The flaw in 'selling your labour.'

[minkymurph]

Hi folks.

There is a huge flaw in the theory of ‘selling your labour.’

The flaws are:
Humanitarian arguments
Trading capacity - what if no one wants to ‘buy’ your labour?
Unequal bargaining power

Humanitarian arguments
From a humanitarian position, people are not goods. They have lives and they have rights.
Their lives impact on the time and place in which they can ‘sell’ their labour. They have dependents to care for, they need to look after themselves to remain in sufficient health to sell their labour,

Rights
Humanitarian arguments may be remedied by rights. At law, people are entitled to a private life and have a life outside work, and they have a right not to be viewed as a mere commodity whilst in work. The flaw is if an unscrupulous employer chooses to deny your rights, and let’s not pretend there are no unscrupulous employers out there who would not do this yet maintain lucrative businesses, you may address this through the courts but you still have no job and thus no source of income.

Trading capacityr
To ‘sell’ anything there must be a market for it. If there is no market for the labour you have to ‘sell,’ with the best will in the world you will not ‘sell’ it irrespective of how good that labour is.

Unequal bargaining power
If someone said sell me three bags of potatoes and offered you one carrot in return, is that a fair bargain? In this hypothetical scenario carrots and potatoes are the same price.

This is the situation today. Employers want to have their cake and eat it. They guarantee no hours at all or very few, but they want you to be available to work at any time and agree you will not work for anyone else. To illustrate, I currently work two days a week. I applied for another job and when I told them this, they said we may need you on those days. We may not, but if we did you would not be available so we can’t hire you.
Those who have no choice but to accept this are compelled to claim benefits to make ends in meet. If they could work for someone else they would not have to.

These are the flaws in the ‘selling your labour’ theory,

 

[minkymurph]

Forgot to add:

An employer’s lament today is they cannot retain staff. Is it any wonder?

Who is going to stay with an employer that offers them minimum return?

 

[GEddie]

Point 1. While the human being is not a commodity, he or she needs to produce a commodity to function in the economy. It is in that sense that labor is a commodity. No-one gains economic power just for being a warm body.

Because labor is a commodity, it is treated as one.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Point 2: Rights are important, but the employer will always hold the whip. He has the money, and he creates the jobs.

The challenge is to defend the “rights” adequately while not causing jobs to collapse.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Point 3.

This is just part of life. Industries disappear all the time (sailing ships, buggy-whips, whalebone corsets). To remain economically relevant requires retraining. Hard, but not unjust.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Point 4:

Again, the challenge is to determine a fair price, and that often can’t be done between the two contesting parties.

ICXC NIKA

 

[PolarGuy]

There’s always this assumption that the employer is the bad one. That assumption is often not based on fact.

My employer has some employees who are essentially totally useless. They do not work an honest day. These employees are unionized and cannot be fired - and they know it, hence their behavior. They are often paid the same amount as those who do work honestly.

There’s a saying: “if Marx had my employees he’d have been a capitalist too.”

 

[minkymurph]

There’s always this assumption that the employer is the bad one. That assumption is often not based on fact.

My employer has some employees who are essentially totally useless. They do not work an honest day. These employees are unionized and cannot be fired - and they know it, hence their behavior. They are often paid the same amount as those who do work honestly.

There’s a saying: “if Marx had my employees he’d have been a capitalist too.”

You raise a good point. I generally try to avoid sweeping generalizations but the way I have written my post implies that is what I am doing.

You are correct the employer is not always the bad one. My employer has employees that are not totally useless, but rather choose to be. If they actually were totally useless there would be an excuse for them.

You can fire unionized employees. There is such a thing as fair dismissal and someone who persistently does not do their job can legitimately be fired.

 

[minkymurph]

Point 3.

This is just part of life. Industries disappear all the time (sailing ships, buggy-whips, whalebone corsets). To remain economically relevant requires retraining. Hard, but not unjust.

ICXC NIKA

Now this is where you an I agree.

Industries do change and this does require retraining. Now you have the issue of who is going to do the retraining, who is going to pay for it, who is going to be retrained and who is not. This is where it can become unjust.

 

[PolarGuy]

Minky, although you are correct that union members can be fired, the reality is that doing so often becomes so difficult in practice that firing becomes de facto impossible. Further, it assumes the employer actually wants/seeks firing, and that too is not always the case: in this instance, the employer is pro labor union, I.e., the employer wants unionized employees, and will simply turn a blind eye to nonperforming employees.

 

[minkymurph]

Minky, although you are correct that union members can be fired, the reality is that doing so often becomes so difficult in practice that firing becomes de facto impossible. Further, it assumes the employer actually wants/seeks firing, and that too is not always the case: in this instance, the employer is pro labor union, I.e., the employer wants unionized employees, and will simply turn a blind eye to nonperforming employees.

This is true - but we digress. T

‘Selling your labour’ is in my view a flawed theory for reasons above.

Labour cannot be sold in the same manner as a commodity. You cannot ‘sell’ labour in industrialized cities in a manner synonymous with selling goods in a market. That is my critique.the same manner goods can be sold in a market.

To tie in what you say with this thread, you raise another flaw in that non-performaing employees are not doing much selling. If those who are carrying them tolerate the situation, is that because opportunities to ‘sell’ their labour elsewhere is limited? In a free market should one not be free to ‘sell’ to whomever one chooses?

 

[Rau]

Hi folks.

There is a huge flaw in the theory of ‘selling your labour.’

The flaws are:
Humanitarian arguments
Trading capacity - what if no one wants to ‘buy’ your labour?
Unequal bargaining power

Humanitarian arguments
From a humanitarian position, people are not goods. They have lives and they have rights.
Their lives impact on the time and place in which they can ‘sell’ their labour. They have dependents to care for, they need to look after themselves to remain in sufficient health to sell their labour,

Rights
Humanitarian arguments may be remedied by rights. At law, people are entitled to a private life and have a life outside work, and they have a right not to be viewed as a mere commodity whilst in work. The flaw is if an unscrupulous employer chooses to deny your rights, and let’s not pretend there are no unscrupulous employers out there who would not do this yet maintain lucrative businesses, you may address this through the courts but you still have no job and thus no source of income.

Trading capacityr
To ‘sell’ anything there must be a market for it. If there is no market for the labour you have to ‘sell,’ with the best will in the world you will not ‘sell’ it irrespective of how good that labour is.

Unequal bargaining power
If someone said sell me three bags of potatoes and offered you one carrot in return, is that a fair bargain? In this hypothetical scenario carrots and potatoes are the same price.

This is the situation today. Employers want to have their cake and eat it. They guarantee no hours at all or very few, but they want you to be available to work at any time and agree you will not work for anyone else. To illustrate, I currently work two days a week. I applied for another job and when I told them this, they said we may need you on those days. We may not, but if we did you would not be available so we can’t hire you.
Those who have no choice but to accept this are compelled to claim benefits to make ends in meet. If they could work for someone else they would not have to.

These are the flaws in the ‘selling your labour’ theory,

There can be inadequacies in the economic system we have in which a large proportion of people sell their labour. In many countries, regulations and other systems exist to mitigate to some degree those inadequacies.

If selling labour does not work for an individual, they can keep it to themselves.

Do you wish to see better systems of mitigation, more self-employment, or something else?

 

[mikekle]

My ex-wife always used to say people working for the same companies should really all have different pay, a company like walmart, hiring EVERYONE, at the same exact hourly wage is not a good thing, as each person is different, some are able to do more than others, some can move faster, etc etc. She thought companies should hire people like subcontractors, they submit the ‘quote’ they are willing to work for and the level or work they can produce per hour. It may not be fair to some, but no one ever said life was fair.

I agreed with her on some of this, I used to work for a union shop, there were those who actually worked a full 8 hours and those who stood around and worked only a hour, yet everyone still paid the same, plus there were those who could physically move faster, lift more, etc and others who could not do the same…in reality, they should not be getting the same pay, but to do it this way, it would be logistical nightmare for the companies bookkeepers if everyone had different pay rates.

 

[minkymurph]

There can be inadequacies in the economic system we have in which a large proportion of people sell their labour. In many countries, regulations and other systems exist to mitigate to some degree those inadequacies.

If selling labour does not work for an individual, they can keep it to themselves.

Do you wish to see better systems of mitigation, more self-employment, or something else?

Exactly. I am advocating regulations and other systems to mitigate the inadequacies to some degree.

Regulating contracts (Contract Law) is one form of mitigation where a disparity of power exists to ensure the unscrupulous do not abuse their power. Regulation of contract would include Employment Law.

Independent government funded ‘watchdogs’ is another means of mitigation to ensure the unscrupulous play by the rules.

I like self-employment. It’s a nice ideal in that as opposed to zero contracts you have a pool of self-employed people who can work for anyone anytime in accordance with the business needs and personal circumstances. That said, I would concede this notion is somewhat idealistic as I have not yet convinced myself it would work in practice.

If ‘selling’ labour doesn’t work for people yes, they can keep it. But what if they don’t want to? What if they want to ‘sell’ it but through no fault of that individual no one wants to ‘buy?’

 

[minkymurph]

My ex-wife always used to say people working for the same companies should really all have different pay, a company like walmart, hiring EVERYONE, at the same exact hourly wage is not a good thing, as each person is different, some are able to do more than others, some can move faster, etc etc. She thought companies should hire people like subcontractors, they submit the ‘quote’ they are willing to work for and the level or work they can produce per hour. It may not be fair to some, but no one ever said life was fair.

I agreed with her on some of this, I used to work for a union shop, there were those who actually worked a full 8 hours and those who stood around and worked only a hour, yet everyone still paid the same, plus there were those who could physically move faster, lift more, etc and others who could not do the same…in reality, they should not be getting the same pay, but to do it this way, it would be logistical nightmare for the companies bookkeepers if everyone had different pay rates.

You are right. The theory is nice but it would be a logistical nightmare.

I agree it is unfair that people who stand around doing nothing get paid the same as those who work their socks off. This could be dealt with by appraisals, but as you say a logistical nightmare and it would always be unfair to someone as the fair system does not exist.

You are right that life is unfair, but as Peter Ustinov once said sometimes it’s unfair in your favour.

 

[minkymurph]

There can be inadequacies in the economic system we have in which a large proportion of people sell their labour. In many countries, regulations and other systems exist to mitigate to some degree those inadequacies.

If selling labour does not work for an individual, they can keep it to themselves.

Do you wish to see better systems of mitigation, more self-employment, or something else?

I also have an issue with the notion of ‘selling’ your labour. ‘Selling’ your labour for me offends human dignity as it reduces people to a mere commodity. Labour is not a commodity in the same sense as goods and is carried out by human beings who are not goods.

 

[Rau]

I also have an issue with the notion of ‘selling’ your labour. ‘Selling’ your labour for me offends human dignity as it reduces people to a mere commodity. Labour is not a commodity in the same sense as goods and is carried out by human beings who are not goods.

That, surely, is merely a matter of language. “Offer in return for recompense” might appeal? One’s labour is not one’s self, one’s soul. To serve is a privilege and to be thanked in a meaningful way is just.

 

[Rau]

Exactly. I am advocating regulations and other systems to mitigate the inadequacies to some degree.

The extent and suitability of regulations in the labour market vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and thus it may be difficult to discuss other than among participants from the same jurisdiction.

Regulating contracts (Contract Law) is one form of mitigation where a disparity of power exists to ensure the unscrupulous do not abuse their power. Regulation of contract would include Employment Law.

This is an area of significant regulation. The existence of unions is directed (not unreasonably) at addressing the natural imbalance in power between employer and employee.

Independent government funded ‘watchdogs’ is another means of mitigation to ensure the unscrupulous play by the rules.

Certainly these exist at least in some jurisdictions.

I like self-employment. It’s a nice ideal in that as opposed to zero contracts you have a pool of self-employed people who can work for anyone anytime in accordance with the business needs and personal circumstances. That said, I would concede this notion is somewhat idealistic as I have not yet convinced myself it would work in practice.

These arrangements are commonplace in some areas - eg. IT personnel, small businesses, etc. It has many kinds of limitations, eg.

• some functions are better delivered in an environment with like-minded support and colleagues, rather than a “sole trader”;
• finding the next job can be burdensome, and will often entail the imposition of an intermediary (“labour hire firm”, “recruiter” or similar);
• it likely offers less security and continuity than permanent employment, and only sometimes permits offsetting higher income rates.

If ‘selling’ labour doesn’t work for people yes, they can keep it. But what if they don’t want to? What if they want to ‘sell’ it but through no fault of that individual no one wants to ‘buy?’

No economic system we know of today can guarantee full-employment - at least not if we place the requirement that all incomes are sufficient to ensure everyone can meet “reasonable” living needs. One is inclined to be believe this ought to be an area of economic research given the march of labour-displacing technologies. It is argued that, to date, sufficient new employment demand is spawned in new areas to take up the displaced workers (though I’m not certain that is entirely true), but we cannot know that that will always be the case.

 

[pnewton]

I guess I am missing this whole point. Earning wages is not unjust and nothing to be ashamed of. “Selling your labor” is just euphemism. People are not reduced to a commodity. Their time is their commodity and one can freely trade that commodity. You do something for someone. They pay you. No big deal and normally not an issue of economic justice. It sure beats the heck out of chattel slavery.

 

[minkymurph]

That, surely, is merely a matter of language. “Offer in return for recompense” might appeal? One’s labour is not one’s self, one’s soul. To serve is a privilege and to be thanked in a meaningful way is just.

Perhaps it is a matter of language, but also the model. The Pilgrims are advocated as the the necessity of free trade and in those circumstances the model worked well, but squeezing that model into industrialized cities is another matter.

I like what you say that one’s labour is not one’s self, one’s soul. Good principle - we must uphold human diginity. How do we incorporate this principle into contemporary society where unscrupulous employers demand self and soul?

Offer in return for recompense - it has a certain appeal. The offer is clear - labour. What you suggest is a contract? Now we need to define ‘recompense.’ I would start with the recompense is the value of the labour to the receiver of that labour?

‘To serve is a privilege.’ :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

Sorry Rau can’t run with that. the autonomous individual ‘serves’ no one. From my perspective that smacks a bit of benevolent master/pampered slave. No matter how benevolent the master is the ‘server’ remains subservient. The one being served is the one who should feel privileged - not the server.