Search the Community

The discussion below arose out of an article I was referred to by an acquaintance of mine, a student of political science, on how the workplace is a greater source of coercion than the state. http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/01/let-it-bleed-libertarianism-and-the-workplace/ I responded with various commentaries on the points made by the article. One particular comment was opposed quite strongly. My comment: "Where an employee can be fired to the disadvantage of the employee, an employee can also quit to the disadvantage of the employer. It works both ways. The reality of the situation is that the reason the employer has the power in the situations mentioned in this article is that there is a surplus of labour rather than a shortage. Because the employer is able to replace the employee fairly easily. If there was a labour shortage (such as the trade shortage that happened when all the plumbers and electricians headed up to the mines) or the job was for a more skilled position where the number of people with those skills was fairly limited, then the situation would be reversed, the power would be in the employees hands, and they would be free to say all the things the author quotes above." His response: "If I quit, my boss will hire someone else to do my job. They hire people all the time, it's easy. It'll be a minor inconvenience for them at worst. I, on the other hand, need to pay rent every week or I will be kicked out of my flat. I need to buy food. I have all sorts of expenses that must be paid for. If I lose my job, either by quitting or getting fired, it's a potentially life-ruining problem. And I'm a young, healthy single guy with qualifications. If I had kids or a health problem (or god forbid, kids with a health problem), I would be in serious trouble. If I was living in libertarian land with no unemployment benefits or equivalent, I need to get a new job that pays just as well as the old one, or I and my children might well end up homeless. And what if nobody is hiring? I need to keep this job. I need it really badly. Unless a particular employee has an incredibly rare and special skill, losing them is almost never as big a deal for the employer as it is for the employee. For many jobs, particularly the sort of unskilled jobs that marginal people (non-white, single parent, few qualifications etc.) work, it's potentially life-ruining for the employee but no issue at all for the employer. That power disparity means that the boss can often do whatever he likes (it is mostly he). There are a lot of examples of this. Sexual abuse is very common in garment factories located in developing countries, for example. The workers there are basically interchangeable, mostly women, and the bosses take advantage of them all the time. What are you going to do? Quit? You need this job. So you bend over for the boss. I don't know if you think this sort of thing is okay, or you didn't think it through, or you think I'm making it up, or you consider it an acceptable price in order to live in a society without taxes or police (except for the for-profit police who will patrol the gated communities of the rich, beating up any poor people who try to sneak in)." How do I adequately rebutt this comment, specifically the part about sexual abuse, from an an-cap perspective? I don't find it okay that this happens. My main thoughts were to focus on why the situation arises in the first place (that the state induces a situation where these women in third world developing countries are uneducated, stopped from forming labour associations etc.) Then follow with how a free-market anarchic situation would reduce or prevent the power disparity. Finally I also planned to outline just how an employer is affected by an employee quitting because people don't always think about these things, having been brought up all their life being told that employers are evil and need to be reigned in by the state.