Protecting Against Workplace Unfreedom - Walsh
Other blog posts have highlighted Anderson's explanation for how the Industrial Revolution and economies of scale produced hierarchies and disappointed egalitarian hopes for the potential of free markets. I thought Anderson did an amazing job of explaining this and workplace freedom and justice is something that I have hardly ever thought about in school. I was struck by here description of the workplace and the lack of republican freedom that employees have due to the structure of the firm.
She points out the problems with the lack of regulation and protection for workers in a large firm. These problems essentially boil down to the fact that bosses can do basically whatever they want to workers as long as there are fair entry and exit opportunities. However, workers are largely unprotected when they are actually in the company, which Anderson argues is at least equally as important as entry and exit criteria.
Besides ending the division of labor and stopping capitalist markets, there are many ways that changes could be made to this system of uncontrolled authority hierarchies. As Anderson puts it, "That the constitution of workplace government is both arbitrary and dictatorial is not dictated by efficiency or freedom of contract, but rather by the state" (64). There are certain aspects of businesses that make it necessary for them to have hierarchy and authority. However, this doesn't mean that these private governments must be arbitrary and dictatorial. The goal is to fix this and "replace private government with public government" (65). Essentially, make the government accountable to the governed.
She suggests 4 primary strategies to achieve this goal: exit, the rule of law, substantive constitutional rights and voice. She presents many great ideas that would go a long way to helping workers secure more freedom. My biggest question is: How significant of a role can the US government play in protecting worker rights? The reason that this interests me is that, as Anderson and others have said, the original fight against sources of oppression and authority targeted the national government and also religious institutions. Anderson argues that this battle between individual freedom and the government has been quite successful and the one that we are now ignoring is for workplace freedom. Now that the workplace government is more invasive in our daily lives than the national government, I suggest that this institution that has been seen as an enemy of our freedom can play a significant role in protecting workers from pervasive workplace unfreedom.
The power and size of large companies, especially those in technology and social media, such as Amazon and Facebook, sometimes evoke the image of the old Gilded Age political cartoons showing the monstrous oil monopolies engulfing the entire country. While some social media companies may not be the worst violators of workplace domination, they represent how it can sometimes feel like business is beyond governmental control or regulation. However, I think there is a real possibility for the US government to get more involved in protecting citizens while they are at work. As Anderson suggests, measures such as the Fair Labor Standards Act should be expanded to create a more robust defense of workers, especially while they are engaging in off-duty activities. However, Anderson points out that these measures only create a floor that companies cannot go under, rather than providing worker participation in governance.
The expenses and complications of the legal process prevents such government regulations from being enforced. This is a major problem and can make government regulations somewhat obsolete if they cannot be effectively enforced. This also allows for injustice to go unchanged. My suggestion is that the government should come up with a process that is more streamlined and less harmful for the workers for raising complaints that will get real attention without negatively effecting the worker. This involves a change in the process of law surrounding such cases and is surely difficult to implement. Changing this would be a big deal though, as it would make the governed more accountable to the workers and would make sure that expanded, robust protection of workers could actually make a change.
Are there any other ways you think the government could become involved in workplace regulation? Is it even a good idea for the government to involve itself in workplace affairs? Is it plausible?
Hey Walsh, Great blog post! I was thinking about Anderson's solution, which exceeds freedom of entry and exit from an employee-employer relationship. More specifically, to answer your question, "Are there any other ways you think the government could become involved in workplace regulation?" Anderson tackles your question through her analysis of the law of coverture, which shows the "trap" we are in when seeking higher levels of state support in workplace regulation.
ReplyDeleteAnderson pointed out that women held the utmost disadvantages if going with marriage because of the status of autonomy lost after the contract. In marriage, women "lost all rights to own property and make contracts in her own name" (61). Even attempting to exit the marriage when women were mistreated and violated, or another word for divorcing was difficult. However, there was government intervention, but it lacked strength against the oppression of women—the wife's submission to the private government of her husband. The only intervention provided by the state was declaring a marriage contract as "valid only if voluntarily accepted by both parties" (61). This intervention is similar to the worker's contract in that the state provides the chance of "consent" from the worker to enter the labor with the employer. But shouldn't there be more help to prevent injustices in these private governments?
Anderson then tells us to "Imagine a modification of this patriarchal governance regime, allowing either spouse to divorce at will and allowing any clause of the default contract to be altered by a prenuptial agreement" (61). While the addition would ideally minimize the abuse of power within marriages, it still doesn't make women's demands for liberty within this private government respected by their male counterparts. The issue not solved by this modification, as Anderson points out, is that "it preserves a patriarchal baseline, in which men still hold virtually all the cards" (61). In other words, because men still hold the power within the private government of marriage, it allows most women to remain trapped within their patriarchal authority. Anderson states, "Consent to an option within a set cannot justify the option set itself," which is true in both the case of marriages and work contracts (61).
After applying the hypothetical state intervention, we still see the issue prevailing. When applied to workplace affairs, I can see the same outcome. Given the result, it makes me question if Walsh's outlined proposal for a solution could occur and be effective. And this is why, I think, Anderson shows the four strategies "for advancing and protecting the liberties and interests of the governed under any type of government" (65). I believe the most effective one is "voice" because of its ability to "adapt workplace rules to local conditions than state regulations can," such as workplace democracy and labor unions (69).