Anderson: Can Equalizing Power Dynamics Go Wrong? - Aara

Tyler Cowen presents a critique of Anderson’s argument of the workplace as it functions as a private government. Anderson argues that workplace dynamics need reform, which most importantly includes letting employees have a voice. Her support for workers’ rights can also be read as a support for unions. This lets employees have a say in the way that they are being treated in their current job positions, arguing for better working conditions, wages, and more. 

One part of Cowen’s criticism specifically focuses on this form of unionization. He says:

“When workers have a say in governance, employment tends to be more stable and wages tend to be more volatile. In other words, the real problem with bosses is that they are too willing to give up “control” over their workers” (116). He argues that when employees have more administrative sway over the way a workplace functions, it can have negative effects. He sees this as an issue as employers are then giving up their authority in order to appease their employees, and are “too willing” to do so. An extension of this is that if employers are too willing to listen to their employees without much pushback, authority within the workplace may crumble, and issues of productivity and stability would arise. 

Anderson’s response Cowen this brings us back to one of her main points: her argument against private government. The workplace to Anderson is akin to a private government, where employees are under the arbitrary jurisdiction of their employers who are able to fire individuals for unjustifiable reasons, impose oppressive working conditions and rules, and dictate the lives of employees both in the workplace and outside of it. If employees do not have a say in how they are treated in the workplace, they are being subjected to an unjustly formed inequality of hierarchies. Her two fundamental objections to private government are as follows (127):

1. It makes those subject to it vulnerable to unjustified and abusive forms of power - beyond whatever legitimate authority employers have.

2. Private government subjects people to social relations of inequality. 

This is especially problematic when employees and employers are politically supposed to be equal beings. 

However - what can happen when employees have too much power over their treatment in the workforce? I am playing devil’s advocate here (and am NOT calling Cowen the devil) as I thought this was an interesting case study. 

Take what happened with police unions - both CNN and the New York Times (and many other sources) published articles about how police unions are helping to shield police officers from misconduct accountability. Police unions have been known as powerful machines - a quite influential and dominant forces in the political world. Due to this power, however, unions have protected their officers from facing responsibility for their wrongful actions. 

The NY Time article highlights that:

“Over the past five years, as demands for reform have mounted in the aftermath of police violence in cities like Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and now Minneapolis, police unions have emerged as one of the most significant roadblocks to change. The greater the political pressure for reform, the more defiant the unions often are in resisting it — with few city officials, including liberal leaders, able to overcome their opposition.

They aggressively protect the rights of members accused of misconduct, often in arbitration hearings that they have battled to keep behind closed doors. And they have also been remarkably effective at fending off broader change, using their political clout and influence to derail efforts to increase accountability.”

This brings in a new form of hierarchy - one between the employee and the non-employee (not employer) that they interact with. Anderson might not specifically be focusing on this relationship, but a power imbalance exists between police officers and the citizens under their jurisdiction. Police officers can impose certain rationales and modes of penalizing that are arbitrary. They are able to impact how people behave outside of their jobs, in their daily lives. This is an example of arbitrary power in a workforce that employees can now use to inconsistently apply their own biases and wants on individuals under their “authority.” As an employee is tied to their employer through contracts and thus tacitly consents to the workforce environment, one tacitly consents to live in a society where police officers (are supposed to) uphold regulations. This may also be a small case of an abuse of power on an employee’s end coupled with unionizations, but it is an important one to consider. This is not a one-off coffee shop unionization that is skyrocketing coffee prices, but a workforce that can cause long-lasting and violent consequences.