How workers can reclaim the work ethic – with Elizabeth Anderson

Thursday 25 April 2024, 1pm to 2pm (UK time), Zoom

https://twitter.com/policyatkings/status/1780167029162406127

Political philosopher Elizabeth Anderson argues that the 17th century concept of the Protestant work ethic has been perverted, and is now used to justify policies that promote the wealth and power of the richest in society, at workers’ expense. In her latest book, Hijacked: How neoliberalism turned the work ethic against the workers, Anderson says we should reclaim the original goals of the work ethic and better ensure that it promotes dignity for workers.

This webinar looked at how ideas of a work ethic informed debates among the political economists of the past, and how these ideas can help us in thinking about inequality today. The event was part of our Fair Society series, in partnership with the Policy Institute at King’s College London.

Speakers

Elizabeth Anderson, Professor of Public Philosophy; University of Michigan, and author of 'Hijacked'
Sohrab Ahmari, Founder and editor, Compact magazine, and 'American Affairs' columnist, the New Statesman
Bethan Staton, Deputy Editor, Work and Careers, Financial Times
Stuart White, Nicholas Drake Tutorial Fellow in Politics, University of Oxford
Will Snell, Chief Executive, the Fairness Foundation (Chair)

Summary of the discussion

Elizabeth Anderson summarised the key arguments in her book “Hijacked”:

She argued that the original 17th century Puritan and Calvinist conception of the "Protestant work ethic" was more progressive and pro-worker than how Max Weber later characterised it.
The Puritans saw meaningful work as enabling workers to exercise skills in service to others, advocated fair wages and safe conditions from employers, and believed that even menial labour deserved respect.
However, during the Industrial Revolution, this "class neutral" work ethic split into two versions - a progressive workers' ethic and a capitalist ethic that turned it into justifying worker exploitation for profit.
The capitalist version hijacked the work ethic and led to the neoliberal agenda promoting wealth accumulation for the rich through appropriating worker productivity.
Elizabeth argued that we should reclaim the Puritan ethic's original egalitarian goals and use it to argue for policies like co-determination, collective bargaining, and reining in predatory business models. Concepts from the Puritan work ethic can underpin critiques of authoritarian workplaces, precarious gig labour, and the disenfranchisement of workers from corporate decision-making.

Sohrab Ahmari responded:

He praised Elizabeth’s interdisciplinary approach, blending philosophy, economics, history, and political theology to understand the relationship between ideas and material reality.
He gently took issue with her use of the terms "progressive" and "conservative" work ethics, arguing that what she calls the "conservative" work ethic was actually seen as a disruptive force against traditional society by groups like the Jacksonians in the US, citing the historian Charles Sellers' work describing the Jacksonian era conflict between the older "subsistence culture" influenced by the Protestant work ethic and the emerging market society that coopted a version of the work ethic.
He argued that a highly individualistic "self-help" ideology arose to contain democratic demands that were being made in reaction to the displacement of the subsistence culture by market forces concentrating wealth.
He suggested that we should welcome labour-saving technology like AI, as it can create new high-wage jobs, increase productivity and create a societal surplus - if not hindered by offshoring and immigration policies that undermine productivity gains.

Bethan Staton made the the following points:

She discussed how the work ethic applies to white-collar office jobs and creative or professional industries that make up a large portion of the modern workforce.
She noted a disconnect between the perception that these jobs allow for meaningful, skills-utilising work (aligning with the progressive work ethic) and the reality of overwork, jobs that don't contribute to society, and emotional or creative labour extraction.
She pointed out the "monstrous melding" of the progressive and conservative work ethics, where aspirations for meaningful work are presented as only achievable through free market employment.
She highlighted David Graeber's concept of "bullshit jobs" that demand creativity and effort but don't actually contribute value or meaning.
She raised the issue of low compensation for important creative work and care work, and asks how we can redistribute rewards to these sectors as technology reduces the need for other forms of work.

Stuart White contributed his perspective:

He raised a philosophical question about whether framing the argument in terms of the Protestant "work ethic" is better than just focusing on reciprocity and justice principles.
He reflected on the limitations of the New Labour government's policies in the early 2000s in living up to the demands of fair reciprocity that he had articulated; they did increase in-work benefits for low-paid workers, but they failed to apply reciprocity to the property market through tax reform, and they did not sufficiently expand employment opportunities as work obligations were tightened for benefits recipients.
He questioned what the political conditions are for successfully implementing a left politics of the work ethic, given how the New Labour approach drifted into a neoliberal workfare model.
He asked whether, in the absence of those conditions, it may be wiser to disinvest from promoting the work ethic at all, in favor of a "freedom ethic" instead, to avoid the work ethic rhetoric being co-opted into a right-wing, anti-worker framing.

Several issues were discussed during the Q&A:

On the rise of automation/AI and the idea of "post-work" society, Elizabeth was sceptical that AI will fully replace all workers, noting evidence that it can actually boost productivity for middle-skill workers, and warned against tech companies appropriating creative works to produce "crappier versions" that eliminate the ability to earn a living through original work.
On universal basic income (UBI), Stuart asked whether it could undermine or actually uphold a progressive work ethic vision by allowing people more freedom to engage in different types of unremunerated but meaningful work like care work.
On maximum wages, Elizabeth argued that vast fortunes today come from unearned income and monopolistic intellectual property rights, and proposed rethinking the IP system, since inventors don't need billion-dollar incentives.
On work-life balance, Elizabeth advocated legally mandating policies like no work emails after hours and guaranteed paid vacations, noting that the professional or managerial class are often afraid to use their earned vacation time.
Multiple panelists highlighted the tensions between the rhetoric promoting meaningful work and the reality of overwork, lack of autonomy, and inadequate compensation in many jobs.