Right to Work
James W. Nickel
The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) declares a right to work: ‘‘Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment.’’ An effectively implemented right to work would guarantee the availability of remunerative productive activity.
Is it morally imperative to provide work to people who are unemployed? This is the question posed by the idea of a right to work. There are, however, two other ways in which the phrase ‘‘right to work’’ is used. Sometimes this phrase is used to refer to the freedom to choose and refuse employment, the freedom from forced labor. This freedom is an important human right, and is widely recognized as such. The phrase ‘‘right to work’’ is also sometimes used to refer to freedom from compulsory union membership.
There are proven measures available to ameliorate the problem of unemployment. Free public schools allow each person to prepare for participation in the economy. Work programs for young people that combine work experience and job training can be created. Tax and other incentives to hire more people can be given to industries. Economic policies designed to run the economy at a rapid rate can be adopted. Protection can be provided to the temporarily unemployed through universal unemployment insurance. And government can become the employer of last resort, guaranteeing a job to every person who is able to work, wants a job, and has been unable to find one. It is unlikely that a right to work can be fully implemented without government becoming the employer of last resort.
Why would anyone think that access to productive employment is something that is, or ought to be, a matter of right? The recognition of rights is often spurred by the recognition of serious problems, and unemployment has been an extremely serious problem for contemporary societies. Unemployment in the range of 5 to 15 percent is not uncommon, and unemployment among youths and minorities is often much higher. For most people, inescapable unemployment has very bad consequences. It deprives them of what is usually the most important source of income, it denies them the opportunities for self development that employment pro vides, and it makes unavailable one of the main areas in which they can gain respect from self and others. Extended involuntary unemployment typically stigmatizes its victims. The longer unemployment lasts, the worse its consequences tend to be (Kelvin and Jarrett, 1985).
To put the case positively, access to employment is extremely important because remunerative work provides the most prevalent, reliable, and acceptable means of providing for one’s survival, flourishing, and self respect. Non financial benefits include the satisfaction of self sufficiency; the satisfaction of doing a task skillfully; friendly relations with one’s co workers; producing goods or services that bene fit society; and escaping from unwanted freedom due to the fact that one’s job schedule structures one’s activities and time (Arneson, 1990).
An argument based on the claim that work is one of the most important areas for gaining self respect and the respect of others is usually used by advocates of the right to work. Although abilities and dedication can be demonstrated in areas other than employment (for example, in games or volunteer work), it is in the performance of useful activities carrying monetary rewards that self esteem and respect for others are most likely to be created and maintained.
Another argument for guaranteed access to employment suggests that a system of private property cannot pass tests of fairness if it con signs many people to inescapable unemployment. If unemployed people find that current economic arrangements allow them neither ap propriate property that will support their lives and liberty (because all valuable property is al ready owned by individuals or the state) nor to find paid employment, these economic arrangements are unfair because they deny to some the means of survival, respect, and self development, while providing access to those means to others who lack stronger claims.
One may be receptive to people’s claim to assistance in meeting their vital needs while rejecting the right to work. It may be argued that guaranteeing people a minimum income will be less expensive and produce less inefficiency and corruption than guaranteeing them jobs. Economists generally prefer distributions of money or vouchers to in kind provision be cause this allows for more efficient use of resources by the recipient (see Thurow, 1976, for a critical assessment of this preference). But a person with a minimum income who wants a job will find it very difficult to buy one, and voters may find public provision of employment more palatable than income grants. Arneson sees an advantage in providing minimum wage jobs rather than income grants because doing this will benefit those members of the unemployed who are most needy while excluding ‘‘non needy bohemians’’ (Arneson, 1990).
Jon Elster (1988) objects to a politically implemented right to work on the grounds that it is self defeating to create a right to work for the purpose of promoting self respect. To engender self respect, work must result in the production of a good or service that is considered valuable. A right to government jobs that were visibly sup ported by heavy subsidies and that produced few social benefits would do little to promote self respect. (See Arneson, 1990, for a criticism of this argument.)
Bibliography
Arneson, R. (1990). Is work special? Justice and the distribution of employment. American Political Science Review, 84, 1127 47.
Elster, J. (1988). Is there (or should there be) a right to work? In A. Gutmann (ed.), Democracy and the Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ginsburg, H. (1983). Full Employment and Public Policy: The United States and Sweden. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Kelvin, P. and Jarrett, J. (1985). Unemployment: Its Social Psychological Effects. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nickel, J. (1978). Is there a human right to employment? Philosophical Forum, 10, 149 70.
Nickel, J. (1987). Making Sense of Human Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thurow, L. (1976). Government expenditures: Cash or in-kind aid? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 5, 361 81.
Van Parijs, P. (1995). Real Freedom for All. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tags