Livia: Shelby, Reasons To Refuse to Work

 

2Within Dark Ghettos: Injustice, Dissent, and Reform, Tommie Shelby makes the argument that the ghetto poor often have legitimate reasons to refuse to work. He presents several reasons that justify this claim. I will only present two circumstances here for the sake of consciousness. First, Shelby articulates that the ghetto poor may refuse to work because the jobs available do not provide enough for a livable wage (191). Second, Shelby explains that some among the ghetto poor might reject work requirements because low-skilled workers do not possess the right to organize, form and/or join labor unions. Without this right, the ghetto poor lack the leverage to negotiate for benefits or reasonable compensation (191). Both of these reasons for refusing to work arise because the United State’s basic structure is grossly unjust. Though the instilled notion of reciprocity with the US might look down upon these actions, it is hardly reasonable to expect the ghetto poor to work within a system that forces them to carry the burden of injustices with them throughout their life (193). I found this overarching argument from Salient quite salient. For this blog post, I want to start by considering the possible solutions Shelby proposes to these problems and their ramifications within society. Then, I want to consider what the overall ramifications of the ghetto poor refusing to work might be.

In response to the issue of small wages for the ghetto poor, Shelby proposes that the government could raise the minimum wage so that a full-time worker could support a moderate sized family. While in theory increasing minimum wage might appear promising, raising minimum wage might cause employers to employ less workers than with a lower minimum wage. This change in employment would not just be recognized in employment, but also in the number of jobless (CBO). While the jobless may no longer feel the need to dissent because wages are sufficient, the jobs which might satisfy their livelihood could decrease. Thus, the jobless would still remain in a position in which they are unable to obtain work that satisfies their means of living.

In response to the issue of labor unions, Shelby suggests that the government could crack down on union busting tactics and make it easier for workers within firms to form and maintain unions (191-192). While better enabling the formation of unions might create more of an equal platform among distinct groups of low-skilled workers and theoretically might increase negotiating power, it could also create the opposite effect. Over time, the power of unions has slowly eradicated, resulting in lower wages and a lower quality of life. With this erosion of power, a sudden influx in the number of unions bargaining with the government might further dissolve this power. If the willingness of the government to negotiate with current unions is already low, an increase of unions might increase this distaste. (Alternatively, it could heighten the need for the government to respond, increasing wages and wellbeing).

Finally, I want to consider what the overall ramifications of ghetto poor refusing to work might be on the on the rest of the population. Does a refusal to work for the ghetto poor who have legitimate reasons for their actions cause other groups, who do not have legitimate claims, to stop participating within the work force? Perhaps other groups too might utilize the same logic (an unjust basic structure of the US), even if not applicable, to leave the workforce. I am not sure that such a pattern would surely occur, as the incentivization to work within the US is engrained into American culture. However, after witnessing the thousands of Americans who elected not to return to work post-pandemic and simply live upon the governmental subsidies, I am more confident that this problematic pattern could occur.