LPE Approaches to Migration and the Labor Market

This post comes out of the early career workshop ‘Law and Political Economy in Europe’which took place at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, at the University of Oxford, on the 7th of October 2019. For all the posts this series, click here.

Manoj Dias-Abey –

PoliticsineuropePlenty of leftists continue to make the case for limiting migration and enforcing border restrictions. For example, in the UK, union leader and close Jeremy Corbyn ally Len McCluskey maintains that the “influx of people willing to work for less money and put up with a lower standard of living” drives down wages. Even Bernie Sanders has come perilously close to sanctioning a nationalist and protectionist stance when it comes to migration by arguing that “open borders” is a Koch brothers’ conspiracy.

Whether we give credence to these claims will depend on how we conceptualize labor markets. If we accept the fiction of national labor markets, and further assume that these markets are governed by the forces of demand and supply, then perhaps these claims might ring true. However, if we understand that labor markets are created by institutions and social forces, then we might look to factors other than supply to explain the phenomenon of declining wages and deteriorating working conditions. In this short post, my aim is to provide two alternative ways of seeing labor markets, and to trace how the impact of migration might be conceived within each. In setting out the neoclassical economists’ vision of labor markets and contrasting it with conceptualizations by more heterodox economists, I pay particular attention to the role attributed to law in each of the models.

Continue reading

Labor Law and Economic Governance in the EU

This post comes out of the early career workshop ‘Law and Political Economy in Europe’which took place at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, at the University of Oxford, on the 7th of October 2019. For all the posts this series, click here.

Marco Rocca –

PoliticsineuropeAt the Oxford Workshop, I explored the relationship between the EU economic governance and labor law. In particular, I looked into legal tools of austerity politics and analyzed the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in cementing this agenda.

During the economic crisis, leadership at the European Central Bank, and the EU Commission resorted to new tools of economic governance across the EU. Their implementation shows how the law can be instrumentalized to actively reduce the ability of trade unions and labor regulations to bring about the decommodification of the factor of production that is labor. This of course builds upon power imbalances in a given situation, in this case, between ‘creditors’ and ‘debtors’, ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ of the European Union.

Continue reading

Executive Action as Power Building: A Response to Professor Doerfler

Luke Herrine–

Ryan Doerfler has an article over at Jacobin reacting in part to my argument that current law enables the Secretary of Education to cancel as much student debt as she wants by using her enforcement discretion. Professor Doerfler is not so much arguing against my proposal (for which he has some flattering words) as he is using it as an example of a baleful tendency among progressive elites. The tendency is to use legal ingenuity to find ways that a progressive president can “bring about much, if not all, of the change that we need” even if Congress does not cooperate. Professor Doerfler rightly warns that lawyerly craftiness can only get us so far, especially as the judiciary tilts towards becoming little more than an operational arm of those opposed to exactly that change. He also rightly points out that focusing on the ability of a progressive president (ideally a brilliant lawyer) with a team of progressive experts to work around the limits of the current system diverts attention from the task of building the working-class-led coalition necessary to change the system. It replaces power building with deference to experts’ power.

It was somewhat surreal to see my argument used as an example of this tendency, since it is one that I also oppose. I can understand why my argument, taken in isolation, could be seen as an example of such anti-political politics. All the more so when it is not in isolation, but rather written up at the American Prospect alongside other arguments for creative uses of executive action under the rubric of a “Day One Agenda”. But, I must insist, focusing on the ability of a President to cancel student debt (or to do other progressive things) without further congressional action does not require giving up on building the power, whether to put together legislative majorities or to create a true workers’ party or any number of other things. More than that: in an environment in which left power-building institutions are still atrophied, teasing out creative uses of executive power is essential to the latter task. A President dedicated to building power can use the Secretary of Education’s authority to cancel student debt as one tool to do so.

(For what it’s worth: others at Jacobin seem to agree, given their own version of a Day One Agenda, which includes exactly this proposal.)

Moreover, the concreteness of the demand for debt cancellation is useful as an organizing tool. In fact, organizing that uses the demand of student debt cancellation as part of the strategy to build working class power is already ongoing. It is because of this organizing that the idea of a jubilee is on the agenda in the first place. And it is out of this organizing that the idea for using the Secretary of Education’s enforcement discretion to wipe out all (or most) public student loan debt without congressional action took root.

Continue reading

Monday Roundup

We’ve been so chock full of posts that we haven’t had the time to round them up! Since our last round up, we’ve hosted two symposia:

The LPE in Europe Symposium, with

Ioannis Kampouraksis’s introductory meditation on what might travel the trans-Atlantic wire,

Federico Fornasari’s consideration of the relationship between environmentalism and European corporate law,

and Laura Dominique Knöpfel’s analysis of the way that global value chains have destabilized accountability mechanisms for European corporations.

and

The Care Work Symposium, with

Irene Jor’s account of why and how the National Domestic Worker’s Alliance builds power,

Eileen Boris’s exploration of the relationship between domestic/care work and environmentalism,

Robyn Rodriguez’s contextualization of domestic work and care work in a global racial capitalism framework,

Allison Hoffman’s discussion of the necessity for a policy for long-term care in the United States,

and Noah Zatz’s call for big structural reform of the political economy of care work economy.

 

In addition, we featured posts from:

Sarah Quinn on the way that social problems become financial problems through credit policy,

Joseph Fishkin on the bad arguments against access to medical care as a basic right,

Frank Pasquale on the shift to structural concerns in the “second wave of algorithmic accountability”,

and Tendayi Achiume on reconceptualizing migration as part of the project of decolonization.
In this coming week, we will round out our LPE in Europe symposium. Next week we will begin a new symposium on global value chains. Stay tuned to find out if we will also be able to shimmy in another round up before the new year.

Care Work In & Beyond the Labor Market

Click here to read all posts in our Care Work series.

Noah Zatz –

ndwa

via ssir

Big ideas are flourishing these days—the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, sectoral bargaining, Universal Basic Income, prison abolition. This makes it all the more noteworthy when major policy areas are relatively quiet. One example is child care, despite Elizabeth Warren having started there in her “I have a plan for that” strategy.

What’s lacking is not merely depth of attention but also breadth of imagination. In particular, child care is being viewed almost entirely through the lens of labor market policy. Policy initiatives such as Warren’s focus first on enabling parents to flourish in paid work through access to affordable, quality care. Secondarily, they strive to ensure that the resulting caregiving jobs are themselves well-paid, protected, and respected. These important commitments especially advance the interests of women workers, particularly working class women of color overrepresented on both sides of this needing care/providing care ledger. The dual emphasis undermines both the family wage system’s gendered breadwinner/caretaker division of labor centered on married, middle-class white women and its incorporation of women of color into paid work, including specifically domestic work for white families, that lay outside the structures of labor citizenship designed for white, male breadwinners.

Nonetheless, focusing on universalizing access to better paid work submerges two other longstanding elements of critical feminist analysis of care work. These are particularly pertinent to LPE conversations about the political-economic centrality of markets. First, feminist accounts of social reproduction have long highlighted the extensive, essential, but systematically devalued or outright ignored work performed outside conventional labor markets in families and communities. This includes especially direct care work and housework or other household production, but also broader forms of civic participation often denoted “volunteering.” Second, attaching economic resources to nonmarket social reproductive labor starts to loosen paid work’s iron grip on household income more generally. That grip creates a legitimated dependency on labor markets that undergirds power relations both between labor and capital and, within families, between market “breadwinners” and those more conventionally labelled “dependents.” Valuing care thus could facilitate both reimagining work and decentering markets.

Continue reading

The Neglect of Long-Term Care

1369787849000-XXX-MD44241-002-1305282039_16_9

(via USA Today)

Click here to read all posts in our Care Work series. 

Allison K. Hoffman—

Caregiving has long been shunted aside and undervalued in the United States. Long-term care (LTC) is no exception. Sometimes called “long term services and supports,” LTC is the help that over 40 million Americans who are sick or disabled need every day to complete basic tasks like bathing, eating, getting dressed, going to the bathroom, paying bills, or buying groceries.

American social welfare policy has largely ignored LTC, and families, who are largely left to manage it on their own, increasingly strain to meet loved ones’ needs. This problem will only worsen with the collapse of private insurance for long-term care and the large number of people with dementia-related conditions.

Resistance to developing social policy to help people with LTC comes in two main forms: First, some people say the problem of designing public support for LTC is too big to solve. Second, others suggest that it’s not a problem at all—caregiving is just what families do, so the state need not intervene. Neither of these arguments holds up well. Continue reading

Service Workers or Servile Workers? Migrant Reproductive Labor and Contemporary Global Racial Capitalism

140708170758-slavery-protest-indonesia-horizontal-large-gallery

(via CNN)

Click here to read all posts in our Care Work series. 

Robyn Rodriguez—

Grassroots migrant worker activists, particularly those working as domestic workers or care workers, have characterized their labor experiences as “servitude,” “modern-day slavery,” and “bondage.” They use these terms to describe both their workplace conditions and the power dynamics that exist in their relationships with employers. A case study of the experiences of Filipino migrant workers, former U.S. colonial subjects, illustrates two key dynamics of contemporary global racial capitalism: first, that migrants’ reproductive labor entrenches social relations of servility—dually defined as “having or showing an excessive willingness to serve or please others” or “of or characteristic of a slave or slaves”; and second, that recent migration trends are intensifying the servile status of migrant workers from the third world. If we expand existing analyses of care and reproductive labor by migrants to account for service work more broadly, we are better able to grasp the enduring significance of relations of racialized servility in the 21st century. Continue reading

Making Care Work Green

Click here to read all posts in our Care Work series. 

Eileen Boris—

“Domestic workers arrive to smoke, ash,” the headline in the Los Angeles Times read on October 29, 2019. Unaware of mandatory evacuations from a fire sweeping through exclusive enclaves near the Getty Museum, domestic workers had trudged up deserted streets and through particle-filled air not wanting to be late to their jobs; losing even one day’s pay could make it impossible to afford housing, food, or medicine. They discovered that their employers had fled hours earlier without notifying them or advising them to stay away from the evacuation zone.

Such scenes have become more salient in recent years. Similarly, in 2018, amid a massive mudslide that stranded hundreds of people and killed over twenty, home aides in affluent Montecito, CA, sheltered in place to care for the elderly. Domestic workers remained behind to clean and tend to the grounds. Some were directed to guard property while everyone who could escaped. For all the reporting on structures destroyed and neighborhoods uprooted, few have questioned what happens to household workers when their workplaces are in the middle of disaster zones. Most only get paid when they show up. Many lack health insurance. Those who are undocumented may be afraid to enter evacuation centers. Some cannot access or understand emergency alerts, since governments have failed to address linguistic and cultural gaps in their response systems. Those who are live-in employees depend on their jobs for shelter.

While care workers—predominantly immigrants and women of color—play a critical role in the economy by enabling their employers’ own economic participation, their low wages compel them to labor even amid grave danger. Thus, domestic workers themselves have built a movement to improve health and safety protections in their workplaces, and disseminate information to workers. While some narrowly associate the “Green New Deal” with clean manufacturing and environmentally friendly infrastructure, domestic and care workers draw important links between environmental and economic justice. They bring sustainability into the home—both figuratively by maintaining daily life and aiding elders, and materially by doing so healthfully. Their efforts to eliminate toxic household cleaning products and improve fire safety communicate a message at the heart of the Green New Deal: that better working conditions and environmental protection are intertwined. Continue reading

Building Power by Building Connections: Domestic Worker Organizing for Collective Freedom

This is the first post in our series on Care Work. Click here to read all posts in the series. 

Irene Jor—

Domestic workers are essential to our economy and society. They are the nannies that take care of children, the house cleaners that maintain homes, and the care workers that allow aging loved ones to live independently and with dignity. They constitute a workforce that frees up their employers to pursue their careers and improve their quality of life. Domestic employers are doctors, lawyers, professors, business owners, CEOs, media executives, celebrity performers, professional athletes, politicians, and diplomats. Their economic participation shapes mainstream culture and social policy. Thus, we all benefit from the labor of domestic workers, even when we do not directly receive their care.

Nevertheless, because domestic work has been devalued in the formal economy, the sector is fraught with exploitation and abuse. Domestic workers have suffered a long history of exclusion from basic labor standards that is rooted in America’s legacy of slavery. Domestic workers were specifically excluded from federal labor protections like minimum wage and the right to unionize. The contemporary U.S. domestic worker movement, led by the National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA), has sought to extend such labor protections to the sector by winning passage of Domestic Workers Bills of Rights in nine states and two municipalities. More recently it has also been experimenting with policy innovations like a sectoral standards board and portable benefits fund. Still, policy advocacy alone will not fully ensure justice for domestic workers.

I began organizing alongside domestic workers as a college student in 2011. I went on to work full-time for the National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA) from 2013 to 2019. As the New York director of the NDWA, I organized to enforce the state’s Bill of Rights, the first of its kind. I came to understand that forming, maintaining, and nurturing relationships is as essential to grassroots domestic workers’ organizing as it is to domestic work itself. By doing so, we were able to approach the enforcement of domestic workers’ rights creatively and to foster domestic workers’ leadership in shifting the broader political landscape. Continue reading

The Borders of Empire

E. Tendayi Achiume –

Image result for east india company ship"

The designations “illegal” or “economic” immigrant swiftly mark those to whom they are applied as legitimate targets of national exclusion. Public and academic discourse often treats such immigrants as the consummate political strangers, standing outside the political borders of “we the people” or “we the citizens,” whose status as citizens confers a collectively-held, unilateral right to decide who may cross the political and territorial boundaries of the nation-state. In the conventional account, the right to exclude is understood as an incident of nation-state sovereignty, vital for the independent self-determination of all. Within the liberal paradigm, the law of immigration is an exception to this sovereign right to exclude. Political strangers must fit into one or other exceptional category to be granted admission: high-skilled worker, student, tourist. Even refugees are admitted by way of exception, and those who meet the legal definition of a refugee enjoy the strongest, internationally-recognized legal protections against national exclusion. For so-called economic migrants—those understood to move in search of better jobs, better education or just better lives—legal and ethical entitlements to admission and inclusion remain largely at the discretion of the citizens of the receiving state. And so, if Europe wants to exclude African migrants crossing the Mediterranean, it has the right to do so.

In a recent article, Migration as Decolonization, I challenge the dominant accounts of sovereignty and the right to exclude outlined above, arguing that they ignore the theoretical and ethical salience of the political economy of empire. Very loosely, empire can be understood as the extra-territorial projection of political and economic power by one political community over another, on terms that structurally favor the former. Dominant legal and political theory focus on the borders of discrete, autonomous nation-states, but largely ignore the borders of empire. Migration as Decolonization breaks from this conventional mode to recall the colonial history of contemporary border regimes, and to spotlight the manner in which the logics of empire have long shaped the governance of borders, as the articulation of an absolutist conception of sovereignty in the Chinese Exclusion Cases illustrates. My focus is the legal and ethical implications of persisting neocolonial interconnection and subordination, which I argue mean that former European colonial or First World nations have no right to exclude the citizens of formerly colonized or Third World nations. On this account, Western European nations have no right to exclude Africans.

Continue reading