A tiresome false dilemma

I have always found it puzzling and frustrating that when the matter of the increasing exploitation of Filipino workers in the private sector comes up -- mainly through the loss of basic rights such as security of tenure, self-organization for collective voice, and living wage compensation -- the most common argument to justify the state of affairs is: "At least these people have jobs and income. Would we prefer that they don't have jobs at all?" The implication for workers is either they work (even while suffering indignities) or they starve. There is no middle ground.

I have heard this argument from businessmen, business leaders, business students and, to my eternal puzzlement, business faculty.

The argument is, of course, false in its face. This black-and-white fallacy has been around since the great Greek philosophers. The Sophists, whom Plato and Aristotle held in contempt, often tried to use such verbal maneuverings to trap people into thinking that there is no middle ground. For example, Plato described how the Sophist Euthydemus convinced the youthful Cleinias that he was either "wise or ignorant," offering no middle ground when indeed there should be.

The debate about contractualization of workers often brings up such sophistry. I define contractualization as the trend towards the use of temporary contract workers for jobs previously or usually done by permanent workers. While the law allows such a business practice in specific cases, my objection to it is if it is used to or results in the deprivation of workers of their rights to security of tenure, a living wage or a collective voice.

So, if the question is "Would you prefer that people have jobs or that they starve?" The simple answer is I prefer that they have decent jobs which provide what they need.

But what about the survival of the business? This is the second topic where fallacious reasoning comes in. In the first place, many business resorting to worker exploitation are nowhere near a "survival" type of situation. So it's not as if they are exploiting workers because the business is on the verge of collapsing.

But anyway, for the sake of argument, let's see where it brings us. So the argument is posed this way: "What would you prefer? That the workers are given what they need but the business collapses OR that the workers are constractualized but the business survives?" Again, the simple answer is that I would prefer that the workers are given what they need AND the business survives." To any discerning person, it must be patently clear that business collapse does NOT necessarily follow from humane treatment of workers.

Of course, I don't pretend to know a sure way of achieving such a middle ground. (Any businessman interested enough need only refer to the many business cases in the literature which demonstrate that companies may even improve its competitiveness by treating people right. This is not a guarantee of profitability, of course, but it suffices to show that treating people right does not necessarily harm profitability.) Nor is it my burden to show such a way since the challenge of running a humane business is the burden of the business person. The challenge has to be faced -- just like other business challenges such as ensuring steady supply of materials, ensuring that the competitive value of product/service offerings are attractive to customers, etc. -- and no amount of fallacious reasoning can be used to evade it. So can we stop the sophistry already and apply our creative thinking to how our businesses can humanely treat workers as partners in the enterprises they help run?

Unless, of course, the real reason for exploiting workers is not logical confusion but unmitigated greed. This is something else, entirely.