The Cruelty of Work

An inherent justification for reform

The labor market underpins most individuals’ access to consumption. People who do not or cannot work rely on others to sustain themselves, others who typically rely on private market employment. This employment is also overwhelmingly oriented toward maximizing profit for shareholders, and that comes with a substantial level of cruelty that is often unaccounted for at a systemic level.

As a teenager, I worked at a local grocery store for a period of time. I recall a coworker being quite down on herself one day. I asked if everything was okay, and to my shock, she informed me that her granddaughter died the night before. The granddaughter was 17 years old, my same age at the time. I asked her why she’d come to work if this happened, and she told me corporate policy dictated that grandchildren do not fall under the company’s bereavement policy. She explained that if she took time off abruptly to mourn the loss of her granddaughter, they would write her up and potentially fire her. Instead of taking time off work to grieve and assist in funeral arrangements, her employer forced her to work for 8 hours the next several days for less than a living wage.

This story might sound trivial to anyone who has experience working. It is not unusual for a boss to force a worker to suffer grief and intolerable working conditions, and the rationale inevitably reduces down to maximizing profits. Amazon workers go without breaks, construction workers face lifelong physical disability, individuals must tolerate abusive bosses or discrimination, and you might not be able to take the time you need to grieve the loss of a loved one. Typical excuses for this type of treatment are: 1) you can always quit your job if you don’t like the way you’re treated, 2) if you can’t obtain better employment, that’s your fault, 3) the maximization of profits is good for society at large, and 4) work is a necessary part of life, for without work, the abundance around us would not exist.

To begin, individuals are not free from coercion when making labor market decisions. An individual in the U.S. who quits their job is not eligible for unemployment benefits, and our underfunded and narrow welfare system leaves many in desperation should they abruptly quit their job on account of being wronged. Individuals, with regard to pay and benefits, might also not have any better options. You might be able to quit your job, but alternative employment might not pay as well or offer as expansive a set of benefits, and no, the fact that an individual’s job offers market-competitive pay and benefits does not rightly give the employer license to engage in cruelty towards their employees, nor does it mean the employer’s actions are not necessarily in and of themselves cruel and/or unjust just because they’re relatively less cruel compared to other employers.

Let’s say the pay and benefits within a market are uniform. Even so, a person’s ability to obtain alternative employment is often out of their hands for a variety of luck-based reasons. For example, an individual who grew up poor, with little access to quality education or parenting, often fails to live up to their greatest potential, limiting their options in the labor market. This is not an absolute, but because some might finish a marathon beginning with a boulder strapped to their back does not mean it is just or morally neutral to force certain individuals to begin a marathon with a boulder strapped to them. Some might even achieve better times than those without weights on their back, but the fairness of the race is without question. It is not fair, nor is it considered a choice to have the weight of poverty and destitution strapped to individuals from birth. The circumstances of birth are but one example. Any particular bad luck one might experience limits options and causes similar unequal coercion in labor market decisions.

Often, we see hands thrown up in response to the many cruel circumstances people find themselves in, especially in the workplace. “It’s necessary. Not everything can be a non-profit. Not all non-market jobs are great, and society benefits from both work and the profit motive.” Sure, there’s substantial reason to believe the profit motive and market dynamics are outstanding tools to achieve high output and innovation, but this isn’t a comment on either the cruelty people suffer along the way or the inequities perpetuated and maximized in such a system. Markets and profit are great at achieving some goals while also having externalities we’re obligated to regulate.

The left tends to champion things like unions, the welfare state, and regulation in order to correct the various injustices and externalities of the laissez-faire labor market. However, leftists who defend these things in the policy space often fight on empirical grounds. Well-functioning unions, welfare states, and regulations don’t have negative effects on output and innovation, and they’re also effective at curbing injustices in the workplace. Boss is being toxic? Contact your union. Corporate encouraging unsafe work practices? That’s illegal. Need time off for an emergency? The state guarantees all workers a certain amount of personal days per year. A general sense of internal and external recourse along with democratic representation in the workplace are inherent, and good, reasons to support policies that empower workers.

The way these institutions are set up and the exact nature of regulations are important considerations, requiring a thoughtful analysis, but we shouldn't allow markets to pressure workers into the false choice between humiliating, unsafe, and/or toxic working conditions and impoverishment. We know the tools required to minimize these circumstances. The question is whether or not we have the political will to wield them.