History of Labor in the United States
SSC200
Abstract
One of the most important actions an American citizen can take to uphold their role in the social contract of American democracy is to exercise their right to vote. Yet, in the United States today, voter turnout is relatively and historically speaking very low. This paper takes a look at the effects this has on job satisfaction—specifically workplace morale, productivity, and job security—and argues that greater investment in the social contract of democracy on the part of the working classes is likely to yield positive results in each of these areas. American voters, and potential voters, are more concerned with their financial futures than in decades, and many are making demands for higher pay and better benefits. Studies show that this may be the key to increasing happiness in the workplace, if only the American working classes can show up to the polls in greater numbers.
In a democratic capitalist society, the needs of the few are balanced with the needs of the many only when the many—largely working class families and laborers—uphold their end of the social contract by exercising their right to vote. However, studies show that historically, American non-voters have been disproportionately less financially stable than their voting counterparts. By not upholding their end of the social contract, non-voters often suffer negative consequences in the workplace, in the form of low wages, longer hours, and decreased benefits. These factors often lead to a decrease in workplace morale, job security, and productivity.
“For forty years, the American middle class has been disappearing. Millions of people are working longer hours for lower wages,” begins a campaign speech by current presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Studies show that this effect has been linked to negative consequences for employees and employers. An opinion piece in Newsweek cites several studies showing that lower pay leads to decreased worker morale and productivity (Wolfers & Zalinsky 2015). It also points out cases in which increased pay has led to lower employee turnover, which in turn increases job security for workers. When Sanders and other candidates appeal to the dissatisfaction of the American working class, they are appealing to a sense of political disenfranchisement as well, a symptom of the deterioration of the social contract essential to a democratic capitalist society.
Low voter turnout in American elections has been a topic of wide research for decades. Many studies have shown that Americans who do not vote are largely poorer and more racially diverse than those who do (Pew Research Center 2014). Citizens who are more financially vulnerable are those who are more likely to suffer through unsatisfactory workplace conditions. This leads to a political system in which their concerns—specifically those about pay, benefits, and job security—are not fairly represented in local and national governments. In fact, BBC News Magazine cited the economy as the number one reason for political frustration in their February article “Why Are Americans So Angry?” (Barford 2016).
As illustrated by the Pew Research Center, the proportion of non-voters who struggle financially is greater than those who do exercise that right. Almost half of non-voters struggle to meet monthly financial responsibilities, compared to less than a third of voters (Pew Research Center 2014). These are likely the same demographic of Americans who report dissatisfaction in the workplace and fears over job insecurity. If these groups of people were to reverse the historical trend by showing up to elections in record numbers, they would be much more likely to select representatives who are attentive to their needs. In other words, by investing more into the social contract, American non-voters could begin to see positive changes in their home and work lives.
During the current election cycle, in which the tug-of-war between corporate interests and workers’ rights are playing an important role in the political discourse, social contract theory is especially important to understand. In a democratic society, “the vote of the majority always binds all the rest. This follows from the contract itself,” Jean-Jacque Rousseau writes. “But it is asked how a man can be both free and forced to conform to wills that are not his own. How are the opponents at once free and subject to laws they have not agreed to?” (Rousseau 1923). In other words, the needs of the American working classes will continue to be subjected to those of the elite few until they can become the majority of voters in American elections. Such a change would have a positive effect not only on the lives of the many, but on workplace morale, job security, and productivity on the national level.
Works Cited
Barford, Vanessa. "Why Are American So Angry?" 4 February 2016. BBC News Magazine. 2016. 2 April 2016. <www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35406324>.
Pew Research Center. "The Party of Nonvoters: Younger, More Racially Diverse, More Financially Strapped." Report. 2014. 30 March 2016.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract and Discourses by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Trans. G.D.H. Cole. London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1923.
Wolfers, Justin and Jan Zilinsky. "Ten Reasons Why Workers Should Be Paid More." 18 January 2015. Newsweek.com. 2 April 2016. <http://www.newsweek.com/ten-reasons-workers-should-be-paid-more-300212>.
