This is Part 1 of a series called Clash of the Protocols. Read Part 2 here.
Work to live, or live to work?
For most of history, the answer has been the former. People work to put food on the table. Hunter-gatherers, serfs, and desk jockeys alike. How they do this is different. For one, somewhere along the line, we introduced money. Today, providers hunt and gather dollar bills (or cryptocurrency), not bison and tubers. Money is then exchanged for the means of survival. Another difference is that now most people are employees, not spear-wielding sole proprietors.
The complicated employee-employer relationship ranges from nonconsensual slavery to self-employment. Employees depend on employers for life-sustaining income. Employers depend on employees to stay in business against competitors. Historically, employers owned more power in the dynamic. This led to human rights abuses including work-related injury, disease, and death.
At its worst, the employee-employer relationship treats laborers like machine parts. People become replaceable, expendable, and – ultimately – disposable. Industrial hygiene, now known as workplace safety, was generally not a concern. Is that the result of scientific ignorance? Corporate greed? Individual greed? Power imbalance? Social values? Job shortages? I don’t know enough yet to answer, but I estimate that each of these things affects employee safety.
There are a lot of ways to look at the virtues or failings of the employee-employer relationship. On the one hand, it’s exploitative. Employees don’t get to own 100% of what they produce and they’re prone to abuse. But, it’s generative. Employees get to exchange their labor for a wider variety of goods and most peoples’ wealth grows. From the employer's perspective, they get to increase the scale of their business. But they assume more risk, reduce their profit margins, or lose some control. It’s complicated.
So it’s interesting that safety protocols have evolved to mediate this relationship. Despite clashing “Survive Protocols” between employees and employers, work has become safer. Is this because of protocols, or something else?
The presence of slavery, serfdom, and indentured servitude has diminished over time. These shifts have decreased the power imbalance between employees and employers. And there have been shifts in the mode of production from labor to capital. As a result, many workers have become insulated from traditional hazards.
We can look at the relative danger of a profession using two dimensions, one social and one technical. First, how much agency does a worker have? Are they a slave, an employee, a partner, or self-employed? Second, how much of their job is done using their body vs. their mind?
Using forestry as an example profession:
An indentured Servant, who is the property of a lord, in 1816, who harvests trees using rudimentary technology has low agency and does hazardous work.
A self-employed Lumberjack from the year 1816, who harvests trees using rudimentary technology does hazardous work but has high agency.
A salaried Office Worker, living paycheque to paycheque, in 2130, who harvests trees using a virtual reality headset and a remote-controlled logging machine has low agency but does non-hazardous work.
An independent Futuristic Forestor, living paycheque to paycheque, in 2130, who harvests trees using a virtual reality headset and a remote-controlled logging machine has high agency and does non-hazardous work.
In this breakdown, the Servant works in the most hazardous environment. They apply themselves physically and don’t have much power to refuse work. Contrast this with the Futuristic Forestor. They aren’t exposed to many physical hazards AND they have the agency to refuse work. Even the low-agency Office Worker is better off than the Servant. At least they only have to worry about lower back pain and getting diabetes from office donuts.
There are two dimensions, agency and labor intensity. Accordingly, there are two primary ways to improve worker safety. First, increasing the agency of a worker. Second, reducing their labor intensity.
An example of increasing agency: a union could win the right for its members to refuse unnecessarily dangerous work. This increases their agency.
An example of reducing labor intensity: a VR-controlled forestry machine would introduce physical separation from a worker’s body and the site of production. It also enables the worker to use their mind instead of their body. Therefore, labor intensity is reduced.
These are exaggerated examples. They don’t illustrate the slow battle for worker rights that occurred in the last 200 years. It also doesn’t take into account the effect that new technologies have on the demand for workers. Technology like the VR-controlled logging machine could decrease the need for forestry workers in general. That change could increase the power of employers in the labor market.
In part 2 of this series (which I’m calling Clash of the Protocols) I will tackle questions like:
How do protocols manage to mediate the antagonistic employee-employer relationship?
How have employees been able to gain agency, via things like the right to refuse work?
Why has knowledge work become more common (or has it?)?
Does automation upgrade or downgrade worker safety?
