Central to my
approach for labor relations teaching is the explicit recognition of schools
of thought (equivalently, “frames of reference”) on the employment relationship.
Four
schools of thought, in particular, illustrate sharply contrasting
perspectives on labor unions, and it’s important to understand how these views
are rooted in different models of the employment relationship that embrace
differing assumptions. In brief, the four key models are:
1. Neoliberal egoist: Dispassionately rational employers and
employees freely pursue their own self-interest in competitive labor markets;
when these interests align, they transact with each other, when they do not
align, they keep searching for mutually-beneficial exchanges.
2. Unitarist: Although labor markets might not be perfect,
employers and employees share a unity of interests (hence “unitarist”),
especially in that treating employees well improves the company’s bottom line
and vice versa.
3. Pluralist: Employers and employees interact as unequals
with some shared and some conflicting interests that are accepted by the other as
legitimate (hence, “pluralist”), but these conflicts are economic in nature and
limited to the employment relationship.
4. Critical: Employers and employees interact as unequals
with key conflicting interests and significant power differentials that are
embedded in societal institutions.
In this post I hope to illustrate the usefulness of
explicitly considering these alternative frames of reference as a way for
thinking about discrimination and (institutional) racism, especially with
respect to the limitations of some perspectives.
First, some definitions would be useful. Prejudice is an individual bias against others based some identity; individual racism is prejudice based on race and beliefs of racial superiority. Discrimination is a pattern of behaviors and practices that harm members of a group. Institutional racism is the systematic allocation of resources and opportunities that advantage racial groups at the expense of other racial groups. Individual racism might be easy to see; institutional racism can be embedded in hard-to-see institutions and norms.
Now turning to the frames of reference, in the neoliberal egoist employment relationship with
perfectly-competitive markets and self-interested agents, discrimination on any
basis except economic value should not exist because those who discriminate
would face a competitive disadvantage, and market competition would force them
to change or go out of business. But perfectly-competitive markets only exist
in economics textbooks, and discrimination obviously exists. However, consider
what happens if we make this model more realistic by recognizing that employers
do not perfectly know an individual worker’s true qualities. In this case, for employers
to generalize on the basis of demographic characteristics (for example, by
assuming that parents of young children will be absent more frequently) can be
rational behavior driven by profit-maximization (self-interest) rather than prejudice.
This is called statistical discrimination.
As a concept, statistical discrimination is useful for
thinking about how seemingly-benign self-interest can lead to racial and other
forms of discrimination. But in reality, attempts to explain broad-based racial
discrimination as statistical discrimination ignore
the racism that leads to race being seen as a meaningful indicator in the
first place, and overlook the inherent racism that causes the believed
attributes to always be negative. In other words, when it comes to race, we
should not see statistical discrimination as a benign explanation of patterns
of inequality, but rather as ultimately rooted in racism.
In the unitarist school of thought, discrimination is
largely ascribed to individual or organizational failings that can be addressed
through improved organizational policies and practices that are voluntarily
adopted. Unitarism rests on the assumption that workers and organizations have
common interests that can be aligned. As such, conflicts in the workplace,
including those pertaining to discrimination, are seen as resulting from the
aberrant attitudes and behaviors (e.g., prejudice) of specific individuals, and
that this can be improved through interventions like training. At an
organizational level, high-functioning organizations are seen as those that tap
into workers’ interests for mutual benefit, which leads to an emphasis on
diversity management as a win-win source of organizational performance and
respect for all individuals. Organizations that don’t do this are urged to
recognize the so-called business case for diversity.
At its best, the unitarist organization can change
individual attitudes and behaviors while giving employment opportunities to people
of color. But talking
about race is hard (even with the many tools available) and change
is hard. Moreover, a unitarist approach places an excessive reliance on
organizational self-interest and self-policing. What happens when an
organization believes its business case is serving a racist segment of society,
or segments its workforce along racial lines to make it easier to manage? Or if
it doesn’t back up public relations statements with meaningful
action or if its diversity training fails (as is often the case)?
And since racism, prejudice, and structural inequalities are social phenomena, even
the most well-intentioned organization can only have a limited impact.
In the pluralist employment relationship, discrimination
stems from unequal bargaining power. African American workers, for example, might be (1) paid less than white workers because they lack the bargaining power to get higher pay,
and (2) crowded into certain occupations because they lack the leverage to break
into better-paying occupations or because intentionally-constructed racial
divisions can lower all workers’ bargaining power. Integration and improved
labor market power, not just diversity or non-discrimination are therefore highlighted.
Consequently, multi-pronged institutional changes are championed, including
legislative action and labor union representation to enhance workers’ power.
Unlike the previous two approaches, the pluralist school of
thought recognizes the importance of power differences across racial groups.
But there are limitations. Relying on labor unions or other groups to increase
the power of African American workers or those with other identities requires union leaders
committed to this and able to overcome racist attitudes among the rank and file.
But these are not guaranteed, especially when these institutions are embedded in a society marked by racism. In other words, the pluralist approach
focuses largely on the labor market, which makes it inadequate to address
racism and labor market inequalities that go beyond the labor market. For
example, even though many aspects of the 1930s New Deal were worker-friendly,
the New Deal’s Federal Housing Administration created racially-segregated
neighborhoods by making restrictive
racial covenants a condition of receiving subsidized mortgages. The result
of this segregation often persists today, and continues to make it more
difficult for workers with marginalized identities to access good jobs in the predominantly white suburbs.
So a pluralist focus on the labor market doesn’t do enough to uncover why there
are power differences between white people and people of color, and fails to redress
systemic racism. As with the unitarist perspective, important initiatives can
emerge, but they are inadequate by themselves for combating institutionalized racism.
Which brings us to critical schools of thought on the employment
relationship in which inequalities between a dominant elite and others are
rooted in a number of social inequalities, such as education, housing, banking
and loans, health care, media, and political and judicial influence. The
dominant elite, therefore can use these material and normative advantages to
maintain its dominance, which includes controlling access to good-paying jobs.
This way of thinking can be applied to various fault lines such as class and
gender, but of particular relevance to racism is critical race theory which
focuses on racial divisions and the ways in which white people have systemic
advantages that go beyond the labor market.
Of the four conventional schools of thought on the
employment relationship, the critical race theory wing of the critical school
is the most powerful lens for considering institutional racism because it
prompts us to consider the ways in which labor market discrimination is deeply
connected to other key aspects of society that are material as well as
normative, and more generally the ways in which capitalism is more accurately described as "racial capitalism" because identities are exploited for profit. In other words, we must confront how racism is embedded in societal institutions including business. Consequently, redressing racial inequalities requires deep, anti-racist structural reforms that move beyond formal equality or corporate diversity
programs. Genuine equality and inclusion requires re-defining society’s values
and aggressively opening up good-paying jobs to traditionally marginalized workers. And this perspective deepens the traditional pluralist thinking on
labor market segmentation by revealing the complex roots of segmentation that
reside outside of the usual employment relations actors, such as racialized patterns
of education, housing, and health care. So opening up good paying jobs requires
addressing these underlying inequalities which means confronting the racist
origins of these differences.
In closing, as part
of broader personal
reflections and conversations about race, I hope that these perspectives
are useful for thinking about discrimination and racism at an individual as
well as societal level. From an individual level, for example, white people can ask
themselves whether they are trying to justify decisions on the basis of
statistical discrimination and what not-so-apparent advantages they’ve
benefited from. At a societal level, we can ask what are the roots of racial
inequalities and what’s needed to redress them.
No comments:
Post a Comment