These sorts of decisions by Employment Tribunals must surely give employers pause to think about what sort of employment contracts they offer in future. If businesses are not 'allowed' to re-order their priorities according to the needs of the business, then perhaps fixed term contracts of short duration or self-employed contractors will become the norm.
Prhaps it has always been so; except that when the appeal was to "our father in heaven" and no response evident we had to be adult anyway. Now there are so many idle hands, would-be sorcerers apprentices eager to step in.
This is a thoughtful discussion that takes in much of the complexity of a topic that is always more complex than anyone really takes on board. The chief limitation of your 'sibling society' metaphor might be that it somewhat glosses over the 'lords and serfs' relationship that exists between a great many employers and their employees (especially among the working class) and that I feel comes behind a lot of Equality 2010 complaints raised by Union members... Perhaps you feel it is implied by the invocation of the parent in the metaphor?
In my book of moral philosophy, Chaos Ethics, I have a section entitled "Equality as Exclusion" that makes the point that to make some class of entities equal always requires a condition that excludes. It is a point that is seldom taken onboard by anyone, anywhere in the political spectrum, least of all those who march on a 'rights' claim that is seldom more than an emotional appeal. As a sideways example in this case, Mrs Follows was able to apply her equality in this case only because she was paid enough in the job she lost to go to court. The Equality Act 2010 has not impacted the working class at all as far as I can tell...
Finally for now, I'm intrigued if there is some influence from MacIntyre's After Virtue on Bly, since this argument about being able to organise our lives into a story feels straight out of MacIntyre's account of historical virtue. I'd be interested if you know anything about this point.
Another thoughtful piece, David. Thanks. I am reminded of your previous piece involving Foucault on Power and individualism, which I found a wee bit too academic (theoretical). This latest piece of yours gets at a couple of pet themes of mine having to do with interiority and the need to develop one's inner world. In that previous essay, you considered how individualism leads to appeals to authority to guarantee or bolster one's individualism. In the present essay, there's a fruitful contradiction that I'm more in line with: i.e. that appeals to authority undermine one's individualism or self-sufficiency, and infantilises (forgive the term). I'm wondering whether it might be interesting to sort out the contradictions between the two theses in question. I see the reconciliation coming about through an acknowledgment that the crux of the trouble lies in the materialist rejection of an inner life and therefore of self-development and psychological growth. In other words, appeals to external authority represent a naive materialism that externalises what ought to be an inner power. And this psychological condition leads to an emptying out of the individual. My point here being that it's not state power that's to blame, but a society's rejection of interiority. Naive materialism is the chief culprit here. I feel that the present piece is reaching in that direction via Bly and his definition of adulthood. In short, if the subject strikes you as compelling, I'd love to see an essay on this subject... maybe even as a guest piece for analogy magazine??? In any case, I truly enjoy your substack.
These sorts of decisions by Employment Tribunals must surely give employers pause to think about what sort of employment contracts they offer in future. If businesses are not 'allowed' to re-order their priorities according to the needs of the business, then perhaps fixed term contracts of short duration or self-employed contractors will become the norm.
Yes, the gig economy is not just a product of market forces.
Prhaps it has always been so; except that when the appeal was to "our father in heaven" and no response evident we had to be adult anyway. Now there are so many idle hands, would-be sorcerers apprentices eager to step in.
This is a thoughtful discussion that takes in much of the complexity of a topic that is always more complex than anyone really takes on board. The chief limitation of your 'sibling society' metaphor might be that it somewhat glosses over the 'lords and serfs' relationship that exists between a great many employers and their employees (especially among the working class) and that I feel comes behind a lot of Equality 2010 complaints raised by Union members... Perhaps you feel it is implied by the invocation of the parent in the metaphor?
In my book of moral philosophy, Chaos Ethics, I have a section entitled "Equality as Exclusion" that makes the point that to make some class of entities equal always requires a condition that excludes. It is a point that is seldom taken onboard by anyone, anywhere in the political spectrum, least of all those who march on a 'rights' claim that is seldom more than an emotional appeal. As a sideways example in this case, Mrs Follows was able to apply her equality in this case only because she was paid enough in the job she lost to go to court. The Equality Act 2010 has not impacted the working class at all as far as I can tell...
Finally for now, I'm intrigued if there is some influence from MacIntyre's After Virtue on Bly, since this argument about being able to organise our lives into a story feels straight out of MacIntyre's account of historical virtue. I'd be interested if you know anything about this point.
Thanks in advance!
Great piece. Nuanced.
Thanks!
Another thoughtful piece, David. Thanks. I am reminded of your previous piece involving Foucault on Power and individualism, which I found a wee bit too academic (theoretical). This latest piece of yours gets at a couple of pet themes of mine having to do with interiority and the need to develop one's inner world. In that previous essay, you considered how individualism leads to appeals to authority to guarantee or bolster one's individualism. In the present essay, there's a fruitful contradiction that I'm more in line with: i.e. that appeals to authority undermine one's individualism or self-sufficiency, and infantilises (forgive the term). I'm wondering whether it might be interesting to sort out the contradictions between the two theses in question. I see the reconciliation coming about through an acknowledgment that the crux of the trouble lies in the materialist rejection of an inner life and therefore of self-development and psychological growth. In other words, appeals to external authority represent a naive materialism that externalises what ought to be an inner power. And this psychological condition leads to an emptying out of the individual. My point here being that it's not state power that's to blame, but a society's rejection of interiority. Naive materialism is the chief culprit here. I feel that the present piece is reaching in that direction via Bly and his definition of adulthood. In short, if the subject strikes you as compelling, I'd love to see an essay on this subject... maybe even as a guest piece for analogy magazine??? In any case, I truly enjoy your substack.
I will think about this! Thanks.
Employment law is a nightmare for employers.