Initially this post was intended to be on how a Universal Basic Income (UBI) introduces Grass-Roots ethics into the economy. In writing the post I realized that another issue is much more pressing: coercion in labour markets. The topic of this essay will therefore be Coercion in Labour Markets. The main question is whether some people might be coerced to work rather than being persuaded or choosing to do so out of their own motivation. As per usual I will briefly explain some terminology. Then the current situation in the labour market will be outlined with a focus on unemployment. Having laid the foundations, we can then discuss if people accept jobs based on authority, persuasion or coercion. In the end we look at who coerces, and I will outline how a UBI could be a solution to this issue and give some final remarks.

Terminology
Coercion will be seen here as a form of power. It is the ability of a person, let’s say Mary to make another, Finn, act in a way that Finn would not otherwise do. Often, this implies that it is against Finn’s interests. Another form of power is force or violence, but this aspect of power will be less relevant in this discussion. Persuasion in contrast is Mary convincing Finn to act in a way that Finn is convinced is ultimately in his own interest although Finn had his doubts initially. Authority is Mary making Finn act against his will because Finn respects Mary and considers her to be legitimized in giving orders. Markets are the physical or conceptual space in which goods and services are exchanged while the labour market is essentially the place where we trade money for time or the completion of a task. UBI takes many different forms depending on who you ask. In general, it can be treated as an income that everyone receives, and which is enough to support a “good” life. By Grass-Roots Ethics I mean the expression of personal ethical convictions outside of official institutions such as elections or interest groups.

The Labour Market and Unemployment
So how could there be coercion in labour markets? Let’s start by outlining the conditions we face in most European states which will be the focus today. A large majority of people work more or less by choice. We do apprenticeships or study and eventually end up with a job that at the very least pays the bills. Still, many of us end up with jobs that they dislike or no job at all. There are many reasons why people do not work or dislike their jobs. The work is lacking purpose, is boring, redundant or too demanding. The compensation is not high enough, we find ourselves in conflict with corporate structures or we question the impact of our work. No surprises so far. What happens if we do not work? We get social benefits. We have a human right to a dignified life after all and dying of hunger lacks both the dignity and the life part. So, our society has to provide for us. There is a problem, however. Our state is in international competition with the others, so our economy needs to keep up with the other states. Furthermore, much of the productivity we already have relies on some people doing the shit jobs. Thus, instead of simply redistributing what we have to those who do not want to or cannot find appropriate work, we need to find another way. We have to get as many people working as possible (but not too many cause then inflation rises and we do not want that either, so some people should better be unemployed).

Many things we need in order to have a dignified life can be bought. To ensure that people still try to find a job while also ensuring that on paper they still have a dignified life we give them almost all the things necessary to do so that cannot be bought (such as freedom of speech and things like that). Then we just have to write a check for the rest, and we are done. But how high should the check be? Here comes the trick. The state calculates what you need for a dignified life to the cent and transfers the money. As an unemployed person you could technically live a dignified life (although that is also somewhat doubtful in many cases) but if you misspend a few Euros and do not optimize your budget you will not be able to afford your dignified life for that month. In Germany, 50 Euros of the total social benefits a single person with no kids receives is intended for food. You do not have to live in Germany to know that 50 Euros is very little. Losing a 2 Euro coin from a whole in your pocket which you cannot fix because you lack the money means losing 4% of your monthly allowance for food. That’s insane. By making it so hard to live on social benefits the state tries to make unemployed people find and accept jobs. This also means that anyone who does not have sufficient savings to support themselves in case of unemployment is at constant risk of having to live of social benefits which can hardly be considered to be enough to live a dignified life. We also have to discuss what happens if you are unemployed and do not accept jobs offered to you by the job centre. If a person on social benefits regularly rejects job offers, then their social benefits are reduced. Under extreme circumstances it is legal in Germany to entirely cancel social security including the payment of rent. It happens extremely rarely but it is a credible threat.

A Case of Authority?
So, if we accept a job because we cannot live a dignified live on social benefits or are at risk of receiving cuts to them does this constitute a case of coercion? Let us start by ruling out some potential alternatives starting with a case for authority. For it to be a case of authority we would have to accept the legitimacy of whichever actor is making us act against our interests. For example, we accept a job offered to us by the job centre because we recognize its authority and respect the institution. There might be some people who accept jobs with this motivation. The fact that some people do reject jobs and receive penalties for it, is however prove enough that many people do not accept the authority of job centres to put them into jobs which are deemed adequate for them. I think it is an uncontroversial claim that most people do not accept jobs because they believe in the authority of job centres. I had some more arguments here but the post is much too long, so I cut them out.   

Persuasion and Coercion
How about persuasion then? It is safe to say that it would be a case of persuasion if we do not intend to accept a job offered to us but the employee at the job centre makes such a compelling argument for it that we decide to take it anyway. In general, we can consider it a case of persuasion if we initially thought an action was against our interest but were then convinced of the opposite for example by being informed about substantial advantages. To illustrate this point and discern between persuasion and coercion let’s say we do not intend to get a vaccine but a conversation with our general practitioner convinces us that we should get it. If we find out about a positive impact of an action or receive a positive incentive, we have cases of persuasion. Pointing out potential negative consequences has the feeling of coercion: If you do not do this then something bad is going to happen. Coming back to the vaccines we can notice an important difference though. Let us say the general practitioner convinces you that you should get a vaccine because otherwise you might die of a virus. That is a clear case of: If you do not do this then something bad is going to happen. But is the doctor coercing us? I think not. The key nuance is that the general practitioner is not responsible for the negative consequences but just informing you about them. They do not say: get the vaccine or I will infect you with a deadly virus. Instead, they are pointing out the potential negative consequences of your action or the lack thereof. That is in my opinion a key difference between coercion and persuasion when considering negative consequences of an action. If the agent who wants, you to act differently is responsible for the negative consequences then we have a case of coercion. Otherwise, it is persuasion. Coming back to the job centre, it is the employees who tell people to get jobs or else they will lose their social benefits. The job centres are however also responsible for filing for penalties against people who do not accept jobs and are thus responsible for the negative consequences. We have a case of coercion.

There is also another way to approach this. Many scholars believe that coercion lacks choice. If someone tells us to accept a job or die than that is no choice (or at least most scholars think so). Persuasion on the other hand must leave the option to decide between options, for example if the job centre tries to convince us that a shitty job is better than none. Being coerced with threats to our life are not particularly common in the labour market but we might have something else at stake, our human dignity. Taking the human rights as an indication we might for example say that if we are offered the choice between accepting a job or losing our social benefits which are necessary to live a dignified life than we lack the choice. This of course rests on the assumption that choices where one option is losing our life or human dignity are no choices at all and that being faced with such a decision constitutes a case of coercion. It also rests on the assumption that one cannot live a dignified life on social security. I want to take this a bit further by considering cases where we are not online coerced to work but have to give up our personal ethics or religion in the process. For example, if the job centre, under threat of losing their social benefits, coerces a Hindu into working in a butchery for cows. Or a case where a pacifist is coerced to work for a weapons manufacturer. The power that the state has over us, manifested in the penalties the job centre can put on us, can not only coerce us into acting against our interests (we do not want to work but are forced to), but also act against our personal ethics and religious beliefs. Working under the assumption that social benefits do not pay for a dignified life. Then employees who do not have sufficient savings to support themselves if they quit their job are coerced to keep working even if they deem their work unethical (or contribute to an unethical company).

So let us sum up the part on coercion. If Mary is outlining negative consequences of an action which Finn intends to do, but Mary is not responsible for the consequences, then Mary is attempting to persuade Finn to act differently. If she is however responsible for the consequences than we have a case of coercion. In addition, if Mary gives Finn a choice between acting in a way she wants or else kill him or violate his human rights in other ways then we do not actually have a choice and thus face a case of coercion. If we then accept that cutting social security if one does not accept a job leads to the inability to live a dignified life and thus a violation of our human rights, we again face a case of coercion. The job centre attempts to coerce people into accepting jobs. If go so far as to accept that living a dignified life on social security is impossible than we are presented with a much larger case of coercion. Everyone who is unemployed but not at risk of cuts is also being coerced into accepting a job. In addition, everyone who is currently in a job and lacks sufficient savings in case they quit their job is coerced to keep working.

Who is the Coercer?
I also want to address in this post is who the coercer is. I have been talking a lot about job centres today but are they the coercers? They might do the deed, but they are not responsible for it since they operate within a legal framework sanctioned by most of society. In fact, they are also being coerced to coerce others given that their refusal to do so might lead to them losing their jobs. So, who makes the laws, who decides on the amount of social benefits and potential penalties? The government? Well in Europe politicians are elected by us, by those eligible to vote. They act based on the mandate given to them. Unless they intentionally misinform the population or pass laws secretively. This does happen of course, but it is definitively not the norm. We then end up with two groups left, general society and interest groups. General society has the right to organise protests, to be politically active and try to persuade their fellow citizens to adopt a different stance. Many members of society are also able to vote. Interest groups also influence government both by setting the agenda and influencing public opinion for example through their control of some media outlets. They can also influence government decisions by advising them how to address issues that are already on the agenda. Interest groups are of course also part of society, but I thought important to consider them separately. What remains then is that we are all responsible for the coercion in labour markets. Anyone who does not oppose this coercion or benefits from it is to a degree complicit in it. I say degree because I do not think we are all equally complicit. I leave it too you to determine the degree of your complicity and act based on that because, again, the post is already too long.

Solutions?
I want to finish by pointing out a way in which we might be able to end coercion in labout markets. There are several ways of course but the one I wanted to mention today is a UBI. If we all receive enough money to live a good life the coercion loses much of its threat. If we can live a dignified and even a “good” life if we do not work or refuse to accept jobs, then people cannot be coerced to work. There is also a second benefit. Remember the Hindu who is forced to work in a cow butchery or the pacifist who is forced to work in a weapons manufacturer? They do not have to accept these jobs. In general, if people have doubts about the ethicality of their jobs they can simply quit because the alternative is still a “good” life. Suddenly many companies will find themselves hard pressed to find workers who are willing to do their bidding. By addressing other issues such as inequality and the marketization of wealth where being wealthy becomes the most attractive lifestyle, we could soon find ourselves in a system where people can decide their work not only based on what pays most but personal interest and ethical considerations. I doubt that many people for example find it attractive to work in factory farming and yet many do it because you earn money. Imagine not working were an alternative. This is what I meant in the introduction of grass-root ethics in labour markets. If we are not coerced into work and the rich lifestyle becomes unpopular then we create a system where people can choose jobs on their personal ethical convictions.

Let me also give a quick outline of the impact of UBI, in economic terms. We generally think of the labour force for a specific field of work as those who are willing to work in general and who have the necessary qualification for that field. The smaller the labour force the more expensive it is to hire new workers. If we now add a third category to the willingness to work and the qualification which is the ethicality of the job, companies who are generally considered unethical will find it hard to hire workers. They need to increase salaries to attract workers which might lead to their bankruptcy, or they address the ethical concerns. If we also consider that people can be just as much persuaded by the ethicality of a job than what it pays, then even increasing salaries might not do the trick. I am perfectly aware that I am ignoring many other economic consequences of an UBI. Given that, again, the essay is already much too long I will have to address them another day. I do want to draw your attention to one key point though. If you do accept that our labour market is coercive in nature, are you willing to accept this for the sake of economic prosperity? It is a question that I have answered for myself, but I do not want to provide you with my decision. Instead, I want to give you a case to highlight the severity of the question. Would you accept slavery if you knew it would lead to prosperity for slaves and masters alike?

Final Remarks:
I think this idea of introducing ethics into the economy could be critical in addressing the shortcomings of our current economic system and moving away from a system that prioritizes monetary gains and capital growth both personal and corporate over human welfare. If we seek to move towards a system that prioritizes human welfare two things must happen. First people must be able to choose their jobs based on personal convictions, interests and qualifications rather than the need for (more) money. That means addressing the coercion currently taking place in our labour market. Second, we must stop the marketization of wealth, where a wealthy lifestyle is generally considered the best. The more inconsequential monetary gain is for job decisions the better. Our current economic system is a powerful engine, but we have not yet managed to get the hang on how to use it properly. We are driving a car while completing our driver’s license and running over people and nature left right and centre. If we can get full control of this engine and use it in way that fixes our global climate instead of destroying it, that helps people out of poverty rather than exploiting them, that enables people to prioritize their personal wellbeing rather than trying to look like the model on the poster or the social media star, if we steer the engine to promote human welfare rather than monetary gains, then we will live in a much happier world. And once we arrived there, we can start thinking of turning the engine off.