{"title":"Book review: The Dual Nature of Employee Involvement. An Economic and Human Right Issue by Sára Hungler","authors":"Marco Biasi","doi":"10.1177/13882627211050651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"neration would no longer be determined by demand and supply on the labour market, but by the government or some other kind of centralised institution (on what criteria?). While it is certainly true that markets too often fail to produce a fair distribution of income, it should not be overlooked that the price mechanism underlying free markets fulfils an important coordinating function, attracting labour supply to the economic sectors where it is needed most. This coordinating function would be thwarted if pay rates were set by the state. The arguments in favour of equal pay are presented in the fourth part of the book. It is argued that rewards other than money could be used to incentivise activities and professions that have a positive impact on society. The authors advocating equal pay for all refer, above all, to solidarity, pointing to the fact that the amount of pay earned by workers often depends on factors for which workers are not accountable, such as health or certain physical abilities. A possible objection to this argument is that ‘equal’ and ‘just’ are not necessarily synonymous terms. As known since Aristotle’s time, only like cases are to be treated alike. Thus, the equal treatment of unequal cases is unjust. Can all works performed really be said to be equal or of equal value? Moreover, granting an equal rate of pay may not result in equal economic treatment of all workers, since some individuals may have greater needs than others due to disease or other natural disadvantages, for example. In my view, the authors supporting equal pay for all could have discussed these aspects more thoroughly. What these considerations show is that an equal rate of pay is neither sufficient nor necessary to achieve an egalitarian system of wealth distribution. This fact is acknowledged by the authors of the second and third parts of the book, which – in my opinion – contain the most convincing contributions. Here, various regulatory alternatives to equal pay that are designed to reduce income disparities are discussed, such as a minimum income for all citizens or pay ratios (i.e., provisions requiring that the highest wages in an organisation or profession cannot be x times greater than the wages of the lowest-paid workers). Compared with the idea of an equal pay rate for all workers, these regulatory proposals seem much more practicable and may be of actual interest for policymakers. In sum, the book offers many different views and perspectives by experts from a wide array of disciplines. It is absolutely worthwhile reading for lawyers, philosophers, economists, social scientists, and policymakers alike.","PeriodicalId":44670,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Security","volume":"23 1","pages":"393 - 395"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627211050651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
neration would no longer be determined by demand and supply on the labour market, but by the government or some other kind of centralised institution (on what criteria?). While it is certainly true that markets too often fail to produce a fair distribution of income, it should not be overlooked that the price mechanism underlying free markets fulfils an important coordinating function, attracting labour supply to the economic sectors where it is needed most. This coordinating function would be thwarted if pay rates were set by the state. The arguments in favour of equal pay are presented in the fourth part of the book. It is argued that rewards other than money could be used to incentivise activities and professions that have a positive impact on society. The authors advocating equal pay for all refer, above all, to solidarity, pointing to the fact that the amount of pay earned by workers often depends on factors for which workers are not accountable, such as health or certain physical abilities. A possible objection to this argument is that ‘equal’ and ‘just’ are not necessarily synonymous terms. As known since Aristotle’s time, only like cases are to be treated alike. Thus, the equal treatment of unequal cases is unjust. Can all works performed really be said to be equal or of equal value? Moreover, granting an equal rate of pay may not result in equal economic treatment of all workers, since some individuals may have greater needs than others due to disease or other natural disadvantages, for example. In my view, the authors supporting equal pay for all could have discussed these aspects more thoroughly. What these considerations show is that an equal rate of pay is neither sufficient nor necessary to achieve an egalitarian system of wealth distribution. This fact is acknowledged by the authors of the second and third parts of the book, which – in my opinion – contain the most convincing contributions. Here, various regulatory alternatives to equal pay that are designed to reduce income disparities are discussed, such as a minimum income for all citizens or pay ratios (i.e., provisions requiring that the highest wages in an organisation or profession cannot be x times greater than the wages of the lowest-paid workers). Compared with the idea of an equal pay rate for all workers, these regulatory proposals seem much more practicable and may be of actual interest for policymakers. In sum, the book offers many different views and perspectives by experts from a wide array of disciplines. It is absolutely worthwhile reading for lawyers, philosophers, economists, social scientists, and policymakers alike.