Is Private Government Necessary to an Extent? - Umer

By

 Anderson makes a compelling case for the balance of power being skewed too far in favor of employers in modern workplaces. However, I think there is something to be said in defense of the employer-employee hierarchies.

My main contention is with Anderson's objection to the overly-intensive and incompletely specified nature of managers' authority over their workers. She uses the example of the state imposing traffic laws "that leaves people free to choose their own destination, routes and purposes," while corporations like Walmart dictate "what they have to pick up, when and where they have to deliver it, and what route they have to take." (121) This analogy is heavily flawed on multiple levels. Traffic laws exist largely to ensure general road safety. Their purpose is to regulate behavior to maintain order on the roads, and therefore are relatively minimal. By comparison, Walmart's objectives are profit and efficiency. With that in mind, of course they tell their drivers what to pick up. Their function as a corporation depends on a specific catalogue of items that need to be maintained according to demand. Letting the drivers choose what goods to pick up would make no sense, as they don't have an understanding of the inventory stocks of the company at large. Of course they tell their drivers when and where they have to deliver it; the entire purpose of the drivers' jobs is to get the goods to the Walmart location when they need it. Of course they tell their drivers what route to take; from an efficiency standpoint, it makes more sense to have a preplanned route for all drivers to follow, rather than letting each individual choose their route, which could result in delays or accidents that can have ramifications for the whole company. As an employee, you necessarily give up these types of freedoms when you enter into an employment contract. Anderson objects to this, saying that workers are not allowed "to pursue their own personal objectives at work or even select their own means to a prescribed end." (121) But why should they? Their function as an employee is to serve the company's objectives, for which they will be compensated. 

I think Anderson makes some great points about guaranteeing a minimum level of workers rights, and ensuring that they are not unfairly exploited. However, I do think her example of the Walmart driver is a weak one, and serves to illustrate that we should not go too far in giving workers too much freedom. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more