4-6 pages double-spaced Business Ethic Paper!!!
Maoxiaoying
desjardinsmccallmaitland.pptxBusiness Ethics
Employee Rights
The Debate
Maitland and Des Jardins and McCall are debating whether workers have rights that they are morally entitled to and that are not on the table when they negotiate contracts with employers.
The Debate
Maitland and Des Jardins and McCall are debating whether workers have rights that they are morally entitled to and that are not on the table when they negotiate contracts with employers.
Maitland says no because any rights determined ahead of time violate the employee’s right to freely choose the terms and conditions of their contract.
Des Jardins and McCall say yes because there is no argument that is sufficient to dismiss employees’ rights in general—each possible right will need to be addressed individually.
What are employee rights?
Des Jardins and McCall offer the following definition:
An employee right is “an entitlement that places presumptive moral constraints on the content of the employment contract” (368).
They are benefits or protections that a worker is entitled to because they are a human being, not due to a contractual agreement or law.
These rights are deemed so valuable that they are removed from the bargaining table when employers and employees negotiate a contract.
Financial concerns such as increasing profits or wages are not enough to justify violating these rights.
Having these rights in place removes employees from the coercive position of having to choose between their basic rights and a job.
These rights places moral limitations on both employees and employers because it limits what can be bargained for.
The arguments for and against employee rights
Des Jardins and McCall seek to show that there is no good argument against employee rights in principle by responding to the four main arguments in favor of this view:
1. Employee rights violate the employer’s right to liberty.
2. Employee rights violate the employee’s right to liberty.
3. Employee rights harm the wellbeing of society as a whole.
4. Employee rights are too costly.
Maitland, on the other hand, offers arguments to support some of the very same points that they argue against.
Let’s examine some of these arguments from both sides.
1. Employee rights violate the employer’s right to liberty
The basic argument:
Employee rights are a violation of the right to liberty because they interfere with people’s ability to enter into a voluntary contract that is deemed mutually beneficial.
From the employer’s perspective it is seen as “an illegitimate constraint on their ability to control, use, and dispose of their legally owned property” (370)
1. Employee rights violate the employer’s right to liberty
Maitland’s arguments:
If offering particular employee rights is profitable or allows a business to attract better employees, the employers will do it.
If it is not profitable, the employer then has to choose between absorbing the costs or passing the costs on to employees or consumers.
Employers will be willing to give more rights if workers are willing to give up some of their wages to offset the costs.
1. Employee rights violate the employer’s right to liberty
Des Jardin and McCall’s response:
1. Employee rights increase the liberty of employees by making employment contracts more truly voluntary and mutually beneficial.
When negotiating a contract, more power is in the hands of the employer. Constraints placed by employee help place employee on more equal footing with the employer when negotiating a contract, and thus give the employee more of a real choice.
2. Most people agree that voluntary agreements cannot justify all contracts.
There are some values, such as the well-being of the public or consumers, that can supercede the value of liberty to contract and place limits on it.
ex. we place limitations on who can sell which drugs and under what conditions
An opponent of employee rights would have to address each particular employee right under consideration and show why this value does not override freedom to contract.
2. Employee rights violate the employee’s right to liberty
The basic argument:
Restrictions on the content of voluntary employment agreements are paternalistic and restrict the liberty of employees to decide which goods they value most.
2. Employee rights violate the employee’s right to liberty
Maitland’s argument:
Workers should be able to choose the combination of benefits/rights and pay that they want.
If benefits are important to them, they should be willing to take a pay cut, because these should be considered part of their compensation for their labor.
If they value pay more than benefits, they shouldn’t be forced to take a pay cut in order to receive these benefits instead.
2. Employee rights violate the employee’s right to liberty
Des Jardins and McCall’s response:
1. Employee liberty is one value among many (such as health) and does not automatically override all other values.
Opponents of worker’s rights need to show why a particular right is not as valuable as the right to liberty.
2. The choice of what constitutes an individual’s good is not always best left to them and we sometimes accept limitations on it.
ex. availability of prescription drugs and forcing people to wear seatbelts
3. Employee rights are too costly
The basic argument:
The costs to business of employee rights are so high that they harm both employers and employees.
3. Employee rights are too costly
Maitland’s argument:
Forcing all employers to give certain rights could force them to lose profits and pass on these losses to employees through lower wages and consumers through higher prices. It can also cause them to hire fewer employees.
3. Employee rights are too costly
Des Jardins and McCall’s response:
How much is too costly?
It doesn’t seem like lower profits alone can justify violating employee rights.
This is akin to saying that no value is important than profits.
We thus have to examine each right and see if its value is greater than profit.
If it is going to create financial collapse, this is another matter, but evidence that this will actually happen needs to be provided.
