Explaining Anderson’s argument
Anderson claims that companies rule their workers like a private government. Her allegation implies that this government system is forced on workers by legislation that gives employers tremendous authority. Anderson considers this governing model unethical. Workers are enslaved by arbitrary and autocratic republican unfreedom, unable to make life-changing decisions. She believes this violates democracy and personal freedom. These principles for the governed require the government to be responsible, responsive, and accessible to public engagement. Anderson suggests reviving private governance to improve workplace fairness (Anderson, 2015). It also costs employees freedom and dignity. She indicates that political theorists experiment with workplace private governing bodies to identify answers. Anarchy might be the workplace order. This may be achieved by creating a property structure that favors self-employment and provides a chance for both genders, mostly males. Anderson acknowledges that this approach loses the benefits of large-scale manufacturing. To replace market relations, the corporation needs undefined influence over employee groupings.
Considering potential objections to it
One potential objection to Anderson’s argument is that the workplace exists as an association based on voluntary participation. In case the conditions of their job are unsatisfactory, employees can exercise their right to resign if they find the working conditions unsuitable. The premise of this objection is that workers and employers hold equal weight in negotiations, but this needs to be more accurate, particularly when the labor market is weakened. However, it’s frequently untrue, especially in a weak labor market (Anderson, 2017). Workers might have no choice but to reluctantly accept unsatisfactory job conditions, minimal wages, and extended shifts as they need better options since they do not possess any choices. Furthermore, in addition, assuming workers have the choice to depart. The concern of republican unfreedom is not adequately tackled, manifested through the exclusion from participating in decisions that have repercussions on their lives.
In addition, some argue against this by pointing out that the workplace does not operate as a government entity but rather functions as a private organization driven by market dynamics. Employers are not elected officials, and they do not have the power to make laws or enforce them (Feder et al., 2011). Hence, the workplace does not adhere to identical democratic principles as the state. In contrast with prevailing views, Anderson proposes the workplace can be seen as a type of private governing system. Similarly to the state, it asserts control over workers (Anderson, 2017). The ability to create rules, enforce them, and meet consequences for their violation rests with employers. This power operates without any democratic oversight; the decisions that affect workers’ lives do not involve their input.
One additional objection revolves around the claim that Anderson’s idea to enhance workplace government by promoting democracy and accountability might result in excessive expenses and administrative burdens for employers (Ciulla, 2019). Workers would need employers to allocate additional time and resources for consultation. Their responsibility includes supplying information and attending to their concerns. This might negatively impact the firm’s efficiency and competitiveness. Such outcomes could negatively affect workers and consumers (Feder et al., 2011). Contrarily, Anderson maintains that justice requires workplace democracy and accountability. Greater freedom and dignity for workers justify the costs of implementing these reforms.
Evaluating whether these objections are successful
The objections to Anderson’s argument need to be revised. Her argument stands strong as it highlights how the modern workplace operates as an embodiment of private governance, resulting in workers’ unfreedom from a Republican standpoint. At the same time, workers indeed have the option to leave the workplace if they do not like the conditions of their employment. The issue of republican unfreedom remains unaddressed, particularly the deficiency in participating in determinations that impact their lives (Feder et al., 2011). Additionally, it is often untrue that workers have equivalent bargaining power to their employers, notably in a weakened job market. Hence, the argument that the workplace is a voluntary organization needs to tackle the matter of workplace governance completely.
A counterpoint to considering the workplace as akin to government is its status as a privately owned entity operating under market pressures, which is only partially successful. Despite employers not being elected officials and devoid of the authority to legislate or implement laws, they assert control over employees in a manner akin to the government. Nevertheless, their power only applies within the work environment and does not expand to the larger population (Anderson, 2017). Regarding authority, employers can set rules, ensure their implementation, and administer disciplinary actions to those who violate them. There is no democratic oversight over this power; the choices that affect workers’ lives are made without their input. Therefore, the objection that the workplace is not a government fails to tackle the matter of workplace authority completely.
The contention against Anderson’s suggestion, stating that implementing a more democratic and accountable workplace government would cause excessive financial strain and burden for employers, is only partially valid. Nonetheless, it is vital to ponder this modification’s potential benefits and lasting impacts. Admittedly, implementing workplace democracy and accountability would demand extra time and resources from employers. Providing workers with increased independence and honor has more pros than cons (Anderson, 2015). Additionally, employers must embrace workplace democracy and accountability to achieve justice, and respecting the rights and dignity of workers is a moral obligation that employers must fulfill. Therefore, the objection that Anderson’s proposal would be too costly and burdensome does not fully address the issue of workplace justice.
Assessing what conclusions follow from the discussion.
Anderson’s claim that the contemporary workplace is a private government that enslaves employees is persuasive. While unsuccessful, her argument’s concerns address fundamental workplace and employer-employee problems. However, these criticisms do not adequately address workplace power and the need for increased democracy and accountability. Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge private governance in the workplace and develop methods to make it more democratic, responsible, and responsive to employees’ interests (Feder et al., 2011). This might include giving employees a say in life-changing choices, allowing them access to company information, and preserving their free speech and association rights. While these changes may have costs, the advantages of increased freedom and dignity for employees outweigh them, and companies have a moral imperative to protect their workers’ rights and dignity.
References
Anderson, E. (2015). Liberty, equality, and private government. Tanner lectures in human values, 61-122.
Anderson, E. (2017). Private government: How employers rule our lives (and why we don’t discuss it). Princeton University Press.
Ciulla, J. B. (2019). Review of private government: How employers rule our lives (and why we don’t talk about it) by Elizabeth Anderson.
Feder, G., Birner, R., & Anderson, J. R. (2011). The private sector’s role in agricultural extension systems: potential and limitations. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 1(1), 31-54.
write