Banning zero-hour contracts undermines self-ownership
And implements a partial socialism of people
In recent days the Labour Party has flirted with the idea of banning zero-hour contracts and increasing the minimum wage for young people (both proposals were in its manifesto). This is in addition to increasing workers’ rights by guaranteeing sick pay, holiday pay and the license to take an employer to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal all from day one. All of these measures will make it harder for individuals to find work. Nevertheless. The fundamental reason to reject a ban on zero-hour contracts and an increase in the minimum wage is they undermine the self-ownership of people; indeed, these employment restrictions amount to a partial socialism of people themselves. Liberals of all colours must forcefully reject such proposals and follow the words of John Locke when he wrote: ‘Every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself.’
Every person owns himself outright, hence, he is entitled to do whatever he wishes with his own labour. A ban on zero-hour contracts denies people are fully entitled to their own person. This is not a far-fetched thought. If the state enforced a rule which stopped you from lending your car out for short and sporadic periods to friends and family, your ownership over the car would be less full than before, by parity of reasoning, a rule which stops you from renting out your labour for short and sporadic periods, e.g., the outlawing of zero-hour contracts, makes your ownership over your person less full too. The state claims the extracted right, i.e., the right to work however sporadically you want for an employer, from your self-ownership. And in the words of Robert Nozick: ‘This process whereby they take this decision from you makes them a part-owner of you; it gives them a property right in you.’ The fact these labour regulations violate our right to self-ownership makes them morally impermissible. How can the government justify this partial socialism of persons?
Labour are quick to argue that zero-hour contracts are exploitative. According to their manifesto each person ‘has the right to have a contract that reflects the number of hours they regularly work’. Exploitation occurs when employers breach this right via ‘one sided flexibility’ to their advantage. No exploitation of the sort mentioned exists though for the referred to right does not exist either. The alleged basis of the right is the large interest each person has in secure employment to enable them to lead a good life. On their own grounds, banning zero-hour contracts doesn’t tract this interest, and, thus, no right arises which can be violated by employers making use of them. Take waitering in restaurants. While the average number of hours across a week may be 20hrs for each waiter it is often not possible to make this a fixed number of hours because the times at which the waiters warrant their costs are variable with consumer demand, hence, requiring 20hrs a week would load the restaurateur with waiters at hours when their productivity is negative requiring him to lay off the marginal members.
The greater prospect of not being able to find work hardly ensures a good life. Banning zero-hour contracts would particularly effect young people who actively choose zero-hour contracts to fit around their studies and social lives. This is why 10.2% of 16 to 24 year olds are on zero-hour contracts. Given getting experience in any job is very important to getting a “proper job” when they grow up, young people should resist this infringement on their self-ownership with the utmost zeal. Those who don’t want a zero-hours contracts are more than capable of finding full time jobs too. Those in prime working age hardly use zero-hours contracts at all, indeed, no age cohort until pensioners has a zero-hours employment rate above 2.2%. Perhaps the best indication of whether zero-hours contracts help people lead a good life though is the rate of job satisfaction people report in them. According to the CIPD, job satisfaction in zero-hour contracts is at 62%, which is only marginally worse than 66% for regular jobs. This is no surprise given 37% of zero-hours jobs are temporary.
Let us disregard these economic considerations though and accept most people do have an interest in zero-hours contracts being banned. Would that warrant their banning? No. People are not entitled to come to partial ownership over others simply because it is in their interest. And this is true even though most people may be advantaged by such a socialism. Take a town which supports many singers in the pubs and clubs of the area. One day Tony turns up on the town and he is such a good singer he manages to book everywhere up putting the rest of the mediocre singers out of work. A ban on Tony singing would advantage all of the mediocre singers immensely while only setting back listeners interests a moderate bit. The local council decide to stop Tony singing and every time he opens his mouth in a pub or club it is forced shut by a police man and a mediocre singer is put in his place. I maintain this restriction on Tony’s self-ownership, i.e., the fact he’s stopped from singing, is immoral, even though it is to the advantage of most people. For the same set of reasons, I contend restricting the self-ownership of people who want to work in a zero-hour’s contract is immoral, even though it may be to the advantage of most people, as well. People are not just skittles who can be knocked out the way to enable others to lead a better life. They are ends in themselves who are to be respected.
The same argument applies to the increase in the minimum wage for those under the age of 25 to the level for 25 year olds and above. If I own a house and the government forces a covenant on it such that I am not allowed to sell it below a certain price, I have a lesser ownership of it than before. Analogously, if I own myself and the government imposes a floor on what I charge out my labour at, I have a lesser ownership over myself too. In both instances the state acquires the residual right, which, concerning persons, amounts to the partial socialism of people. This is unacceptable, hence, the increase in the minimum wage is unacceptable too. Perhaps you are willing to accept such a partial socialism of people given the great benefits a minimum wage will bring though. You may cite Card and Krueger’s 1993 paper which found increasing the minimum wage to boost wages and employment, contrary to neoclassical predictions. There are a number of problems in such an acceptance
First, most economic studies into the minimum wage still find they increase unemployment. Neumark and Wascher’s 2004 study found for every 10 per cent increase in the minimum wage there is a two per cent reduction in employment among 15 to 24 year olds, and, Addison and Ozturk’s 2012 study found a 10 per cent increase in the minimum wage resulted in a 1.5 per cent reduction in employment overall. And it is simply not tolerable to accept higher unemployment for a minority for higher wages for the majority. Second, the minor element of self-ownership which the state acquires via implementing a minimum wage cannot be confined to this area alone. If the state can impose a minimum wage which stops a young man from becoming a late-night cocktail maker (because his productivity does not warrant the mandated wage late at night) to ensure most people are better off, then, the state can restrict people’s choice of employment too. If a doctor wanted to give up at sixty to become a gardener (and nothing else), the state could stop him from doing so because his services would benefit a greater number of people as a doctor.
Many Labourites not attune to analytical philosophy will dismiss this implication out of hand. Yet the socialist philosopher G. A. Cohen saw that in order to realise egalitarian ends, self-ownership must indeed be rejected. Indeed, Cohen went so far in his moral commitment to realising a suitable level of welfare for everyone that he permitted forcing the doctor to carry on working in the profession. Along with John Locke, I again affirm: ‘Every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself.’ The rest of the labour regulations proposed may not undermine self-ownership, but the right to sick pay, holiday pay and taking your boss to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal, all from day one, breaches freedom of contract and will increase unemployment too. This is due to the simple fact that they all increase the cost of the marginal unit of labour while keeping its marginal revenue product the same.
Respecting the self-ownership of people requires respecting people’s choices to work under zero-hour contracts and at pay rates less than the minimum wage. To not respect this self-ownership is to implement a partial socialism of people by capturing their rights of transfer within their self-ownership. This is unacceptable. Each and every person is fully entitled to their own person and none of the good which the socialists in government allege will come of these measures is warrant to override that moral fact. In the cause of every man being a sovereign over himself: These wretched proposals must be opposed!
I've always been in favour of self-employment although I can see that plenty amongst us would find the prospect daunting. I agree that there is room for zero hours contracts in the current employment set-up but I suppose there is a danger of this being used to make it easy to hire and fire people whose skills are not necessarily sought after in the wider employment market. Still, people should be free to negotiate on their own behalf or seek the protection of a union if they so wish. Banning things is the mark of totalitarians and tyrants. Encouraging good treatment of worthy employees would be a better way to help workers in my opinion.