A review of A New Protestant Labor Ethic at
Work
by Ken Estey
Cleveland, Ohio: The Pilgrim Press
ix and 150 pages
Paper. $14.00.
Reviewed by Wayne C. Stumme
[1] Recently the two Lutheran synods and seminary in my community
joined with others to sponsor an impressive conference entitled
"The State of Faith: Ethics at Work Conference." Major presenters
came exclusively from the corporate world, pastoral responders from
the larger Lutheran congregations in the Twin Cities. To my
knowledge, the urgent concerns of those workers whose lives are
impacted daily by the decisions of these and other business leaders
were represented inadequately or not at all. Perhaps that is not
surprising, but it is embarrassing that such moral myopia still
characterizes many who want to draw on the legacy of Luther.
[2] Then, while preparing this review, I received the October issue
of the prestigious journal Theology Today. Its lead essays deal
with the "Faith at Work Movement", business ethics, the Christian
calling to business life, theological and ethical reflections on
"spheres of management", advertising as a Christian vocation, and
ministering to the business community. The introductory editorial
by Ellen Charry observes that "recent Christian social concern has
focused on class, gender, and racial interests. In the context of
current cultural trends, it may be time to think of the Christian
vocation as the ennoblement of others more broadly" (299). What is
the role of the church in this reconfiguration of social concern?
"Perhaps the immediate responsibility of the church to the business
world is to help its Christians envision how their business and
their spending might contribute to the ennoblement of our culture"
(300).
[3] What does this "ennoblement" mean for the millions of workers
(not for the managerial elites) who produce the goods and provide
the services that this same culture demands and who regularly are
denied their rights in the workplace?
[4] Again unsurprisingly, that question received little attention
by these writers.
I.
[5] This book takes a different tack. It is a vigorous repudiation
of the starting point, vision, and conclusions of the dominant
voices in the field of Christian business ethics. Ken Estey calls
for a "labor ethic" that "highlights the positive possibilities of
worker resistance and struggle against any circumstance, person, or
institution that alienates individuals from themselves or separates
people from each other in the workplace." He therefore rejects
recent Protestant "covenantal business ethics" and its emphasis on
"mutuality, cooperation, common interests, and the sharing of power
between labor and management." Despite the appearance of fairness,
he maintains, such an approach fails to take into account the
existing pattern of sanctioned exploitation in the working world.
"The interests of owners and managers trumps that of workers"
(1,2).
[6] Estey offers as a case study the experience of workers at the
Saturn Corporation in Spring Hill, Tennessee, a venture frequently
cited by business ethicists as a model of management and worker
cooperation. General Motors and the United Auto Workers created
this partnership, hoping to overcome traditional adversarial
relationships between management and labor in the process of
developing quality and competitive automobiles. Numerous
innovations, including the team concept of auto production, have
led to lower costs, higher standards of productivity, and a
significant share of the small car market. Estey spent some time at
the Saturn complex where he interviewed workers and managers and
reviewed Saturn's defining Memorandum of Agreement and Guiding
Principles. His conclusions: workers there have less control over
the conditions of production than they had under traditional labor
contract arrangements; the team approach sometimes leads to
exploitation of workers; and the union has lost much of its power
and effectiveness as the representative of the workers. Far from
demonstrating the superiority of a covenantal to a contractual
approach, Saturn remains "a capitalist corporation, and this very
fact places severe limitations on the scope of the performance of
its ideals, no matter how vociferously they are stated" (43).
[7] This and similar ventures lead Estey to the conclusion that the
effort of Christian business ethicists to replace traditional
contractual arrangements between employers and employees with some
form of biblical covenantal norms is both misguided and harmful to
the interests of workers. There is no assurance that corporations,
the stronger partner, will adopt and abide by these ethical
constructs. As for workers, "the universalization of such norms and
the assumption that there is a God who continues to urge such
relations upon workers is by no means a settled matter for the
working class. In part, the solution is hard-nosed bargaining and
the unreserved militancy of workers in defense of their
interests"(66). Estey concludes that contemporary Protestant
economic and business ethicists tend to ignore these realities and
thus function as apologists for managerial interests.
[8] A notable exception to his generally negative appraisal of
covenantal business ethicists is Stewart Herman, whose book Durable
Goods: A Covenantal Ethic for Management and Employees (University
of Notre Dame Press, 1997) is cited frequently. Herman, he
acknowledges, takes seriously the experience of workers; his
"covenantal realism" is an attempt to give the moral claims of
management and workers relatively equal weight; he has a positive
understanding of contracts as well as covenants; and his call for
"self-binding activities" by both managers and workers echoes
earlier Social Gospel ethicists. Estey also acknowledges that
Herman has read labor history, an ignorance of which is apparent in
many who work in this field. While the two have overlapping areas
of understanding and agreement, Estey clearly sees his proposals as
differing materially from those of Herman. One could suggest,
however, that his own arguments could profit from closer attention
to the exhaustively-researched, carefully-nuanced and more
theologically sensitive presentation of Herman.
[9] The author's chapter on the turbulent history of labor and
capital in this country highlights the similarities between
contemporary covenantal business thinkers and the views of earlier
Protestant ethicists. Estey stresses once more that "the call for
mutual accountability of unions and corporations is a fine ideal
but does not speak to the unparalleled strength and brutality of
successful corporate efforts to keep workforces docile and unaware
of their rights" (92).
[10] Once again, the vast disparity in power between the two
parties undermines the possibility of actual mutual
accountability.
[11] Estey identifies "the issue of company unions or
employer-sponsored representation plans versus independently
organized trade unions (as) a vital historical question" (94).
Earlier forms of company unions later were ruled illegal, he notes,
but contemporary employee articipation programs - as urged by
Christian covenantal ethicists - fail to offer adequate protection
to workers and undermine their basic rights. While the current
departure in some industries from an earlier top-down managerial
style in favor of greater worker input and decision-making appears
to foster a more cooperative relationship in the workplace, the
reality is often different. "The neglect of the legal happenings on
the shop floor is coupled with the failure to see that the
implementation of a covenantal ethic along the lines proposed by
enthusiasts of employee participation programs would seriously
compromise the integrity of a labor union's mission" (115). By thus
neglecting the labor contractual aspect of workplace relationships,
the practitioners of covenantal business ethics exhibit "an
unacceptable and disturbing nonchalance toward the imbalance of
power and privilege between labor and management. This is really
the core problem with the proposals pertaining to cooperation
between management and labor" (116).
[12] What, then, is the "labor ethic" that Estey proposes? He
doubts whether covenantal business ethics is able to raise
fundamental questions about capitalism itself as a mode of
organizing economic life. Its "tacit assumption is that it is
possible to wed capitalist business practices with the latest
interpretations of principles such as love or justice" (120), terms
he considers too abstract and "mystifying" . His response is
sharply critical of this assumption.
[13] A labor ethic must urge the separation of workers and
management in the interest of a more militant and effective
movement of working people. A labor ethic must be "protesting":
that is, it must be "unapologetic about promoting the material
interests of workers…(and) the positive dimensions of
conflict for advancing the good of workers by a transformation of
structural inequalities in the workplace" (121). Estey calls for a
"social movement unionism" that must "repeatedly advocate the
legitimacy and useful function of the modern labor union" and
simultaneously contend for its democratic renewal. This movement
further must engage workers elsewhere "in the common struggle
against the predations of international capitalism" (133). Estey
refuses to accept the present dominance of the global market system
as unalterable or the final stage of human social development (cf.
the views of Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man,
1992).
II.
[14] This is an important book despite its limitations. Both
critical and polemical, Estey's arguments are directed against two
adversaries. The first is what he perceives as the continuing
exploitation of workers by their employers; the second is the views
of Christian ethicists whose advocacy of a "covenantal" approach to
labor-management relations he judges to be misguided, harmful to
workers, and reflecting an unacknowledged class bias. Positively,
Estey argues for the decisive importance of militant unionism and,
less extensively, for the development of a "protesting labor
ethic." While frequently using terms such as alienation,
exploitation, worker militancy, workplace struggle, and conflict,
Estey cannot be dismissed as simply indulging in the rhetoric of an
outmoded and powerless socialism. His loyalties indeed lie with the
democratic Left, but the language he employs also describes the
actual experience of far too many working men and women in this
country.
[15] Certainly there are aspects of Estey's argument which invite
informed criticism. He has read widely and summarizes with fairness
the views of those he opposes. One senses, however, that he needs
to test his conclusions against the broader spectrum of workers'
experience in American production and service industries. The
often-desperate situation of many non-union and low-wage workers -
including immigrants -- is not addressed, although Estey seems to
be aware of this omission. From the standpoint of Christian social
ethics, there are even more fundamental questions. Even in his
brief description of a "protesting" labor ethic, Estey fails to
help his readers understand how a "new Protestant labor ethic"
would ground its arguments both theologically and ethically.
[16] The issues of workplace conflict, use of worker power in the
face of superior managerial power, the role of organized labor in
securing workplace justice, the larger social goals of worker
militancy, the relationship of worker efforts to political
strategies for economic fairness, and the acceptance of a
class-based struggle for workplace justice require serious and
sustained reflection by Christian ethicists. That reflection is
almost entirely lacking in Estey's presentation, although he does
not hesitate to call into question the adequacy of covenantal norms
as advanced by other scholars. A "Protestant" labor ethic has yet
to be written; one can anticipate that Estey - and others - will
undertake that urgent task.
[17] What concerns does Estey place on the agenda of Christian
ethicists who are ready to address the issues he has identified?
First, his presentation raises the question of the social
"captivity" of many Christian theological ethicists to dominant
economic classes and ideologies, particularly the views and
practices of business and corporate elites. Second, he demonstrates
the failing of many ethicists to recognize, understand, and respond
to the actual exploitation of many workers in this society. Third,
he compels ethicists to come to terms with the harsh reality of
persisting adversarial relations in our existing economic system.
Fourth, he rejects the traditional liberal "top-down" approach to
the amelioration of institutional injustice and urges change
through the actions of unionized workers.
[18] Fifth, he urges attention to the need to achieve worker
democracy as a necessary component of the struggle for systemic
change in the present economy.
[19] For Estey and for us, the theological task remains. A labor
ethic which bypasses the work of establishing the necessary
theological grounding for its ethical reflections and conclusions
will fail to sustain Christian support and participation. At the
same time that failure will perpetuate our present tragic
indifference to the plight of large numbers of American working
people. There is a more hopeful alternative. Biblicly rooted in the
scriptural justice traditions; eschatologically oriented in terms
of both human limitations and possibilities in relation to God's
final purpose; Christologically focused with respect to God's
creating, reconciling, and redeeming activity: a Christian labor
ethic can inform and strengthen our solidarity with the present
victims of economic injustice. Surely the theologians and ethicists
of the Church have been given such a responsibility in this time
and place. Ken Estey deserves our gratitude for his powerful
stimulus to our thinking and acting as we take up this urgent
task.
© May
2004
Journal of Lutheran Ethics
Volume 4, Issue 5