Transcending our definitions of labor

Why do jobs are among the first to go during hard times? Why are we underpaid or why can’t we at least ask for what we think is worth our effort? Why do employers who are but just only a few have the most say in critical decisions than employees who comprise the most volume of the organization? These are but some of the fundamental questions most people in the workforce ask of themselves.

The currency of these questions was not born out of modernity but a production of history. Fact is, they were also the same questions raised in the past and some of those who said to have found the answers were even willing to forfeit their life for them. Yet seemingly, the answers that have been advanced are as difficult as the questions themselves as they are shrouded with even more serious issues that one can hardly tell whether they are really answers or another set of questions in the making.    

For Adam Smith (regarded as the Father of Modern Capitalism) in his "The Wealth of Nations," posited of labor as goods that can be traded like coffee, sugar or tea. Like any commodity, the need for labor and the price thereof depends on the public that buys them - thus, labor can be bid and sold for private ownership or holding. Karl Marx (the Father of Communism or Socialism, if you will) on the other hand, postulated in his "Communist Manifesto" that labor cannot be treated as a tradable commodity since by virtue of "monopsony" (the monopoly of purchase), the state is the only authorized buyer of labor, hence, labor is also owned and controlled by the state.   

While the similarities are clear that both regard the importance of labor in production or wealth creation, the contrasting features of both ideas are pronounced in their respective forms of ownership. Furthermore, the dissimilarities are also profound in the way labor is valued. In a capitalist regime, labor has a price tag. The price of labor is handsome when it is scarce and a dime a dozen when abundant. In communism, the rewards of labor are anchored on quantity or value of the labor given thus "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution."

In a sense, the real value of labor is determined by market forces under capitalism, and by the state in communist or socialist regimes.

Borrowing the words of Julius Caesar "Jacta alea est" or the die is cast or simply put it, the terms under which labor is to be valued have already been decided by forces external to the person. As a consequence, the person having been inherently denied of that power to chart his own terms, will find it hard to command or assert what he believes to be fair or rightful - the confidence of having a long term job, the hope of a wage increase and benefits, will remain a constant yearning for him.    

The socioeconomic relationship, therefore, between a worker and an employer is not really partnership as commonly feigned or advertised in a company’s corporate statements but rather an “onerous contract”. His or her occupation is, technically, on a floating status for as long as business is good or for as long as technology is not yet available to replace him or her.

The same onerous relationship exists in a communist/socialist economy as the worker must submit his labors to the regulations of the state. The worker is also in constant threat of losing his jobs if and when the state no longer finds his contribution relevant or when his work can be substituted by technology.

In other words, neither capitalism nor communism can guarantee the working man his job security or his welfare. Neither both guarantee that he is free from oppression and injustice.   

What may be advocated is a reconstruction of our currently-held paradigms -- transcending the way we look at labor not as a mere commodity nor a component of production. Labor is not an accessory that can be done away with or replaced by machines at anyone's beck and call. Labor is not always about rewards and compensation for the work done. It is above all these. 

Behind every drop of sweat spent by the laborer is a person -- a person possessing not only the capacity for thinking and doing but the will and fortitude for nurturing. Hence, the laborer doesn’t work only for himself but is doing it for others who depend on his fruits for their survival and care. To begin with, labor is a selfless deed – a deed beyond the measure of human intelligence. It is only through human wisdom that we understand the meaning of labor in its humane and benevolent sense. Thus, I think it is but also right to return the same act of benevolence and selflessness to the man on the job.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

Send emails to [email protected]