Dez Bryant - Labor and the Tyranny of Capital

I am disgusted by the latest example of capital impeding on the lives of workers.  If you haven't read the latest sports news, the Dallas Cowboys announced "new rules" for their troubled star receiver Dez Bryant [the Cowboys now claim to have only offered "guidance"].  The "rules" include:

• A midnight curfew. If he's going to miss curfew, team officials must know in advance; 

• No drinking alcohol.

• He can't attend any strip clubs and can only attend nightclubs if they are approved by the team and he has a security team with him.

• He must attend counseling sessions twice a week.

• A rotating three-man security team will leave one man with Bryant at all times.

• Members of the security team will drive Bryant to practices, games and team functions.

The Dallas Cowboys may claim to be offering only "guidance," but anyone with half a brain knows these rules were imposed on Bryant with at least the implication that if he did not accept them, he would have to find another job.  As Tony Kornheiser stated on "Pardon the Interruption," Bryant is now effectively in a minimum security prison.

There is so much to be outraged about concerning this situation.  The racial undertones are obvious--why doesn't Rothlisberger have similar rules, especially since he used his private security team to help him rape women.  But this post is about the eroding boundaries between labor and capital.  Every worker in the United States should be irate that an employer would use its weight to impose these kinds of restrictions on a person's private life.  [By the way, can I get some Republican support here for respect of "private lives" and small government/capital control?]

The relationship between employers and laborers should be relatively simple.  Employers compensate laborers for output relevant to the product or service the employer provides.  That is it.  The employer's status as a worker's source of income does not entitle that employer to tell a worker how to spend her/his time, what beverages to drink, and definitely not when and whether s/he can be alone!  That's not an employer's business!  If a worker is breaking the law, we have police officers to enforce that.  It is not an employer's job to enforce the law.  An employer's power should start and end at the "shop-floor" door.

It truly disturbs me that more workers do not share my analysis of these events.  So many people are saying that this is Bryant's last chance and praising the NFL's increasingly Draconian disciplinary policies against players.  We need more worker solidarity!  We need to recognize that employers--i.e. big money capitalists--are claiming more and more authority over our lives.  They want to monitor our Facebook accounts, political activities, drinking habits, etc; and increasingly, they demand that we behave 24/7 according to bosses' interests.  Republicans have even offered bills giving employers control over whether female employees will have access to birth control through insurance.

ALL of the this is WAY over the line.  It's way past time we rose up as workers and demanded a stop to this madness.  Employers only have authority over workers when workers are at work!  [...and don't get me started about smart phones and how employers intrude on workers' time off.  That's a whole 'nother post.]

Capitalism Run Amuck: The Ben Rothlisberger Suspension and the Need for Big Labor

[I began this over a month ago.  Sorry for the dated info.]

Capitalism has run amuck.  There are many, many, many examples that make my point.  (Just look at how brash the oil industry is right now.  They're publicizing multi-billion dollar profits and defending "drill-baby-drill" while spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico daily and ruining the coastal economy.  You might also notice how hesitant most politicians are to upset Big Oil and cancel offshore drilling projects; President Obama is promising only a fuller review.  Big capital knows neither shame nor limits.)

In this post, I want to focus on an over-looked example.  If you're not a sports fan, you may not have seen the news about NFL star quarterback, Ben Rothlisberger.  Rothlisberger has been accused of rape and sexual assault by two young women in separate incidents.  The first incident is the subject of an on-going civil suit.  Prosecutors recently announced that although "something happened," they are unable to prove a criminal case.  Last week, NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, announced a conditional six-game suspension of Rothlisberger.  The Commissioner may reduce the suspension to four games if Rothlisberger completes a "comprehensive behavioral evaluation."

Let me say off the top, I believe the young women.  Statements to police by witnesses to the second incident are consistent and very credible.  As a feminist, I recognize how difficult it is for women to make accusations of rape/sexual assault--all the more difficult when very powerful men are the assailants.  Relatively underpowered accusers (e.g. women, racial and sexual minorities, poor, children and elderly) deserve the benefit of the doubt, even if we must request supplemental evidence in court proceedings.  Specific to the second accusation against Rothlisberger, the combination of testimonies from multiple sources is compelling on its own.  That being said, Rothlisberger deserves much more than a six-game suspension and probably substantial jail time.

The problem is not that Rothlisberger is being punished, but that the punishment is coming from his employer. There are several potential sanctioning entities here: government/police, NFL, NFLPA (the players' union).  Unfortunately, though they believe Rothlisberger committed a crime, the government cannot successfully prosecute for lack of an airtight case.  In my view, the NFLPA should step in and discipline their fellow worker.  His actions embarrass and endanger the reputations and livelihoods of all NFL players.  Instead, the NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, issued the punishment.  Goodell went so far as to mandate personal behavioral counseling for Rothlisberger because he (Goodell) felt it was necessary for Rothlisberger conducting his life properly.

The whole thing illustrates the severe problem we have as laborers in the United States.  When we enter the job market (i.e. labor market/force), we sell our labor power in the form of time, skills, and production to a capitalist/employer in exchange for wages.  The capitalist is buying our labor, for a limited period of time.  That is all.  The capitalist/employer is NOT purchasing control of my life.  The employer cannot punish me because s/he does not like my extra-office activities.  An employer should not be able to punish workers for their political activities away from the job.  Nor should employers be allowed to comment on or sanction workers for their sexual activities away from the job.  Again, employers buy our labor and production.  They do not buy us!  The employer/laborer relationship is simply transactional.  Giving employers the power to control our lives beyond work, especially to the point of mandating behavior counseling, is outrageous and dangerous.  It is as ridiculous as giving the grocery store cashier control over how you raise your children!  The cashier is a party in a transaction.  So is your employer.

That so much talk around this incident has been around "protecting the shield" (i.e. the reputation of the NFL) illustrates just how far we've gone toward thinking that capitalists somehow own us; that capitalists' willingness to exchange money for our labor means they have a vested interest in every part of our lives, that which is part of labor production (e.g. activities at work) and that which is not (e.g. how I spend every other part of my day).

There is so much more to say, but I must stop here so that I don't end up writing a permanently unfinished eternal treatise.  Thank God, Karl Marx already did that for us.  :)