Expanding the Limits of Self-Determination

Daniel Weisman, Ph.D., Rhode Island College School of Social Work

Sponsored by the R.I. Institute for Labor Studies and Research

Part of the Freedom Talks Series Presented by

Abstract

This paper explores the meaning of freedom in the workplace through the lens of social work's primary imperatives of client primacy and self-determination.  Borrowing from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a “workplace needs hierarchy” is proposed, with job security and living wages occupying the foundation step (akin to Maslow's physiological needs), and self-determination occupying the top step (Maslow's self-actualization).  Five categories of barriers to self-determination are documented: job security; wages, income and poverty; income inequality; the retirement alternative; workplace health, safety and freedoms.  The paper concludes with strategies for expanding opportunities for working people to approach self-determination: encourage unionization; promote living wage initiatives; manage globalization; build coalitions of workers' and social work organizations.

Daniel Weisman, Ph.D., MSW, is a professor of social work at Rhode Island College: dweisman@ric.edu.

Writing in 1910, Jane Addams, widely viewed as the mother of modern social work, commented on labor issues and Hull House, a settlement house in Chicago that she founded in 1889:

“That a Settlement is drawn into the labor issues of its city can seem remote to its purpose only to those who fail to realize that the present industrial system thwarts our ethical demands, not only for social righteousness but for social order, a Settlement is committed to an effort to understand and, as far as possible, to alleviate it.  That in this effort it should be drawn into fellowship with the local efforts of trades-unions is most obvious (Addams, 1910, p. 166).”

     Hull House, the first American settlement house and the precursor of scores around the country, sought to improve the living conditions of the urban poor.  Among Hull House's myriad activities, such as civics classes, current events discussion groups, arts and crafts instruction, lobbying and community organizing, was organizing two women's trade unions and hosting the activities of many other labor unions (Addams, 1910, p. 157).  Addams' writings indicate that she viewed unions as organizations of poor and working people, which could help level the playing field of labor and capital.  She was critical of some union activities, but remained deeply aware of workers' aspirations.  Writing of workers' struggles during the Industrial Revolution, she said:

“…(W)orkers themselves, the mass of the people….dreamed of a time when they should have no need of protection, but when each workman should stand by the side of his employer - the free citizen of a free state.  Each workingman demanded, not class protection, but political rights.  He wished to be a unit; not that he might be isolated, but that he might unite in a fuller union, first with his fellow workers, and then with the entire people (Elshtain, 2002a, p. 55).”

     The specific workplace issues that Addams and her colleagues pursued included setting controls on child labor, establishing decent wages, creating steady and full employment, and protecting immigrants, women and children from employer abuse.  She viewed freedom of association, political freedom (e.g., the vote), and knowledge (of socio-economic and political history, and the meaning of work) as essential if working people and their organizations were going to achieve success (Elshtain, 2002b, p.173).

     About 100 years after Hull House first opened, the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) undertook its most concerted effort to articulate the set of values that drive the profession.  In 1996, the Association's most comprehensive Code of Ethics was adopted (National Association of Social Workers, 1996).  The “ethical demands” that guided Addams remained the lynchpin of the social work profession.  The opening words of the Code's preamble echo those of Addams, almost 100 years earlier:

“The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet basic needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed and living in poverty.  An historic and defining feature of social work is the profession's focus on individual well-being in a social context and the well-being of society.  Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living (National Association of Social Workers, 1996).”

     The Code lists sets of values, principles and standards that guide professional behavior.  The first standard, social workers' ethical responsibilities to clients, begins with commitment to clients' well-being (1.01) [“In general, clients' interests are primary”] and self-determination (1.02) [“Social workers protect and promote the right of clients to self-determination and assist clients in their efforts to identify and clarify their goals”].

     The profession's commitment to clients' and by extension (on the basis of language defining the profession's primary mission as “help meet basic needs of all people ... who are vulnerable, oppressed and living in poverty”), to all vulnerable people's self-determination, may be traced back to Addams' views of how to work with and on behalf of poor and working people by empowering them to determine their own destinies.  These shared precursors of modern organized labor and the social work profession guide my views of “freedom” in the workplace and how such freedom can be expanded.  

As Reamer (1999) [chair of the NASW panel that wrote the 1996 Code] explained, within some narrow limits (e.g., harm to self or others), self-determination generally means making one's own choices and decisions.  Hancock (1997) identified four “main responsibilities” for social workers, when implementing the principle of self-determination (pp.195-197):

Help the client see their needs clearly and with perspectiveInform clients of pertinent resourcesActivate the client's own `dormant' resources

Facilitate the client's pursuit of his/her needs through the helping relationship

Inherent in this focal mandate of self-determination is the social worker's responsibility to understand the dynamics of employment, for their clients (and other “vulnerable and oppressed people), including what self-determination means in the current work environment.  A “self-determination - determinism” continuum (Day, 1981)  might be envisioned.  On one end (freedom/self-determination), people are viewed as unfettered and somewhat unpredictable in their decisions.  On the opposite end (determinism), a variety of internal and external forces direct decisions.  In the former view, people are seen as dynamic and capable; in the latter, they are more passive and malleable.  The belief that choices are constrained by forces, but not necessarily directed by them, supports a freedom/self-determination perspective.  Social work falls into this camp, and in so doing, directs its practitioners to recognize those constraints, and help clients deal with them.  Interventions may include strengthening coping skills, developing  interactive collaboration with a social support network, improving cognition and addressing [i.e., challenging] environmental constraints.  

Applying this approach to the workplace, it may be helpful to borrow from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a pyramid of needs that individuals address from the bottom-up, in order (Boeree, 1998):

biological/physiological needs of food shelter, clothing and medical caresafety needs (security, stability, freedom from fear, and social structure)belongingness and love needs (intimacy and affection)self-esteem needs (respect by self and others, appreciation, recognition)

self-actualization (self-fulfillment, achieving full potential; mastery)

These steps are incremental: each requires reasonable command of the previous stage.  So, the pinnacle for adults, self-actualization, is achievable only when an individual (in concert with family, friends, group affiliations, organizations, communities and the larger society) has sufficiently satisfied (in ascending order) needs of resources for basic survival, safety, belongingness and self-esteem.  Similarly, each step cannot be mastered until the previous step is somewhat satisfied.

According to Boeree (1998), “(The lower) four levels (Maslow) calls deficit needs, or D-needs. If you don't have enough of something -- i.e. you have a deficit -- you feel the need. But if you get all you need, you feel nothing at all! In other words, they cease to be motivating.  As the old blues song goes, `you don't miss your water till your well runs dry!'“The last level is a bit different. Maslow has used a variety of terms to refer to this level: He has called it growth motivation (in contrast to deficit motivation), being needs (or B-needs, in contrast to D-needs), and self-actualization.“These are needs that do not involve balance or homeostasis. Once engaged, they continue to be felt. In fact, they are likely to become stronger as we “feed” them! They involve the continuous desire to fulfill potentials, to “be all that you can be.” They are a matter of becoming the most complete, the fullest, “you” -- hence the term, self-actualization.”

Characteristics of “self-actualized” people, related to the concept of  “freedom,” are (Boeree, 1998, paraphrasing Maslow):

“They were relatively independent of culture and environment, relying instead on their own experiences and judgments. And they resisted enculturation, that is, they were not susceptible to social pressure -- they were, in fact, nonconformists in the best sense.

“Further, they had what Maslow called democratic values, meaning that they were open to ethnic and individual variety, even treasuring it. They had the quality called Gemeinschaftsgefühl -- social interest, compassion, humanity.”

Maslow's rather orderly and linear framework is generally viewed by social workers as a guide for assessment rather than a literal blueprint, to be taken into account along with other tools, but conceptually the core concept of a needs pyramid has merit: safety as a basic human need usually cannot be arranged without sufficient resources for biological survival; higher-level goals of self-respect and fulfillment typically are dependent upon social belongingness.  Even accounting for cultural and socio-economic diversity, the general idea of a needs hierarchy appears to have validity.

I hypothesize that workplace self-actualization, too, cannot be achieved until a set of pre-requisites has been met.  In employment relationships, the parallel to self-actualization is self-determination, defined as the ability to make appropriate decisions and implement them in interaction with others.  Other parallel steps are proposed, from the bottom-up, as:

Chart 2: Parallel Needs Hierarchies (Ascending Order)Maslow's Human Needs Hierarchy          Workplace Needs Hierarchybiological/physiological               job security with a living wagesafety                              health and safety protections rights of

privacy and expression; freedom from discrimination and harassment

belongingness                         freedom of association (and to unionize)self-esteem                         recognition of work skills and competency;

some control over work

self-actualization                    workplace self-determination and freedom

(an equal partner with management)

The workplace needs hypothesis, extrapolated here to workplace settings from Maslow's framework for individual needs achievement, is that freedom in the workplace, defined as full partnership with management so that self-determination is realistically accomplished, cannot occur unless most elements of antecedent steps are satisfied.  Underlying all workplace needs accomplishment, in this schema, is job security and wages sufficient to support a family at a reasonable standard.  Workplace democracy, for example, is tenuous without job security and living wages because the employee is dependent upon the employer's largesse and the collaborative relationship may be voided unilaterally at any time.  It is even arguable that the first three workplace stages may be more fluid and interactive than linear, moreso than Maslow's pyramid for individual needs achievement, but it is reasonable to posit that together, those first three steps do underlie the top two: some mastery and recognition (step four), and full self-determination (step five).

Some discussion of the workplace hierarchy's top step is also required.  Workplace self-determination is envisioned as having the ability to make rational decisions that meet one's needs in the workplace (as opposed to merely one's personal needs).  As is the case for Maslow's self-actualization, this is viewed as a social rather than individual process.  So, workplace self-determination means that the employee, in consultation as an equal with management and other colleagues, and based on respect for the employee's expertise and skills, participates as an equal in workplace decisions directly related to that expertise. [In the previous stage -self-esteem - the decision-making participation is more advisory than collegial.]  These decisions could include work rules or production procedures, but might also extend to freedom to leave employment, meaning that having an alternative (including retirement with sufficient income to support an adequate standard of living) is a requirement for self-determination.  After all, being well paid and relied upon, but having no alternatives, puts the employee at the mercy of the employer, who is expected always to have alternatives (the proverbial “wage slave”).  

Admittedly, these are fine points that might require some modifications in the details, but the basic concept of a hierarchy of needs leading to self-actualization, self-determination and freedom in the workplace remains tenable.  Finally, it is further suggested that this level of accomplishment usually cannot be accomplished when one's job is under threat (e.g., job relocation), wages are inadequate, the workplace presents serious health, safety and civil rights risks, or one's value as a worker is unrecognized.

My primary premise is that a cluster of fundamental rights must be satisfied before serious progress can be made towards higher-level rights and freedoms.  The most basic workplace needs, indeed the building blocks for all the others, are job security, living wages and some measure of workplace safety.  I will focus on these elements for the remainder of this paper.

Job Security: Employment and Job Loss

The current “economic recovery” officially began in November, 2001, as measured by overall growth of the economy.   In this same time period, jobs have decreased by 1.1 million (Bernstein, 2003).  Job losses rates for blacks are double those of whites; for Hispanics, it's about 30% higher than whites.   Rates are similar by gender and educational groupings (Economic Policy Institute, 2003a).  Another measure of job security, longevity, indicates that over the last twenty years, “job security fell…as workers began spending less time with one employer” due in some part to job displacement (Economic Policy Institute, 2003a).  “Nonstandard work arrangements,” i.e., part-time and temporary jobs have increased over the same twenty years and through the current “recovery” (Economic Policy Institute, 2003a).  The purchasing power of Unemployment Insurance averages below the poverty line, replacing only 1/3 of lost wages and falling more than $1,000 per month below a family's basic needs costs (Boucher and Wenger, 2001).

Wages, Income and Poverty

Wage growth has slipped below the inflation rate over the last two years, after hovering at about one percent above inflation in 2000 (Bernstein, 2003a; Economic Policy Institute, 2003b).  Over the last year, average workers' real earnings have steadily declined (Bernstein and Mishel, 2003).  According to the most recent Census Bureau data for 2002, the median household income and per capita income both declined over the last year (Clemetson, 2003);  “household income, adjusted for inflation, declined for the third consecutive year and the poverty rate rose for the second consecutive year”  (Income falls, poverty rises, 2003).  Families in “severe poverty” (income below 50% of the poverty line) increased over the last year by 800,000 households (Clemetson, 2003).  Currently, the official poverty rate is 12.1%, with 34.6 million Americans living below poverty (Clemetson, 2003).  A Census Bureau statistical correction for the government's undercounting the poor would add about nine million people and raise the poverty rate to more than 15% (Economic Policy Institute, 2003a).  It appears that former welfare recipients who were forced into the workforce by the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act are particularly vulnerable to poverty as the industries in which they found work are reporting severe job losses (Economic Policy Institute, 2001a).

Income Inequality

The growth of income and wealth disparity has received considerable attention over the last few years.  In spite of the attention, the gap continues to increase, raising concerns for the principle of workplace self-determination.  As wealth disparity between employer and employee increases, the latter's access to power and influence decreases.  

The U.S. Census Bureau has two measures of income inequality.  Both show growing inequality between the rich and the poor (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).  In 2001, the poorest fifth of the population had 3.5% of the nation's aggregate income, while the richest fifth had 50.1%.  The top one percent accounted for 22.4% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002).  Chief executives' income continued to increase during the 1990's.  In 1965, the ratio of average wages between CEOs and typical workers was 26-1.  The ratio increased to 72-1 in 1989 and 310-1 in 2000 (Economic Policy Institute, 2003a).

The Retirement Alternative

If self-determination is the expectation for the older worker who approaches the latter years of his or her career, the retirement alternative is an extra bargaining chip when negotiating with management.  To the extent that employees have attractive alternatives, they are that much less dependent on their employers.  The question here is: what's happening on the retirement front?  Short answer: more bad news.

In a study of elderlaw, Weisman (1997) found growing incidents of pension fraud, coupled with some courts' acceptance of employers' “business decision” defense.  

It is estimated that of all households with a member retiring during the first twenty years of this century, more than 60% will not be able to replace 50% of their current income at retirement (80% replacement is recommended).  The average retirement pension, held by only 50% of the workforce, would pay out about $5,400 per year, which added to Social Security, moves a retirement household only slightly above the official poverty line (Economic Policy Institute, 2003c).  The poverty rate for current pre-retirement households may exceed 19% upon their retirement (Economic Policy Institute, 2003d).  As one might imagine, pensions are unequally distributed by overall income: more than 70% of those in the richest quintile are covered, compared with less than 20% of those in the poorest quintile (Economic Policy Institute, 2001b).  

Workplace health, safety and freedoms

     The U.S. occupational injuries and illnesses rates are among the highest among so-called advanced countries.  The good news is that non-fatal accident rates declined in all industries during the decade ending in 2001 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003).  Fatalities fluctuated, showing a general downward rate but varying considerably by industry.  Construction and transportation and public utilities ended the decade with higher incidents of fatalities.  On average, based on a six-day work week, more than 20 people die each day due to occupational causes (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003).

     A recent study in Milwaukee by Northwestern University found that when resumes and job interview skills are similar, 14% of black applicants and 34% of white applicants are called back for a second job interview (Price, 2003).  

     This not-so-pretty picture begs for remedies.  Given the historically high and growing disparity between employers and everyone else, what strategies are available to expand the opportunities for self-determination in the workplace?  Several have been proposed.  

     Beginning with Addams and reinforced many times over by way of the above review, labor unions can be effective organizations for reducing the power disparity between workers and management.  Examples include  (Mishel and Walters, 2003):

union wages and benefits increase compensation an average of 28%union benefits accrue disproportionately to lower- and middle-income workers, reducing inequalitynon-union wages are increased by union wages in the same industryunionized workers receive significantly more health, fringe and vacation benefits than non-unionized workersunionized workers receive more pension benefits than non-unionized workers, with more contributed by employers

unions impact public policy on behalf of all workers, in areas of wages, workplace protections, health and leave policies, and social insurance programs

Also, union-management contracts govern workplace procedures and can address the issues identified in the first steps of the hierarchy: job security, wages, benefits, retirement protections, workplace safety, due process and association.  Unions can promote, celebrate and publicize workers' skills and accomplishments (step four) through member education and training programs (such as RI's Institute for Labor Studies and Research), with the option of affiliating with colleges and universities for additional educational legitimacy and resources, and recognition of individuals' accomplishments at union events.   Contracts can approach some of the ideals embodied in the top step - equal partnership and full self-determination by including collaborative decision-making structures.

     Living wage legislation is a strategy encountering some success in localities around the country.  In general, living wage laws are adopted at the local level and require businesses that contract with governments to pay wages above federal and state minimums, up to about 130% of the poverty line.  [The federal minimum wage falls below the poverty line for families of three or more with one full-time or less wage earner.]  There is growing evidence that anticipated negative consequences (e.g., negative local business climate; higher costs of doing business) have not materialized (Economic Policy Institute, 2003e).

     Globalization has resulted in millions of lost U.S. jobs.  Even the mere threat of relocating to low-wage countries has the effect of reducing workers' self-determination (Center for Popular Economics, 2003a). Rather than oppose globalization, which is technically impossible, efforts may be placed on controlling and regulating globalization, so that corporations' multi-national activities are restricted.  The Center for Popular Economics (2003b) has proposed several anti-unregulated-globalization strategies:

outright prohibitions on the movement of capitalregulation of investment patternstaxation of international transactions

enticements for local investment

An editorial comment here: this paper was written by a social worker-union activist, built on the view that social work and the labor movement share some fundamental values.  Social workers can bring a variety of skills and perspectives to workers' organizations, including organizing and problem-solving methodologies.  Workers' organizations can inform and sensitize social workers to the realities their clients face and to public issues that act as barriers to clients' self-actualization.  The two enterprises can work together in coalitions to impact public policies of mutual interest.  Virtually every community in the country is served by a social work education program at the bachelors or masters level.  Workers' organizations can partner with sympathetic faculty members on a variety of issues to the benefit of both parties.

     This project began as an examination of strategies to enhance workplace freedom.  An examination of the concept of freedom through the lens of social work values resulted in the conceptualization of freedom as self-determination.  Borrowing from Maslow's hierarchy of human needs, a hierarchy of workplace needs was developed, with the foundation being job security with adequate wages, followed by workplace safety.  Barriers to job security, adequate wages, and workplace safety were documented.  Some strategies to resist and minimize those barriers were reviewed.

     The challenge to the reader and others who are committed to workplace freedom defined along the lines proposed here is to refine the workplace needs hierarchy and then identify and try to implement strategies to reduce workers' dependence on employers by maximizing factors that contribute to self-determination.  Gains that are made by shifting disadvantages or barriers from one set of workers to other sets should be viewed as temporary, at best.  Recent history has shown us that the global economy offers capital access to workers around the globe for whom the bottom step of the pyramid is a constant struggle.  It would serve the interests of U.S. workers for workers of all nations to have their basic needs for survival and job security satisfied.  As reported here, the current trends for all workers are in the direction of less freedom, and only collective social action will reverse the tide.  

Addams, J. (1910).  Twenty Years at Hull House.  N.Y. Signet/Macmillan.

Bernstein, J. (2003).  Jobs picture, Sept. 5, 2003.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict.

Bernstein, J. and Mishel, L. (2003).  Jobless recovery catches up with wages, stifles growth.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib193/ib193.pdf.

Boeree, C.G. (1998).  Abraham Maslow, 1908-1970.  Retrieved Sept. 28, 2003 from http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/maslow.html.

Boucher, H. and Wenger, J.  Coming up short: Current unemployment insurance benefits fail to meet basic family needs.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib169.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2003).  Injuries, illnesses and fatalities.  Retrieved Sept. 27, 2003 from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cd.

Center for Popular Economics (2003a).  Capital mobility and workers: What's the evidence? Retrieved Sept. 27, 2003 from " http://www.populareconomics.org/globalization/html%20/ briefs.html/Capital_Mobility_content.html.

Center for Popular Economics (2003b).  Controlling capital. Retrieved Sept. 27, 2003 from http://www.populareconomics.org/globalization/html%20/ briefs.html/Control_Capital_content.html

Clemetson, L. (2003, Sept. 27).  More Americans in poverty in 2002, census study says.  New York Times, p. A1, A10.

Day, P.R. (1981).  Social Work and Social Control.  London: Tavistock Publications.

Economic Policy Institute (2003a).  The state of working America 2002-03.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/books_swa2002introexec.

Economic Policy Institute (2003b).  Job Watch, 9/03.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://jobwatch.org/.

Economic Policy Institute (2003c).  EPI issue guide: Retirement security.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.epinet.org/printer.efm?id=1356&content_type=1.

Economic Policy Institute (2003d).  Retirement security: Frequently asked questions.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.epinet.org/printer.efm?id=1355&content_type=1.

Economic Policy Institute (2003e).  Living wage: Facts at a glance.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.epinet.org/printer.efm?id=309&content_type=1.

Economic Policy Institute (2001a).  Last hired, first fired.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib171/ib171.pdf.

Economic Policy Institute (2001b).  Pension coverage by income, 2000.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.epinet.org/Issueguides/retire/charts/income_600.gif.

Elshtain, J.B. (2002a).  The Jane Addams Reader.  N.Y.: Basic Books.

Elshtain, J.B. (2002b).  Jane Addams and the Dream of American Democracy.  N.Y.: Basic Books.

Hancock, M.R. (1997).  Principles of Social Work Practice.  Binghamton, N.Y.: Haworth Press.

Income falls, poverty rises.  (2003, Sept. 27).  New York Times, p. A10.

Mishel, L. and Walters, M. (2003).  How unions help all workers.  Retrieved Sept. 25 from http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/143/bp143.pdf.

National Association of Social Workers (1996).  Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers.  Washington, D.C.: NASW.

Price, L. (2003).  Racial discrimination continues to play a part in hiring decisions.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_09172003.

Reamer, F. (1999).  Social Work Values and Ethics, Second Edition.  N.Y.: Columbia University Press.

U.S. Census Bureau (2002).  Historical income tables - income equality.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/ie3.html.

U.S. Census Bureau (2000).  The changing shape of the nation's income distribution.  Retrieved Sept. 25, 2003 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p60-204pdf..

Weisman, D. (1997).  Civil liberties and aging: Evolution and devolution.  Journal of Law and Social Work, 7 (2), 77-104.