Notes on Employee Rights:Maitland's Stuff

Notes on Maitland’s Article

>EE= = Employee
>ER= = Employer

Preliminaries:
-Examples of EE rights:

-The right to meaningful work: the idea is that it is dehumanizing, degrading, and therefore wrong to make EEs do work that is trivial and repetitive. For example, consider EEs who work on an assembly line. The workers can=t take pride in their work, nor can they express their true creativity and talents by working on an assembly line.

-The right not to be fired at will by an employer: (without good reason or explanation). It=s claimed that it=s wrong for an employer to fire it=s employees without sufficient cause. This is supposed to be some kind of unacceptable mistreatment. So, for example, if you are a hard working and honest employee, then you invest your best efforts, indeed, you very life, in your work. This may have required things like moving to a new location and building a life with one’s wife and children in a new community, all for the sake of the company for which one works. But if so, then it doesn=t seem right for your ER to have the power to fire you for no good reason (such as poor performance), and without warning.

-The right not to have one=s place of work closed down without notice: It seems unfair for an ER to know months in advance that they will close down a plant, and yet not tell the EEs about this. For then they will not have time to look for employment elsewhere, and so they may have to endure some time of unemployment. This can lead to disastrous consequences for the former EE. For example, they may thereby be unable to pay bills, and even be thrown out of their house or apartment.


-Many people have argued that EE rights such as these should be legally enforced.

-However, Maitland is arguing AGAINST these people. He=s arguing that worker=s rights SHOULDN=T be legally enforced. This doesn’t mean that he thinks it=s OK to mistreat EEs. Indeed, he argues that the best way to treat EEs with respect is to keep these EE rights laws from being enforced. For if we REALLY respect EEs, then we will allow them the choice FORFEIT these rights if they want to.


-Why would EEs want to forfeit their rights?

-***Because they might get something they value more highly in exchange***. For example, they might forfeit their right to meaningful work in exchange for a bigger paycheck.


-But why would they need to exchange one for the other? Why can=t they be ensured of getting BOTH (say) a higher paycheck AND all meaningful work?

-Because **ensuring EE rights is expensive**. For example, it may require radically re- designing a factory in order to ensure that every employee has meaningful work. For example, what if ensuring meaningful work required eliminating human assembly lines? That would cost the company A LOT of money (costs involved in redesigning, reconstructing, re-training EEs, loss due to massive decrease in production, etc.).

-So, with the previous point, we see that there are necessarily going to be **trade-offs**: For example, trading the loss of some EE rights for higher wages, or trading the loss of some wages for more EE rights.

-But if we don=t enforce these rights by making a bunch of laws, then won=t the ERs exploit the workers, so that they won=t have any of their rights?

-No! If we don=t legally enforce EE rights, then our capitalist free market, all by itself, will ensure that EEs will get the rights they want and choose.

-We can see that this won=t happen if we consider all the possible things that could happen if an ER respected a particular EE right. It will either lead to an increase in profits, the profits staying the same, or a decrease in profits.

-If it leads to an increase in profits, then the ERs will make sure that such rights are respected, out of a motive of self-interest.

-If it leads to profits staying the same, then ERs will still be motivated to ensure these EE rights. For ERs are in competition with other ERs for good EEs. So if they don=t want to lose their good EEs to other ERs that are willing to ensure EE rights, they will ensure that their EEs get such rights.

-Finally, if it leads to a decrease in profits, then someone has to pay for it: Either (i) the ER, (ii) the EEs (by a decrease in their paycheck), or (iii) the customers (by paying for it through an increase in the price of the ER=s product).
-An ER can=t pay for it, for they will lose in the economic competition with other ERs who don=t ensure such rights. For these other, non-rights-enforcing ERs, won=t lose any of their profits that the rights-enforcing ER are losing to the costs of EE rights enforcement. But if not, then the rights-enforcing ER will go out of business.
-And the customers won=t pay for it. They are going to buy a cheaper version of the product. This, again, will lead to the ER going out of business.
-Therefore, if an EE wants a right enforced at work, then the EE is going to have to pay for it by a decrease in their paycheck.


-But different EEs want different things: Some are willing to forfeit some of their EE rights in exchange for other goods, such as a bigger paycheck. Other EEs are willing to have a smaller paycheck for the enforcement of some of their rights (e.g., meaningful work).

-But if so, then due to the competitive nature of our free market economy, these different EE preferences will ensure that there is a Amarket@ for different AEE packages@. To continue with our current example, some ERs will offer higher wages and less EE rights; other ERs will offer lower wages in exchange for more EE rights.

-And since this is so, EEs won=t be exploited in a free market capitalist system, even if their rights aren’t legally enforced. For they will be allowed to freely choose which rights they want enforced by choosing which ER to work for.

Therefore, concludes Maitland, EE rights shouldn=t be legally enforced. For (i) our free market capitalist system will ensure that no EE is overly mistreated, and (ii) EEs should be able to choose to forfeit their EE rights if they choose (for example, if they can get something that they want more in exchange, such as higher wages).