A Modest Proposal for Melville House
FOR PREVENTING EX-EMPLOYEES FROM BEING A BURDEN TO THEIR FORMER EMPLOYERS, AND FOR MAKING THEM BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY
It is a dispiriting sight to see so many fellow citizens, some of whom had previously been gainfully employed, compete for an ever-dwindling number of salaried positions. Having recently been excited by the unexpected announcement that Melville House has hired a new publicist, I would like to advance some tentative suggestions that might help to ensure that it is a long-lasting and mutually beneficial commercial relationship, and perhaps even a useful model for the economy as a whole.
It should be clear to all who observe this matter dispassionately that, in any number of once-proud industries, there now exists a greater number of people than jobs. And yet there have recently been some disquieting suggestions, originating mainly from Socialized Europe, that a workplace’s labor relations ought to bear some determinate relation to its professed moral and political values. These Trade Unions and corporations have said that employers ought to offer reason, notice, and even severance pay to colleagues whom they have decided to fire—all of which is contrary to the long-established American practice of ‘at will’ employment contracts.
Melville House has not stooped to this Social Democratic nadir in the past, and certainly should not be tempted to do so now. In a time of economic turmoil, which as everyone knows is disproportionately affecting the publishing industry, such suggestions are little short of unpatriotic. Having to give reason might prevent a publisher from firing well-performing employees, compulsory notice could rob the act of its natural spontaneity, and any severance package would surely be better spent on future salaries. And yet the problem becomes knottier still: even after a summary dismissal, there remains a residual risk that ex-workers might become a drain on America’s overstretched social security system. How could it be possible for our contracting workplaces to support this growing reserve army?
It is at the target of this economic conundrum, with all due humility, that I aim my proposal—I trust that it will not remain open to any substantive objections, once the available alternatives have been given due consideration. Rather than risk any additional burden upon taxpayers or employers, ex-colleagues need to be discreetly disposed of. There are two possible roads to this end. If here on a work visa, they should be Swiftly removed to their country of origin. If, however, deportation is not an option, it would be better for the new employee to eat the old.
The benefits are clear. Not only will both state and employer be free of the dead weight of supporting someone no longer to their taste, but a Darwinian form of selection will ensue. The pool of potential applicants will be reduced to those who better fit the work; each employee will therefore become more useful than the last; and the nutritional benefits of a good meal will provide a much-needed supplement to any meager starting salary. Should the new employee waiver at his or her desk during a grueling day, it would only take a brief thought of the consequences to stiffen enterprise and resolve.
As a progressive, independent publishing house, free of the bureaucratic apparatus of corporate publishing, Melville House is in an especially good position to implement this policy. Why expect a house publishing Left-wing writers to follow workplace doctrines from Europe, rather than forge a new path in the New World? Just as their esteemed author Paul Berman can proclaim himself to be Of the Left while supporting an imperialist war, so can Melville House claim the mantle of Progressive, while directing new employees to eat their predecessors.
