Freedom, republicanism, and workplace democracy

Abstract

This paper explores the republican case for worker voice in economic enterprises based on the ideal of freedom as non-domination, and assesses its merits relative to two influential arguments for workplace democratization grounded on freedom understood as autonomy and selfdetermination. Two claims are advanced. The first is that the republican case for worker voice avoids difficulties associated with these two arguments. The second, however, is that the ideal of non-domination is insufficient, that an adequate understanding and defence of workplace democracy will also have to make significant reference to freedom understood as autonomy.

Workplace democracy—The recent debate

“…Both from a neo‐republican and from a relational egalitarian perspective, hierarchical workplaces are problematic if employees are at the mercy of employers, at the risk of being dismissed and therefore of losing their income: employees stand under the arbitrary will of their bosses, which contradicts the fundamental imperative to create and maintain egalitarian relationships in society (Anderson, ; Breen, ; González‐Ricoy, ; Néron, ). These power relations can extend beyond working hours, having an impact on people's private and political lives, as when employers pressure employees into contributing to political campaigns (Hertel‐Fernandez, ).…”

Workplace Democracy Implies Economic Democracy

“…These republican arguments against bossing power do not uniquely favor workplace democracy; some republicans believe that bossing power can be adequately checked without worker control over the workplace. Workplace constitutionalists, for example, maintain that an adequate remedy to workplace domination implements and enforces stringent pro‐labor labor legislation, including pro‐union and strike‐friendly laws (Hsieh ; Dagger ; Breen ). In response to Pettit/Gourevitch‐type complaints, the workplace constitutionalist insists on comprehensive enforcement of such laws.…”

“… The article does not address parallel case arguments. Such arguments take political democracy as a premise and move from that premise to a conclusion about economic democracy (see Breen ; Landemore and Ferreras for defences of the parallel case, and Lopez‐Guerra for a critique). I do not take political democracy as a premise.…”

Democratic Patterns of Interaction as a Norm for the Workplace

“…Whatever the type of justification considered, when it comes to conceptualizing democracy in the workplace, the classical conception of democracy appears to be simultaneously too broad and too narrow, and this is revealed in the way workplace democracy is theorized. Indeed, whether one looks at theories based on republican insights (González‐Ricoy ; Anderson ; Breen ; Jakob and Neuhäuser ), the state–firm analogy (Dahl ; McMahon ; Landemore ), the normative primacy of justice (Hsieh ; Thomas ), the idea of meaningful work (Schwartz ; Roessler ; Yeoman ; Veltman ), relational equality (Néron ; Anderson ), or the supposed spillover effect of workplace democracy (Pateman ), in all these cases the demand for democratization remains constrained within the limits of a political conception of democracy, that is, the idea of self‐government. As a consequence, the scope of democratization remains limited to mechanisms aimed at enabling employee's voice, either through direct ownership of the firm such as in cooperatives, the establishment of representative institutions such as joint or separated supervisory boards, or the creation of participatory bodies such as workers councils.…”