Imagining a World Where Labor Rights Trump Property Rights






Note: Shel Horowitz’s book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, contains a great deal of other information about the interplay of marketing and social change, and ways to move a business toward both environmental and economic sustainablity.

The “free market” and “free trade” are very nearly a state religion
in the United States today. But what’s quietly ignored in these
phrases is a little thing called “property rights,” which we might
better term the rights of wealth holders. These are the only human
rights the free market respects.

We see these rights protected in trade agreements, when Mexico is
told to stop nationalizing industries, or when the World Trade
Organization insists nations change intellectual property laws to
protect corporate patents. The free-trade regime insists wealth be
protected. It equally insists the environment not be protected. That
jobs not be protected, nor worker health, nor the right to organize.
When labor and environmental concerns seek equal protection, it’s
called “interference” in the free market. These rights are said to be
protected by the “invisible hand,” which leads free markets to work
out to the benefit of all.

Yes, well. Perhaps it’s time to notice how invisibly wealth rights
are integrated into free market thinking. We might imagine a
different arrangement of power, in which labor and environmental
rights are enthroned in law, and the rights of the wealthy are left
to the invisible hand.

Today we imagine stockholders are the corporation… In our imaginary
world, we would believe employees are the corporation. They are,
after all, running the place. Hence only employees could vote for the
board of directors, and the purpose of the corporation would be to
maximize gains for employees. In theory, stockholders would receive
income they negotiated through contracts. In practice, the
corporation would dictate those contracts -and stockholders could
accept the terms, or go elsewhere, where they would find nearly
identical (and dismal) terms.

In this world, stock would be sold in a manner controlled by the
corporation, much as wages are set today. Stockholders wishing to buy
or sell stock would appear, alone, at the company, where they would
be made an offer. They could accept or decline. There would be no
reliable way to compare current price to past price, or to compare
the price one person gets to what others get. Wage data would be
published daily in the Main Street Journal, and the movement of the
Dow Jones Wage Index would be tracked nightly on the news. But
returns to shareholders would be considered “proprietary” and would
be secret.

When stockholders might try to improve their negotiating position by
organizing into mutual funds, corporations would threaten to cut off
payments altogether. The companies would threaten to replace
stockholder money with funds from overseas, willing to accept lower
returns.

Of course overseas stockholders would have less power. For while free
trade agreements would provide intricate protections for labor and
environmental rights, they would offer capital no protections. “What
does capital have to do with trade?” pundits might ask. “Trade is
about goods and services and the people who create them, it’s not
about capital.”

If stockholders staged protests at the World Labor Organization to
suggest changes in this economic order, they would be accused of
“tampering with the free market.”

That’s what we’re told today. But we don’t have to buy it. For we can
begin to see how the sleight-of-hand of the “free market” serves as
an apology for institutional arrangements. The truth is, free market
ideology contains two separate assertions, worth unpacking.

First is the assertion that natural processes are self-regulating.
Which is valid. We see it in nature, where the renewal of life in
spring comes on its own. Where we mate for our own pleasure-and thus
help in the rebirth of the world. In like manner, we serve the
economic polity best by serving ourselves. The drive to make money
gets us out of bed in the morning, and brings us to do our part in
holding the world together. Our economic drives are part of the
natural order and are trustworthy. We can take comfort in this
assertion.

But free market ideology carries a second assertion: that corporate
and trade governance structures embody the natural order. And this
does not follow logically from the first. For it glosses over
institutions of power. To call the stockholder-centered corporate
structure “natural” is reminiscent of the ancient claim that the
monarchy was the only “natural” way to structure government.

A truly natural free market would free all groups to compete equally,
to pursue their own self-interest. Real free markets are not about
enshrining the self-interest of one group alone in law. Privilege
like that has no place in a market economy. Even an imaginary one.

Excerpted from The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate
Aristocracy, by Marjorie Kelly, published November 2001 by
Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Kelly is co-founder and editor of
Business Ethics, a magazine about corporate social responsibility
based in Minneapolis. To read the introduction to the book without
charge, click here. Newspapers and newsletters may run this excerpt as an opinion pieces free of charge, provided you credit it as an
excerpt from The Divine Right of Capital.

Note: Shel Horowitz’s book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, contains a great deal of other information about the interplay of marketing and social change, and ways to move a business toward both environmental and economic sustainablity.