Alex Gourevitch This structural element leads to a second,interper- United States,18%of current employees and sonal dimension of oppression in the workplace itself. 37%of workers in their lifetime work under non- Workers are forced to join workplaces typically char- compete agreements(Bunker 2016).These clauses :000100006/L0LoL acterized by large swathes of uncontrolled managerial give managers legal power to forbid workers from power and authority.This oppression is interpersonal working for competitors.The contract that the in the sense that it is power that specific individuals- Communications Workers of America had with employers and their managers-have to get other spe- Verizon until 2015 included a right for managers cific individuals-employees-to do what they want to force employers to perform from 10 to 15 hours We can distinguish between three overlapping forms of overtime per week and to take some other that this interpersonal,workplace oppression takes: day instead of Saturday as an off-day (Gourevitch subordination,delegation,and dependence. 2016a).These legal powers are not parts of the managerial prerogatives that all employers have. Subordination:Employers have what are some- Rather.they are voluntarily delegated to employ- times called "managerial prerogatives,"12 which ers by workers.In many cases,though the delega- are legislative and judicial grants of authority to tion is in one sense voluntary,in another sense it is owners and their managers to make decisions forced.This will especially be the case if workers. about investment,hiring and firing,plant location, who are forced to find jobs,can only find jobs in work process,and the like.13 These powers come sectors where the only contracts available are ones from judicial precedent and from the constella- that require these kinds of delegations. tion of corporate,labor,contract,and property Dependence:Finally,managers might have the law.Managers may change working speeds and material power to force employees to submit to assigned tasks,the hours of work,or even force commands or even to accept violations of their workers to spend up to an hour going through se- rights because of the worker's dependence on curity lines after work without paying them(In- the employer.A headline example is wage-theft, 4号元 tegrity Staffing Solutions,Inc.v.Busk 2014).Man- which affects American workers to the tune of $8- agers may fire workers for Facebook comments. $14 billion per year(Eisenbray 2015;Judson and their sexual orientation,for being too sexually ap- Francisco-McGuire 2012:NELP 2013;Axt 2013) pealing,or for not being appealing enough(Emer- In other cases,workers have been forced to wear son 2011:Hess 2013;Strauss 2013;Velasco 2011). diapers rather than go to the bathroom,refused Workers may be given more tasks than can be per- legally required lunch breaks,or pressured to work formed in the allotted time,locked in the work- through them,forced to keep working after their place overnight,required to work in extreme heat shift is up,or denied the right to read or turn on air and other physically hazardous conditions,or puni- conditioning during break (Oxfam 2015;Bennett- tively isolated from other coworkers (Greenhouse Smith 2012;Egelko 2011;Greenhouse 2009,3- 2009.26-2749-55,89,111-112:Hsu2011:JOM0 12;Little 2013;Vega 2012).Other employers have 2013;Urbina 2013).Managers may pressure em- forced their workers to stay home rather than go ployees into unwanted political behavior(Hertel- out on weekends or to switch churches and al- Fernandez 2015).In all of these cases,managers ter religious practices on pain of being fired and 15.501 are exercising legally permitted prerogatives.14 The deported (Garrison,Bensinger,and Singer-Vine law does not require that workers have any formal 2015).In these cases,employers are not exercising say in how those powers are exercised.In fact,in legal prerogatives,they are instead taking advan- in3黑ea8s tage of the material power that comes with threat- ening to fire or otherwise discipline workers.This ordination in the strict sense:workers are subject material power to get workers to do things that em- to the will of the employer. ployers want is in part a function of the class struc- Delegation:There are also other discretionary le- ture of society,both in the wide sense of workers gal powers that managers have not by legal statute being asymmetrically dependent on owners,and in or precedent but because workers have voluntar- the narrower sense of workers being legally subor- ily delegated these powers in the contract.For dinate to employers. instance,workers might sign a contract that al- lows managers to require employees to submit Subordination,delegation,and dependence add up eys to random drug testing or unannounced searches to a form of interpersonal oppression that employers (American Civil Liberties Union 2017).In the and their managers have over their employees.The weight and scope of this oppression will vary,but those 12 The one book-length study of managerial prerogatives is Storey are variations on a theme.Employers and managers en- (2014).On the "core of entrepreneurial control"see Atleson (1983 joy wide swaths of uncontrolled or insufficiently con- 67-96). trolled power over their employees.This is the sec- 13 On the injustice of these"managerial prerogatives"see Stanczyk ond face of oppression in a class society and it is a (unpublished),Hsieh(2005),and Anderson(2015,2017). 14 On the sense in which the workplace is properly understood as a live issue.For instance,during the Verizon strike of tue den and a mocr the 2016,one major complaint was that,when out on the job,hanging cable,or repairing lines,some technicians United States or England (Greenberg unpublished;Rosioru 2013). had to ask their manager for permission to go to the 908Alex Gourevitch This structural element leads to a second, interper￾sonal dimension of oppression in the workplace itself. Workers are forced to join workplaces typically char￾acterized by large swathes of uncontrolled managerial power and authority. This oppression is interpersonal in the sense that it is power that specific individuals— employers and their managers—have to get other spe￾cific individuals—employees—to do what they want. We can distinguish between three overlapping forms that this interpersonal, workplace oppression takes: subordination, delegation, and dependence. Subordination: Employers have what are some￾times called “managerial prerogatives,”12 which are legislative and judicial grants of authority to owners and their managers to make decisions about investment, hiring and firing, plant location, work process, and the like.13 These powers come from judicial precedent and from the constella￾tion of corporate, labor, contract, and property law. Managers may change working speeds and assigned tasks, the hours of work, or even force workers to spend up to an hour going through se￾curity lines after work without paying them (In￾tegrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk 2014). Man￾agers may fire workers for Facebook comments, their sexual orientation, for being too sexually ap￾pealing, or for not being appealing enough (Emer￾son 2011; Hess 2013; Strauss 2013; Velasco 2011). Workers may be given more tasks than can be per￾formed in the allotted time, locked in the work￾place overnight, required to work in extreme heat and other physically hazardous conditions, or puni￾tively isolated from other coworkers (Greenhouse 2009, 26–27, 49–55, 89, 111–112; Hsu 2011; JOMO 2013; Urbina 2013). Managers may pressure em￾ployees into unwanted political behavior (Hertel￾Fernandez 2015). In all of these cases, managers are exercising legally permitted prerogatives.14 The law does not require that workers have any formal say in how those powers are exercised. In fact, in nearly every liberal capitalist country, employees are defined, in law, as “subordinates.”15 This is sub￾ordination in the strict sense: workers are subject to the will of the employer. Delegation: There are also other discretionary le￾gal powers that managers have not by legal statute or precedent but because workers have voluntar￾ily delegated these powers in the contract. For instance, workers might sign a contract that al￾lows managers to require employees to submit to random drug testing or unannounced searches (American Civil Liberties Union 2017). In the 12 The one book-length study of managerial prerogatives is Storey (2014). On the “core of entrepreneurial control” see Atleson (1983, 67–96). 13 On the injustice of these “managerial prerogatives,” see Stanczyk (unpublished), Hsieh (2005), and Anderson (2015, 2017). 14 On the sense in which the workplace is properly understood as a place of government created by law, see Anderson (2017, 37–73). 15 This is just as true in Sweden and social democracies as it is in the United States or England (Greenberg unpublished; Rosioru 2013). United States, 18% of current employees and 37% of workers in their lifetime work under non￾compete agreements (Bunker 2016). These clauses give managers legal power to forbid workers from working for competitors. The contract that the Communications Workers of America had with Verizon until 2015 included a right for managers to force employers to perform from 10 to 15 hours of overtime per week and to take some other day instead of Saturday as an off-day (Gourevitch 2016a). These legal powers are not parts of the managerial prerogatives that all employers have. Rather, they are voluntarily delegated to employ￾ers by workers. In many cases, though the delega￾tion is in one sense voluntary, in another sense it is forced. This will especially be the case if workers, who are forced to find jobs, can only find jobs in sectors where the only contracts available are ones that require these kinds of delegations. Dependence: Finally, managers might have the material power to force employees to submit to commands or even to accept violations of their rights because of the worker’s dependence on the employer. A headline example is wage-theft, which affects American workers to the tune of $8– $14 billion per year (Eisenbray 2015; Judson and Francisco-McGuire 2012; NELP 2013; Axt 2013). In other cases, workers have been forced to wear diapers rather than go to the bathroom, refused legally required lunch breaks, or pressured to work through them, forced to keep working after their shift is up, or denied the right to read or turn on air conditioning during break (Oxfam 2015; Bennett￾Smith 2012; Egelko 2011; Greenhouse 2009, 3– 12; Little 2013; Vega 2012). Other employers have forced their workers to stay home rather than go out on weekends or to switch churches and al￾ter religious practices on pain of being fired and deported (Garrison, Bensinger, and Singer-Vine 2015). In these cases, employers are not exercising legal prerogatives, they are instead taking advan￾tage of the material power that comes with threat￾ening to fire or otherwise discipline workers. This material power to get workers to do things that em￾ployers want is in part a function of the class struc￾ture of society, both in the wide sense of workers being asymmetrically dependent on owners, and in the narrower sense of workers being legally subor￾dinate to employers. Subordination, delegation, and dependence add up to a form of interpersonal oppression that employers and their managers have over their employees. The weight and scope of this oppression will vary, but those are variations on a theme.Employers and managers en￾joy wide swaths of uncontrolled or insufficiently con￾trolled power over their employees. This is the sec￾ond face of oppression in a class society and it is a live issue. For instance, during the Verizon strike of 2016, one major complaint was that, when out on the job, hanging cable, or repairing lines, some technicians had to ask their manager for permission to go to the 908 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Shanghai JiaoTong University, on 26 Oct 2018 at 03:53:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000321