Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights elaborates the right to work in the context of individual freedoms and economic, social and cultural development. The Covenant also elaborates the role of the state in realising this human right. Article 6 states:
"(1) The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right. (2) The steps to be taken by a State party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual."
The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights also recognises the right, emphasising conditions and pay, i.e. labor rights. Article 15, states:
"Every individual shall have the right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions, and shall receive equal pay for equal work." http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Yesterday I participated in the "Save the NHS" demonstration that took place in London. I was looking for a group to march with as my normal demo friends were not there for a variety of personal reasons (there will be many other demos). I wound up marching with a group called “Waltham Forest Right to Work Group.” Given that I live in the area and that their main demand was for a general strike to bring down the ConDem government (and that they were great people, at least the ones that I met), I distributed their literature (after reading it) and marched (or should I say hobbled) along with them helping to carry their banner.
Of course, being an historian of political theory and economic, political and social history, I also raised a point with the leader of the group. In case you were not aware of it, the “right to work” was a demand of pre-Marxian socialists and anarchists from the 1830s onwards (unfortunately I do not have the origination date of the term). This slogan arose in the context of the introduction of machinery which led to the mass displacement of labour, especially in the context of the silk weavers and the hand-loom weavers whose livelihoods were eliminated by the introduction of the power loom. This slogan became the main call of those opposing the introduction of machinery and fighting for the rights of the poor and unemployed in the absence of a social welfare state.
Morality and the “Right to Work”
The point of addressing the question as political and economic right and hence as a moral issue (a right is a moral issue) was that the system was actually not only victimising, oppressing and exploiting people; it was denying their rights to work in order to provide for their own subsistence for themselves and their families. In the context of the system without a social welfare state, that meant the system was denying their right to subsistence. In that sense, the system is inherently immoral (see, e.g., Proudhon, The Philosophy of Poverty).
Moreover, this raises the question: is the right to work (and the right of subsistence) really a right of human beings or do rights only exist contextually? This is an important political and moral issue which could be a transcendent issue; in that it is not tied to a system or historical period and that certain systems which deny this right are inherently immoral by definition of these formal rights of human beings.
A short but important digression:
One thing that needs to be distinguished in the question of morality and the right to work is the difference between people wanting to work and have jobs to ensure their subsistence and people being forced to labour to cover their subsistence which formed part of the liberal approach to dealing with poverty.
The thing that enabled the liberal position was the denial of persistent unemployment as normal within the capitalist economic system. This coincided with a shift in the theory of wages towards a wages-fund analysis which also shifted the responsibility for poverty away from the capitalist system itself and onto the victims of the system. In an economic model that assumes full employment (see the wages fund and then neoclassical economic theory), those that are not working are deemed as being voluntarily unemployment and must be compelled to work. Hence the schemes of forced labour in the workhouses (and the modern variant of work-fare in the US and calls for voluntary labour by the unemployed by the Tories).
Economic and Political Critique of the demand of the "right to work"
Returning to the demand of the “right to work,” if you think about it, the problem with this slogan is its essential denial of the manner in which the capitalist economic system functions. In fact, this slogan became part of a critique by Marx and Engels of what they termed utopian socialist argumentation. Why did they consider the demand “utopian”?
Simply enough, the level of employment of the available labour force depends on objective phenomena in the capitalist economic system. Succinctly, the number of labourers employed depends on two direct and one indirect objective phenomenon:
1) the methods of production in use in the various sectors of the economy; specifically the different combinations of land, labour and capital that are in use to produce the various goods and services; the choices of the available techniques of production used by the different producers in different sectors determines how many workers are needed to produce those goods and services;
2) the amount of capital available for the employment of labour as opposed to that used for either machinery or raw materials in the production process (this relates to choice of technique, but also depends on profitability and investment realisation).
The indirect objective phenomenon that determines the level of employment (and which then affects both 1 and 2 above) is the level of demand for certain commodities which then determines the quantity of the goods produced which then determines the level of employment. Marx (like the classical economists he criticises) argued that unemployment was normal in the context of the capitalist economic system. He argued that demanding “the right to work” was essentially utopian and in many senses calling for a demand that was simply not achievable in the context of the capitalist system and that we were in many senses deceiving the working class (e.g., see Marx, the Poverty of Philosophy, Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific). Rather than calling for an impossible demand, arguing that permanent and persistent unemployment were part and parcel of the system and that if we wanted a real “right to work” the system needed to be overthrown.
This may have convinced Marxists, but this slogan has never really died out in the Left. The anarchists continued to utilise it as a rallying call. It became a minimum slogan for the hard-left. For anarchists it was an essential part of a minimum program; for Marxists the call for full employment (which all knew could never be obtained in the context of capitalism) became a variant of this argument. For the second or socialist international, the slogan the “right to work” became reduced to the call for full employment and became an essential part of their maximum programme.
The Right to Work addressed through full employment
Essentially, the members of the second international (socialist international) picked up the idea behind the slogan and embodied it in their call for full employment. Rather than calling for the “right to work”, the argument was shifted away from a moral call or a notion of rights and was used to address an economic phenomenon, unemployment and poverty. The socialist international maintained that full employment could be achieved in the context of a mixed economy through state sector employment. Unfortunately, full employment was never fully achieved in spite of attempts to limit the working day, support unprofitable industries that could not compete with the private sector, and the creation of jobs independent of profitability considerations.
The attempt to achieve full employment while covering those facing economic hardship and impoverishment became not only part of the calls of the Socialist International. It was embodied even in the short-term jobs provision of the Keynesian social welfare state where it was hoped that the increase in effective demand caused by temporary jobs provision would stimulate growth, investment and employment. Moreover, as we can see above, the slogan became an essential component of Human rights law and legislation. What unites all of these groups is the recognition of persistent and permanent employment in the system and the recognition of the rights of human beings to their subsistence either by working or through state provision.
The appropriation of the term by the American Right
One of the most malicious things is the hijacking of political terminology by the opposition to be used against those that the slogan was meant to support. The term the “right to work” has perhaps faced the most ignominious fate in this respect.
In the US, the term the “right to work” was separated from the questions of full employment and the moral right of people to provide for their own subsistence through work. It was turned against those who were fighting for these very things even if on the most reformist level.
Even more so, the idea that it was the unions that were somehow responsible for unemployment or the denial of work to non-union members became the foundation of a new way to undermine the work of unions. Non-union members were able to become free-riders; able to get the gains fought for by the unions using union membership fees while contributing nothing themselves. This not only undermines the power of the union, it essentially destroys their ability to function as why pay union fees if you are getting the results without them? Essentially, it undercuts their financial functioning and also decreases membership enabling their marginalisation and destruction.
Some concluding thoughts ...
For those who have used that slogan and to have understood from where it derives to then have it corrupted and appropriated by the Right is simply appalling and galling. The re-appropriation of terminology (or reclaiming of it) may seem like an absurd fight in this day and age, but with this reclaiming comes the original meaning and original discussion and this is an appropriate thing to discuss. High unemployment, a concerted attack on the poor, a concerted attack on the social welfare state and the attempt to undermine the state sector again allow us to raise an important question on morality. I think that perhaps the question of a “right to work” and a “right to subsistence” have become incredibly relevant again.