RESULTS

In our Pol.is survey of food workers, 76 people total voted (of which 60 were grouped) with a total of 2640 votes cast on 70 statements (35 of which were used to “seed” the survey, 35 of which were generated by respondents). Participants voted, on average, on 32 statements each. Participants who chose to submit statements added between four to five statements to the survey. 

Sixty-four percent of respondents did not work at a job that offered health care benefits. Seventy-five percent of respondents received some kind of pandemic relief or stimulus, while only 25% received some kind of hazard pay, overtime, or other bonuses for working during the pandemic. While 63% work at a job that shut down at least once during the pandemic, only 39% received unemployment benefits—this suggests that this group, overall, kept working except during periods of shut down and that, like many food workers in NYC, these people stopped working due to state mandates and restarted working under conditions of “essential” worker status (without benefits extended to workers in other industries).

Sixty-four percent of respondents in the survey agreed with the statement “people at my workplace were exposed to COVID-19” (while 24% disagreed and 11% passed). Almost 75% of people who took the survey were concerned about exposure at work, or spreading the virus to friends and family. Seventy-five percent work in close proximity to customers, and 68% encountered customers “who refused to wear a mask or take public health measures seriously.” Seventy-eight percent agreed that they “felt new pressures at work that would not have existed if we weren’t in a pandemic.” Seventy percent of overall responses were in agreement that “NYC and NY state shut down and opened up without ever considering the impact on workers in the food industry.”

Pol.is algorithms clustered respondents as three distinct groups based on responses.

Group A was made up of a majority (59%) of “Back of the House” workers. About 20% of the respondents in Group A indicated that they have more than one job and 14% indicated that they identify as gig workers. Eighty-two percent of this group (the highest of the three) agreed with the statement, “The label of ‘essential’ worker was used to force us to work, even when it was unsafe.” Over 80% of Group A felt their boss and workplace overall did not care about their health and safety, and this group was the least likely to agree that “My job encouraged me to get the vaccine, and gave me time off to do so.” Only 4% of workers in Group A received unemployment benefits during the pandemic, and only 31% of this group received federal or state pandemic relief benefits—both of which indicate a divide between this group and other workers; one explanation could be that this due to immigration or citizenship status that would prevent someone from receiving benefits. Overall, Group A did not feel valued as “essential” workers, and was the group most likely to agree with statements suggesting that “essential” status was used to compel them to work despite the risks involved.

Group B contained a majority of 55% “Front of the House” workers, and 40% “Back of the House.” Twenty-five percent said they were salaried employees, while 36% said that they work mostly for tips and 36% said they work part time. Eighty-eight percent of Group B received unemployment, which follows as many of the “service” jobs (vs. production, manufacturing, distribution, or retail) were those that were lost when the pandemic shut down. This group was also the most critical of the industry with 73% agreeing with the statement that “I’m not going to risk my life (or those around me) to feed other people” and 78% with “COVID-19 made me want to quit working in the food industry.” Not a single respondent in Group B agreed with the statement  “As an “essential worker” I felt like a hero.” Also 75% of this group (compared to 27% of Group A and 8% of Group C) agreed with “I wish I had stayed on unemployment—I made almost as much (or more)!” These statements suggest this group was mostly likely made up of restaurant workers, many of whom were eligible for benefits (while perhaps that Group A, working mostly in the “back” was not). 

Sixty-eight percent of respondents in Group C were managers of some kind (compared with 37% of Group A and 36% of Group B). This group was split evenly (50%) between “Front of House” and “Back of House” roles. Fifty-six percent of Group C was paid by salary and also, at the time of the survey, they were the group most likely to be back at work full time. Ninety-three percent of Group C agreed with the statement, “I LOVE my job,” and was the only group with a majority (68%) that agreed with the statement, “As an ‘essential worker’ I felt like a hero,” compared to 31% of Group A and 0% of Group B. Group C tended to disagree with statements critical of management, however, they were also critical of customers—agreeing, overall, with statements about increased customer demands and the difficulty getting them to wear masks and follow health and safety guidelines, which makes sense as managers in the food industry are the main point of contact during conflicts between workers and customers. This group was slightly more likely than the other groups to “work in close proximity to customers,” still only 37% indicated that they receive healthcare benefits through their employer. This group was the most likely of all groups to have received federal and state pandemic relief and was the only group where workers received hazard pay, overtime, or other bonuses during the pandemic (62% of Group C compared to less than 10% in other groups). 

There were some clearly divisive statements in the Pol.is groupings. As noted, Group B was the only group where a large majority, 88%, received unemployment benefits, compared to 4% of Group A and 31% of Group C. This was the single most divisive statement in the survey, suggesting a divide between those who had access to benefits and those who didn’t. Interestingly, groups in this study that did not receive unemployment benefits were the group of majority managers and the group of majority back of house workers, suggesting that trends towards the replacement of “service” roles in the “front” with grocery and food delivery roles had an impact, as managers and kitchen workers stayed at work throughout the pandemic. There wasn’t a majority in any group that agreed with the statement “My job was basically unchanged—it is the same before and after the pandemic,” Group A and Group C were more likely to agree, 44% and 46%, respectively, while only 5% of Group B agreed. Group B, at 78%, was the only group where a majority indicated that the pandemic made them want to quit working in the food industry. One of the more important findings of this survey was that 71% of the workers taking the survey overall felt they would have been “better off with a union”—only 44% of Group C agreed. 

Overall this study’s findings illuminate the disparities that exist in New York City’s food system, ranging from working conditions to workers’ benefits (e.g., hazard pay, unemployment, and access to health care). This study also highlighted possible tensions present between those working in the city’s food system and the public. Results also show tensions and disparities between food workers—workers in management roles, with power and authority in their work, had greater access to benefits, time off to get vaccines, bonus and other hazard pay—even as a majority of management had no access to healthcare, and faced new constraints and difficulties dealing with customers. These results suggest that the location of a worker in the hierarchy of work considerably altered the experience of food workers during the pandemic, as some workers felt unwilling to risk their lives for customers, while those in those positions of (relative) power were the most likely to feel that work they were doing was heroic and worthy of the “essential” title.