Bad Government and Trade-Offs - Shaira
Chapter 6 features a response by Tyler Cowen challenging Anderson’s argument that “communist dictatorships” are private business firms. He applies an economical lens to frame his argument and begins by discussing the costs of worker exit. Cowen argues that when the costs of worker exits are relatively low, the dictatorial power of companies is also relatively low (109). Cowen argues that since many workers become attached to their workplaces – because of factors such as good relationships with their coworkers, preferred commute, etc – workplace issues are not about insufficient worker freedoms but wage depression. He acknowledges that the cost of exiting many jobs is high and therefore, public policy should focus on lowering these costs by leveling things such as health insurance and retirement benefits. When the cost of leaving a job is high, such as losing health insurance, retirement benefits, and immigration status (things that are all tied closely to an individual’s job) employees may feel trapped and may be less likely to leave the job even if they are being financially exploited. This can give employers an unfair advantage in negotiating wages and benefits, as they know the employees have limited options. Thus, he argues that worker dependence on corporations is a problem of bad government and not directly linked to corporate employment relationships.
Cowen also discusses trade-offs in the workplace He states that “for every benefit, there is a tradeoff” (111). For example, he states that an employer can pay workers more either with money or with freedom and tolerance, which he states are “perks.” Unlike freedom and tolerance, money is taxed at high rates which leads to many jobs that end up with too many perks and not enough pay. Therefore, the problem should not be about increasing the perks, but about increasing pay. He argues that if Anderson is advocating for more perks, then she could argue for higher taxes on worker incomes. Cowen critiques this idea for higher taxes on worker incomes in order to fund more perks, arguing that individual preferences would likely push for higher pay rather than more perks. I see his argument that someone who gets paid a lower wage by their employer may enjoy higher freedoms. For example, an employee may be offered a lower salary but greater flexibility in their work schedule, the ability to work from home, and more tolerance for their personal life commitments. This employee may have less financial compensation, but they may enjoy more freedom and autonomy in their work and personal life.
If I am not misunderstanding, Cowen is arguing that in situations where employers offer perks such as flexibility and tolerance that these perks should not be viewed as a substitute for fair pay. While some employees may prefer perks over higher pay, many others may prioritize financial compensation and stability. Therefore, the focus should be on increasing pay to ensure that employees are fairly compensated for their work, rather than relying on perks to make up for lower wages. However, I think it is over simplistic to view the workplace in terms of a trade-off just between perks and pay. Anderson argues that Cowen’s pay vs perks model overlooks the hierarchies across the spectrum of wage labor. For example, low wage workers including construction and restaurant workers are victims of wage theft. Not only are employees subjected to wage theft by their employers, but their working conditions are also left unimproved (140). I like the economical lens Cowen attempts to apply to the issues of employer-employee relationships, however, I argue that this approach overlooks the complexities of the workplace and the diverse needs and preferences of workers. Thinking back to Luis’ blog post – trade-offs may look different for everyone and therefore, we need to take into account the intersecting identities of employees who may be more susceptible to workplace exploitation and domination.
Lastly, I agree with Cowen’s point that businesses should have the right to fire a worker for some forms of “outside the workplace” activity. In chapter 2, Anderson states that companies have the authority to “regulate workers’ off-hour lives as well – their political activities, speech…” and that workers can be fired for their off-hours Facebook Postings (41). He states that some workers can post things on social media that can be racist, sexist, or discomforting. When employers fire these workers it is to protect the freedom of other workers (112). I think that in any workplace there must be a code of conduct to protect the employees from discrimination or harassment while also preventing arbitrary firing decisions. Would love to get your thoughts on this!
Hi Shaira!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog post and think you did a good job of summarizing the argument brought by Cowen.
I want to expand on the idea of companies using positive workplace environments to attract employees as you mentioned in your blog. In her response to Cowen, Anderson points out a key difference between the employer-employee relationship she is talking about versus the one Cowen is talking about. Cowen says that "the desire to attract and keep talent is the single biggest reason why companies try to create pleasant and tolerant atmospheres for their workers" (138). He argues that companies have an incentive to create a positive working environment to keep and gain good employees. Anderson responds by saying that this may be true for some employees but only when there is respect (138). She explains that employers don't have to compete for unskilled labor and the workers are not treated with respect and instead are viewed as replaceable (139). She says "the amount of respect, standing, and autonomy they get is roughly proportional to their market value" (138). These unskilled laborers are only viewed as means to make more money and they are not respected or valued as humans. These employees struggle to find jobs and when they do, they put up with horrible conditions because they know they can easily be replaced by another unskilled worker.
Cowen's argument reminds me of the working conditions and perks you hear about at companies like Google. They have catered lunches, game rooms, etc which seem to back up Cowen's argument. But these examples of unique and well designed working environments are only the reality for a select few. As Anderson points out a large percentage of workers are unskilled and seen as replaceable. These workers don't have the luxury of catered lunches and are simply trying to find work to live off of. I agree with Anderson and think that in this part of his argument Cowen presents a limited and privileged point of view.
Hey Shaira, great post. I enjoyed the summary of Cowen's argument and some of the pushback given by Anderson. I wanted to add more elements of counterarguments to your blog post that Anderson stated, and I viewed it as credible.
ReplyDeleteOne element that I believe Cowen misses to discuss were the points brought up by Anderson in her first lecture, which centered around racism and colonialism. Anderson states in her first lecture that "universal self-employment failed in its own terms due to its dependence on the patriarchal appropriation of women's labor and racist appropriation of Native American lands" (132). If these injustices were within the frame of Cowen's argument, it would have aided in preparing a stronger case against Anderson. For example, as you pointed out, Shaira, Cowen "acknowledges that the cost of exiting many jobs is high and therefore, public policy should focus on lowering these costs by leveling things such as health insurance and retirement benefits." However, Cowen misses why some individuals don't feel guaranteed/safe in exiting their labor, which Anderon points out in her analysis of female waitresses.
Anderson asks Cowen, "What jobs are workers supposed to exit to?" (141). Statistics on waitress experience show that 90 percent experience sexual harassment, which connects to Anderson's first lecture on the reality of patriarchal appropriation of women's labor. On top of this, "sexual harassment exists in all industries," and disregarding their experience denies the opportunity to present solutions for patriarchy in the workforce (141). Anderson emphasizes these injustices and advocates for workers' voices (input) in their labor conditions and wages.
In addition, another aspect Anderson brought forth through the employer-employee relationship is the employer's continuation of oppression because of the surplus of workers. As Anderson states, "Employers use their power to design workplaces to create a fine-grained division of labor in which workers are deskilled and thus easily replaceable" (139). Here, Anderson is effectively pushing back on Cowen's credible belief that since employers compete for talent, they foster respect and autonomy in their relationships with their workers. While his statement, holds some truth, he misses the fact that the cycle of wage theft and harsh work conditions continues because of the availability of workers who take the jobs because of their needs for income and "stability." Anderson says it best when she states, "Employers don't have to compete for workers who aren't scarce" (138). This unfortunate truth shows what my last blog post emphasized about the injustices of immigrants and their labor conditions.
Overall, I stand behind Anderson and her statements with facts. I agree with Shaira and Cowen on the need to protect the "freedom of other workers" (112). However, as Shaira pointed out, we must prevent "arbitrary firing decisions," which could be achieved through Anderson's push for workers' voices in their labor.
Hi Shaira,
ReplyDeleteI would love to consider another situation which firing a worker for outside activity seems cruel, pushing against your last paragraph on arbitrary firing decisions and Cowen. I want to support Anderson’s counter argument to Cowen’s claim by considering specific legal discrimination which determines an individual’s respect and market value (discrimination which likely occurs because of out-of-work activity).
Anderson brings up two major concerns with Cowen’s response to her initial argument. First, she thinks that Cowen thinks few people are impacted by the control of the private government. They also, Anderson writes, disagree on the costs and benefits (tradeoffs) of such workplace constitutions. Overall, Anderson argues that Cowen implicitly understands that the choices employers and employees in the current work system measures what they want. Anderson boils dow the first dispute to differences in understanding for how private governments should be evaluated. Cowen believes in the market’s supremacy while Anderson instead thinks that “existing market orderings are distorted by the state’s prior allocation of unaccountable power to employers over employees. Market outcomes thereby grossly undervalue the costs to workers of private government” (Anderson 138).
Anderson pushes back against Cowen, purporting that the constraints that workers feel is not well regulated or fixed by the market or state policy. She writes, “Millions of workers suffer harassment, abuse, disrespect, and severe constraints, even when off duty...neither state laws nor market orderings are sufficient to deal with these problems” (Anderson 138).
She even thinks that the respect and autonomy workers has depends on their market value. Meanwhile, Cowen argues that the want to keep talent is the main reason that companies make nice work environments for their employees.
To support Anderson’s claim that it is the market value of workers determining their respect and autonomy, I want to consider a specific unprotected field of discrimination: physical appearance. According to the federal government, physical appearance is not a protected class concerning anti-discrimination laws. Consider a person who gets really into making food in their free time, whenever they are not stuck working. Here, I am focusing on a worker like a flight attendent, hooters waitress, or someone else whose market value is inherently tied to their physical appearance. Say this proclivity towards delicious food causes the employee to change her physical appearance, whether it be a weight gain, change in skin clarity etc. As her physical appearance changes, her market value decreases. Maybe she will receive fewer tips or not encourage workers to order more food and beer (or an upgraded plane ticket). As an employee, her respect and autonomy will likely decrease. While this may not seem as clear, consider the choices this woman will have. She can either be fired for not maintaining the physical appearance necessary for her position or she can have reduced personal autonomy and respect in her company, being forced to regain her “prettier” appearance to achieve the level of freedom under the private government she initially held. She may be compelled to go on a diet or pay money to fix her appearance all to regain her market value. In this case, Cowen’s ideas on autonomy make less sense. Talent in a job is unrelated to appearance. Being traditionally pretty has no correlation to success in serving customers or opening an exit door as a flight attendant. But, it often is a factor which determines worker autonomy. I am interested to hear what others think.