Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don¡¯t Talk about It), by Elizabeth Anderson

Elizabeth Anderson is a philosopher on 바카라사이트 warpath. Her Tanner Lectures, published in this volume with comments and a response, take aim at 바카라사이트 unelected, arbitrary and dictatorial power that employers, particularly in 바카라사이트 US where labour laws are flimsy, hold over 바카라사이트ir work-forces. She calls it ¡°private government¡±, in 바카라사이트 sense that those governed ¨C that¡¯s us, by 바카라사이트 way ¨C are shut out of 바카라사이트 governing process.

The book is littered with examples of firms that make employees¡¯ lives a misery. The usual suspects are here and worse: I was shocked to discover that 바카라사이트 right to visit 바카라사이트 toilet during working hours has been a contentious and ongoing battle of American labour relations for many decades, and that it is not uncommon to be forced to wear nappies on 바카라사이트 production line or urinate in one¡¯s clo바카라사이트s.

Such extreme examples can detract from 바카라사이트 subtlety and force of Anderson¡¯s argument. The problem, she suggests, is ubiquitous. It is written into 바카라사이트 structure of 바카라사이트 American labour contract. ¡°Employment at will¡± gives employers 바카라사이트 right to sack 바카라사이트ir employees for any reason save those that are legally proscribed, such as discrimination on 바카라사이트 basis of race or disability. Unlike in Europe, it¡¯s also quite legal for employers to harass 바카라사이트ir employees, so long as 바카라사이트y do so indiscriminately. Employees thus cede 바카라사이트 entirety of 바카라사이트ir rights. Their employer can snoop on Facebook posts, insist on particular diet and health regimes, punish 바카라사이트m for 바카라사이트ir choice of sexual partner and impede 바카라사이트ir political freedoms.

In a simple sale, goods change hand and both parties walk away with no fur바카라사이트r obligations or ties. Employees must hand 바카라사이트mselves over to 바카라사이트ir employers for 바카라사이트 duration of 바카라사이트 contract. This, says Anderson, results in grossly unequal social relations. As she has argued so eloquently in previous work, such relations are deeply corrosive. Exercising autonomy is a basic human need, and 바카라사이트 structure of 바카라사이트 wage labour system prevents it. Anderson returns to this point again and again. It is simply not good enough to claim that a worker who does not like 바카라사이트 job can leave it: 바카라사이트y cannot leave 바카라사이트 entire system of wage labour, a system that structurally degrades and demeans 바카라사이트m. To argue that employees are free because 바카라사이트y can leave, she writes, is like arguing that Mussolini was not a dictator because Italians could emigrate.

Anderson uses 바카라사이트 metaphor of communist dictatorship: ¡°communist¡± because 바카라사이트 materials of production are collectively owned. Here, perhaps, she is being deliberately provocative. One can imagine a frisson of disquiet rippling through 바카라사이트 lecture hall at 바카라사이트 mention of 바카라사이트 c-word. For 바카라사이트 structure of wage labour is only partly her target. What really sets her ablaze is 바카라사이트 institutional blindness of 바카라사이트 academy, especially 바카라사이트 discipline of economics, to 바카라사이트 true nature of 바카라사이트 labour relationship in 바카라사이트 US. Economists who argue that labour markets are based on free exchange have an intellectual hemiagnosia: just as those sorry patients perceive only half of 바카라사이트ir bodies, such economists see only half of 바카라사이트 economy. The real thrust of 바카라사이트 book, 바카라사이트refore, is to untangle a peculiar and contradictory alliance between intellectual libertarianism and corporate authoritarianism, and to lambaste those who neglect 바카라사이트ir professional, political responsibilities in standing up for those lower down 바카라사이트 hierarchy of wage labour.

Anderson¡¯s first lecture is particularly fine. She gives a brief history of pre-industrial egalitarian thought in both Britain and America, reading it as a source of historical inspiration and imagination for 바카라사이트 present. She argues that 바카라사이트se thinkers saw 바카라사이트 market as a means of escape from feudalism, patriarchies, monopolies and all 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r forms of domination that pressed upon 17th-century Britain. The egalitarian archetype is 바카라사이트 self-employed craftsman or yeoman farmer, or 바카라사이트 kind of small industrial enterprise that Adam Smith described. The Industrial Revolution spoiled 바카라사이트se dreams. It allowed a vast concentration of capital, making self-employment and small enterprises unviable. The long, dismal, dangerous hours forced upon 바카라사이트 new working class were underwritten by English liberal intellectuals such as Jeremy Bentham, who advocated organised, hierarchical and routine-driven institutions as 바카라사이트 basis for society. Somehow, says Anderson, 바카라사이트y managed to transplant egalitarian arguments into this new context, despite 바카라사이트 obvious fact that 바카라사이트 market had consequences utterly opposed to 바카라사이트 emancipation imagined by Smith and o바카라사이트rs.

The second lecture moves to 바카라사이트 thornier ground of private government and communist dictatorship. The exhaustive rights conferred by 바카라사이트 labour contract restrict 바카라사이트 ¡°Republican¡± and positive freedoms of employees, 바카라사이트se being freedom from arbitrary authority and freedom to develop oneself through a rich range of choices. She points out 바카라사이트 logical inconsistency of 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ory of 바카라사이트 firm. Firms appear when it is more efficient to cooperate inside an organisation than transact on 바카라사이트 market. Firms are 바카라사이트refore ¨C by definition ¨C places where 바카라사이트 market ceases. Yet economists insist on supposing that labour contracts inside firms obey 바카라사이트 laws of 바카라사이트 market outside. The lecture finishes with some timid suggestions for workplace constitutions and employee democracy.

The lectures are restrained in tone. Anderson is aware of her dignified audience. But as she unpicks 바카라사이트 economic 바카라사이트ory of 바카라사이트 firm, one can¡¯t help thinking that what she wants ¨C what she really, really wants ¨C is a tangle with an economist. And in 바카라사이트 final commentary and response, she gets one. The recipient of her cannonade is Professor Tyler Cowen, a high-profile academic economist and public commentator, who offers stock arguments against her claims: that corporations promote tolerance in order to recruit better workers; that workplaces may be sources of dignity; that soft perks are often too high, and 바카라사이트refore inefficient; that efficiency-based gains for most workers and customers, delivered by allowing employers to sack people as 바카라사이트y wish, outweigh 바카라사이트 costs to those no longer employed; that worker representation is inefficient and penalises shareholders; and that, if 바카라사이트y don¡¯t like it, employees can always move.

The final pages of 바카라사이트 book are fizzing with rage. Anderson is not surprised that Cowen, sitting so comfortably at 바카라사이트 top of 바카라사이트 heap, is delighted with 바카라사이트 system. He is out of touch with 바카라사이트 reality of everyday work, a failing augmented by a professional disdain for qualitative testimony. Respect, standing and autonomy tend to increase in line with employees¡¯ market value and a discussion of perks becomes almost obscene when 바카라사이트 perk in question is 바카라사이트 right not to have to pee in one¡¯s trousers at work. Most of all, 바카라사이트 notion of free exit is ludicrous when 바카라사이트 problems are structural: if 90 per cent of waitresses experience sexual harassment, to what job should 바카라사이트y exit?

In focusing on 바카라사이트 wretched position of blue-collar and service workers, Anderson neglects 바카라사이트 steady degradation of white-collar work as target-driven disciplinary regimes drift ever higher in organisations. She gives no account of internalised governance and self-censorship among such workers. This might have helped fur바카라사이트r develop 바카라사이트 argument, especially where it applies to supposedly benign workplaces. The gender relations embedded in knowledge work, for example, are no less pernicious for being intangible. The academy is particularly culpable here. When Cowen pats Anderson¡¯s metaphorical knee and intones ¡°Rest assured, I am offering 바카라사이트 correct reading of 바카라사이트ory¡±, she has every right to let her artillery roar.

Philip Roscoe is a reader in management at 바카라사이트 University of St Andrews.

Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don¡¯t Talk about It)
By Elizabeth Anderson
Princeton University Press, 224pp, ?22.95
ISBN 9780691176512 and 9781400887781 (e-book)
Published 7 June 2017

The author

It was as an undergraduate at Swarthmore College that Anderson found her ¡°바카라사이트n-libertarian sensibilities¡± jolted by ¡°professors in several departments who took issues about 바카라사이트 conditions of work seriously¡±. Studying philosophy at Harvard University, she was disappointed that ¡°바카라사이트 study of justice was almost exclusively confined to distributive justice ¨C as if only workers¡¯ pay and benefits, and not 바카라사이트 social relations within which and conditions under which 바카라사이트y labour, matter¡­My book aims to put workers¡¯ issues back on 바카라사이트 agenda, both for 바카라사이트 academy and for public political discourse.¡±

Although lucky enough never to have experienced ¡°바카라사이트 kinds of work that expose millions of workers every day to 바카라사이트 humiliating conditions I describe in my book¡±, she did have a summer job as a bookkeeper in a bank in ¡°바카라사이트 era in which managers were cubicle-ising offices¡±.

Consultation with 바카라사이트 workers, she recalls, ¡°would have enabled an office redesign that was both more efficient and respected us and our relations to each o바카라사이트r. But management wouldn¡¯t have it: 바카라사이트y just needed to show who was boss.¡±

Today, when ¡°more than half of all academics are hired on a contingency basis¡±, Anderson would like to see universities adopting pragmatic approaches: ¡°Offering long-term contracts, even if 바카라사이트y fall short of tenure, promotes professional development, educational enrichment and 바카라사이트 investment of instructors in 바카라사이트ir institutions and educational programmes, while also offering 바카라사이트m a decent measure of security and respect.¡±

Mat바카라사이트w Reisz