Employee=Slave?

[Darnoc]

This discussion began in the "America in the Middle-East"-Thread, but it is OT there, so I open a new thread in order to debate the subject further.

 

In order to avoid confusion, I'll also quote everything which has been said on the subject in the other thread:

 

Darnoc wrote:

 

@Theta Orionis and draighox:

 

As a sidenote concerning slavery:

 

Roman law defined a slave as a person, working for someone else and receiving salary for this work, so he was dependent on the person giving him the salary.

 

A free person was defined as a person who wasn't dependent on someone else, ergo not receiving salary. A trader, for example, was considered a free person, while a teacher or doctor was not (at least when this person was working in someones household and not in his own school/practice).

 

When applying this to our modern situation, all employees would be slaves, while all self-employed people would be free people. Also note that slaves were not considered to be Roman citizens. They had not the rights of citizens and their masters could practically do everything they wanted with them.

 

Theta Orionis wrote:

 

Interesting, and not a definition I have come across before. Could you provide a source, please?

 

Darnoc wrote:

 

It isn't a real definition. Call it a comment on the situation. It isn't really written somewhere, but you can conclude it from the juristic status and the acctuall situation. The first one who showed me the analogy to the situation of today was my latin teacher.

 

Slaves in Rome were considered res (thing) and not persona. Their master could do with them what he wanted, for juristically they weren't persons, altough roman law also stated that slaves were natural humans.

 

First most slaves were debtors. If someone could not pay his debts, he could sell himself as slave to the person he was in debt. Later on this was forbidden. The new law stated that persons in debt who could not pay had only to work until their debt was paid off with their work. He didn't receive salary tough, like normal slaves. The debtor had to give his salary to the one he was in debt.

 

The situation with "normal" slaves was different. First they didn't receive salary, but later it came into tradition to pay them peculium (capital). In later times, slaves were often well educated men (teachers, doctors etc.) for whom quite a price was paid and who also received a good peculium.

 

Free people didn't receive salary. Free people were people working for themselves, like farmers, traders or craftsmen (craftsmen made things for people, but they weren't given their salary by someone, they earned money by selling their products). Some of the farmers were so called coloni, their land was not their own, they leased it and paid the owner something for it. This is the source of the middle-age bondslaves.

 

Juristically, a slave had no possessions. A free man had possession, like land, a house or his own work (with "own" I mean he didn't work for someone and he acctually owns what he creates with his talents). Exception of this rule were the coloni who didn't possess the land, but who could sell what they grew on this land.

 

Just apply it to our situation. Most people don't work for themselves, but they are paid by someone else to do work. Therefore their work is not their possession, but the possession of the one who pays them. If you work in a factory, you only craft something, but you don't earn money by selling what you have crafted. Your work is not your own. Therefore you are a "work-slave", for you work for someone who is kind enough to pay you for it (or to be more precise, the law forces him to pay you; but it isn't stated in the law, how much he has to pay you).

 

Theta Orionis wrote:

 

In that case, your original statement is misleading, is it not?

 

None of the definitions of slavery under Roman law I have encountered mention receipt of a salary as an indication of slavery. Slavery was a legal, not an economic status.

 

 

And I disagree with your conclusion about work and slavery. There is a difference between owning the output of your work, and being in possession of the actual labour itself. Being in paid employment, you yourself have control over your labour, your capacity to work. You choose what kind of labour you do, how much of it, who you work for etc. A slave has none of these choices.

 

 

If you wanted to take this to an extreme, then by having basic requirements - such as for food and shelter - we are slaves to our bodies.

 

 

However, interesting as this is, this is straying even further from the topic......

 

Darnoc wrote:

 

@Theta Orionis:

 

 

Theta Orionis wrote:

 

However, interesting as this is, this is straying even further from the topic......

 

 

It is an interesting subject, I agree. I would like to further debate it, so I'll open a new thread.

 

 

Yes, my first post was a little misleading, I agree with you there, Theta. Let's just say that I used the wrong expressions.

 

I think in order to acctually continue, we'll have to define what "slave" really means. Let me try to:

 

A slave is a person who is forced to do something against or without consulting their will and is so fully dependent on something or someone he or she becomes the "property" (legally, illegally, acctually or practically) of the something or someone.

 

Does a modern employee fit this definition?

 

- a modern employee is forced to work for another person in order to survive; without money, no survival; most people have no other choice than to work as employees

 

- a modern employee is dependent on the employer; this begins when the employee tries to find work, for it is not he/she who decides if or what he/she will work; mostly this decision is made by the labour market and the employer; the employee needs the money the employer gives him as a salary, he/she is at the mercy of the employer; if the employer decides to fire the employee, the employee has a big problem

 

The employee is so fully dependent on the employer that it no longer matters if he/she is the legal property of the employer. The only reason why the employer cannot do everything with his "property" is the law which protects the employee. But as it may be, the employer has still enough power to have a major and lasting influence on the life of the employee.

 

An employee is not a legal slave, but an acctual slave. He may not be considered to be a slave, but his life is so much dependent on the decisions of the employer that he is a slave, if he is recognized as one or not.

 

Our modern slavery is more subtle as the antique one. The antiquity acctually called it slavery, but today it is hidden. Most people are slaves, because of their dependence on other persons and because of the manipulation they undertake during everydays life (like through advertisment; most persons are slaves of consumption).

[loveme4whoiam]

I completely agree with your analysis of slavery, now that you have defined "slavery" in terms which fit our society. We are enslaved firstly, as you say, to comsumption. The media makes us desire things that we do not need, so we place ourselves in a position to acquire them by entering into another type of slavery - employment.

 

Whether we choose to admit it or not, in the majority of work we as an employee have little control over our employers (i realise that this is a sweeping generalisation, but for the purposes of discussion bear with me). I certainly know that i have no influence over my employer in a larger scale, and very little in a local sense.

 

And as Darnoc says, should our employer wish to fire us, he/she/it leaves us in a very precarious position economically, forcing us to cling to our enslaved position in order to, superficially, acquire the products that we are made to want, and vitalistically, to ensure our survival, through food, shelter...

 

This has got me thinking: would it be benficial if the distintion in modern society between slave and free person was better made? It would be interesting to see if the class boundaries between working class, middle class, etc. were shifted to slave (employee) and free person (employer). Would the now obvious dependency on another person/company lead to more small businesses being set up, and how would this effect the economy and industry of the world?

 

I believe that the human condition would cause a lot of people to rebel against this whole system were it more obvious. As it is, people allow themselves to ignore the current state of affairs because it is thinly veiled behind the emphasis on ownership of consumer products. Were the "slavery" system of employment unavoidable and impossible to ignore, the reaction in society would be aggressive.

[ThetaOrionis01]

I disagree.

 

You are not forced to work by your employer - it is your own needs which force you to find the means to satisfy them. It is your choice not to starve on the street - you are not forced to work. It is your choice not to drop out and try to eke out a living in the wilderness.

 

This is where the definition of slavery breaks down - you are not forced to work by the employer ... it is your own needs which drive you to work. You could always forego the acquisiton of material possessions.

 

Furthermore, you do have a choice of what kind of work you want to do and how much you want to work. You can choose not to work for a particular employer. You can choose to set up your own business, and become self-employed.

 

It seems to me that this perceived 'slavery' and notion of being forced to work against our will is just an abdication of responsibility for your own actions. Nobody is forcing us to be rampant consumers - it is a folly to blame greed on the 'media making us desire things'. Whether you fall for advertising or not is your own choice.

 

As I've said before, if you want to take it to its extreme, we are slaves to our bodies' needs.

 

Not slaves to employment.

[Mojlnir]

I must agree with Theta. I do not view employment as slavery. My chosen profession happens to be social services. I work for a non-profit organization which provides emergency and transitional housing, hygiene and banking services to people who are homeless. I have an M.A. in Political Science and am being paid around half of my actual market earning potential. My wife has been unemployed for a number of months and as such we are forced to make my small salary work. Yet I have not even given thought to changing profession. My wife, who volunteers with the agency I work for would not dream of asking me to leave a job which brings us so much more than money. I am not a slave.

 

To loveme's comment as to the media forcing us to consume. Crap. You decide what is important to you and how you go about acquiring those things. Do you need cable TV, Domino's, Abercrombie & Fitch clothes or a bigger stereo for your car? No, you do not. Neither consumerism or the media come into your house in the middle of the night, kidnap your family and force you to purchase crap you don't need.

 

I would argue that the real slave in this scenario is in fact the employer. They require labor to produce, transport and sell their products. If the employer fails to compensate their employees fairly, they will very shortly have no employees. Arguments that efficiency and the "race to the bottom line" are of little consequence because, like all systems, the market will self-correct. Retailers like Wal-Mart, who have been able to cast aside employees without concern, are beginning to face serious backlash from workers and communities who will not tolerate shoddy treatment of employees.

 

Slavery is being forced, by another more powerful than you, into a situation where you work without compensation and are constantly under fear of reprisal. You are not free to change your situation. Employment is a contract entered into freely and with full understanding of what is expected of you. You agree to perform a task for which you are compensated for. If you chose not to work that is your right and you will suffer no denial of rights.

 

Just don't expect to get paid or keep your job.

[Peregrine]

Yes, every employee is a slave. But of course that isn't too surprising when you define "slavery" to be "employment". And that's where your argument falls apart, because you aren't using the typical definition of "slavery". Maybe it had that meaning in ancient history, but slavery is an entirely different concept now. So lets use the real definition and not one that's been created just to let you win the debate.

 

So no, by any reasonable definition of slavery, employees are not slaves.

[loveme4whoiam]

I disagree.

 

You are not forced to work by your employer - it is your own needs which force you to find the means to satisfy them. It is your choice not to starve on the street - you are not forced to work. It is your choice not to drop out and try to eke out a living in the wilderness.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not much of a choice ina modern society. True, it is one, but how many people could, if taken from there homes and comforts, survive in the wilderness (what is left of it).

 

To respond to Mojlnir's comment about consumerism, i do agree with you. I do not need all the things on TV (particularly new mobile phones - an acquaintance of mine went through a phase about two years ago of buying a new phone every three months. Tell me thats not crazy), but i'd like to have them, because the majority of people define themselves (wrongly) by what they own. Can i justifiably say that consumerism is forced slavery? No, although i do think that the cult of advertisment and ownership has a lot of responsibility for the current situation of Western society.

 

Peregrine, you do have a point that the modern definition of slavery that Darnoc put forward is slightly biased, but that doesnt mean that it is wrong.

 

A slave is a person who is forced to do something against or without consulting their will and is so fully dependent on something or someone he or she becomes the "property" (legally, illegally, actually or practically) of the something or someone.

 

Whether i, a person who believe me feels enslaved to my job, fit into this category is, ha ha, debatable. I do my job willingly because i need to, basically, live, but were i given the choice between my current employment or to work under my own conditions, i would certainly take the latter option. But i don't have that option, and cannot make it one because i have neither the skills nor, i think, the capacity to. So i am forced to rely, to become fully dependent, on my employer for my survival. Do i consider myself the property of my employer? I should damn well think not. But this is only because, as Darnoc and i have said, the culture of enslavement to our jobs is veiled, and i have chosen to ignore it like, i should think, the majority of people.

 

Mojlnir raises an interesting question about the "employers being the slaves". I can see your argument, especially about big businesses taking backlash from not treating their employees fairly. But if i may, i assume that you are American (i mean no insult, please bear with me. Also, if you're not, i completely withdraw my comment. I only assume this because you have used Wal-Mart as an example), and the culture of compensation is not as well-established as in other countries. Whether this is a good thing or not probably need not be debated here, but i say that as an employee of a multi-national corporation, i do not consider my job particularly secure. Many other people would like my job (why?) and could be trained quickly to do it, so what power do i have to change my working environment and influence my employer? If i kick up a fuss i'll just be sacked and replaced, somewhat negating your argument of the employer being enslaved to me.

[Darnoc]

Some good points were made. I will answer to them further down my post. But first to something else. I would argue that a person can be a slave to a thing. For example, a drug addict is a slave of the drug he is addicted to (the addict does everything in order to get the drug he needs; he doesn't really have free will in that matter).

 

So, I will define slave different than before. A slave is a person who is denied the ability to decide his or her course of life. A slave can be a person like the classical slave, forced to work and life withouth he or she being able to decide. But a slavery can also be psychical. This can be applied to persons with mental illnesses or addicted persons.

 

I agree with the above statements that employment is a contract signed by both parties. But think once again about it. Isn't this just something you are lead to believe? Isn't it an illusion of freedom which doesn't stand when looked more closely looked upon?

 

Do you really have the choice of what you want to work? Your choice is first narrowed a lot by your own abilities. But this is naturally. Second, your choice is practically defined by the needs of the labour-market. Ever tried to find a job recently? Ever were unemployed recently? If your answer is "yes" you will know that it is not really your choice. Through the economic situation you are in, you are forced to search for a job. But which job you get is absolutely not your choice. Not even what kind of job. Because it is not you who decides if you get the job or not. It is the coorperation or person where you try to find your job. And after some hundred denials you begin to realise that it is isn't even your choice, what kind of job. You just take what comes, even if this is cleaning the streets.

 

The only real decision is if you want to search or not. Everything else is taken out of your hands. Thanks to our social state one can survive even when one doesn't find something to work. Without it, some people wouldn't last long. Because we are at the mercy of the employers. And if they decide it is in their interest to not employ someone, there is nothing we can do about it in most cases.

 

To loveme's comment as to the media forcing us to consume.

 

You ever heard of political advertisment? I happen to live in Switzerland, where the people are acctually able to decide something. I noticed over the course of years that most votings are won by the people who make most advertisments. So, is this only an illusion or do you have another explanation of this phenomena?

 

I would argue that the real slave in this scenario is in fact the employer. They require labor to produce, transport and sell their products. If the employer fails to compensate their employees fairly, they will very shortly have no employees. Arguments that efficiency and the "race to the bottom line" are of little consequence because, like all systems, the market will self-correct. Retailers like Wal-Mart, who have been able to cast aside employees without concern, are beginning to face serious backlash from workers and communities who will not tolerate shoddy treatment of employees.

 

Interesting. So why is the unemployment rate still rising while the economic situation is getting better?

 

Slavery is being forced, by another more powerful than you, into a situation where you work without compensation and are constantly under fear of reprisal. You are not free to change your situation. Employment is a contract entered into freely and with full understanding of what is expected of you. You agree to perform a task for which you are compensated for. If you chose not to work that is your right and you will suffer no denial of rights.

 

Yeah right. You enter the contract freely? Perhaps if you are an academic who has all doors opened. But I would seriously doubt if most people really enter freely into their professions. They are forced to work whatever comes along their way in order to survive. It isn't really their choice what they will work eventually. It is their choice to acctually search for something. But when you decide to search it is not your choice, what you'll get.

 

Furthermore, you do have a choice of what kind of work you want to do and how much you want to work. You can choose not to work for a particular employer. You can choose to set up your own business, and become self-employed.

 

Is the choice between a life and no life a real choice? Either you work or.... So, there is not a real choice here either. The economic situation doesn't allow you to really choose. If you get something, you take it, no questions asked. It doesn't happen all day that someone tells you he wants you to work for him. I never saw someone who could choose. Everyone I know, including myself, received tons of denials. So what choice do we have?

[ThetaOrionis01]

I can see the points Darnoc and loveme4whoIam are making, but I still disagree.

 

 

No employer can force you to work for them against your will. You may feel coerced into working for them, but where does this coercion originate? Not with the employer.... but with yourself, because you have expectations of life, of a standard of living, that you wish to meet.

 

You do not have to work in order to satisfy your physical needs - you wouldn't starve on welfare benefits. You could rely on charity. You could commit crimes. These are all options open to you - but it is you who deems those alternatives unacceptable. You, yourself, are restricting your choices.

 

I am of the opinion that most human beings crave security, and it is this need to feel secure which is one form of coercion we impose on ourselves. We want to be sure that we have enough to meet our desires, and so we voluntarily enter into a dependency relationship with the employer. We make ourselves dependent on whoever pays our salary. But is this really the fault of the employer? I don't think so. But perhaps we don't like the thought of making ourselves dependent, and it is easier to cope with when phrased as having had no choice?

 

As I've said before, there is nothing to stop you from setting up your own business - and there are some you can set up with minimal financial outlay. If you don't think you have the skills - what's to stop you from acquiring them? However, it also means giving up the security - however precarious, given the employment market - of a regular income.

Would you consider yourself a slave to the market, if you were self-employed?

 

What it comes down to is that you do have choices - but so does everyone else. Employers can choose whether or not to hire you in the same way you can choose which shop you want to patronise.

[loveme4whoiam]

Theta makes a convincing argument, all the more so because he is echoing what i feel is one of the most important keys of being a responsible person - there is always a choice. You just might not like the consequences.

 

You do not have to work in order to satisfy your physical needs - you wouldn't starve on welfare benefits. You could rely on charity. You could commit crimes. These are all options open to you - but it is you who deems those alternatives unacceptable. You, yourself, are restricting your choices.

 

Ho ho. You have struck the nail on the head there. Pride. And morals, i suppose. We put these things ahead of ourselves, because we want to be more than we are. Well, i dont. I dont steal because i was brought up in abject terror of my father who taught me stealing was wrong.

 

Were we to ignore these things and do, as you say Theta, rely on welfare benefits and charity, we would consider ourselves lesser people. I know i would, although there are many people out there who feel that welfare fraud is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, but those would come under my rather broad category of "scum".

 

Are you saying that in order to break out of our roles as "slaves", we should lower our expectations of living and morality? I agree that the skills to run a business yourself can be obtained, especially now in the world of adult learning, etc. But how many people would willingly give up the security that, as you say, they so naturally crave, in order to have that freedom?

 

So, then, should we change the definition of slavery again? Should it be that only people who allow themselves to work without the consultation of others and without any influence on their workplace, but who are unwilling to make the sacrifices that would free themselves of this situation be classed as slaves?

 

The answer is of course not, because this goes against the nature of what a slave is - if the Roman slaves, for example, had a chance to end their servitude, if through immoral means, how many would not have taken that chance? I've just realised that i have been swayed by Theta's argument, although i still dislike the fact that the only reason people like myself can't be classed as slaves is because they have morals.

[Darnoc]

I agree mostly with Theta Orionis. But I disagree with her that everyone has this choice. The degree of choice you possess heavily depends on the money and degree of education you have.

 

For example, let's take a foreigner with low salary, who supports his whole family (with family I mean not just man, woman and kids, I mean the broader term where everyone related to you is included) and doesn't really have a good education.

 

What are his options? Most of his salary is spent on supporting his family. Because he is foreigner, people react biased towards him and his chances of getting a job are smaller than for a indigenous citizen in the same situation. He will have a lot of problems getting a better job. His education is not very good, so his chances of getting a better job are even more slimmer. Should he go into business? How could he, he has no money he can spend on such a project, for it all goes into his family. He does not possess any options, he will stay at the bottom of society his whole life. Chances are good that this applies to his children to.

 

Let's take another example. A young man who just finished school, but on the lowest level of education. Does he have a choice? No, almost all doors will be closed for him his whole life, for all the good jobs are taken away by people with better education than he had. What about aquiring skills he could use to improve his chances? Learning such skills includes having money in order to pay the learning course. Our young man doesn't have any money, so he'll have to stay with what he has and that is almost nothing. His chances are getting even more slim, since the economic situation is not to good. There are more people trying to find a job than there are jobs. He will be the last one to receive any job, for there are a lot of more qualified people around trying to find one too.

 

 

Should I go on? There are a lot of more examples of people who will never have any real chance or choice in their life. Their life is mostly predetermined by their situation. And since things are getting worse in general, their chances and number of choices are getting to. Those are the people we normally ignore, which aren't visible to society. But they exist and they should be acknowledged to be existing.