Jeffrey Hilgert. - Hazard or Hardship: Crafting Global Norms on the Right to Refuse Unsafe Work

HAZARD OR HARDSHIP

Crafting Global Norms on the Right to
Refuse Unsafe Work

JEFFREY HILGERT

ILR PRESS

AN IMPRINT OF

CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS

ITHACA AND LONDON

Notes

This book would not have been possible without the support of many people. My sincere appreciation goes to James A. Gross who has been both a great academic mentor and friend. I extend my genuine thanks to Lowell Turner, Risa Lieberwitz, Clete Daniel, Lance Compa, Robert Hebdon, and Bob Sass; the staff of the Catherwood Library at Cornell University including Gordon T. Law, Stuart Basefsky, Suzanne Cohen, and Susan LaCette; and Nilgun Tolek and Michael Shanker at the Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program at the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The Interuniversity Research Centre on Globalization and Work (CRIMT) and the Canadian Industrial Relations Association provided a forum for discussion and feedback on part of an early version of this manuscript at the 2010 conference Employee Representation in the New World of Work. My reading of the international law in this book is mine alone, but I express my gratitude to the many experts at the International Labour Office who informed this research indirectly by their participation in courses at Cornell Universitys School of Industrial and Labor Relations including, among others, Catherine Brkenhielm Hansell, Karen Curtis, Lee Swepston, Jean-Pierre Laviec, Jukka Takala, Seiji Machida, Michele Nahmias, Martin Oelz, Jane Hodges, and Chris Land-Kazlauskas. Two anonymous reviewers gave invaluable advice for developing the manuscript. My thanks also extend to Fran Benson and Katherine Liu at Cornell University Press for their support in this project. I reserve my deepest debt of gratitude for my family, Gioconda, Arthur, and Elena.

Colonel Nicholson had again reassured his Japanese captors that the British soldiers under his command could construct their railroad bridge before the deadline. In the classic World War II film Bridge on the River Kwai , the exacting commander touts the organizational efficiency of his captive battalion, eventually beaming at the sight of the bridge as it nears completion. Hesitantly, near the end of the enormous construction project crafted entirely from jungle lumber, a young major approaches Nicholson and dissents, saying the soldiersnow Japanese prisoners of warmust be given permission to slow down or openly revolt, given the importance of the railroad bridge to enemy supply lines. Nicholson immediately snaps, indignant at the thought of any insubordination. Glancing at the massive structure he thunders in all his sweaty servitude, We are prisoners of war! We havent the right to refuse work!

Even in the absence of barbed wire and the pointed rifle of a prison camp, millions of workers around the world are averse to raising ones voice at work, let alone using open resistance such as refusing unsafe work. The prospect of meaningful improvement of working conditions seems so unlikely that the common suggestion for action is Find another job! rather than challenging management, asking questions, raising concerns, or stopping work. On the surface, find another job! may be a wise choice, if a person can find other employment. From a global policy viewpoint, however, there are fundamental drawbacks to this defeatist path of action.

Whether in economics textbooks or neighborhood cafes, people often erroneously see work as unfolding in a simple labor market where buyers and sellers exchange human labor and work for a price. Each government, however, constructs, shapes, and institutionalizes systems of labor and employment. Societies define different boundaries for rights at work and determine how workers can struggle to achieve social justice. Decisions of this nature encompass a variety of constitutions of the right of employees to dissent and struggle to improve their working environment. These issues relate closely to the protection of the freedom of association and collective bargaining. Occupational health and safety laws also define these boundaries. Each of these labor rights institutions shapes work and employment, making labor markets more a function of deliberately organized laws, habits and practices rather than the free-for-all open exchange that a market metaphor implies.

When workers are resigned to find another job! as the only option, both workers and societies ultimately lose. What is lost is the exercise of basic citizenship rights at the workplace. Citizenship, as I use it here, means not the traditional status granted by a government but rather the act of possessing certain inalienable rights and privileges that make possible real participation and representation in the governance of society. Workers have rights that are to be exercised and enjoyed, making each workplace a site of citizenship and government in a free society. When workers quit their jobs because they feel they have no other choice, society loses a degree of freedom and an avenue for voice, representation, and governance in the workplace. Taking a strict labor market view thus marginalizes notions of citizenship rights at work and undermines the basic idea of freedom, democracy, and fundamental human rights at the workplace. Such advice is akin to being told to move to another country! rather than struggle for social change.

If workers, conversely, disregard the all too common advice to find another job! and exercise citizenship rights at work, a particular set of problems immediately surfaces. Will societys labor and employment system offer protection? Will changes be made to correct the original problem? If the problem is a safety and health concern, government inspectors may be called upon to enforce specific regulations. Will those regulations be enough? What regulations apply? What happens after the health and safety inspector leaves? If I try to organize to push my concern, will I be fired? If we all cause too much trouble will the company close and move elsewhere? Each of these uncertainties raises key questions about the boundaries of workers rights and the distribution of power in the governance of the workplace. The answers are an indication of how each society defines and shapes the role of workers as citizens.