Alastair James

Alastair James (PhD in Philosophy, 2023), ‘Labour Market Justice: Old and New Problems’

This thesis sets out to analyse normatively significant and in some cases under-theorised labour market phenomena to identify forms of injustice and provide philosophically defensible responses that take seriously the feasibility constraints governing policy proposals. Some chapters engage with longer-standing questions, such as exploitation theory, and workplace hierarchy. These chapters are concerned with enhancing our understanding of these concepts as they apply to contemporary labour markets. Other chapters explore labour market trends that have been less studied so far in philosophy, such as the gig economy, and the relationship between working remotely and discretionary time entitlements. These chapters provide insight into specific forms of unfairness and offer suitable policy mechanisms in response.

Part I of the thesis examines some of the contemporary challenges of labour markets. Drawing from both classical and neoclassical approaches towards economics, it provides an overview of intuitive approaches towards labour market justice. Explored are well-known concepts like ‘a just wage’ and ‘exploitation’, which, for the purposes of analysing the subjects under examination in this thesis, are argued to be ill-suited. Separate to these findings, and in response to some of the initial motivations of this project, provided is a theory of exploitation specifically for labour markets. Engaging with recent philosophical literature on exploitation, it explains what makes labour market exploitation distinct from non-exploitation, and provides an account of why this makes labour market exploitation wrong. Part I of the thesis goes on to respond to intuitive worries about exploitation in the gig economy. It diagnoses cases of labour in the gig economy that resemble a rent trap, arguing that, to the extent that gig work does resemble a rent trap, it is unjust and warrants some kind of corrective policy-based mechanism, several of which are proposed.

Part II of the thesis moves on to questions surrounding justice within firms. It begins by examining the compatibility of workplace hierarchy and relational equality. Comparing the respective merits and limitations of trust-based modes of organisation, democratically owned and/or run firms, as well as the hierarchical firm, it argues that it is preferable that both hierarchical and non-hierarchical governance structures exist. The project goes on to explore problems surrounding the necessary indeterminacy of the employment contract. To limit the extent to which contract indeterminacy subjects workers to the risk of workplace violations, it proposes two corrective policy mechanisms, an ex ante external mechanism, and an internal mechanism to dispose managers more sympathetically towards workers whose labour processes they supervise and oversee. Finally examined is an overlooked problem within the study of discretionary time. The thesis takes as a starting point the fact that there are discrepancies in workers’ discretionary time entitlements, arguing that these discrepancies arise due to the relationship between a worker’s labour and the specific capital they use to do their job. Provided are two contrasting ways to account for these discrepancies in the discretionary time entitlements of workers.

Supervisors: Associate Professor Dan Halliday, Dr Andrew Alexandra, Associate Professor Holly Lawford-Smith