Freedom in the Workplace: Freedom Talks Series

< back to What Does Freedom in the Workplace Mean? Home

presented by Lawrence E. Rothstein, J.D., Ph.D.Dept. of Political Science, Univ. of Rhode Island at the Institute for Labor Studies and Research Cranston, RI

October 15, 2003

The Questions

I would like to touch on three important questions regarding work and freedom.  The first is, of course, what is freedom and in particular what are the collective dimensions of freedom?  I emphasize the latter because my colleague Dan Weisman,  has very neatly dealt with some of the key individual issues.   Second, why is freedom in the workplace, focusing on  collective decision making,  important?  This question includes how we learn the virtues or character traits that make freedom real and beneficial and what the barriers to the realization of freedom in the workplace are.  Third, do workers really want freedom at the workplace, particularly in its collective form?   

What is Freedom?

     Political philosophy, it is said followingJohn Locke, is the “underlabour” of politics.  That is to say, political theory is not politics.  The role of the political philosopher is to develop and explain the important concepts used in both political debate and the study of political phenomena - preparing the ground for those who engage in politics to use these concepts.  But I would argue that this activity - explaining political concepts - is in itself political action. This is why.   `Freedom' is, of course, one of the most important of these political concepts.  Furthermore, `freedom', like other such important political concepts, `justice', `democracy', `equality' and `rights' is “essentially contested”.  The very definition of the term is a subject of political debate with important implications for policies and processes.   To develop and explain the term is, in fact, taking a political position or at least making certain political positions more or less plausible and easily argued for.   This is not a bad thing.  The essential contestedness of important political concepts, once accepted, allows for a more open and magnanimous pluralism than allowed by those who claim only one useful “scientifically correct” definition of these central political  concepts and label others' usages as “mistaken” or “incoherent.”  Such labels are not conducive to an inclusive participation in political debate or to thorough deliberation.  Opponents, and sometimes potential allies,  are read out before the process begins. (1)     What are some of the contests over the definition of freedom?   Isaiah Berlin noted two senses of freedom which he saw as incommensurable and having developed into antagonistic positions.  One sense, “negative” freedom, is simply not being prevented by others from doing what one wants.  Unfreedom is caused by  the constraints placed on one by human agents.  This according to Berlin is the point of civil liberties.  They limit what constraints the government and other persons or institutions may impose.  On the other hand,  “positive” freedom, “consists in being one's own master.”  This is also referred to as `autonomy' or `self-determination'.   As Berlin suggested, it is associated with the desire “to play the truly human role ... of conceiving goals and policies of my own and realizing them.” This responds to the question: “Who governs me?” (2)      While the notions of negative and positive freedom both recognize the importance of individual and collective action, they place different emphases on these forms of action.  Negative freedom views collective action as detrimental or contingent.  Collective action may undermine freedom, e.g. placing governmental restraints on my doing what I want, or instrumentally beneficial, as when I might join a political organization dedicated to opposing a seat belt law that imposes restraints on my individual action.  Prof. Weisman, jumping off from Maslow's hierarchy of needs, has done an excellent job in treating the individual side of positive freedom, particularly that termed “self-determination.”  But, in defining positive freedom in terms of conceiving goals and policies and realizing them, collective action becomes a central focus.  Being one's own master with regard to realizing goals and policies that require collective action means that these goals and policies and the actions for implementing them must be the product of one's influential participation in the processes leading to their formulation and implementation.  One must share in the deliberation, have one's voice heard and regarded and have respect for, if not assent to, the goals and policies that result.     Another area of contest in the concept of freedom has become evident tonight through the video clips.  The realization of and the constraints on both individual and collective freedom may  be the acts of identifiable human agents or institutions or may be the result of structures that have arisen unintentionally over time from the acts of diverse agents and institutions. (3)  The video clips shown tonight demonstrated that the workplace raises all of the issues, positive and negative, individual and collective, intentional and structural, surrounding the notions of freedom. Hierarchical divisions of labor, job and employment structures, discipline and firings, constant surveillance, intimidation, lack of information or participatory mechanisms and job structure have all been mentioned as limitations on freedom.  Their opposites have been cited as evidence of freedom.  One worker finds unfreedom in video surveillance and threats to her job when she complains; another worker finds freedom in the flexibility to manage her own tasks.  One immigrant worker sees slavery in employers' exploitation of the lack of language skills and effective representation.  Another worker sees freedom in his ability to influence his own and other workers' situations through union activity.     What these real life experiences demonstrate is that many instances of unfreedom at work are not dictated by  laws of nature nor even by economic necessity.  In fact we don't usually consider conditions whose change are beyond the range of human possibility as constraints on freedom.  There must be some realistic possibility of removing or lessening the effect of these conditions before we see them as constraints. (4)  However, legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act has shown that many conditions thought impossible to change or improve are in fact the result of stereotypes and erroneous assumptions.  The degree and location of responsibility for changing these conditions is, of course, still a matter that is a key part of the contestedness of the concept of freedom.  Sometimes cross-national comparisons shed light on different ways of doing things.  For example, the woman who was threatened because she complained about video surveillance at work, if she lived in Italy, would have had a much stronger position because Article 4 of the Italian Workers' Statute of 1970 prohibits remote surveillance of workers by video camera or other devices.  Nor could she be pressed to give up her objection and agree to the surveillance or forfeit her job as the statute does not allow for individuals to consent to such surveillance. (5)     But, it is not simply evil or unthinking employers, like the one in the Dilbert cartoon (6), that curb workers' freedom.  Employment and economic structures outside of the particular enterprise shape freedom at work and at home.  A good example of how work structures affect workers' freedom  to achieve their goals outside of work is represented by a recent study of  EU workers' wishes for flexible and shorter working hours.  The study found that:

“Part-time work is the preferred arrangement for many: 23% of employed women and 19% of employed men currently work full-time and would prefer part-time work, most part-timers want to remain part-time, and many job seekers would prefer part-time rather than full-time work. The preferred arrangements are either substantial part-time hours (20-34) or short full-time hours (35-39) and the proportion of the workforce who would like to work these hours far exceeds the proportion that currently do so....

The popularity of part-time work is subject to a number of caveats concerning the quality of these jobs.... [One] is that there are a number of obstacles to working part-time: for many consider that it would be difficult to arrange part-time hours in their current job, and that working part-time incurs inferior career prospects and employment rights.... A[nother] caveat is that part-time hours are often wanted for a finite period only - for example to care for young children or to undertake further training - after which longer hours may be preferred. [Yet another] concern is that there is a mismatch of jobs and workers, for while many want to move into part-time work, involuntary part-time work remains a problem for nearly one in five part-timers. It must also be recognised that while many mothers prefer part-time work as a workfamily reconciliation measure this assessment is shaped by the social context - the availability of childcare services and other work-life balance measures, as well as financial considerations and social norms concerning gender roles. Hence some mothers who prefer part-time would prefer full-time work if childcare services were more extensive, or if full-time working hours were shorter and organised in more `familyfriendly' ways.” (7)

There are clearly many constraints upon workers being free to achieve the goals they wish through their work.  But increases in freedom for workers must generally be a cooperative enterprise with workers involved in collective decision making and action with each other, with employers and with other citizens over these issues.     

Why is Freedom in the Form of Collective Decision Making at the Workplace Important?

I would like to focus now on this issue of collective decision making.  Rather than viewing freedom as simply being able to do what one wants as an individual or as a form of autonomy and self-determination,  let us rather think of the notion of freedom essential to democracy - freedom to participate in important decisions about how we lead our lives.  Since the workplace is the focus of one half of our waking lives and our job often structures the rest of our way of life, it is certainly a key  area for the realization of freedom.  Furthermore, when we talk about a “free” country, a “free” society or the “free” world, we mean spaces where we can participate collectively in making decisions about our lives with others.       There are three reasons why  collective decision making is of the utmost importance.  The first is the obvious instrumentalist, individualist one.  It is the only way the lone individual with minimal resources can get  her interests considered in decisions about matters requiring the actions of many persons.  I in no way wish to diminish the importance of this aspect of freedom although I will be focusing on other aspects.   The second and third reasons suggest the benefit to all of us when collective decision making takes place.    Aristotle, although no democrat,  saw that participation of the many in decisions created a collective wisdom which people could not regularly achieve alone.  Aristotle puts it this way in the Politics:

“There is this to be said for the Many. Each of them by himself may not be of a good quality; but when they all come together, it is possible that they may surpass -collectively as a body, although not individually -- the quality of the few best. Feasts to which many contribute may excel those provided at one man's expense.  In the same way, when there are many, each can bring his share of goodness and moral prudence; and when all meet together, the people may thus become something in the nature of a single person,  who -- as he has many feet, many hands. and many senses-- may also have many qualities of character and intelligence ....”(8)

So, collective decisions, bringing together the widest possible representation of those directly affected by the decisions, may be better decisions.  More possibilities will be considered, both intended and unintended effects are more likely to be visualized, ignored interests will be fewer, a wider range of experience will be drawn upon, implementation of the decision at every relevant level will be considered by those who must implement it, some of the effects of individual egos will be cancelled out, different ethical perspectives will be brought into play and greater allegiance to the decision and willingness to carry it out cooperatively will be elicited.     There is a third sense in which collective decision making at the workplace or elsewhere is important to all of us.   Again a Dilbert cartoon is instructive. (9)  There is a close link between elements of unfreedom, represented in the comic as  lack of privacy and surveillance, and the ability to trust and work with others.  People treated as if they are despicable and untrustworthy may be more likely to act that way and we are unable to cooperate fully with those whom we regard as despicable and untrustworthy. (10) Those manipulated and prevented from making collective decisions in a central aspect of their lives are unlikely to develop the confidence and skills necessary to make such decisions in other settings.  As political theorist, Carole Pateman, has noted:

The enhanced group harmony and sense of co-operation that the experience of participation invariably gives rise to supports the suggestion of the theorists of participatory democracy that participation has an integrative function; the emphasis placed on results of this kind in the participation literature also supports the suggestion that participation aids the acceptance of decisions. (11)

Individual political efficacy and thus democratic effectiveness in general is based on the meaningful participation of citizens in the institutions and organizations of civil society of which the workplace is the most important.(12)     Many political thinkers from Aristotle to the present have added to the understanding of the relationship of participation and democratic values the idea that participatory institutions can help create the civic virtues which preserve democracy. These thinkers  go beyond simply noting that political participation may lead to a reliable collective judgment, but suggest that sharing power in democratic institutions over the important decisions in life helps to create trusting, trustworthy,  just, socially concerned and politically active individuals. (13)     There are two important points these thinkers make which have also been supported by modern evidence from studies of civic culture and workers' participation in management.  The first is that the experience of participation and democratic power sharing creates the virtues or, if you will, character traits which critics of mass or worker participation find lacking in most people. Rousseau suggested that participation in political and social action educated the participant to think beyond his own desires and interests, to understand the link between the public and private interest and to deliberate with a concern for justice.  John Stuart Mill maintained that an “active”, non-servile character resulted from political participation, and in Political Economy carried that idea into the workplace. (14)   Almond and Verba, in their classic study of The Civic Culture in five countries, found that “[o]f crucial significance” to the sense of political efficacy necessary for democratic participation were opportunities to “participate in decisions at one's place of work.” (15)  As Carole Pateman concluded in her study of Participation and Democratic Theory:

It seems clear from this evidence that the argument of the participatory theory of democracy that an individual's (politically relevant) attitudes will depend to a large extent on the authority structure of his work environment is a well-founded one.  Specifically, the development of a sense of political efficacy does appear to depend on whether his work situation allows him any scope to participate in decision making.... (16)

The second point is that few major institutions in society, and particularly few economic ones, are democratic. Therefore, the experience of being free to collectively make the important decisions under which one must live is extremely limited.  If it is that experience itself which perpetuates democratic values, then democracy is clearly in danger.

This suggests some basic, and often forgotten, aspects of freedom, namely that collective decision making in institutions outside of government is character-building.   It is a learning experience.   It helps to teach and sustain the “civic virtue”, confidence and trust necessary to make democracy work.  It is the loss of this civic virtue, confidence and trust among citizens that political thinkers such as Robert Putnam have suggested explain the degradation of political democracy and of a fulfilling community life. (17)  To make matters worse, the steady decline in voting and civic participation since the 1960s is also heavily class biased with the participation of the already less politically active, those without a high school diploma, declining by 1/3 while college grad participation remained the same. (18) The loss of civic virtue is a result of the failure to bring freedom and collective decision making into central "non-political" institutions of human life of which the workplace is the most influential.   That the decline in political  participation among the less educated corresponds in time with the decline in union membership and power may not be mere coincidence.