Two Non-paternalistic Arguments Against Choice in Workplace Arrangements

By Raymond da Silva Rosa

Margaret Thatcher famously said 'there is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families'. The Government's industrial relations legislation with its emphasis on choice seems rooted in this view of the world, which has much to recommend it.

However, choice is not an unmitigated good, even for individuals and their families, and it is not patronising to say so. The Government should recognise this is true even in workplace agreements.

Acceptance of restriction of choice in these matters usually rests on versions of the following reasons: commitment to a view that one does not have right to inflict clear and obvious self-harm, the welfare of others is at substantial risk of being unduly adversely affected by a particular choice one makes (for example, the decision to watch child pornography creates a demand for the product that harms vulnerable children), and/or a belief that, in some circumstances, one does not know what is best for oneself or at least doesn't know how to choose what is best.

This last basis for restricting choice is the least attractive because it challenges the core assumption of the liberal tradition that informs modern, open societies: that individuals are best placed to judge what's in their own interest. Hence, the Government's argument that its reforms of the labour market extend individual choice is a potent point in its advocacy of the legislation. However, prominent churchmen, among others, are sympathetic to the view that the Government's proposed loosening of current restrictions (that is, regulations) are against workers' interests. For instance, conservative Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen has expressed concern that families might have less time together under the workplace regime (Pash 2005).

These concerns might well be valid but they have a whiff of paternalistic benevolence: 'we know best that you should spend time with your family rather than working longer hours'. There are, however, at least two arguments for workplace regulation, in particular regulation that restricts workers' ability to make individual trade-offs, that do not rely on patronising premises.

(Australian Review of Public Affairs; Digest posted 8 May 2006)