Rawls thinks that we can understand what justice is by considering the idea of a fair agreement. According to Rawls, an agreement is not necessarily fair even if it is voluntary. In order to be fair, an agreement must also be made against a background of equality. It is unfair if one of the contracting parties is able to take advantage of the other party because he is stronger, richer, better informed or simply more powerful.
Is Rawls right about what counts as a fair agreement?
Imagine that you are poor and cannot find work due to an economic recession. One day a new employer comes to town and offers you a job in his factory for a wage of 50 cents per hour. The employer exerts no pressure. He simply makes his offer and says, politely, “Take it or leave it.” You accept the offer, not without gratitude, because you have no reasonable alternative. Is the contract between you and your new employer voluntary? Is the contract fair?
I agree with Rawls here. Capitalism is inheirently exploitative and contracts based on equality are almost non-existent in a 'free market'. This is why gov't regulations and workers unions are so critical to making Capitalism work as they both serve the purpose of 'forcing' employment contracts to be more equal. Even this isn't enough however, which is why social safety net services like medicare and welfare are also essential as a means of 'balancing out' the worst of the effects of our societies power arrangments.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Jay says. I also agree that agreements must be made with the background of equality. With corporations as greedy as they are nowdays, it is imperative that we have unions and oversite committees to insure fairness for all. There is nothing wrong with a company wanting to make huge profits, but in doing so they must be fair to their employees. As far as I am concerned, Rawls hits the nail on the head here. In the article above, the contract is not voluntary because you are being railroaded and obviously the contract is not fair.
ReplyDeleteI would think a lawyer could argue that it was not a fair contract based on the lack of fairness and equality with the minimum wage salaries, especially with the suggested threat of "take it or leave it." The employer is taking unfair advantage of a person who is destitute. This certainly argues for the presence of unions and the need for equality.
ReplyDeleteOur Tuesday group has not viewed this segment, but I think I have the idea from your posts. This would be an unfair agreement, according to Rawls. I was picturing the boxing movie with Russell Crowe (can't remember the name right now), though, and how unfair humanity seemed during the depression. The dock worker boss could only offer so many jobs each day - he seemed to select randomly - and I imagine the workers got paid very little. Yet, the men desperately wanted the job and were grateful to be selected. In this case, it seems that the employer is not taking advantage of the workers with their one-day agreement - what would Rawls say?
ReplyDelete