off money designed to avoid industrial unrest. [3] That money was then embezzled by DEB. The company is the one that put the money in for reasons that have never been explained, but we can safely assume were not to get DEB re-elected nor improve workplace safety (the stated organisation objective).
Given that, how can we view it as anything other than an impost on the employer? I’d google for more details, but I can only remember the company started with “Th” which is nigh useless in a world where “the” is a word…
“There’s a clear power imbalance there that an employment tribunal would stomp on in about 3 seconds.”
Maybe. And then AKB48 would earn vastly less from creepy fanboys and its stars (and the people taking the cream off the top) would be paid vastly less.
In this case the employment tribunal can make whatever statement about fair it wants, but the reality is dictated by the fact that taking money off creepy fanboys has a particular process to it and that same tribunal doesn’t get powers of compulsion over the buying habits of sad 30+ year olds.
[1] Specifically for some really strong unions.
[2] NSW politics is a murky piece of society.
[3] They got this, so from their point of view it was a valid transaction. It’s also classic mob standover tactics.
February 5, 2013 at 10:34 pm
re: Gillard’s DEB, yes it appears to be me who has his facts wrong: the money did come from companies (one being “Thiess,” there you go!) but it was extorted rather than obtained through legitimate means – i.e. not official union activity. I thought it was taken from union funds, on the rather naive assumption that a fund set up for election purposes would be taken from union funds. I can’t find any explanation of what extortion the DEB used, or how it relates to his union activities – and the accusation of extortion comes from a 1996 Fair Work Commission report so probably the details will be lost to that dark era “before the internet.” According to the Australian Cambridge wrote in his diary “This effectively seems to have been a slush fund account which acted as the receptacle for money which was properly intended to go to the union. ” So it appears the DEB defrauded the union as well as extorting (?) money from some companies. I guess we can view that as an impost on the employer, but also on the union – and again, in your world of people freely entering into contracts, if the company didn’t think it was useful they wouldn’t have freely entered into a contract to pay it.
I think the phrase you’re looking for in your first paragraph and footnote 1 is “the employer has all the power, unless restrained by a strong union.” And Miss Minegishi has no union. Maybe that can be the next TV show AKB48 do – they can unionize their workplace and protest in dance and song.
I don’t believe that the no sex rule can make that much difference! But apparently there has been a lot of negative attention, so what would I know? You’d think 20 years of role-playing would have taught me to be more pessimistic about my fellow nerd …
February 5, 2013 at 10:35 pm
also I think you’ll find that by 1996, “piss off money to avoid industrial unrest” was highly illegal and would have got all involved in a lot of trouble. More likely, a promise of favourable consideration by the people elected to the union leadership through the activities of the fund …
February 6, 2013 at 7:23 am
”if the company didn’t think it was useful they wouldn’t have freely entered into a contract to pay it.”
I agree. The fact they don’t want to pursue it demonstrates they think they got their money’s worth. It also hints at such extortionate payments being a regular feature when dealing with this union. Presumably they have made other such payments for a quiet life and the significant difference in this case is the money was stolen by DEB instead of the union.
This raises two points:
1. I agree the money should have gone to the union (and indirectly the members)
2. This sort of standover tactic is disgusting and this union should probably have a boot put on its neck till it stops regarding the BLF as a good example [1]
“the employer has all the power, unless restrained by a strong union.”
No. That’s not it. The correct phrasing would be “The employer tends to have more power in most working scenarios, unless restrained by employee shortages, heavy demand, a competitive industry, a strong union, government regulations, or other structural economic factors”
But that list is so long it boils down to “The employer has more power unless they don’t”
For example in Miss Minegishi’s case, if she was simply to leave AKB48 she would probably be able to take a non-trivial section of the fan base with her and damage AKB48 on an ongoing (though non-permanent) basis. This would have been more possible before she was caught having sex, which demonstrates that the restriction against sex was actually in the interest of maintaining her power too [2].
“You’d think 20 years of role-playing would have taught me to be more pessimistic about my fellow nerd …”
Neckbeards. *shrug*
”a promise of favourable consideration by the people elected to the union leadership through the activities of the fund”
I’m sorry. I can’t see a material difference between “Give me money and you have a quiet year on the industrial relations front” and “Give me money to get elected and we’ll work together to ensure that the union does not find any reason to cause trouble over the next year”. They both summarise to “Give me money for a quiet life”, which is the classic standover proposition. The fact that such payments may be illegal is one reason why Thiess was asked if they wanted to investigate for potential charges.
The fact Thiess didn’t want an investigation suggests that payments of a couple of hundred $k are just par for the course and Thiess don’t want to have to explain why the payment to DEB in the early 90s was a crime but the payment they make every year to a slightly differently named union fund is OK.
You can bet that if Thiess were to expose such payments to the union were still happening, then any promise of a quiet life would no longer apply. And who’s dumb enough to want that hassle after you’ve already made the payment? It’s not like the union will give a refund or pro bono a quiet year for you. It’s more likely that the union will cause some strife just to demonstrate to members that their officials are not in the pocket of any company.
[1] Unions are good. Corrupt unions that indulge in standover tactics in the shadows are bad. As an example, it would also be bad if the company threatened union members or officials to ensure their compliance.
[2] To the extent you derive power from an obsessive fanboy following. But basically, what is a monarchy but that?
February 6, 2013 at 7:24 am
“As an example, it would also be bad if the company threatened union members or officials to ensure their compliance.”
Sorry, I mean to say as an example of the principle of why hidden standover tactics are bad, we can examine how you’d feel if the situation was reversed.
February 6, 2013 at 9:21 am
So why do you refer to it as extortion further down? You seem to have a natural bias towards the people with the money. How come it’s extortion when the people who control the supply of labour tell someone, “we won’t work for you unless you pay this extra money,” but it’s not extortion when someone who controls the means of production tells someone “we won’t hire you unless you pay for your own uniform”? Or, in the case here, if they tell a woman of 16 “We won’t hire you unless we can control who you sleep with.” That is extortion by any definition, yet when the employer tells Miss Minegishi that this is her option, you want it accepted as a free exchange between people with equal power. I think if you’re going to stretch your definition of “free exchange” that far, you can also accept that any demand a union makes of a company is reasonable. The company can go elsewhere if they don’t like it, right?
After all, you also imagine that if Miss Minegishi were
but how is she going to do this? She’s going to take her 1/48th of the performance space with her? Get access to the distribution networks that were previously accessed by AKB48? Do you think she will have equal negotiating power with these subsidiary companies, given that there is 1 of her and 47 of them, backed up by a powerful company? No, she can’t “simply leave,” which is why it’s the company telling her who she can sleep with (when she was 16 years old!), not her telling the company.
This also gives the lie to your
because Miss Minegishi finds herself in exactly the kind of situation you describe. There is heavy demand for the product, employee shortages, and a competitive industry, no union, no regulations. Yet her boss can contractually control her sex life. Can you explain that?
Furthermore, this is the situation in Japan in general. Japan is at essentially full employment, many of the marketplaces for manufactured goods in which its industries operate are extremely competitive with high demand domestically and overseas, there is a declining base of new employees, no unions and very few regulations (the aforementioned contract-law-based employment system). Yet wages are low, working conditions are poor, and employees have very little power. Students spend their entire third year of university hunting for work, attending as many as 10 interviews for each company they apply to, in a country which is facing labour shortages – labour shortages that are going to become even more acute as the baby boomers retire in this decade. Yet the employers retain all the power … it’s as if the Econ101 model of labour markets doesn’t work …
I think it’s interesting that we’ve come around the long way from a story about a woman publicly humiliating herself as a result of a clearly extortionate contract that you consider freely negotiated and thus reasonable, to a story about a union getting a bit of extra cash from an employer in exchange for industrial peace[1], which you consider to be stand-over money. This view is very common, and I think it says a lot about how much peoples’ implicit biases are towards the captains of industry and the owners of capital, and not towards the workers upon whom those people depend.
—
fn1: we suppose, having not read the report about how the money was actually obtained.
February 6, 2013 at 7:13 pm
”So why do you refer to it as extortion further down?”
Extortion is the term for such a transaction.
”the people who control the supply of labour tell someone”
Union officials don’t control the supply of labour. They organise the people who supply the labour. The members themselves are the suppliers. If the union had said “Pay us more or we won’t work” that’s a wage negotiation. I’m in favour of that type of transaction.
”it’s not extortion when someone who controls the means of production tells someone “we won’t hire you unless you pay for your own uniform””
That’s a somewhat unfair condition on hiring. I do hate it when companies take it out of someone’s first paycheck. I’m not in favour of it, but if it’s a clear condition of employment at least it’s not a crime [1]. Note that I also hate it when union membership dues are compulsorily deducted from wages.
“Or, in the case here, if they tell a woman of 16 “We won’t hire you unless we can control who you sleep with.””
Yeah. This is a really unfair condition of employment. It’s tragic that people can be forced into roles as “comfort women” during and after wars.
Oh. You were speaking about Miss Minegishi. What’s her wage again? I think you seem to expect me to have some sort of natural bias in her favour, but I’m not feeling it.
“you can also accept that any demand a union makes of a company is reasonable”
I can accept any that aren’t illegal as being able to be made. Being reasonable actually has other connotations that I don’t think you mean to apply. For example, a union (if properly representing its members) could demand a toilet made of gold for every employee, or universal world peace. These demands aren’t reasonable and the company is likely to go elsewhere or go broke, but I don’t regard them as being unable to be made, and if the union insisted on everyone losing employment because the company couldn’t make the world be made of fairy floss I’d regard them as insane, but I wouldn’t say they don’t have the right and ability to be insane.
If the union demanded the company assassinate the American president then I’d suggest their attempting to incite or arrange a murder. By contrast that is actually illegal. Morally wrong too.
”She’s going to take her 1/48th of the performance space with her?”
I don’t think that’s how fanboys work. I sort of suspect at least some of them follow her instead of the brand or the “performance space”. And it’d seem that other people have successfully established media careers without AKB48’s backing, or any other large media setup. It’s even more likely to happen when they’re already famous.
”Miss Minegishi finds herself in exactly the kind of situation you describe”
I don’t think I can accept Miss Minegishi is a person with no negotiating position. She seems to be selecting between being a major star with AKB48 and being a substantially less important star without them. It’s not like it’s AKB48 and being paid heaps or selling her body on the street.
Of course, I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen her perform. Maybe she is talentless and only AKB48 can ensure her success and continued ability to afford food and shelter. If that’s the case, then yeah the company is taking advantage of her. It’s basically the same as sexual slavery or as if they held a gun to her head. For all we know, they may even have a bomb strapped to her. It’s well know that captains of industry are willing to take any action necessary to grind down poor media stars and drink their tears.
Seriously. It’s not good, but it’s not terrible. I can’t work myself worked into much of a lather over someone who has to give up sex to get media stardom and presumably a big salary. I’m also not going to cry myself to sleep that CEOs need to be able to take phone calls at any time of night, and that they can get sacked for a variety of stuff that is and is not their fault [2]. Or sports stars who have to train all the time and put up with media intrusion. Or a dozen other scenarios where the is a price that comes with the significant upside and the person who gets the upside has no bloody way of not knowing about the downside.
I mean this isn’t the Sword of Damocles, where you only find out about it once you’re in the king’s seat. It’s printed on the size of the box “Awesome job, some drawbacks”. Any other position leads to believing that the media intrusion into Paris Hilton’s life (including her sex life) is in some way a wrong that we should prioritise, instead of something to just regard as distasteful and then ignore because the day I can’t think of a million more pressing matters is the day Obamacare turned off my life support [3].
[1] Claiming to give or lend someone a uniform and then taking money of them without their consent would be. It’d be theft.
[2] Or rewarded for it.
[3] Yeah, I know. But it’s fun to say. Try it. You can see why the nutters enjoy the hyperbole. 🙂
February 7, 2013 at 3:39 pm
You aren’t answering my question, just restating it. How is it that when the owner of the means of production says “if you don’t pay extra money you can’t keep your job,” it’s just dandy, but when a union says “if you don’t pay extra money you can’t keep your workers” it’s extortion? There are many examples of employers doing this: not just uniforms but safety equipment, parking fines for courier/delivery people, and fines levied on staff who call in sick. In the OP we have a classic example of this kind of extortion: a woman being told that if she doesn’t adhere to certain non-financial rules outside of work, she will lose her job. If a union told an employer that he had to adhere to certain rules outside of work – for example by donating to a union election fund – it’s extortion, but when Miss Minegishi’s boss does it it is “a somewhat unfair condition on hiring.” You clearly have a different set of standards for those who control the means of production vs. those who sell their labour. Why?
Again, different standards. If a group of capitalists who control the means of production get together to form a corporation, which then contracts labour through a human resources department, they still control the means of production. If a group of workers get together to form an organization, and contract their labour through that organization, they still control the supply of labour. I think you need to revisit your conception of what a union is and on whose behalf it operates.
You’ll perhaps have missed the sarcastic “the heart bleeds” in the OP. I don’t expect any sort of bias in her favour. I’m using her situation as an example of a contractual arrangement that is, essentially, extortion. You’ll note that the heads of the company “Thiess” are probably earning more than Miss Minegishi, so I suppose I shouldn’t have sympathy for them even if the union forces them to sign celibacy into a contract, right? (Incidentally, there are a lot of members of AKB48 who don’t earn a great deal of money and are essentially just salaried wage-earners like any other Japanese Office Lady, but who presumably are subject to the same contract. The turnover rate in the top teams of AKB48 suggests that most of these women will never get good wages before being forced to “graduate.” So think of them, if you can’t have sympathy for Miss Minegishi).
I wasn’t talking about fanboys, but about the organization of an industry. Miss Minegishi has nothing to sell to the fanboys if she doesn’t have somewhere to perform and someone to distribute her music, make videos, etc. Fundamentally, she can’t go it alone – she has to sell her labour to someone who owns the means of production. Unless she has a few million sitting around to arrange all this stuff herself. Now, you may not be sympathetic to the plight of a wealthy young woman who is staring fame in the face, but that doesn’t make her situation an invalid labour market example. And when she signed up at 16, at the bottom of the AKB48 ladder, there was no guarantee at all that she would ever get to where she is now – in fact, one of the reasons she may have signed with AKB48 was that she didn’t think she had what it took to be a solo success, and she just wanted a career being paid a regular salary to do low level work for the AKB brand. If not her, others will be in that position. Not everyone can be a winner! But just because they’re dancing girls doesn’t mean they should somehow be exempted from basic questions such as “is your contract extortionate?!!”
I wonder to what extent some of the conditions in Miss Minegishi’s contract are actually necessary for business success, to what extent they’re just traditional elements of that industry, and to what extent they’re petty tyranny. I guess we’ll never know …
February 8, 2013 at 9:01 am
”How is it that when the owner of the means of production says “if you don’t pay extra money you can’t keep your job,” it’s just dandy, but when a union says “if you don’t pay extra money you can’t keep your workers” it’s extortion? ”
Because one is openly communicated before the fact as a condition of employment [1] and the other is delivered in the shadows and has no legal standing? Because that’s how extortion is defined?
”If a group of capitalists who control the means of production get together to form a corporation, which then contracts labour through a human resources department, they still control the means of production. If a group of workers get together to form an organization, and contract their labour through that organization, they still control the supply of labour.”
I don’t think you understand what the “means of production” are. Read more Marx.
The company isn’t the “means of production” the capital holdings of the company are.
The capitalists can “own” the “means of production” in a way union officials can’t as the “means of production” are “things” while what the officials organise (but don’t “own”) are “people”. [2]
If you think unions operate under a different model, then you’re part of the blight on unionism that leads to links with crime. Union officials have to represent their members, not enrich themselves. The other school of thought is best represented by Obeid and Thomson.
”I wasn’t talking about fanboys, but about the organization of an industry. Miss Minegishi has nothing to sell to the fanboys if she doesn’t have somewhere to perform and someone to distribute her music, make videos, etc.”
Are you really asking how she’ll make music videos in a world with hundred US dollar cameras that shoot at a level nigh indistinguishable from professional?
This isn’t Industrial Age Britain where steam power moves industrial looms. The “means of production” on an entertainment good don’t run to much more than talent and lose change. (I admit I’m assuming she has the talents required.)
“Unless she has a few million sitting around to arrange all this stuff herself.”
What drugs are you on? I enjoy watching Felicia Day who’s starting “capital” was a cute smile and a good script. Money to back you up is important if you want to be a manufactured mega star, but it’s hardly critical to being a success.
We’re talking about her choices to stay with AKB48, not the ones originally offered. I do feel more sympathy for a young 16 year old making a hard choice for a slim wage than I do for a star at the top of their game who bends over backward to stay with someone who keeps (metaphorically at least) screwing them. The 16 year old faces two crappy options. The 21 year old star faces multiple reasonable ones and choose “shave head” instead of “telling them to eat a dick and releasing a tell all book and new single album via iTunes”.
On 16 year olds facing this contract. Yeah. I can see your points. I wouldn’t call it extortion as that’s an existing crime with actual existing meaning. I can accept you calling it extortionate (a different but similar word), without using that word myself. But I still have to say I accept people being able to take crappy deals for a shot at the big time. What would be the point of choice be without the ability to make a deal with the devil?
”I wonder to what extent some of the conditions in Miss Minegishi’s contract are actually necessary for business success, to what extent they’re just traditional elements of that industry, and to what extent they’re petty tyranny.”
A lot of whether the choice forced on those 16 year old girls turns on whether the condition is necessary. If fanboys will accept their idols sleeping with men who aren’t them then it’s “petty tyranny”. But my suspicion is that the AKB48 managers have made a clever choice that maximises their income (and hopefully some of that flows to the AKB48 members too). In that case the choice facing the 16 year gets harder – join a sexless pole dancing band for better returns versus joining one where you can get your jollies and get paid less. [3]
That suspicion is based on the reported fanboy reaction. Anything that gets that passionate a response is probably assisting you in making money.
[1] Assuming it is openly communicated. As I said, if its done without notification and just garnished from the work’s wages it’s theft.
[2] If the union official was a slave driver then yes, they could claim to own their members/slaves. It’s also be important that we stop them.
[3] This is based on an assumption 1) AKB48 are passing on some of the increased profits, 2) a similar band could exist with less onerous employment conditions and 3) that the 16 year old in question is offered spots in both bands. That makes it useless for discussing the specific scenario we’ve got, but does illustrate that distasteful employment conditions can be valid.
February 14, 2013 at 2:31 pm
I’ve spent the weekend worshipping Satan and been very busy making up for it this week, so come back to this late … nonetheless, since we’re digging up old bones around here …
Employers communicate conditions of employment after the fact all the time and get away with it. And most contracts are signed without coming within sight of a lawyer, and probably wouldn’t stand up to legal scrutiny – a great many employment contracts (especially between cash-in-hand labour and in small business) are little more than spoken agreements. So again, why is it acceptable when an employer demands it of their employees, but not when employees demand it of their employer?
Here you’re quibbling. Corporations can organize the means of production (as, for example, distribution networks for Idols’ music do, or as manufacturers with distributed factories and subsidiary companies do). I think you know full well that I don’t believe unions “own” employees. Unless you would like to argue that any company which “organizes” the means of production should not be able to negotiate with staff? That would leave franchises and temping companies in a bit of a bind, wouldn’t it? You’re quibbling with semantics here to avoid accepting the equivalence of the two negotiating stances.
No they don’t, and no she didn’t. The means of production of an entertainment go a good deal further than just a hundred dollar camera – they require film studios, musical instruments, advertising, access to radio or tv, editing and post-production services, and distribution networks for the finished goods. Felicia Day’s starting capital was not a cute smile and a good script: they were her starting skills as a worker. The capital she was granted access to included the organization making Bring it on, which employed her in a bit role; the film studio making Buffy the Vampire Slayer and subsequently all the distribution networks on which that show aired. Once she had some capital she became an independent craftsperson, fashioning the first series of the Guild, but even that didn’t see full success until she was able to secure access to the XBox network for season 2. Felicia Day succeeded basically on the back of the enormous capital resources of the people making Buffy. She is not an example in favour of your argument.
Regarding Miss Minegishi:
You can only do that if you either accept that you have different standards of “extortion” for capital and labour, or grant that the behavior of Gillard’s DEB was not extortion (in the context that we’re debating it here – he could actually have secured the money through threats to release the pictures of the industrialists shagging puppies, but we’re assuming something more mundane).
Whether or not a condition is necessary does not make it legal. Manufacturing companies could make a clever choice to maximize their income by refusing to invest in safety equipment, and locking the doors to prevent people going toilet, but that doesn’t mean that they can get away with putting those laws in a contract. Requiring young people to eschew sex in their private lives may be a clever choice, but it is neither necessary nor reasonable. Though one may not have a great deal of sympathy for a girl who has given up sex for a few years in order to make a motzah, that doesn’t mean the choice she was asked to make was a fair or reasonable one. I would definitely put this condition in the “no amount of profit justifies this kind of crap” box.
I have a suspicion that if one of the AKB48 members challenged their contract under Japanese employment law those clauses would have to be struck out – or, could be kept in but would be unenforcable due to Japan’s relatively strict privacy laws. Of course, no one can challenge them (it would have been nice if Miss Minegishi had).
February 15, 2013 at 9:56 am
“why is it acceptable when an employer demands it of their employees, but not when employees demand it of their employer?”
I explained what the word means in common usage. If you don’t like it, I suggest you start a blog and rail furiously against the world via the Internet.
”Unless you would like to argue that any company which “organizes” the means of production should not be able to negotiate with staff?”
Sorry, I can’t understand what you’re saying here. It seems to be something like companies own stuff, but they also don’t own some stuff but just organise it. As such they’re the same as a union which only organises stuff.
You also seem to assume I think companies own stuff they organise (i.e. contractual links with other companies). I’m not sure where that assumption comes from.
”You’re quibbling with semantics here to avoid accepting the equivalence of the two negotiating stances.”
I think I’m going to have to retreat to “I’m baffled by the argument”.
”Felicia Day’s starting capital was not a cute smile and a good script: they were her starting skills as a worker. SNIP list of jobs she did”
Sorry, you list a bunch of jobs she did as being capital she “had access to”. Do you want to list “human capital” as being in Felicia Day’s favour, or do you want to consider them just “skills”. In either event, how is it different to the situation Miss Minegishi faced, other than Miss Minegishi actually having a fan base rather just a resume?
”You can only do that if you either accept that you have different standards of “extortion” for capital and labour”
You keep saying it. I’m pretty sure that repeated statements on Internet blogs don’t define truth.
You have to edit Wikipedia to do that. 🙂
February 21, 2013 at 11:35 am
[I have been again snowed under by meatlife, hence the delay in returning to this argument]
You haven’t explained how it can be applied differently depending on who is doing the negotiation.
You need to explain, not what extortion means, but why the definition is different for unions and employers. Consider this quote from a captain of industry in 1914:
You seem to think this sort of thing is merely troubling when done by a captain of industry, but extortion when done by a union. You need to explain this double standard.
That’s because I’m trying to understand your logic. You have introduced some baffling semantic quibble wherein the contents of a contract should be viewed differently according to whether the negotiatiors own or merely organize the resources about which the contract is concerned. I can’t see why this is relevant, and that’s why you can’t understand what I’m saying.
Just because some buzzword bingo players choose to call skills human capital doesn’t make it so. Felicia Day made her success by selling her talents to those who own the means of production, for the mutual benefit of both parties. She did not have the capital (i.e. access to or control of the means of production) to do this herself. You can’t change the facts of her economic relationship by redeploying words, and calling “skills” a type of capital doesn’t make it so – nor does it change the historically verifiable nature of Felicia Day’s relationship with capital.
What a preposterous claim. If this is the case, why do people argue so assiduously on youTube? I think your understanding of reality is objectively pre-internet!