Your NGO/ Small Business does not have an innate right to exist
Why am I speaking about NGO’s and small businesses at the same time? Because they both often operate in the same ways – namely deflecting any criticisms of their actions by focusing on the “good” they do by simply existing. Ultimately focusing most on their own survival to the detriment of their staff and the communities they wish to serve.
For small businesses this “good” is thought of as being a counterbalance to the big evil scary capitalist corporations. In a world where we have limited choices, giving our money to a nice mom and pop shop is a much more comforting thought than lining the already insurmountable wealth of another billionaire. But before I expand this small business narrative, I think that it’s really important to say what a small business is. Because, up until recently I was thinking of a lot of independent artisans, and individual entrepreneurs as small businesses – simply because we are often expected to do a million different jobs to allow our businesses to run. But a small business is any business that has fewer than 100 employees. (which is a lot of people to be responsible for) And a “micro enterprise” is any business that has 1 - 4 employees. In 2020 there was 1.2 million “small businesses” in Canada, and they made up about 97% of of all Canadian businesses. Which means that all small businesses, in the technical sense of the term, depend on labor – and many directly benefit and sustain themselves from the exploitation of labor.
Ok, lets jump over to non-governmental organizations (or non-profits) for a quick second. NGOs also benefit from this narrative of “goodness.” It comes from the fulfillment of mandates that are oriented around social good. NGOs typically have missions that are focused on helping a marginalized segment of society, advocating for positive political change or are oriented around some sort of service delivery. Which means that it is very easy, once an NGO exists, to say that any halt or slow down of its operations is harmful to the public. Because of this, NGOs also quite widely rely on the exploitation of labor to function. This can occur through depending on volunteer* and internship positions for widescale operations, underpaying staff, and encouraging unethical work conditions. And so, NGOs posses a unique power that rationalizes harmful practices and encourage silence around this harm for some vague greater good.
Creating a Separation Between Staff and the Community
One very unique way that criticism of these organizations and businesses are deflected is by creating a narrative in which the wellbeing of staff comes at the expense of the community. This can look like a small business saying that they don’t want minimum wage to go up, because then the prices at their shop will go up and it will become too expensive for the community. Or an NGO saying that they can’t afford to pay their staff for the overtime they work because then that money will provide less services for the community. This narrative puts the wellbeing of laborers at odds with the wellbeing of the community. Ultimately erasing that the fact that these same laborers often come from the same communities these organizations say they want to serve and prioritize. And it’s likely to be most effective as a form of silencing or deflection on people who come from marginalized communities and have a deep personal and emotional investment in service delivery or the organization meeting its goals. This narrative both preys on the emotional attachments of marginalized peoples while severing them from their community and shames them for demanding better treatment. Their salaries, their time, their mental wellbeing and workplace safety all become martyrs for the cause.
Furthermore, this narrative removes autonomy and choice from the employer and makes it seem as if they are helpless within the larger system. And it may be true that they have less power or capital comparative to those with the most wealth and mobility in our society. But I want to be clear, once someone is in the position of an employer, they have a responsibility to create a safe and equitable environment for their staff that still meets their larger organizational mandate. And if they can’t, then they have a faulty business or organizational model.
Scarcity, Power, and Cognitive Dissonance
The problem of course, is that a faulty business model according to the standards of liberation and social good is probably a successful business model under capitalism. And I think that capitalism makes scarcity and paranoia our resting state. I can’t speak to the psychology of all business owners or NGO boards, but I do know that most entities are most vested in their own survival.
Most of us know that financial insecurity feels awful. Being in debt feels awful. And sometimes, I wonder what lengths I would go to, to ensure that I never feel this way again? Would I start a business, attempt to maximize profit, and put away any excess profit away to ensure that my business doesn't go under? Would I rather have the security of knowing that my business is safe, and I won’t fall into debt more than I would care about my employees earning a living wage? What lengths would I go to convince myself that somehow my business or organization needed to exist to justify prioritizing the survival of my business entity over the individual survival of me employees?
I don’t think that’s a path I would take, but I know it’s available to me – and that in itself is a problem. Because I truly think that people who believe themselves to be socially conscious, or pro workers rights are perfectly capable of acting against these interests when they are in a position of power. I think that they are much more capable of convincing themselves that they are right and that their employees are wrong, or greedy, or asking for too much – because they have an entire existing socio-economic system behind them that will affirm these thoughts. I’ve seen it happen and was painted as irrational and biased when I openly called out what was happening. It’s so much easier to justify the status quo when the status quo gives us security. Advocating for employees when you are in a position of power inherently means giving power away. It means correcting for asymmetrical relationships, it means reinvesting excess profit and money that we put aside for “security” into the hands of those who allow for our businesses and organizations to run. It means accepting insecurity for the sake of laborers, and that is something that we are told we should never do.
And so, we as people who say we are for workers rights have to actually be for workers rights. But beyond that, we have a responsibility to interrogate the narratives we have been told again and again about who we ought to prioritize in the fight for liberation. Call it intuition or just general suspicion, but I somehow do not think the path to liberation is paved with a general disregard or outright demonization of workers who demanding fair wages and compassionate environments.
We can no longer accept organizations that claim to help while actively causing harm. We should not have to compromise our humanity as laborers because we care about our communities. If an organization relies on exploitation to survive, then it shouldn’t exist.
*There is a lot of nuance to the discussion of volunteering and unpaid labor that I want to delve into. Truthfully, I think that there are ways that folks can volunteer time as a form of reparations, community care, or simply through understanding that they are in a financial position where they do not need to accumulate wealth. But workplaces are not the environments in which that choice should be made.
